The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Arnold Isaacs Archive
American Islamophobia’s Fake Facts
Their "Proof" Is Not What They Say
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_736722901

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Anti-Muslim activists in the United States were operating in a “post-truth era” and putting out “alternative facts” long before those phrases entered the language. For the last decade they have been spreading provable falsehoods through their well-organized network of publications and websites.

A major theme of those falsehoods is telling the U.S. public that Islam is inherently dangerous and that American Muslims, even if they do not embrace extremist religious beliefs or violent actions, are still a threat to national security. To back up that conclusion, the well-funded Islamophobia publicity machine incessantly repeats two specific assertions.

The first is that Muslims in this country have been engaged in a “stealth” or “civilizational jihad” — a long-term, far-reaching conspiracy to infiltrate the U.S. legal system and other public institutions and bring America under Islamic law. The companion claim is that mainstream Muslim-American organizations are effectively “fronts” for the Muslim Brotherhood and so secretly controlled by international terrorists. In fact, the Brotherhood has not been designated as a terror organization by the U.S. government, and there are not the slightest grounds for thinking it, or any other secret force, controls any national Muslim-American group.

The Islamophobes offer only two pieces of supporting “evidence,” one for each of those claims. Exhibit A is a document falsely called the Brotherhood’s “master plan” for the clandestine effort to establish Muslim dominance in the United States. Exhibit B is a list of several hundred “unindicted co-conspirators,” including the Council on American Islamic Relations and other mainstream national Muslim organizations, that federal prosecutors put into the record during a 2007 terrorism-financing trial in Texas.

If you look at the exhibits themselves, instead of the descriptions of them by anti-Muslim groups, it’s obvious that neither is what the Islamophobes say it is or proves what they allege it proves.

The Secret Plan That Wasn’t

Let’s start with the so-called master plan, a memorandum written nearly three decades ago that is not just the centerpiece but essentially the sole source for the tale of a “civilizational jihad” conspiracy.

The Islamophobia network unfailingly refers to the memorandum as an official declaration of Muslim Brotherhood strategy. Frank Gaffney, head of the Center for Security Policy and perhaps the country’s most prominent Islamophobe, called it “the Muslim Brotherhood secret plan for taking down our country.” Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, two other leading voices in the anti-Muslim chorus, have written that “the Brotherhood lays out a plan [in the document] to do nothing less than conquer and Islamize the United States.”

Those statements are, however, unsupported by facts of any sort. The document, dated May 1991 and titled “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America,” is real, but there is no evidence that it represents the views of anyone other than the single Brotherhood member who wrote it. For that matter, no one has ever found any indication that anyone other than the author even saw the text, written in Arabic, until 13 years after it was completed, when it was coincidentally unearthed in a storage box during an FBI search of a home in Annandale, Virginia. No other copy is known to exist. Its wording makes it unmistakably clear that the writer was proposing a strategy to the Brotherhood’s leadership, not presenting a plan approved by any authority. No evidence has come to light that suggests his proposals were ever considered, let alone adopted, by the Muslim Brotherhood leadership.

Gaffney and the many other Islamophobes who cite it as proof of a “stealth jihad” threat against the United States have never presented additional documentation of any kind. No known Muslim Brotherhood correspondence or records refer to the memorandum, as one would expect if there had been a formal discussion of it or even an exchange between the author and any Brotherhood governing body.

After a careful search of available Brotherhood records, researchers at Georgetown University’s Bridge Initiative, which combats Islamophobia, determined that neither the memorandum nor its specific proposals appear in any documents they found. That includes records from the Brotherhood Shura Council’s 1991 meeting, where the memorandum’s author had specifically asked to have it put on the agenda. Other investigators have similarly failed to find any trace of the memorandum in other records. David Shipler, who wrote about it at length in his book Freedom of Speech, calls it an “orphan document” — and a childless orphan at that.

Taking Down Our Country? Not Exactly…

As well as falsely representing the memorandum’s status, the Islamophobes are also notably less than accurate in describing its contents.

They regularly quote a single sentence that refers to “destroying the Western civilization from within” so that “God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” But that’s the only line in 18 pages of text that even comes close to suggesting the idea of “taking down our country,” as Gaffney puts it. Aside from that single reference there is no other mention of destroying Western civilization, no discussion of when that downfall might come about or how it might be achieved “from within.” There’s not a word about penetrating government structures or the legal system, nothing about clandestine action or a secret plot to take power.

Instead, the plan’s dominant concept — similar to the evangelical vision preached in many religions — is achieving Islamic supremacy through proselytizing and conversion. Virtually the entire text focuses on believers, not non-believers, and how to organize and strengthen the Muslim community in the U.S. so that it will be better able to carry out that effort.

“It is not a plot. It is a missionary strategy,” Edward Curtis IV, professor of religious studies and editor of the Encyclopedia of Muslim-American History, told me in an email after reading the memorandum. The document comes much closer to that description than to Gaffney’s. At its heart is a long list of specific ideas for establishing — openly, not secretly — Muslim structures in many areas of public life: education, law, media, financial institutions, art and culture, social and charitable work, and so on. A recommendation to create “clubs for training and learning self-defense techniques” is the only item on the list that even glancingly touches on any sort of violent action.

The purpose of such an organizing effort, the author explains, is to pursue the Brotherhood’s declared goal of “enablement of Islam in North America,” which he says has these components: “establishing an effective and a stable Islamic Movement led by the Muslim Brotherhood which adopts Muslims’ causes domestically and globally, and which works to expand the observant Muslim base, aims at unifying and directing Muslims’ efforts, presents Islam as a civilization alternative, and supports the global Islamic State wherever it is.”

When those aims are achieved, the writer argues, Muslims will be more united, politically and economically stronger, truer to their faith, and more committed to dawa (proselytizing), which will eventually realize the Prophet’s vision and establish Islam as the universally accepted one true religion. For many believers, dawa (also spelled dawah) has political as well as spiritual goals, including the ultimate establishment of an Islamic state. But the Brotherhood has traditionally conceived of it as a nonviolent process, conducted through persuasion and grassroots organizing, not a violent one carried out through acts of terror or sabotage.

The memorandum’s message is consistent with the Brotherhood’s conservative theology and its dream of an Islamized world. But it is not the sinister conspiracy the Islamophobes keep talking about without providing any evidence that it exists.

