Dear Roger:
Reading your revealing letter, I share your anguish over the recent turn of events in the Middle East and North Africa. But I do not know what to make of your words — “I’m tough, etc.”
I am least perturbed by hard questioning of Islam, or for that matter of any subject. If one’s faith is so fragile that hard questions might fragment it, then being relieved of such a faith should be better than holding on to it. My faith, however, is made of sterner stuff.
In taking your agnosticism similarly, I presume that none of my hard questioning will make you take refuge or comfort in some metaphysical explanation of politics or allude to supernatural causes. Your agnosticism demands that explanations of politics are material, that good and evil are viewed in terms of a utilitarian calculus. Since religion in general remains resistant to material explanations, it is best consigned to the domain of the irrational.
Yet you are tormented by the irrational. As you pose questions about Islam and Muslims, you are fearful — rightly, I may add — about “apocalyptically minded madmen like Khamenei and Ahmadinejad” in possession of nuclear weapons and unleashing another Holocaust.
You are dismissive of religion, and yet you want to know about “Islamic ideology.” But what you want to know about Islam and the Quran — you caution me that a “few gentle quotations from the Koran don’t count” — is confirmation of your view about religion in general and, in particular, Islam at this time in our history.
Bear with me, Roger, for I am not going to take an easy way out from your questions. I will come back to them, Muhammad, Islam, Quran, etc., and to what I set forth in my previous letter, by reminding you of thinking historically, or putting these matters in historical context. We barely began our conversation when you turned from politics to religion, and the questions you have posed cannot be answered, if they are to be meaningful, in the sort of “yes/no” or “agree/disagree” manner of a market study or an opinion poll.
As an agnostic you are, not surprisingly, sceptical of theology as speculation about what is unknown and unknowable, i.e. God; and you “see religions anthropologically and psychoanalytically.” Religion is consequential to you only to the extent it is part of our human experience, and explained naturally or rationally.
Your anguish is how to respond within the requirements of agnosticism to what constitutes the irrationality of Islam and Muslims. Both defy reason as you understand it — rational in the manner that a modern man explains the solar system, and understands his place and that of the earth in the vastness of “sextillions of stars in multiple universes.”
But this anguish is paradoxically unreasonable. The utilitarian calculus of an agnostic should dictate the response to those Muslims, with, as you write, their “unremitting rage against the West” resulting from technological inferiority. The threat is real, it continues to grow according to the material evidence available, and an agnostic’s response — unburdened by any qualm of a non-utilitarian nature in consideration of religion — should be either proportionate or greater to eliminate that threat.
Any moral equivocation, given the reality of the threat — no matter whether it is from an Ahmadinejad in possession of nuclear weapons or a Muslim suicide bomber convinced his martyrdom will instantly be rewarded with entrance to paradise (where seventy-two virgins will entertain his every whim into eternity) — should be viewed by an agnostic as irrational.
So why the anguish? Is it because, Roger, you are squeezed between two sets of irrationality — the moral equivocation in the West on the one side, and the irrationality of Islam and Muslims on the other?
Or could it be that this anguish has revealed a part of you, however miniscule, that remains credulous about man’s belief in the supernatural? When non-utilitarian moral consideration enters to influence man’s conduct, then the accounting is based on some higher principle derived from religion or metaphysics.
It will be ten years since 9/11, and the West remains divided about how to effectively and conclusively deal with those Muslims, or Islamists, who declared war against the West — as well as governments and states in the Arab-Muslim world that lend support materially to Islamists, or will not decisively eliminate them within their domain. Why is this so?
The 9/11 Commission Report (2004) states that “Islam is not the enemy.” A few paragraphs earlier, the authors of the Report write: “The catastrophic threat at this moment in history is more specific. It is the threat posed by Islamist terrorism — especially the al Qaeda network, its affiliates, and its ideology[.]”
Mr. Mansur mentions a number of reasons why America and her allies have not yet come up with a comprehensive plan to deal with, or contain, the Islamist threat.
He fails to mention the two factors that I feel are probably the most important reasons America and her allies have not managed to come up with this comprehensive plan.
They are political correctness and it’s younger cousin, multiculturalism.
It was easy to say “The Soviet Union is the bad guy.” We had a place on the map we could point to. We had a government, a leader, we could hate. The people of the Soviet Union were all in one place, all carried the same passport and, luckily for us, were largely, similar to us.
When the Soviets took control, they became a multicultural state, most of the Russian population, before the Soviet takeover anyway, were of the same, or similar religions, and most fortunately for us here in the United States…. They were white! If it had been the Union of African Socialists, we would have been in trouble. We would not have been able to fight them the same way.
We wouldn’t have been able to say “They’re the bad guys” because someone here in the US, maybe someone who just wanted to cause trouble, maybe someone who wanted to make sure we all knew that just because the bad people in Africa are black, doesn’t mean ALL blacks are bad or maybe someone seeking special treatment for blacks here since we were mad at the blacks there, maybe someone who sympathized with Africans, someone would have said “You can’t hate all of them. No matter what they think. That’s racism!”
Sound familiar?
How can we fight the Islamists? They are scattered across northern Africa, the Middle East and southern Asia. They’re spread from Morocco to Indonesia, and those are just the states that have an Islamic majority, nations that are often sympathetic to the Islamist cause. Europe, needing population to keep their standard of living up, took in a wave of Islamic immigrants and U.S. Immigration policy is no more challenging than a closed, unlocked door. So now we, the US, have relatively small Muslim population.
President Bush (the second) said we were at war with Islamic terrorism, not Islam itself but people still screamed racism. When we invaded Afghanistan, and later Iraq, people within our own government claimed it was racism or even an attemtped genocide. How do you commit warfare when half of your own government is yelling “You can’t do that”?
Containment makes perfect sense. We can’t fight it because we can’t separate the Islamic terrorist from the average, man-on-the-street Arab Muslim. The only possible way is for all Arab Muslims coming to the US to spend a couple hours with a psychologist so the doctor can determine their true allegiance. Maybe a lie detector would be better. Anyone want to consider truth serum?
We can’t separate them by nation, by color, or by religion or we’re violating our own ethical codes of Political correctness and multiculturalism. We’re being racist. We don’t even allow our own police officers to pull over a young black man in a broken down old car cruising around an upper crust, mostly white neighborhood or he’s “profiling” which we all know, is again, racism and that just CAN NOT be allowed.
With this idea in mind, I’d like to hear Mr. Mansur’s plan on how to contain the Islamic terrorists?
Shall we blockade the entire Muslim world? Not allow ANY American to travel to the Middle East or north Africa? Should we not allow anyone from Muslim-majority nations to come to the US? Shall we ban all immigration from that part of the world? And if we do it, will our allies in Europe do the same?
Excellent analysis of the article/letter. I would also like to know what the answer to your last question is!
Containment makes perfect sense. We can’t fight it because we can’t separate the Islamic terrorist from the average, man-on-the-street Arab Muslim. The only possible way is for all Arab Muslims coming to the US to spend a couple hours with a psychologist so the doctor can determine their true allegiance. Maybe a lie detector would be better. Anyone want to consider truth serum?
The better way is exclude all Muslims and only welcome apostates. Psychological resources are in short supply and should be used to help liberals.
“Shall we blockade the entire Muslim world? Not allow ANY American to travel to the Middle East or north Africa? Should we not allow anyone from Muslim-majority nations to come to the US? Shall we ban all immigration from that part of the world?”
Of course we should. Isn’t it more prudent to assume that all are potential enemies of this country, when we’ve seen so very few that fight back, like Bridgett Gabriel?
My take is that the only way to get them to fight back against the stain that marks them all….is to isolate them until they clean their own house. Until they expel, deport, jail and turn over the radicals to the FBI. Until they allow the monitoring of their dens of terror and the messages they get in mosques, they should be ostracized.
Maybe when they see the real harm these nuts are causing all of them and they’re denied access to our technology, freedom and standard of living here…they’ll revolt.
Would we not have done the same if Nazi bundts were spread across the country preaching anti American hate and ordering their followers that “war / jihad” was the path to follow? To say nothing of staging attacks and sabotage against America citizens.
Islam is as Islam does and they prove just what they are every day. As the CULT is based on the Koran the Sirah and the aHadith it is that which needs to be reformed . But can it be reformed? How sad for Islam it is that the Koran claims itself to be the ‘ACTUAL and UNALTERABLE’ word of their Satanic God, no room for reform there then. So all the mistakes, violence, contradiction, nonsense, antisemitism, misogyny and Arab Supremacism it contains must be the way this evil God thinks. Even Muslims realised the Koran is a mess so they had to come up with Abrogation to fix God’s MISTAKES which neatly ABROGATED all the ‘peaceful verses which Mohammedans love to quote but which were made when Mohammad was weak and replaced them with the VIOLENT ones made later when Mohammad was strong. Ooops did I say Mohammad sorry I meant to say Mohammads ‘sock puppet’ allah. While there may be moderate Muslims it is THEY who are Islams misunderstanders but one thing is for sure there is no moderate Islam.
I’m in perfect agreement; shut off the immigration tap because we are polluting our country with muslims that use our own laws against us to agitate and dissimulate.
People say, well, it’s only a small percentage.
I say, so what?
Muslims want rights? Fine. Create them in their own countries and enjoy them muslim style instead of insisting we enjoy them muslim style.
Political correctness and multicultural bleeding hearts that want to reach out to the whole world and give it a big hug make me sick when they extend it out to national policy. You want to help people? Go help them and godspeed, I’m all for it.
I am not in favor of having the U.S. Constitution and myself be forcefully made to sign up for the diminution of my own culture.
Your analysis is correct. In the end, we (meaning the people of the United States) will be forced to do four things in order to meet this threat:
2. Identify and detain all Muslims within the United States, then determine their loyalty to the idea of a Islamic caliphate via psychological profiling techniques.
3. Detain all persons entering the United States, then determine their loyalty to the idea of a Islamic caliphate via psychological profiling techniques.
4. Imprison and/or deport those loyal to the idea of a Islamic caliphate.
Of course, such a course of action would be contrary to the Constitution of the United States as currently interpreted. That is why these steps would necessarily be preceded by a suspension or replacement of the current Constitutional government of the United States.
And this is why we will fail: because the military in this country is too well-trained and too loyal to the Constitution to ever act to suspend or replace the current power structure à la mode Augustin Pinochet.
(Please note that it is the duty of the military to protect the nation from its government; it is a task that only the military can do. A “people’s revolution” would be a cure worse than the disease.)
The U.S. Constitution has thus become a suicide pact. The best we can hope for is the eventual partition of the country à la Czechoslovakia. What we are likely to get instead is dissolution, Yugoslavian style.
Of course, there is one other course we might pursue: the restoration in the West of the orthodox and catholic Christian religion and the social order (“Christendom”) it created. Atheism, democracy, and the destruction of the Christian ethos has created the vacuum that has sucked Islam into our lungs. Only by abandoning our five hundred year Cartesian/Rousseauian quest for self-deification can we expel the poison avec l’esprit Charles Martel.
I see you have revealed your choice to us. You have decided to stand with the belief of your fathers. So be it.
But the ‘anguish’ you speak of, is not about the western man being between Islam and freedom. It is more about your own anguish. The western man is more about justified anger.
If I came into your home and set apart a space where I would go several times a day to chant for the deaths of you and your family; how long would you welcome me into your home? So you see, it is more about this justified anger than about any imaginary anguish.
Muslims can not point the finger to ‘others’ as the cause of their lack of intergration. It is not the Brotherhood, or the jihadists or any other person on the planet. It is from themselves, that they have set themselves apart. It is the ideals and beliefs they have chosen to follow that have caused the chasm of peoples. So, there is always a ‘ripping apart’ of many nations, due to this.
So you see, the anguish is really yours.
Until US Muslims start speaking out with a loud voice against jihad and Sharia they will be suspected of being complicit and prejudiced against.
Roger and Salim,
There are many things that we live with every day and take for granted but that call to question the simply rational and secular.
Such as: If the universe is infinite, and I am a part of that universe, then am I not also physically infinite?
Or. What is time? Is it simply the sequence of events to which we have applied a measurement? Those events, as they occur, occur now. Events only happen in the present, not in the past or future. Does time really exist, as we understand it?
Most significantly to me is a question that does not seem to get an answer: Can order occur spontaneously in randomness? One can say it is all random and what appears to be order is the occasional bunching up of randomness that happens. And so what we think of as order is actually randomness.
As far as I have thought, for anything to happen at all, for there to be any structure or force (difference, potential) there has to be order. From where did it come?
The natural is for things to dissipate, not come together.
There is evidently far more to things than that which most secular westerners truly believe (accept as their day-to-day reality for living).
Personally I am what you might call a Christian, in that I accept that Jesus Christ was and is God who became man, who died for my sins, and being perfect death could not hold Him, and He rose from the dead. And through Him I can find complete peace with God.
But then most secular westerners despise that amount of supernatural reality and often find my point of view more dangerous than an that of an Islamist seeking global sharia implementation and domination.
May reality be our guide!
Best regards
More specifically, by trusting, loving and obeying Him I can find peace with God.
Rom.10.9-10 and I Cor.16.22 and Heb.5.9.
Your “through” has a generic implication, and waters down the collocation of essential conditions as per the denominational confessions of salvation by something: faith, grace, or whatever, “alone”. We must trust, love and obey to be saved. The necessary consequence of the “alone” errors is that men may do evil as they will, and still be right with God. That is not only illogical and unscriptural; but blasphemous, for it makes God a rewarder of evil.
Salim, Your problem is that your living in a loony world called Islam, created by a guy called Mohamed, who was a great politician who knew how to dominate the masses. Islam and Islam extremism are all in the same; any poll of the faithful will always show that the majority will always support the radical ideas of Islam.
1) Any moral equivocation, given the reality of the threat — no matter whether it is from an Ahmadinejad in possession of nuclear weapons or a Muslim suicide bomber convinced his martyrdom will instantly be rewarded with entrance to paradise (where seventy-two virgins will entertain his every whim into eternity) — should be viewed by an agnostic as irrational.
2) It will be ten years since 9/11, and the West remains divided about how to effectively and conclusively deal with those Muslims, or Islamists, who declared war against the West — as well as governments and states in the Arab-Muslim world that lend support materially to Islamists, or will not decisively eliminate them within their domain. Why is this so?