The Co-Conspiracy Theory Is Missing Any Facts

The other main thread in the anti-Muslim narrative — the charge that mainstream Muslim-American organizations generally, and CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations) in particular, have “terror ties” — is similarly based on a single piece of “evidence.” Like the Brotherhood’s “master plan,” it, too, is misleadingly presented and does not prove the Islamophobes’ allegations.

The document that supposedly verifies the claim that CAIR and other groups are linked to Islamist terrorism is a list of “unindicted co-conspirators” attached to a pre-trial brief submitted by prosecutors in 2007 in the Holy Land Foundation case. (By the way, that’s the same trial where the “explanatory memorandum” first surfaced.) In that case, five leaders of a Texas-based Islamic charity were eventually convicted of donating to charitable programs linked with Hamas, the group that now controls the Gaza Strip and is a U.S. government-designated terrorist organization.

That list was not submitted as evidence and, despite the ominous sound of that label “co-conspirator,” it was not accompanied by any specific allegations of terrorist involvement or of an explicit conspiratorial act by any of the organizations or individuals named on the list. Rather, the prosecutors filed the brief for purely tactical reasons. Their aim: getting around the usual ban on hearsay testimony, which can be introduced when an out-of-court statement comes from someone officially named as a co-conspirator.

In the Holy Land case itself, the defendants were not accused of directly aiding any terrorist activity, and no specific violent act is mentioned anywhere in the charges. The U.S. government itself acknowledged that some of the donated funds supported legitimate humanitarian projects.

The connection with CAIR is even more tenuous. The only link: that CAIR’s founder, Omar Ahmad, was associated with the U.S. Palestine Committee, an umbrella group for Holy Land and other organizations. Ahmad’s activities, however, took place in the early 1990s before Hamas was declared a terrorist group.

In a 2009 ruling on a motion from CAIR and two other organizations seeking to be removed from the list, a U.S. district judge held that the co-conspirator designation was “unaccompanied by any facts” indicating possible terrorist connections. Strongly criticizing the prosecutors for putting it into the open record in the first place, he ordered the list sealed. It had, however, already been so widely circulated that no order could keep it from public view. Meanwhile, after reviewing the list, the Justice Department concluded that no criminal investigation of any sort was warranted.

According to the American Civil Liberties Union, which represented the two other organizations named on the list — the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) — prosecutors made no claim that the “co-conspirators” had actually conspired in any way to help terrorists or engaged in any other criminal activity. In a press release accompanying one of its court filings, the ACLU noted that “the government conceded… that it had absolutely no evidence proving that either ISNA or NAIT had engaged in a criminal conspiracy.” The lead prosecutor in the Holy Land case, the ACLU statement went on, told the organizations’ lawyers that they “were not subjects or targets in the HLF prosecution or in any other pending investigation.”

In the more than 11 years since the list was made public, no new information has emerged that corroborates the inflammatory assertion that CAIR or the other Muslim-American groups are terrorist organizations or fronts for Hamas. Nor have researchers who track homegrown terror cases turned up any known link between a national Muslim-American organization and any violent incident. David Sterman, who manages the think tank New America’s extensive Terrorism in America database, says flatly, “Neither CAIR nor any other major American Muslim organization has played a role in jihadist terrorist plotting in the United States.” (That’s true of the Muslim Brotherhood, too. Internationally, some Brotherhood offshoots have engaged in terrorism. But despite overwrought claims from the anti-Muslim set, the Brotherhood has never been implicated in any violent act of terror in the United States. Even the Trump administration has decided not to add it to the list of officially designated terror organizations.)

Proving a negative is always a hard proposition, but one strong backup for this one is what the Islamophobes themselves say — or, more precisely, don’t say. While they unceasingly slam CAIR’s alleged terrorism ties, Gaffney, Geller, and their cohorts have not offered a single plausible example of an incident of Islamist terrorism in which CAIR or one of the other organizations on their smear list was involved.

If the Islamophobes had even one actual case, they would certainly have proclaimed it nonstop, at top volume. So its absence from their rhetoric is a clear sign that they have no such evidence — in all likelihood because, like the Muslim Brotherhood’s “civilizational jihad,” it doesn’t exist.

Inventing Make-Believe Enemies Helps the Real Ones

Those untruths are not just bigoted and dishonest but dangerous. In the struggle against the real threat from violent Islamic extremism, the Islamophobes’ false statements and overall message help the terrorists, not the security of Americans.

Falsely demonizing all Muslims, their beliefs, and their institutions is exactly the wrong way to make Americans safer, because the more we scare ourselves with imaginary enemies, the harder it will be to find and protect ourselves from real ones. As New America’s David Sterman points out, “The vast majority of jihadist activity today is not even organized by radical clerics, returned fighters, or militant operatives but instead is mediated online or via small peer groups of friends.” Those threats will not be detected by pursuing nonexistent conspiracies. The surest way to find them will be through information from relatives, neighbors, religious teachers, fellow worshippers — that is, in the great majority of cases, fellow Muslims.

The vast majority of American Muslims oppose extremism and violence by Muslims or anyone else and have no wish to live under the brutal rule practiced by jihadist fanatics. As a religious minority in a country where their faith makes them potential victims of hate crimes, Muslims have stronger reasons than most Americans for believing in and practicing religious tolerance, not holy war. Keeping Muslim Americans as allies and maintaining their trust in our common values and political and legal institutions will be critical in successfully opposing extremist violence. Losing that trust and driving them away, as the Islamophobes’ ugly falsehoods inevitably will, can only help the terrorists.

Arnold R. Isaacs, a journalist and writer based in Maryland, is the author of From Troubled Lands: Listening to Pakistani and Afghan Americans in Post-9/11 America and two books relating to the Vietnam War. He is a TomDispatch regular. His website is www.arnoldisaacs.net.

(Republished from TomDispatch by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Islamophobia, Muslims, Terrorism 
Hide 345 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Almost every assertion in this article that Muslims are not generally supportive of extremism is false, unless Muslims in America are a wholly different proposition to Muslims in Europe. Unlikely.

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2014.935307

    Read More
    • Replies: @Moi
    The Dems say the same about the Deplorables--and vice verse.
    , @pensword
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2014.935307

    "24 hours access for USD 42.40"

    No, thanks.