3) Consequently, those such as the Muslim Brotherhood, who speak, organize, and mobilize Muslims politically by appeal to Islam in public — including through mosques — would be clearly identified as Islamists and enemy of the West. Such a policy would place the responsibility on Muslims in the West to dissociate themselves from Islamists. The precedent for this was the requirement during the Cold War years for Russians and East Europeans to dissociate themselves from communists and communist parties, or fall under the surveillance of the state.
Salim, to some readers the three paragraphs above might not seem as connected as they truly are.
You see, we “contained” communism so well…it could only flourish within our own house. However, Salim…it is a clever beast. We have been browbeaten into submission against calling it what it is. Anyone daring to point a finger at radical leftism will immediately be pummeled and pulverized by the trained dogs in the media. Shouts of McCarthyism will drown out any reasoned debate.
And, what you may not see looking from an objective view from your vantage point, is that we are treating radical Islam EXACTLY the way we treat radical leftism. We are mollycoddling it. We fear the Pavlovian or Skinner Box “shock” for “bad behavior” and crave the peer pressured “reward” for “good” behavior.
We will be called racists, warmongers, heartless cretins…if we don’t fall in line and follow with cult-like adherence and devotion to the leftist playbook.
Roger is a good man, Salim. He is courageous and bright and articulate and funny. But, he lived deep inside the cesspool of radical extremism and is one of the rare ones to have escaped.
Inside the cult-like dungeons of radical leftism there is no room for loyalty to a Judeo-Christian belief system. One is trained to believe that man can eventually get to an answer to any question, by examining it and applying logic. There is nothing wrong with this notion, in my opinion. It gives man the impetus to try to solve equations.
The two pitfalls for proponents of this approach do not befall Roger, but can be witnessed in many others. It is easy for proponents to become dismissive and arrogant toward faith-based folks. Watch 90% of leftists talk on TV, on radio, in Jollywood or in academia today…and their utter disdain oozes from every pore.
The second pitfall is for these proponents to believe that they are bigger than the God they do not believe in. This is a trap for the unwary. It is one thing to be arrogant and dismissive about the “followers” of the Biblical God. It is quite another to attempt to take His place.
America is not divided merely on how to approach radical Islam, Salim. It is divided on how to approach treason.
It cannot and it will not…build any rational approach to external enemies, unless and until it stands up and recognizes that it is being torn to shreds from within. Radical leftism has effectively bound and gagged patriotism, handcuffed loyalty and shackled self-preservation.
Roger is one of the few patriots who has jumped on his steed and has run through the countryside sounding the alarm. At great personal risk and cost professionally, personally, financially, and socially. He is a hero.
And he sees radical Islam for what it is. A twisting of religion into a meaningless pretzel for the purpose of the murder of innocents. That is not something to “contain”, any more than treason is something to “contain”.
The caution in carefully drawing a clear, bright line between advocates of “soft” treason or “soft” Islamism…is part of our Pavlovian desire to not be pummeled as reactionary and xenophobic, narrow-minded and “intolerant”.
We are so afraid of being labeled “intolerant”, that we will tolerate our own destruction.
In the final analysis, we have to ask ourselves if it truly is our responsibility to parse out the “good” Muslims and the “good” liberals…from the radical extremists who mean to destroy us. Or is it the responsibility of those that play footsie with those extremists, pad their coffers and support and promote them with hidden, silent or “soft” enthusiasm to choose a side?
The moral ground is clear, one cannot be a good Muslim, nor can one be a good liberal…and live life in complete opposition to all the moral and ethical tenets they espouse. That is a life of hypocrisy and fraud.
The choice is clear. And God is watching.
There will be no progress in dealing with this threat to our fundamental values of freedom of speech and conscience so long as we continue to use terms like radical Islam. All Islam is radical. And incoherent. This does not mean we go to war against Islam – unless they attack us. And if they attack us for merely telling the obvious truth about their “religion” ( which is in fact an intolerant, supremacist, imperialist ideology whose basic tenet is jihad and which uses “religion” as a cover) that is a preferable risk to deluding ourselves about the threat.
I don’t trust anyone who thinks a caravan-robbing, mass-murdering pedophile was the perfect man.
Y’all make a movie, and quit playing footsie.
Please spare us Mr. Salim. We’ve heard all the explanations. Islam is the only religion in the world that refuses to co-exist with the rest of civilization. We’re fed up with the excuses. You all have to change. We did our changing centuries ago, and are not going back. Your religion has to move forward. Get over yourselves and get with the program, or get out of our lives. We’re tired of this dialogue.
Love it! Glad to hear this coming from Canada:-)
well stated.
regards
Salim’s answer raises some more questions.
First, I think we all have to realize that a religion is not simply about the metaphysical. If only it were, things would be easier! But religions emerge from people, from human beings. Much as we would like to believe otherwise, religions do not come either from the thunderbolt of Zeus or from a monotheistic god speaking directly to us. They emerge within the beliefs of people who are living together as a society. That means that religions express the economic, political, legal, familial mindset of this people. The next question focuses on…how much emphasis is given over time, as these religions develop, on the metaphysical vs the societal modes of belief and behavior?
Judaism has both: the metaphysical analysis and the societal. Over time, these two have been able to separate so that you can consider yourself a Jew in the metaphysical beliefs but do not follow the orthodox or even reform modes of societal beliefs and behavior.
Christianity has both as well, but it is very different from Judaism because it, as a religion, is understood as a result of choice not birth ties. In Judaism, you are considered a Jew if your mother was a Jew. This shows an interesting focus – and an explanation of its origins – on tribal hereditary kinship ties. Christianity does not depend on this kin-based link and thus, can be understood to have emerged within an expanding market economy that focused on making links with formerly isolate Others.
Christianity, as a ‘market ideology’, whose metaphysics fits in with any societal system, was thus right from the start separated from societal beliefs and behavior. [I do not consider the rise of the Church, a dictatorial and power-based authoritarian system as representative of Christianity.]
Islam, in my view, has little to say about the metaphysical and most of that is a direct copy of the Judaic. It does, however, have a great deal to say about the societal – and these beliefs and behavior fit in with a 7th c. sustenance tribal economy and mode of life. They are unsuited to a modern industrial economy that requires individual freedom of reasoning, questions, exploration, initiative and democracy.
The problem with Islam – and the fact that it cannot be compared to communism – is that this societal mode of life is prevented from change by defining it as: a religion. Islam, like Judaism is ‘tribally inherited’- this time via the father’s side. But unlike Judaism, it disallows any separation of the metaphysical from the societal. This is a serious problem for it freezes the latter and prevents societal change.
Communism, for all its emotionalism, was never defined as or understood as a religion. Therefore, it could be openly lambasted, challenged, critiqued, examined. Try to do that with Islam – and you are instantly met with a lawsuit for ‘violation of the First Amendment’s Freedom of Religion. Or told that you are ‘Islamophobic’.
So – how does the West or even Muslims – deal with a religion’s ideology when the metaphysical and the societal beliefs are bonded and when you cannot discuss the latter without being accused of violating the former?
ETAB, this is a thoughtful comment with a serious question in it. I recently heard a Muslim woman defending her faith by pleading that we understand the difference between religion and culture. She was trying to shove the bad things about Islam into the latter category much as Salim tries to shove distasteful aspects of Islam into a separate political category of Islamism. And it’s true that all of these aspects – religion, culture and politics – are so intertwined that it’s a nightmare to understand how to disentangle these threads. And yet disentangle them we must – and by “we” I really do mean “we”, all of us, and not just Muslims themselves. Enough Muslims have asserted themselves and their values on us that there can be no turning back, Muslim and non-Muslim are now engaged and we must solve all this together. None of us likes the barbaric aspects of Islam but there is in it a core idealism and aspiration that, in its purer form, can help each and every one of us to fly more freely. I dream that one day Muslims will recognise many of those now deemed “non-Muslim” as being the true Muslims while most so-called “Muslims” are the ones who have gone astray through idolatrous worship of the emblems (Koran, Mohammad, etc) rather than the reality of God. If anyone can do this, Salim can. As for Roger, well, even God needs a hand from a humble mortal and perhaps nothing short of a close collaboration between man and God is needed. So keep up the good word guys!
you are over analyzing a common method of control. make sh!t up ..if that doesn’t work …then threaten ..still need more then kill the offender.
that is basically what you have with islam. (the rest of the koran just tries to fill in the inevitable blanks and not very well as it quickly falls apart on close inspection)
it is a brutal method of maintaining the patriarchal hierarchy of desert tribal peoples.
the father has complete control of his family the first son will inherit that so he helps the father maintain it. for the strong male it is an effective way.
I produce from an earlier post a quote from Salim and my response, the very component of which you speak in your last two paragraphs, namely; our protections of religion per se, and, how to differentiate what IS religion from that which CALLS itself a religion.
“Nor do my reading of the Quran and my belief as a Muslim have anything in common with Islamism, the ideology that motivates Muslim or Islamist terrorists, their ideological masters, and their apologists run amok in our world. Your question about moderate Islam is a political question and not a religious one, if we keep in mind the distinction between politics and religion. The pre-modern or ancient world did not make allowance for this distinction, and the vast majority of Muslims has not made the shift from the pre-modern to the modern world.”
Fine. By Salim’s lights, let’s keep the topic on the religious, not the political, thereby keeping a blanket of protection over Islam as it’s manifestations apply to us and the Constitution would apply to IT. As well, we have seen (primarily post 9/11) a great increase in the desire of large populations of muslims in the U.S. to cut themselves off from the offensiveness of the broader population, i.e. Dearborn, which continues the pattern of pre-modern belief and its applications.
On one point however there is clarity in his words when he says, essentially, that the majority of muslims worldwide are not persons with whom the West can have a dialogue.
When Margaret Thatcher stated that Islamic extremism is an armed doctrine she unwittingly described what to me looks suspiciously like plain standard Islam, except perhaps for some (not all) of the Sufi branches, and of course for heretic Ahmadism. Unless “Islam” is defined as somehting other than what is unanimously taught by Islamic scholars on the basis of the Qur’an, the ahadith and the Sira, this unfortunate conclusion is inescapable. Or am I mistaken?
Any fundamentalist(non reformed) religion is the potential danger for the West,that`s right.But the “Islamism” and Islam is the same thing,and the coexistance of Islam and democracy today is realized at the gun point.
Democratization of islam would mean its reformation?
Cut through the taqiya and you arrive at this black gem, typical of our internal Muslim enemy’s clever and cancerous deceptions and conflations:
“Since Islam is not America’s enemy and Islamists are at war with non-Islamist Muslims and the West, including Israel, then the simple calculus of threat — utilitarian and rational — demands an effective political and military strategy to effectively contain and eliminate Islamist terrorism and its ideology.”
Let’s take this sentence apart piece by piece…
“Since Islam is not America’s enemy and Islamists are at war with non-Islamist Muslims and the West…” Before Mansur asserts this lie-packed whopper, he builds its foundation with a discourse on Roger Simon’s agnosticism. By stressing the differences between himself as a religious Muslim, and Roger Simon, an agnostic, Mansur deliberately weaves the impression that Islam is simply a religion an no more. But we are learning that Islam is not simply a religion as we think of it in the West. It is a complete world-system of brutal, unchangeable Allah-supplied laws, a strict set of forbidden and sanctioned behavior, spanning the board from how to wipe your ass (I kid you not) to who lives and who dies. It is a political template which is at complete odds with our secular democratic republican notion of governance in the West.
Mansur’s deceptive glossing over of these aspects of Islam illustrate that he is a deceiver. But he deceives us in order to draw the false distinction between “Islamists” and “non-Islamist Muslims”. This legerdemain then allows for part two of his construct:
” then the simple calculus of threat [posed by "Islamism"] — utilitarian and rational — demands an effective political and military strategy to effectively contain and eliminate Islamist terrorism and its ideology.”
So According to the Mansurs of the world, since we are supposedly on the same side as these pious Muslims (such as Mansur) who supposedly reject “Islamism”, it flows that the burden to “effectively contain and eliminate Islamist terrorism and its ideology” falls squarely on our shoulders. This is Sysiphus writ large. Muslims have failed spectacularly to rectify their heinous belief system and make it suitable for the modern world. Now, rather than rejecting Islam, Muslims like Mansur set about making it our responsibility to fix the unfixable. I am continuously stunned at the ability of Muslims to shirk responsibility for the backwardness, brokenness, and nastiness of their disgusting religion. I am dumbfounded at Muslim efforts to place the responsibility to fix their violent, blood-drenched culture of hatred, amputation, and genocide onto our innocent shoulders.
Mansur’s argument is akin to a rapist charging his rape victis to pay for his psychotherapy and his medication, and to provide a stable living situation while he “sorts things out”. It is obscene what Muslims do to us, and then demand from us in return for their crimes to our citizens and our civilization.
Mansur, I too would like to see an “effective political and military strategy to effectively contain and eliminate Islamist terrorism and its ideology.” That would involve confining you and every other Muslim back to Dar ul Islam where you can hash out your murderous culture on your own dime and at your own pace. Until we stop allowing oursleves from being drawn into the dysfunctional, dystopian family of Islam by deceivers like Mansur, and his murderous fellow Muslims, we are doomed to die in spiraling numbers, and in ever more soul-crushing ways.
Amen Doodslag- that part of the swill he wrote was the most disturbing
oh an Mansur as much as you did make sure to define Islamism and Islam as separate and not in agreement- you found no irony in stating “THE WEST” as if we are all of the same mind about Islam- #FAIL
you addressed “the WEST” as if none of us have religion- ones far superior to ISLAM and not made up by a madman killer- real religions not domination cults
the “WEST” you speak of as one entity- has many divisions, so using idiotic statements by our govt acting in PC mode mean ZIP AS ARGUMENT TO MOST OF US ON HERE WHO KNOW THE TRUTH.
You lump, Dems Republicans French Canadians Mexicans EU Scandanavia into ONE LUMP
yet cry when people do that to ISLAMIC people
then of course as is the wayof MUSLIMS blame us for your own religions treasonous behavior in our own lands, which in reverse would mean death sentence for us-
you are a MUSLIM and as such I consider you to have a mental illness, a very contagious one – containing a cancer will just prolong death- every cell of cancer needs to DIE to be cured
The difference between Islam and Islamism is that the latter do the radical and violent heavy lifting and the former are tacit cheerleaders.