    BTW, Pew's results are free of charge:

    Despite their concerns about extremism in the name of Islam in the U.S., about three-quarters of Muslim Americans say there is either little or no support for extremism within the American Muslim community, including 30% who say there is “not much” support for extremism and 43% who say there is “none at all.” Just 17% say there is either a “great deal” (6%) or a “fair amount” (11%) of support for extremism.
     
    You're welcome.
    , @Druid
    I can see why you forgot your pseudonym. You're an idiot. The vast majority od Moslems don't support extremism. You must be a Zio or evangelist Zio, idiot
    , @FKA Max
    This is how China is, allegedly, dealing with its Muslim minority. Are they also Islamophobes or is that label just reserved for Westerners?

    China builds Gulag-like prisons for Muslims, calls them ‘political re-education centres’

    In April 2017, the atheist Communist Party issued ‘Naming Rules for Ethnic Minorities’, banning 29 names, including Muhammad, Islam, Jihad and Hajj.

    https://theprint.in/security/china-builds-gulag-like-prisons-for-muslims-calls-them-political-re-education-centres/91257/

    Is China building 'political re-education' camps for Muslim minorities?

    https://www.dw.com/en/is-china-building-political-re-education-camps-for-muslim-minorities/a-44334145

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. To back up that conclusion, the well-funded Islamophobia publicity machine incessantly repeats two specific assertions.

    What about the specific assertion that Muslims did 9/11? That is a false assertion that they are constantly repeating too, isn’t it?

    Read More
    • Agree: Mike P, Druid
    • Replies: @Anin
    I am glad to be sighting you here, man.
    , @Anon
    Hi Jonathan, welcome back.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. As Alfred Deakin said years ago about East Asian immigration to Australia, it’s not their bad qualities that make them a threat, it’s their good ones.

    The missionary approach is more dangerous than the terrorist one. More Americans have suffered from the non-violent strategy of Martin Luther King than from the violent ones of Malcolm X, Eldridge Cleaver, and Louis Farrakhan.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Crimson2
    Did MLK make you suffer? Poor baby.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. They regularly quote a single sentence that refers to ‘destroying the Western civilization from within’ so that ‘God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions’

    For goodness’ sake, it isn’t just ‘a single sentence’, it is the word of Allah as revealed in Qur’an 8:39 – ‘Make war on them [the unbelievers] until idolatry is no more and Allah’s religion reigns supreme.’

    The objection to Islam is not its ‘threat to national security’ but to the backward societies it has spawned. Given half a chance, Islam will inevitably drag the West down to the same primitive level, a prospect which the West’s greatest enemy finds utterly delicious.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Alarmist

    "For goodness’ sake, it isn’t just ‘a single sentence’, it is the word of Allah as revealed in Qur’an 8:39 – ‘Make war on them [the unbelievers] until idolatry is no more and Allah’s religion reigns supreme.’"
     
    In that respect, America's permanent war footing makes for a perfect fit with it becoming an Islamic nation, and we're halfway along to turning the US into a third-workd country along the lines of Brazil, so what the heck, let's embrace our inner Sharia and submit so we can rule.
    , @pensword
    Qur’an 8:39 – ‘Make war on them [the unbelievers] until idolatry is no more and Allah’s religion reigns supreme.’

    1. The Arabic term for "war" (harb) does not appear in this verse. The term qaatilu means "fight," which does not necessitate an explicitly martial endeavor.

    2. The Arabic word usually translated as "idolatry" (shirk) appears nowhere in this verse. The term that appears is fitnah, more accurately translated here as "persecution," which, given the historical context of this verse, applies to actual ~ as opposed to imaginary ~ acts of aggression.

    3. The Arabic word usually translated as "unbelievers" (kaafirun) is not only a bad translation of the term, it appears nowhere in this verse and is a misleading parenthetical addition.

    4. The phrase "... and Allah's religion reigns supreme" should be translated "... and religion is for God alone." The orthodox understanding of religion being "for God alone" is reflected in 2: 256, "No compulsion in religion," whereby protection of religious liberty is explicitly codified. As such, there is no threat to your religion ~ or lack thereof ~ under the aegis of Islam.

    The objection to Islam is not its ‘threat to national security’ but to the backward societies it has spawned.

    When Islam was the preponderant influence in the Arab world, muslims "spawned" such innovations as inoculation, quarantine, coffee, spherical trigonometry and the world's first university. Europe's Renaissance wouldn't have happened without those "backward societies" of which you speak.

    It isn't Islam, but rather, the lack of it that has plagued the millenial muslim world for centuries. Being an American myself, I could easily recite a litany of phenomena that undermine the illusion of western "enlightenment," but I find it more useful to share common ground between myself and people of understanding. If you'd rather bicker, have at it. I can't be bothered with people who have nothing to "teach" me but ignorance.
    , @Druid
    That idolatry referred to 6th century Arabia, not the Christian west, moron.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. bubbaluv says:

    Taquiyya.

    I win.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ploni almoni
    Oh, you mean pikuach nefesh in Hebrew. I would never have guessed you are a Shi`ite.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Good piece. It’s nice to see someone take up arms against the proposition that people will believe anything if you just repeat it often enough.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bierstiefel
    Believe what?
    , @James Forrestal
    Naw, it's just distraction.

    Here's the problem:

    Anti-Muslim activists in the United States were operating in a “post-truth era” and putting out “alternative facts” long before those phrases entered the language. For the last decade they have been spreading provable falsehoods through their well-organized network of publications and websites.
     
    "Well-organized network"

    This sounds like some kind of a "trope." Quite possibly a "conspiracy theory," even. What is the basis of this "well-organized network?" What is its organizing principle? Let's take "Middle East Media Research Institute" (MEMRI) as an example -- they're an important source for controlled media stories about various Arab/ Muslim countries.

    What is "MEMRI," anyway?

    Straight from (((wikipedia))):
    "The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) is a nonprofit press monitoring and analysis organization with headquarters in Washington, D.C. MEMRI publishes and distributes free English language translations of Arabic, Persian, Urdu, Pashto, and Turkish media reports.