Islam and the Left try to shade this by pointing to our own radicals but our own radicals only very rarely put themselves forward as specifically Christian in a Christian cause whereas radical muslims do it virtually 100% of the time.
The other crucial difference is that our own European American radical murderers are true cast outs without that important tacit support from uncles, mothers and cousins that so typifies the muslims from the middle east when looking at the West.
Quiet cheerleaders among muslims as opposed to none in the West is the reason this radicalization exists wherever there is a muslim community because it is part and parcel of the religion. The hostile false narrative against the West which amounts to little more than an urban myth is monumental within even the most non-violent muslim.
Part of this is any idea of fair play, the greater good or the ability to self-criticize within Islam. Put more simply, Islamic culture is an immature aggregation of pouty lipped nobodies who demand not only respect but for everyone to hear their voice which is inevitably the voice of wide eyed innocence as to why anyone wouldn’t like a muslim because muslims are always right.
Get rid of words like imperialism, colonialism, Bush, oil, and so much more used in a hurt political context and Islam might stand a chance but they have so brainwashed themselves in terms of how they fit into the global community that, like black Americans and their constant bitching about Jim Crow and slavery, muslims will never grow up and get along with anyone more successful or different than themselves since the one place that is the most gigantic source of their problems, namely themselves, is the one place they will never search and challenge.
I know we have disagreed once or twice on a topic- but I must say JM I admire you ability to look past that and state the obvious truths. Gentlemanly of you to agree with me and not tear apart my post. I must say when I saw yourname in reply to me I was not expecting that. Refreshing.
Bravo. Salim can’t handle the truth. We need to categorically reject this insane notion that religious beliefs cannot be criticized. If Islam is not criticized, the only way we will be able to prevent it from succeeding in its basic goal of taking over the world is to take up arms.
islam ..a lie inside a lie inside a lie.
Salim there is only one islam and it says to convert or kill those who oppose it.
all your lies will not change that.
most of the people reading this are not muslims.
where does that leave us. does that mean you will smile when our heads are cut off ?
people like you never answer that questions …you dance around it and make up sh!t and go on and on about how good you all are. how great islam is. stealing plundering and raping isn’t nice to me. and from my reading of history that is all that islam brings .. misery and hate.
“the extent to which the West has denuded itself of its own religious heritage has disarmed it at home and abroad of the weapons it needs to deal with religious fanatics of any faith tradition — including not only its own but, presently, with the fanatics of Islam and their apologists at war with the West.”
Ah the legacy of progressive revelation rooted in islamic baha’i theological history revisionism…
140 years (over 100 in America) dedicated to softening mohammad’s image to trick Christians into accepting islam as a legitimate religion of ‘peace’..
http://www.greenacre.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=1&Itemid=169
July 16-20, 2011 (Friday evening through Wednesday lunch)
Children’s classes are available for ages 4-14.
“Towards World Governance: The Bahá’í Covenant and Administration”
Mr. Glenford E. Mitchell
The purpose of the seminar on the Covenant and Administration is to explore in some depth the origin, theory and practice of the Bahá’í Administrative Order. The ultimate goal of the Bahá’í Revelation is the establishment of a new World Order. Baha’u'llah states in His Kitáb-i-Aqdás that the “world’s equilibrium hath been upset through the vibrating influence of this most great, this new World Order.” And He calls attention to the revolutionizing impact of “this unique, this wondrous System—the like of which mortals eyes have never witnessed.” We learn from Shoghi Effendi that the Bahá’í Administrative Order is not only the “framework” of the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, but also the “pattern and nucleus” of the new World Order announced by Baha’u'llah. It is clear, then, that the efforts we make in advancing the process of entry by troops in the Five Year Plan are directed towards reaching that final goal. Hence, acquiring knowledge of the Administrative Order, which is vitalized by the Covenant of Baha’u'llah, is essential to the success of current and future exertions in the teaching work of the worldwide Bahá’í community. The seminar is to assist the participants to appreciate the total sense in which this is so.
===
Still going.. still the stealth jihad.. isn’t it just so nice and unifying?
Mr. Mansur, the reason that “the West lacks an effective strategy to contain and eliminate the threat that the 9/11 Commission described carefully at length and Thatcher explained succinctly.” is because a large minority of that West, and a large majority of that West’s “elite” opinion-makers, don’t think that that “West” — certainly to the extent that it currently remains free of Leftist utopian/totalitarianism — is worth defending in the first place.
As Rush Limbaugh so accurately put it as far back as 2004: “The Global War On Terror? Hell, half the Democrats don’t even think it exists, and the other half think it’s our fault”.
Mr. Mansur is wondering why, after the 9/11 Commission report was released in July of 2004, the West remains basically in an indeterminate state with regard to the “Islamist” threat. A legitimate question but this statement by Mansur suggests another: “Since Islam is not America’s enemy and Islamists are at war with non-Islamist Muslims………….”
They are? Where is this happening and, if it is, where is the “non-Islamist” Muslim response to the war that’s being waged against them?
Perhaps the total lack of any visible response from the “non-Islamist” Muslim community other than their prodigious use of obfuscation and overt demonization aimed at any criticism of Islam, of even the most trivial nature, by those who claim to represent this “beleaguered” group, is at least partially responsible for some of the West’s bafflement. Perhaps, too, the infiltration of “peaceful Muslims” everywhere in American society, particularly among academics and within Government, at every level, and perhaps the deference granted Muslims at almost every venue coupled with the outrage and belligerence they overtly demonstrate against any venue that dares to offer equal time to their critics accompanied by a cacophony of support from a clueless media, bafflement in the West deepens………exactly as intended.
Mr. Mansur is perhaps a “non-Islamist” Muslim but his confusion about the Western response to the Islamist threat or lack thereof is no more enlightened than the confusion of many who wonder, where are the so called majority of peaceful Muslims he and those he is critical of in the West, continue to assure us exist? Perhaps Mr. Mansur should join Dr. Zuhdi Jasser and start an international movement. Call it, Muslims Against Islamisim,” MAI or perhaps Mr. Mansur can join Dr. Jasser who seems to understand that Islamism is a threat best confronted by “non-Islamist” Muslims determined to bring Islam into the 21st century.
Call it, Muslims Against Islamisim,” MAI or perhaps Mr. Mansur can join Dr. Jasser who seems to understand that Islamism is a threat best confronted by “non-Islamist” Muslims determined to bring Islam into the 21st century.
According to Muslims, the Koran is the word of God spoken to the perfect man by the Angel Gabriel. It is immutable and cannot be reformed. It must e exposed for what and must be rejected. Islam is at its base jihadist. There will be no peace with Islam until there is submission or defeat.
Mr Mansur defends his belief in the incoherent concoction called Islam by saying all religious belief is irrational. If so, the rational response is to reject religion. If he needs to believe in a higher power, Mr. Mansur could have chosen a religion whose symbol is a cross. Instead he chose a religion whose symbol is a sword; a religion that demands conformity and denies basic human rights to all who come under its malignant influence. It’s not by accident that Islam has created havoc and poverty wherever it holds sway.
As for Mr. Jasser, he’s trying to hijack Islam.
So true, Salim.
When you spout such unreasoned and undocumented arrant nonsense as you do its no wonder you choose to remain ‘Anon”
These deep discussions are thought-provoking, but is it even possible to engage in rational analysis of a “religion” that includes the ability, or even duty, to lie to “infidels” in order to further the Muslim cause? Is that our ersatz President’s excuse?
Cactus Bob: bull’s eye! Islam abandoned reason a long time ago when it rejected causality as an illusion, and the principle of non-contradiction. Judaism and Christianity believe that God has created us and gave us reason to understand our circumstance and find Him. The Pagans of antiquity, Taoists, Buddhists, accept rational discourse but Islam does not. One could engage in philosophical dialogue with a Muslim educated in the West, a doctor, an engineer, etc. who has realized that abandoning causality condemned Islam to a perpetual inability to advance technologically. No one can develop any advanced technology or philosophy while believing that 1+1=2 today but tomorrow it may equal any other number if the will of Allah changes. Furthermore we could talk until the cows come home about asymmetrical conflicts but the truth is still “the one with the most advanced technology will win.” So, the “dialogue” is futile. Just as Liberalism is a parasite of Western Civilization so is Islam. Both envy and desire to destroy their host. If they succeed they will be extinguished along with the host. My bet is that both will be defeated within the next few decades (along with Darwinism and pop-up advertisers.) They will become a footnote and one day people shall wonder who could believe that stuff. Scientific discovery and the global dispersion of information will take care of the problem.
You reject Darwinism after claiming that Islam lacks the capacity for technical discovery? I was actually agreeing with you until that point. We in the West are all beneficiaries of modern scientific analysis and discovery. But hey, if one of the primary threads of modern understanding is inconvenient for you and your religious beliefs, go ahead and deaclare it invalid.
Islam is the world’s largest CULT. A cult by definition is a group of people that think and live by a creed that they believe to be infallible and just. The US does not allow cults that violate civil rights laws or crimes against children or existing US laws. One such cult here in Georgia run by a Black semi Islamic preacher was broken up by law enforcement for basically doing what Muslims do everyday all over the world. The fact that this cult lived in a compound and defied law enforcemant access to it finally made it a lawless cult. Islam is a cult. It has some religious tenets thrown in but it is a controlling, member dominating cult.
The only way to reform Islam is through the women that belong to it. These repressed second class people are the lever that can bring about the changes that are needed to bring Islam into the 21st century. With a belief that “Dying for Islam” is a privilege, war with Isalm is a never ending battle. But through the women declaring that they want a decent future for their children and that they want to become whole citizens, they can change this monster into just a religion and one that does not disrespect the other religions of the world and advocate war with nonbelievers.
All the garbage and baloney that the 9/11 commisssion, George Bush, and now Obama spits out is irrelevant. Ten years ago, it might have been logical to focus on the terrorist attacks and try to stop them. No one knew anything about Islam. Now, however, we’ve had ten years to learn about Islam and what its true agenda is in the world: the spread of Sharia law through stealth jihad. Does anyone think that al quaeda blew up buildings or subways just to blow up buildings and subways? The terrorists have the same goal as the stealth jihadists–the spread of Sharia law all around the world. In fact, the stealth jihadists look down their noses at the terrorists because they are too impetuous and want to act before the time is right. The stealth jihadists are patient, plodding along, taking the next small step to advance their goal. This is the real threat we face. Sadly, our own political and military leaders don’t get it. God help us.
Mr. Mansur, you seem like an intelligent man, so how can you align yourself with a religion that dehumanizes women, that sanctions genital mutilation of women, condones honor killings and spousal rape of women, and believes in the totalitarian control of the entire Muslim population? Mustafa Kemal Ataturk alienated all Muslims outside of Turkey when he stated that it is stupid to make half the population in a society (women) unproductive. Arab leaders still detest him for this bit of heresy. If you are interested in democratic values and individual freedom, you cannot adhere to Islam. And what about taquiya, the sanctioned practice of lying to infidels if it advances the goals of Islam. And the violence committed in God’s name is an abomination. My Christian God is loving, merciful, forgiving, and offers redemption. What does Allah stand for? Beheadings, suicide bombings, and every other form of barbarian cruelty that Muslims can think of. Everything about Islam is antithetical to democratic principles. How can you defend a religion like this????????
It is inevitably a fruitless conversation. Atheist and Muslims keep demonstrating they are two sides of the same coin, and we still only scratch our heads at the odd couple.
Salim, makes some very good points.
Societies that adopt a value system based on godlessness are doomed to fail and the West has gone a long way towards adopting such a system.
Truthfully, Islam is far superior to it. It provides an explanation, and a purpose, for suffering and puts the immeasurable facts of life such as love and honor ahead of the material things like sex and money.
The foundation of the West is Judeo-Christianity, however, and this is a much superior value system than Islam. In JC there is tolerance of dissent, mercy, love for enemies, recognition of self-frailty and a belief that God is an approachable Father and friend rather than an all-powerful totalitarian.
Science, art and industry thrived in the West, and slavery ended.
Granted there are sects claiming to be Jewish or Christian that are anything but tolerant, merciful and loving but when the source code is available to check against their actions their authority becomes diminished if not entirely overthrown.
Hello again Salim,
As always your letters are welcome.
It is with great irony that you bring the struggle with communism into the discussion. Yes, the force of Reagan ‘won’ the cold war by 1989, but with some equilibrium one could say that many in our western world retained the essentials of those core communist beliefs (in the universities, the unions, the 60′s counterculture, and elsewhere), and they have turned themselves into a potent political force.
Sound radical? Consider this: If one were to ‘marry’ the the Kennedy era of America with communist USSR, would the offspring be much different to Obama’s America?
My point is, if the war against Islam, radical or otherwise, is to be ‘won’ in that same manner, what will we in the west be left with after this new wedding, with emphasis on the fact that those same ‘offspring’ are now in charge.
Sorry for the continued pessimism.
Catino,
Scientific discovery and global dispersion of information will never take care of the problem. It has not the strength to stand against evil. It will be deceived or whitewashed or justified. Just like it already has been done-in, on the slippery slopes of deception.
It is only when good men take a stand, that evil will be confronted and then defeated. Anything less than full defeat will not work.
LOL!!!
First of all, there is only Islam, not ‘Islamism’.
Secondly; Communism had a country and a leader we could negotiate with. Islam doesn’t.
Finally; Islam’s ‘wall’ is psychological. Tearing that down would mean all muslims would become apostates.
How much have you donated to non-sectarian charities?
It was primarily the abysmal economic performance of the Communist ideology that drove the collapse of the USSR. But Islamic countries are already poorer than the USSR became under Communism. Plus, Islamic teachings cleverly turn attention away from “unimportant” things like enjoyment of this life on earth.
well Salim …your religion is so fragile that it can not take scrutiny. Only a nut will run with that book of lies and idiocy and claim to be a peaceful way of life. it is a hate-filled book and it honors the life of a rather degenerate person.
keep you crap and you beliefs to yourself.
STOP FORCING OTHERS TO BOW TO YOUR IDIOTIC BELIEFS
STOP FORCING RETAILERS TO BOW TO YOUR IDIOTIC BELIEFS
STOP SLAUGHTERING ANIMALS IN INHUMANE MANNERS AND FORCING OTHERS TO BUY YOUR “BLESSED” MEAT
STOP AGITATING AGAINST CHRISTIANS AND JEWS IN FREE COUNTRIES.