    MEMRI states that its goal is to "bridge the language gap between the Middle East and the West." It has been praised as an "invaluable" resource[3] and for helping to "shine a spotlight on hate speech wherever it appears." "

    What they mean by this is that they're a group that used by the legacy media as an "outside," "authoritative" source for purported translations of Muslims saying crazy, inflammatory shit in Arabic and other non-English publications -- it's a step up from the "anonymous, highly-placed sources claim" trick. Kinda like the "Syrian Observatory for Human Rights" for allegations of "Assad atrocities."

    OK, but that's what they do. Who are they?

    "The institute was co-founded in 1998 by Yigal Carmon, a former [sic] Israeli military intelligence officer and Meyrav Wurmser, an Israeli-born American political scientist."

    So one founder was an Israeli spook. The other?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meyrav_Wurmser

    "Meyrav Wurmser is an (((Israeli-born))), "American" neoconservative political executive. She is married to (((Swiss-American)))David Wurmser, former Middle East Adviser to US Vice President Dick Cheney. [where he was one of the leading proponents of the Iraq War]"

    "In 1996, Wurmser participated in a study that led to the report, A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm"

    "A Clean Break," of course, was a sort of revised Yinon Plan that was composed by a group of Israel--American dual citizens (Perle, Feith, etc.), and presented to Bibi in 1996. It provided the template for PNAC, the Iraq War, and much of US foreign policy in the Middle East since then. That many of the coauthors of this plan later served in the W administration as the primary architects of the Iraq War was, of course, sheer cohencidence.

    Huh. Now this "well-organized network" is starting to sound a lot like an "anti-semitic conspiracy theory." Maybe even an "anti-semitic canard." I can see why Mr. Isaacs is so determined to direct the focus of his pretended ire toward a prominent shabbos goy like Gaffney. This so-called "Islamophobia" doesn't seem to be very "American" after all -- does it?

    I'm sure if you looked at (((Pamela Geller))), or the Gatestone Institute, or (((Rita Katz))), or Gates of Vienna, or JINSA -- you wouldn't find any similar tribal affiliations... would you?

    Of course, the whole "Muh evil devil cult of Islam!" business is just the flip side of "Islamophobia!!!" screechers like Isaacs -- all part of the larger "Invade the world; invite the world!" industry. The problem is not really Islam per se -- if all of the Somali Muslims in the US converted to Christianity tomorrow, they would still be 68 IQ, highly clannish people with a propensity for random violence... and wholly incompatible with the historic American nation.

    No one is beaming Muslim mind rays from a central tower in Mecca. It's not some kind of mind virus spreading through casual contact with those infected. They're not proselytizing door to door (for the most part). Islam arrives in the US (and other White countries) in the brains of foreign invaders. The real problem is the 60 million+ non-White invaders (the largest invasion in the history of the world) since the notorious Hart-(((Celler))) Act of 1965 opened the borders.

    And the solution? Certainly not Mr. Isaacs' rootless cosmopolitanism and "permanent revolution." They're the source of the problem. The solution is simple:

    Close the borders, expel the invaders, and crush the traitors.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. 22pp22 says:

    If you had lived where I have lived, you would not have written this piece.

    I have only briefly visited America. The last time I visited the country was in 2012 and I only stayed three days.

    Three days in LA are three days I can never have back. Fortunately, I have friends there.

    I have lived in Cyprus and in various English cities. I agree that the threat of terrorism is overblown. But, in every other conceivable way, the Muslim community in Oxford, Banbury, Rotherham, and Rochdale could not behave much worse than it does.

    The only people I dislike more are the white Liberal social workers and policewomen who have facilitated their criminality to boost their own sense of moral self-importance.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I see no mention of numbers of Muslims in various Western countries, or their sometimes distinctive characteristics. My impression is that US Muslims are an insignificant minority (unless they were all fanatics and one were looking for willing snipers). Moreover they are not generally unskilled or economically lower class. By contrast the UK seems to be suffering from having imported cheap labour from the dregs of inbreeding tribalists in the Empire several decades ago.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Biff says:

    Islamaphobia is a Zionist invention. Nobody in America cared two shits about Muslim Arabs, until the PNAC/Clean Brake unleashed their plan. People need to be reminded that Muslim Arabs suck at most everything. They are not good terrorists/killers(do a body count over the past hundred years, and you’ll find out who can get the killing done. Hint – it ain’t Arabs) They don’t know how to industrialize a war machine(the Saudi’s can only purchase one, and then they still help using it – see Yemen). They are still stuck in the dark ages in attempts to modernize their societies. They fail social interaction(take a fucking bath – you stink!). And in no possible way could they put together enough collective Arabs brain cells to organize a 9/11 type of event.
    Infact, they are becoming such ineffective enemies, Russia has to be brought back into the fold to keep Americans scared enough to allow the government to continue to erode their liberties, and keep raking in a thousand billion dollars a year to keep them “safe”. Quite the racket – and the beat goes on – be afraid, VERY AFRAID!

    Read More
    • Agree: mark green
    • Replies: @Druid
    True!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Anonymous[277] • Disclaimer says:

    Muslims, even with a piece of paper in hand claiming otherwise, are Fake Americans.

    We the people are “descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs” as John Jay wrote in Federalist Papers No. 2. avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed02.asp

    Fake Americans have to go back.

    Their enablers, like the author of this article, don’t have that luxury, and will be dealt with as “enemies of the people” as Trump has declared them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Crimson2

    Fake Americans have to go back.
     
    Look, no one is putting you in charge. You can repeat thus fantasy all you want, it ain't happening.

    Their enablers, like the author of this article, don’t have that luxury, and will be dealt with as “enemies of the people” as Trump has declared them.
     
    Ah, the fascist incel thinks he's going to get purges and show trials for writing articles. No. None of that will happen. You can either accept it and live to a ripe old age or get killed by the police as you try to spark a revolution with your AR-15. Choose wisely, anon.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Fair enough, but… leaving aside any fearmongering conspiracy theories or religious dogma, do any of the European countries that have experienced significant Muslim immigration strike you as inspiring examples for the future?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  11. Voltara says:

    Here in Australia the muslim population has been building quickly. It has resulted in new classes of crime and social discord which were unknown before. Our helpful senior police dismiss the daily shootings in Western Sydney as statistically unimportant and evidence only of irrational thinking, in the same way the article above suggests. Gunshots are only heard two or three times a night and averaged across the nation, those affected by two or three exchanges of gunfire a day are a tiny percentage of the population.

    But there’s more to this than calculations of probability. A decade ago this was unheard of in Australia. Previously the possibility of being shot at random in our streets was non-existent. So the current pattern is in fact an exponential escalation and creates a whole new class of anxiety and fear.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Not a problem in Melbourne so far as I am aware though gangs of African descended youths who haven't yet killed anyone are a pretty good argument against idiotic refugee policies. Can you point to some objective statistical reports to support your description of Sydney's Muslim malaise?
    , @Moi
    Yup, aside from that, Aussie are a law-abiding, racist, drunk folk who'll do America's bidding.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. anonymous[271] • Disclaimer says:

    Thank you Mr.Isaacs. You are doing a blessed job in exposing these cursed hypocrites. May peace be upon you.

    That said, let me say to everyone that it is amazing that European theists find true monotheism* so distasteful. Why, simply because it was irreversibly established (the real proof of the Almighty One’s infinite mercy to mankind) by a brown man, and primarily followed by brown men? Which is ironical because their own pagan human-worshipping faith so obviously borrowed heavily from pagan faiths of other brown men.

    Here is an image of “the father” of those brown pagans (yeah, those self-loathers like to depict themselves as palefaces too :) ).

    And then, there is the thought that Islam is medieval, and followed only by “savages,” because of its “medeival-ness,” strictness, etc. So, because of its perceived “medeival-ness,” true monotheism is to be rejected as illogical, and paganism and human/idol-worship becomes more logical? Deluded fools.

    White supremacy has set the Europeans on the pagan polytheist path to Hell, and it is hilarious (and pathetic) that they exult in it.

    * True Monotheism: One God, Infinitely Powerful (no power or might except with Him, hence no need for partners), Unique (like none other, unimaginable)
    You will find that none of these attributes of God contradict each other, so unlike much of pagan dogma.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Moi
    Interestingly, Muslims have high respect for Christ and the other prophets. Xians and Jews hate Muslims--ergo, that makes Xians/Jews superior. LOL.
    , @Dagon Shield
    For 500 million pounds of homegrown rice, over the course of the last millennium, half billion starving Hindus were conned, which is the logical explanation, into believing the medieval Middle Eastern gobbledygook by the rice extracting Arab shysters, who were by all accounts intellectually lazy and had in all earnest, copied the Hebrew inspired biblical faith and rebranded as God given creed... the subcontinent suffers, even now, the noxious fumes of illiterate jihadists. No thanks, we're all stocked up here with the malarkey!
    , @Anon
    By brown pagans do you mean Hindus?
    , @James Forrestal
    lol

    Word salad. Try joogling "Indo-European," for starters.

    And of course, your desperate attempt to falsely portray Christianity as polytheistic "idolatry," your reflexive conflation of race and religion, and your rabid anti-White hatred... are all rather more characteristic of a different Middle Eastern/ Semitic tribe than the Arab you claim to be. Just sayin'
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. The west terrorised Muslims since a long time.
    The Dutch VOC already forbade trade by Muslims.
    Churchill, in his first book, blamed Muslim resistance to British brutal colonialism on Islam.
    Churchill approved of the genocide he described as a war correspondent.
    Lawrence promised the Arabs their own state for fighting with the British in WWI against the Ottoman empire, Churchill ordered the use of poison gas in Damascus in 1918 to end that state.
    There is much fuss about Muslim terrorism, but when one discounts the obvious non Muslim terrorism, such as Sept 11, I’m surprised there is so little Muslim terrorism, ‘the strategy of the weak’, as Mearsheimer and Walt write.
    C.R. Boxer, ´The Dutch Seaborne Empire 1600 – 1800´, London 1965, 1977
    Winston Churchill, ‘The Story of the Malakand Field Force’, 1898, 2004, New York
    Ian Hernon, ‘Britain’s Forgotten Wars, Colonial Campaigns of the 19th Century’, 2003, 2007, Chalford – Stroud
    John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, ‘The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy’, New York 2007

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jake
    Spoken like a Mohammedan living in the Low Countries among all the atheist and agnostic anti-Christendom fruits of Calvinism.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Medvedev says:

    Three things that make Islam incompatible with Western values and civilization:
    1. Sharia law
    2. Jihad
    3. Muhammad is the best human being that ever lived. Role model for any true Muslim.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. Tyrion 2 says:

    I have lived in Cyprus and in various English cities. I agree that the threat of terrorism is overblown. But, in every other conceivable way, the Muslim community in Oxford, Banbury, Rotherham, and Rochdale could not behave much worse than it does

    If an area is high crime, not well-kept and less white than usual then you are racist for noticing just that it is high crime and not well-kept.

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/youtubers-apologise-and-delete-video-discussing-dangerous-areas-in-london-after-they-were-accused-of-a3900921.html?amp

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  16. @bubbaluv
    Taquiyya.

    I win.

    Oh, you mean pikuach nefesh in Hebrew. I would never have guessed you are a Shi`ite.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Forrestal

    Oh, you mean pikuach nefesh in Hebrew. I would never have guessed you are a Shi`ite.
     
    Or perhaps Kol Nidre. Or lashon hara.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. @Johnny Rottenborough
    They regularly quote a single sentence that refers to ‘destroying the Western civilization from within’ so that ‘God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions’

    For goodness’ sake, it isn’t just ‘a single sentence’, it is the word of Allah as revealed in Qur’an 8:39 – ‘Make war on them [the unbelievers] until idolatry is no more and Allah’s religion reigns supreme.’

    The objection to Islam is not its ‘threat to national security’ but to the backward societies it has spawned. Given half a chance, Islam will inevitably drag the West down to the same primitive level, a prospect which the West’s greatest enemy finds utterly delicious.

    “For goodness’ sake, it isn’t just ‘a single sentence’, it is the word of Allah as revealed in Qur’an 8:39 – ‘Make war on them [the unbelievers] until idolatry is no more and Allah’s religion reigns supreme.’”