STOP DESTROYING FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN FREE COUNTRIES.
STOP WAGING WAR AGAINST YOUR ADOPTED COUNTRYMEN.
STOP KILLING INNOCENTS IN YOUR ANCESTORS COUNTRY
need I go on about your “religion” of peace …you know the one with hate and lies. islam …is that what you call it.
Salim Mansur wrote- “The only possible way is for all Arab Muslims coming to the US to spend a couple hours with a psychologist so the doctor can determine their true allegiance. Maybe a lie detector would be better. Anyone want to consider truth serum? ” None of that merits any seriousness!
All Ruminations aside, its coming down to WWIII. Sooner or later. As of today its still a theater or tactical calculation on the part of the contesting cultures and their collaborating countries political systems and leaders.
Perhaps its already begun with the 1979 Iranian Revolution? But a WAR! is coming, first to the Mideast in tribal fashion, then to Europe and North and south America. Asia last. But of course this little missive will be dismissed as noting but a right wing American nut job wanting to start shooting! ok fine. Time passes some folks (not me to old) will see exactly where Islam winds up in history. Question, Who is holding the “Trash Can Of History ” at the moment?
Mr. Mansur, The previous posters have already said nearly everything that needs to be said, and it really comes down to this: You, as an educated, articulate, westernized Muslim are probably the closest thing there is to a moderate Muslim and the best you can do is make excuses for the so-called radical Muslims. Who do you think should believe the nonsense about “reformation” of Islam and comparisons to the Protestant Reformation? The Protestant Reformation sought to take Christianity back to its roots. Islamism and radicalization as you wrongly call it IS the reformation of Islam. The Jihadists ARE Islam and you and every one else who has studied this issue at all knows it, and knows it well.
You are in fact doing us a great service, but not in the way you think you are. You are not convincing any one about the goodness of Islam, but you are showing us the folly of believing there is a Moderate Islam.
So what should we do. For some time, political correctness will prevent anything substantial from being done, but there will come a time when the desire for survival and self-preservation will trump any notions of political correctness and the civilized world will have no choice but to try and rid the world of the atrocity that is Islam. When that time comes we can only hope it is not too late. So, thanks Mr. Mansur for opening our eyes.
Dear Roger & fellow readers,
Mr. Mansurs letters of mindless blather are instructive expose’s into Islamic civilizational consciousness. It shows us how centuries of Mohammedan indoctrination has produced a Muslim mind denied the capacity for objectivity, reason and rationality.
Muslim ‘intellectuals’ like Mr. Mansur have brains that are Islamically hard wired so they simply cannot objectively and rationally face the facts and hard truths about the savage ‘morality’ of Islam, no matter how much they try. Critical thinking has been deprogrammed from the Muslim mind, and Mr. Mansur is proof positive.
Islam wipes objectivity and rationality out of the Muslim consciousness. Muslims can be great doctors or technicians, but they can never be what Mr. Mansur fancies himself to be – great thinkers. They cannot engage in critical thought, because they must submit. They cannot question, because they must submit. They cannot change, because they must submit.
Mr. Mansur clearly has the natural human impulse to break free from the slavery of submission….but he simply can’t do it. It’s the result of centuries of Islamic civilizational brainwashing corrupting and controlling him. And he knows this.
Islamic indoctination has produced the greatest schizophrenic culture to have ever existed – the violent religion of peace, the head hacking-hand chopping religion of mercy, the misogynistic raping and stoning religion of womens rights, the enslaving religion of freedom, the intolerant religion of tolerance, a pathology which coalesces in the sadistic-raping-mass murdering-looting-sociopathic soul of the evil ‘holy prophet’ Muhammed.
These are the ideological constructs of Islam which simply can NEVER be reconciled. Mr. Mansur keeps promising us that he will explain all this:
“Bear with me, Roger, for I am not going to take an easy way out from your questions. I will come back to them, Muhammad, Islam, Quran, etc.” But he never does. He distracts, dodges, diverts and dissimulates.
Mr. Mansur posits “The 9/11 Commission Report (2004) states that “Islam is not the enemy.”” Well, the 9/11 Commission was wrong. Islam IS the enemy. Not ‘radical Islam’ or ‘fundamental Islam’, but Islam itself. Free thinking people, not subject to political correctness or submission theology, can see this with crystal clarity.
This is an undeniable truth, because we know that factually Muslims like Osama bin-Laden, Mohammed Atta, the Underwear Bomber, the Times Square Bomber, Major Dr. Nidal Hassan (Soldier of Allah) and every other Islamic terrorist believes in the same Koran and reveres the same sociopathic prince of evil, Muhammed, as do ‘good’ Muslims like Mr. Mansur and Dr. Zuhdi Jasser.
The only difference is that the terrorists act, while Mr. Mansur cowers and dissimulates.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again:
Mr. Mansur is an intellectual fraud, as is every Muhammed worshiping Muslim and every Islamic apologist.
~ The Infidel Alliance
yes Salim is as bad as the bomb throwers the ones he calls radicals.
the are no moderate muslims since there is no moderate islam. it is that simple.
Dear ‘General P, Malaise’,
It all boils down to this:
1) if a non-Muslim chooses to remain ignorant about Muhammed and Islamic theology, he facilitates the expansion of Islam.
2) if a non-Muslim learns the truth about Muhammed and Islamic theology but chooses to remain silent, he facilitates the expansion of Islam.
3) if one is a ‘good’ Muslim but does not reject the teachings of Muhammed and Islamic theology, he facilitates the expansion of Islam.
4) if one is a ‘bad’ Muslim and embraces the teachings of Muhammed and Islamic theology, he facilitates the expansion of Islam.
There is no option but to expose the truth about Muhammed and Islamic theology, reject it, discredit it, resist it, oppose it.
There is no option but to vigorously challenge Muslims like Mr. Mansur, Keith Ellison, Osama bin-Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, Tariq Ramadan, Ibrahim Hooper, ‘Park51′ mosque developer Sharif El-Gamal, ‘Cordoba House’ mosque imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, and the ‘good Muslim’ next door to defend the savage sociopathy of their moral beacon Muhammed.
There is no option but to vigorously challenge NOW and other womens rights organizations as to why they remain silent while millions of Muslim women are beaten, mutilated with acid, murdered for Islamic ‘honor’, raped, subjugated, silenced and denied their full rights as human beings.
There is no option but to demand that our politicians recognize Islam as a militant intolerant apartheid totalitarian system that is the enemy of freedom and our constitution, and demand that they pass legislation opposing Islam at every opportunity.
There is no option but to be relentless in opposing Islam because, as history shows, Islam is relentless in trying to destroy us.
~ The Infidel Alliance
Are Mansur and Simon the same person? Is Mansur Simon’s alter ego?
What’s the aim of these letters?
Legitimacy for islam?
Ain’t working.
Bye bye.
” Since religion in general remains resistant to material explanations, it is best consigned to the domain of the irrational. ”
I don’t mean to be unkind but I think the above is one of the most foolish statements I have ever read.
The search for Truth becomes ” irrational “?
The writer reflects the very problem with Islam- intellectual and spiritual stagnation.
If anyone wonders why the Islamic world produces so little in terms of advancement, either material or otherwise, they need only look at the above statement.