    In that respect, America’s permanent war footing makes for a perfect fit with it becoming an Islamic nation, and we’re halfway along to turning the US into a third-workd country along the lines of Brazil, so what the heck, let’s embrace our inner Sharia and submit so we can rule.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Nazi founding fathers were more “liberal” than average Muslims: http://takimag.com/article/nazis_vs_muslims_who_hateth_the_most_david_cole/print#axzz5Mumi8ozV

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Please, the Germans have been guilt tripped enough - that’s not cool anymore.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. Talha says:
    @Bardon Kaldian
    Nazi founding fathers were more "liberal" than average Muslims: http://takimag.com/article/nazis_vs_muslims_who_hateth_the_most_david_cole/print#axzz5Mumi8ozV

    Please, the Germans have been guilt tripped enough – that’s not cool anymore.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Agree: Biff
    • Replies: @Wally
    said: "Please, the Germans have been guilt tripped enough – that’s not cool anymore."

    Especially considering how fake & impossible the alleged '6M Jews & gas chambers' are.

    Only liars demand censorship.

    The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the 'holocaust' scam debunked here: http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here: http://forum.codoh.com
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Jake says:

    What do Jews and Mohammedans have in common in addition to claims of descent from Abraham and murderous contempt for one another?

    Their religious views, from which spring their basic cultural views, are anti-Christ to the core, and they do recognize that only white people built the Christendom that they despise.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    If only white people built Christendom, then is the Bible wrong in telling that the Church actually began recruiting Africans very early (Acts 8:26-40) and elevated these Blacks to positions of leadership (Acts 13:1)?
    , @Colin Wright
    '...Their religious views, from which spring their basic cultural views, are anti-Christ to the core, and they do recognize that only white people built the Christendom that they despise...'

    That's comic. You do realize that the Quran identifies Christ as a prophet, and asserts that he was the product of a virgin birth?
    , @Druid
    I don't think Moslems are anti- Christ as are the Jews. The prophet said that Christians were the closest to Moslems
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. The only enemy I see wears a cloak of decency and resides in Washington, D.C. ” The very first signpost on this historically familiar road to tyranny is an atmosphere of hate, suspicion, and vindictiveness. It first begins as an outwardly directed aggression and then rather abruptly turns inward upon itself.”

    https://www.activistpost.com/2011/05/10-indications-united-states-is.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  22. Islamophobia: “A word created by fascists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  23. JHN says:

    It’s a Pedo and Murder Cult, it is not a Religion
    I’ll never trust or turn my back on these Animals along with…..others.
    Simply put…
    “Import more third-worlders, get more third-world conditions.”

    Read More
    • Agree: Clyde
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  24. Jake says:
    @jilles dykstra
    The west terrorised Muslims since a long time.
    The Dutch VOC already forbade trade by Muslims.
    Churchill, in his first book, blamed Muslim resistance to British brutal colonialism on Islam.
    Churchill approved of the genocide he described as a war correspondent.
    Lawrence promised the Arabs their own state for fighting with the British in WWI against the Ottoman empire, Churchill ordered the use of poison gas in Damascus in 1918 to end that state.
    There is much fuss about Muslim terrorism, but when one discounts the obvious non Muslim terrorism, such as Sept 11, I'm surprised there is so little Muslim terrorism, 'the strategy of the weak', as Mearsheimer and Walt write.
    C.R. Boxer, ´The Dutch Seaborne Empire 1600 – 1800´, London 1965, 1977
    Winston Churchill, ‘The Story of the Malakand Field Force’, 1898, 2004, New York
    Ian Hernon, 'Britain's Forgotten Wars, Colonial Campaigns of the 19th Century', 2003, 2007, Chalford - Stroud
    John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, ‘The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy’, New York 2007

    Spoken like a Mohammedan living in the Low Countries among all the atheist and agnostic anti-Christendom fruits of Calvinism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    Jake, you must really hate the atheist and agnostic St. Augustine, since the basic doctrines of the Calvinistic position had been vigorously defended by Augustine against Pelagius during the fifth century.

    "Augustine is so wholly with me, that if I wished to write a confession of my faith, I could do so with all fulness and satisfaction to myself out of his writings." -John Calvin

    “There is hardly a doctrine of Calvin that does not bear the marks of Augustine’s influence.” -Alvin L. Baker

    “The system of doctrine taught by Calvin is just the Augustinianism common to the whole body of the Reformers.” -B. B. Warfield

    “The main features of Calvin’s theology are found in the writings of St. Augustine to such an extent that many theologians regard Calvinism as a more fully developed form of Augustinianism.” - C. Gregg Singer
    , @jilles dykstra
    Great parents of mine built a Mennist, Quaker, church around 1810.
    It still exists.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. Anin says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    To back up that conclusion, the well-funded Islamophobia publicity machine incessantly repeats two specific assertions.

     

    What about the specific assertion that Muslims did 9/11? That is a false assertion that they are constantly repeating too, isn't it?

    I am glad to be sighting you here, man.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
    Thanks.

    You (and others) might be interested in a a satirical article on 9/11 and such that I wrote recently. It's rather different from anything else I previously wrote:

    https://heresycentral.com/revusky/welcome-to-terra-prime/

    There is also the audio of my talk to the "Deep Truth" conference from June. It's rather humorous. Or at least some people think so.

    https://heresycentral.com/revusky/my-talk-from-the-deep-truth-conference-june-2018/

    Any feedback on these things is quite welcome. In particular, I am interested in fomenting activity on the discussion forum I set up in a Q&A format. Some people might be interested in contributing an answer to the question: "What was your own personal red pill moment?"

    https://heresycentral.com/community/personal-testimony/what-was-your-own-personal-red-pill-moment/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. anonymous[409] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jake
    What do Jews and Mohammedans have in common in addition to claims of descent from Abraham and murderous contempt for one another?

    Their religious views, from which spring their basic cultural views, are anti-Christ to the core, and they do recognize that only white people built the Christendom that they despise.

    If only white people built Christendom, then is the Bible wrong in telling that the Church actually began recruiting Africans very early (Acts 8:26-40) and elevated these Blacks to positions of leadership (Acts 13:1)?

    Read More
    • Replies: @DFH

    In the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul.
     
    Thinking that everyone with the epithet 'the black' in history was African is we wuz kangz tier reasoning
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. @Voltara
    Here in Australia the muslim population has been building quickly. It has resulted in new classes of crime and social discord which were unknown before. Our helpful senior police dismiss the daily shootings in Western Sydney as statistically unimportant and evidence only of irrational thinking, in the same way the article above suggests. Gunshots are only heard two or three times a night and averaged across the nation, those affected by two or three exchanges of gunfire a day are a tiny percentage of the population.

    But there's more to this than calculations of probability. A decade ago this was unheard of in Australia. Previously the possibility of being shot at random in our streets was non-existent. So the current pattern is in fact an exponential escalation and creates a whole new class of anxiety and fear.

    Not a problem in Melbourne so far as I am aware though gangs of African descended youths who haven’t yet killed anyone are a pretty good argument against idiotic refugee policies. Can you point to some objective statistical reports to support your description of Sydney’s Muslim malaise?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. @22pp22
    If you had lived where I have lived, you would not have written this piece.

    I have only briefly visited America. The last time I visited the country was in 2012 and I only stayed three days.

    Three days in LA are three days I can never have back. Fortunately, I have friends there.

    I have lived in Cyprus and in various English cities. I agree that the threat of terrorism is overblown. But, in every other conceivable way, the Muslim community in Oxford, Banbury, Rotherham, and Rochdale could not behave much worse than it does.

    The only people I dislike more are the white Liberal social workers and policewomen who have facilitated their criminality to boost their own sense of moral self-importance.

    I see no mention of numbers of Muslims in various Western countries, or their sometimes distinctive characteristics. My impression is that US Muslims are an insignificant minority (unless they were all fanatics and one were looking for willing snipers). Moreover they are not generally unskilled or economically lower class. By contrast the UK seems to be suffering from having imported cheap labour from the dregs of inbreeding tribalists in the Empire several decades ago.

    Read More
    • Replies: @22pp22
    My comments are based on where I have lived. I also know Vitry-sur-Seine in Paris where it's even worse.
    , @Anon
    Isn’t it more lifelong welfare slugs instead of cheap labor?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. anonymous[586] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jake
    Spoken like a Mohammedan living in the Low Countries among all the atheist and agnostic anti-Christendom fruits of Calvinism.

    Jake, you must really hate the atheist and agnostic St. Augustine, since the basic doctrines of the Calvinistic position had been vigorously defended by Augustine against Pelagius during the fifth century.

    “Augustine is so wholly with me, that if I wished to write a confession of my faith, I could do so with all fulness and satisfaction to myself out of his writings.” -John Calvin

    “There is hardly a doctrine of Calvin that does not bear the marks of Augustine’s influence.” -Alvin L. Baker

    “The system of doctrine taught by Calvin is just the Augustinianism common to the whole body of the Reformers.” -B. B. Warfield

    “The main features of Calvin’s theology are found in the writings of St. Augustine to such an extent that many theologians regard Calvinism as a more fully developed form of Augustinianism.” – C. Gregg Singer

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Jilles denies he is a Calvinist or any kind of Christian. He is an atheist. His religion is anti Americanism.

    He’s unusually obsessed with the 500 years ago conflict between the Dutch Reformed Church and Catholics for an atheist.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Anonymous[266] • Disclaimer says:

    They’ll make the West as lovely as the lands they’ve fled from.

    http://www.unionleader.com/crime/jackson-inn-worker-charged-with-hate-crime-after-trying-to-remove-unwelcome-patrons-20180731

    Jackson inn worker charged with hate crime after trying to remove unwelcome patrons
    By KEVIN LANDRIGAN
    New Hampshire Union Leader
    July 31, 2018

    [MORE]

    OSSIPEE — A worker at a Jackson inn has been charged with a hate crime for physically removing two patrons from the establishment because of their religion and perceived national origin, state and county prosecutors allege.

    Priscilla Protasowicki, 32, will face an “enhanced criminal sentence” if the two counts of simple assault are proven to have been motivated by hate, said prosecutors.

    The simple assault charges carry a possible maximum sentence of five years in New Hampshire State Prison.

    In addition, Attorney General Gordon J. MacDonald announced he has begun a New Hampshire Civil Rights Act claim against the woman.

    The charges allege that while working at the Covered Bridge Riverview Lodge in Jackson, Protasowicki tried to remove the patrons because of their religion and nationality.

    Protasowicki, who manages the inn, said she made no mention of the couple’s religion and didn’t assault them.

    The prosecutor said the Massachusetts couple, identified as Mohamed Ghallami and Chahrazade Mounaji, arrived and got upset when they saw a Sept. 11 first-responder’s badge in the lobby.

    They demanded a refund. But under the inn’s policy, refunds weren’t possible, Protasowicki said.

    Prosecutors maintain she used physical force to remove the couple which she has denied.

    Carroll County Attorney Michaela Andruzzi and her staff will lead the prosecution, MacDonald said.

    The New Hampshire Civil Rights Act violation carries with it a maximum fine of $5,000 and could also result in having to award restitution to the unidentified alleged victims in this case.

    Protasowicki will be arraigned Aug. 22 in Carroll County Superior Court in Ossipee.

    A hearing on the alleged civil rights violation is set for Aug. 24 in the same location, officials said.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  31. Seraphim says:

    Isn’t “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America” reminding you the ‘Protocols’ affair? Islamophobia replacing antisemitism? I am joking.

    “Civilization Jihad:” Debunking the Conspiracy Theory…
    “does not reflect the Muslim Brotherhood’s agenda as outlined in documents obtained by the FBI”
    “importantly, nowhere else in the public collection of Muslim Brotherhood documents from the trial is it mentioned.
    “Rather than “laying out” a conclusive Muslim Brotherhood-approved plan, as Gaffney and Carson would lead their audiences to believe, this document is, at most, one man’s utopian vision or, in the words of the Southern Poverty Law Center, a “fantasy.” of a single member, albeit an ominous one”.
    “Akram’s arguments and phrasing in Arabic are rarely found on the web and not found in Islamic doctrine or literature. While there are some Arabic news articles from the last decade reporting about the memo and reproducing the most disturbing bits of Akram’s language, his ideas are not widespread online… blah, blah.
    Has nothing to do with Islam….
    At least they don’t say that the document is a forgery.

    History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  32. Eighthman says:

    Somebody tell me that the US isn’t going to repeat the reactive errors of the McCarthy era and make enemies out of people who were otherwise useful. Or the mistakes of Hitler in expelling “Jewish Physics”.

    I see lots of Muslim names anytime I walk into a hospital – encountering doctors who probably left whatever sh*thole country to make money here. That ain’t very Ummah spirited.