It is no wonder that the Islamists want to turn back the clock.
yes
Those who would choose Islam need to read the comments from The Infidel Alliance. Even if it is just a ‘for one day, I am a muslim’ choosing.
He has described in detail the energies that will decend upon the followers of Islam madness.
Fellow readers,
Consider this:
Allah’s Apostle Muhammed said “I have been made victorious with terror” – Sahih Bukhari (52:220)
Of consequence, Osama bin Laden’s full name is Osama bin MOHAMMED bin Awad bin Laden, and he was made victorious with terror too.
These men are also named after Muhammed, the ‘holy prophet’ of Islam, and were similarly made victorious with terror:
- MOHAMMED Atta, 9/11 airline jihadist
- Abdulhakim Mujahid MUHAMMED, Little Rock recruiting center assasin
- MOHAMMED Reza Taheri-azar, UNC SUV jihadist
- MOHAMMED Ajmal Amir Kasab, Mumbai jihadist
- Husayn MUHAMMED al-Umari, Pan Am Flight 830 bomber
- Fahd MOHAMMED Ahmed al-Quso, USS Cole bomber
- Khalid Sheikh MOHAMMED, beheader of Daniel Pearl
- MOHAMMED Sidique Khan, London Tube suicide jihadist
- Ramzi MOHAMMED, convicted London Tube jihadist
- Whabi MOHAMMED, London Tube ‘5th’ bomber
- Fazul Abdullah MOHAMMED, Tanzanian embassy bomber
- MAHMOUD Ahmadinejad, despotic Shia leader of Islamic Republic of Iran
- MOHAMMED Bouyeri, savage Islamist killer of Theo Van Gogh
- MOHAMMED Ali Hamadei, airline hijacker
- MOHAMMED Safady, Munich Olympics terrorist
- AHMAD Marrouf al-Assadi, Achille Lauro hijacker
- MEHMET Ali Ağca, Islamist who attempted to assasinate Pope John Paul
- MOHAMMED Atif Siddique, Scottish terrorist conspiritor
- Kafeel AHMED, Glasgow Airport bomber
- Abdulla AHMED, ‘Liquid’ bomber
- John Allen MUHAMMED, mass murdering sniper
- MOHAMMED Haydar Zammar, al-Qaeda recruiter who assembled the Hamburg cell
- Jaish-e-MOHAMMED, Pakistani jihadist terror organization
- Abdirahman MOHAMUD AHMED and Wissam MAHMOUD Fattal, NSW Australia jihadists
- MOHAMED O. MOHAMUD, Christmas tree lighting ceremony jihadist
- MOHAMMAD Alkaramla, convicted of sending bomb threats to a Jewish High School
- Antonio Martinez, aka MUHAMMED Hussain, arrested “after he attempted to remotely detonate what he believed to be explosives in a vehicle parked in the Armed Forces recruiting station parking lot”
How many terrorists can you recall named ‘Jesus’ or ‘Buddha’? None.
Mohammed…Muhammed…Mahmoud…Mehmet…Ahmed…and on, and on, and on…this is the short list, over just the past few years. The ‘long form’ Muhammed terrorist list stretches back 14 centuries.
This either has to be the biggest Las Vegas odds beating coincidence in the history of humanity, or it confirms that Muslims kill because their ‘holy prophet’ was a killer, and that killing non-Muslims is the prime directive of Islam.
Muhammed is Islam’s Achilles heel. If we expose the truth about this savage barbarian, the ‘moral’ foundation of Islam collapses. Please help spread the truth about Muhammed.
~ The Infidel Alliance
“My faith is made of sterner stuff”
Basically, Salim admits that his “faith” is impervious to reason, new facts or arguments.
Congratulations, man. Its no wonder at all how Islam had managed to hold so many captive for so long. First it overthrows objective reason, then it reinvents reason as something subservient or inferior to an irrational “faith.”
I have found this time after time with all Muslims of my acquaintance. At first they are willing to debate. Then when they get pinnned to the wall they suddenly shut down like an overheated engine and will admit no more information.
I once laid out a well reasoned, several paragraph argument stating that a man like Mohammed could not be a trustworthy, honest man so therefore his claim to be a prophet speaking for God could not be trusted. If a man is a liar in some things, how can he be believed when he makes a claim like that?
Ali Eteraz who makes much of his education in philosophy and Christian theology, replied “I don’t care about that.”
In the end, it is impossible not to conclude one MUST reject objective reason in order to remain or become a Muslim. The evidence is clear in each and every Muslim life. All you have to do is pin them to the wall and their semblence of a rationality disappears and their resemblence, however faint, to the more overt fanatics becomes clear.
There is no such thing as extreme Islam. There are extreme Muslims. They are called Apostates, because they do not follow Muhammad.
What did Muhammad do? Rape, and murder, were rape and murder when Noah entered the ARK, and it was still rape, and murder in 650AD.
We are not at war with Islam. Islam is at war with the world. The 9-11 comission is PC, and full of BS. The problem is Islam, and Mosques are preaching hate. They call it following Muhammad, and the Koran.
It is very easy to read something and believe one understands it. But there are obstacles: when I was an atheist I read the New Testament, and thought of it as the historical fantasies of ancient Jews. Now I’m a Christian, and the New Testament means something very different to me. In talking with Americans, from the same Judeo-Christian background, who are atheists, in many ways they live in a different reality than I do. Thus our communication is usually limited to common experience.
So we read the Quran and Hadith, and see what we see, but a Muslim will see something very different, and there will be little common ground to discuss. Particularly when we attack the foundations of a faith, the object of our attack is not the same thing a Muslim experiences. This may not be the close-mindedness some of us accuse Muslims of, but the same reluctance I feel in arguing with an atheist about Christianity – if they don’t see the reality I see, why fight about it?
People of faith in the US are verbally attacked for illogic, irrationality, superstition, etc. by other Americans who despise any faith, and want to show how intellectually superior they are. It accomplishes little.
It would make more sense to me to discuss behavior, because how can we understand the subjective meaning of Islam to a person, or culture, when we are blinded by our sometimes ignorant conclusions?
Bottom line is Muslim cultures don’t seem to have, or enforce, laws or cultural prohibitions against violence against non-Muslims, foreign or domestic. Matters little if this results from Islam, tribalism, or factors we don’t understand. Perplexity arises because we are accustomed to being self-policing: in a church we argue enthusiastically about what we stand for, what we will tolerate, and we almost universally reject the violent and criminal. That may account for the proliferation of sects, and the very few sects (like Westboro Baptist) that engage in disgusting behavior are reviled. In our culture, there is really no acceptable excuse for violence against anyone, particularly minorities, other than self-defense. To us, freedom of religion is almost itself sacred.
I admit prejudice – I will *never* forget the Palestinians dancing on 9/11. They celebrated a few days ago over the murder of the Israeli family. I am revolted. And I wouldn’t choose Mohammed as a role model.
For every jihadi is a family and friends who know him, and moral and financial support from a broad community. This says jihadis are accepted where they should, in my mind, be reviled for their behavior. I care about Muslims controlling jihadi behavior, not what their faith consists of. Lack of this control could lead to existential confrontation, which nobody wins. And every day, the choice of declining to even attempt such control appears, from a Western perspective, to affirm support of violent jihad. Making no decision is itself a decision, and makes a statement.