    Just try to keep the poor jihadist-prone types out. You know, the ones that the FBI recruits online so that they can appear competent ( “We caught these guys from Buffalo/Detroit trying to…….”)

    I swear it’s enough to make a person believe in conspiracy theories when nations such as Germany keep importing unskilled labor that their economy has little or no use for, Muslim or not.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    No conspiracy at all, a 2009 EU official document states that sixty million immigrants are needed.
    Macron even called for 200 million.
    The idiot is not even capable of integrating the present five million Muslims in France.

    The illusion seems to be that they're needed because on average the original European population is aging.
    It may well be that undelying motives are to destroy the present 28 or so European cultures, so that the Great European Nation can be established, or that Merkel really believes that Germans are bad, they are guilty of two world wars and the holocaust, so a 'new German' must be created through mass immigration.
    Writing this I wonder if in fact Merkel is a racist, a negative one.
    , @Wally
    Except that McCarthy was correct in his assessments.

    Please show us where Hitler expelled anyone because of their "physics".

    I get your points, but I suggest you use historically accurate comparisons.
    You seem to have taken the bait.

    Thanks.

    www.codoh.com
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Moi says:
    @forgottenpseudonym
    Almost every assertion in this article that Muslims are not generally supportive of extremism is false, unless Muslims in America are a wholly different proposition to Muslims in Europe. Unlikely.
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2014.935307

    The Dems say the same about the Deplorables–and vice verse.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Forrestal
    What is drives the Pakistani Muslim rape gangs that have preyed on so many indigenous English girls? Is it:

    1. Christophobia
    2. Generalized hatred for all kuffar
    3. Racial hatred for/ jealousy of the autochthonous peoples of Europe, or
    4. A combination of all 3.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Moi says:
    @Voltara
    Here in Australia the muslim population has been building quickly. It has resulted in new classes of crime and social discord which were unknown before. Our helpful senior police dismiss the daily shootings in Western Sydney as statistically unimportant and evidence only of irrational thinking, in the same way the article above suggests. Gunshots are only heard two or three times a night and averaged across the nation, those affected by two or three exchanges of gunfire a day are a tiny percentage of the population.

    But there's more to this than calculations of probability. A decade ago this was unheard of in Australia. Previously the possibility of being shot at random in our streets was non-existent. So the current pattern is in fact an exponential escalation and creates a whole new class of anxiety and fear.

    Yup, aside from that, Aussie are a law-abiding, racist, drunk folk who’ll do America’s bidding.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Moi says:
    @anonymous
    Thank you Mr.Isaacs. You are doing a blessed job in exposing these cursed hypocrites. May peace be upon you.



    That said, let me say to everyone that it is amazing that European theists find true monotheism* so distasteful. Why, simply because it was irreversibly established (the real proof of the Almighty One’s infinite mercy to mankind) by a brown man, and primarily followed by brown men? Which is ironical because their own pagan human-worshipping faith so obviously borrowed heavily from pagan faiths of other brown men.

    Here is an image of “the father” of those brown pagans (yeah, those self-loathers like to depict themselves as palefaces too :) ).
    http://www.wordzz.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/brahma-01.jpeg

    And then, there is the thought that Islam is medieval, and followed only by “savages,” because of its “medeival-ness,” strictness, etc. So, because of its perceived “medeival-ness,” true monotheism is to be rejected as illogical, and paganism and human/idol-worship becomes more logical? Deluded fools.

    White supremacy has set the Europeans on the pagan polytheist path to Hell, and it is hilarious (and pathetic) that they exult in it.

    --

    * True Monotheism: One God, Infinitely Powerful (no power or might except with Him, hence no need for partners), Unique (like none other, unimaginable)
    You will find that none of these attributes of God contradict each other, so unlike much of pagan dogma.

    Interestingly, Muslims have high respect for Christ and the other prophets. Xians and Jews hate Muslims–ergo, that makes Xians/Jews superior. LOL.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. pensword says:
    @forgottenpseudonym
    Almost every assertion in this article that Muslims are not generally supportive of extremism is false, unless Muslims in America are a wholly different proposition to Muslims in Europe. Unlikely.
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2014.935307

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2014.935307

    “24 hours access for USD 42.40″

    No, thanks.

    BTW, Pew’s results are free of charge:

    Despite their concerns about extremism in the name of Islam in the U.S., about three-quarters of Muslim Americans say there is either little or no support for extremism within the American Muslim community, including 30% who say there is “not much” support for extremism and 43% who say there is “none at all.” Just 17% say there is either a “great deal” (6%) or a “fair amount” (11%) of support for extremism.

    You’re welcome.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. @Eighthman
    Somebody tell me that the US isn't going to repeat the reactive errors of the McCarthy era and make enemies out of people who were otherwise useful. Or the mistakes of Hitler in expelling "Jewish Physics".

    I see lots of Muslim names anytime I walk into a hospital - encountering doctors who probably left whatever sh*thole country to make money here. That ain't very Ummah spirited.

    Just try to keep the poor jihadist-prone types out. You know, the ones that the FBI recruits online so that they can appear competent ( "We caught these guys from Buffalo/Detroit trying to.......")

    I swear it's enough to make a person believe in conspiracy theories when nations such as Germany keep importing unskilled labor that their economy has little or no use for, Muslim or not.

    No conspiracy at all, a 2009 EU official document states that sixty million immigrants are needed.
    Macron even called for 200 million.
    The idiot is not even capable of integrating the present five million Muslims in France.

    The illusion seems to be that they’re needed because on average the original European population is aging.
    It may well be that undelying motives are to destroy the present 28 or so European cultures, so that the Great European Nation can be established, or that Merkel really believes that Germans are bad, they are guilty of two world wars and the holocaust, so a ‘new German’ must be created through mass immigration.
    Writing this I wonder if in fact Merkel is a racist, a negative one.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Eighthman
    I can understand the NWO obsession with destroying Euro- culture but what goes into its place?

    Broken welfare states full of angry entitled semi-jihadists? Where is the proof of assimilation?

    More than that, what about Israel and Zionist influence? This trend in the EU would eventually militate against Israeli interests, big time.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. DFH says:
    @anonymous
    If only white people built Christendom, then is the Bible wrong in telling that the Church actually began recruiting Africans very early (Acts 8:26-40) and elevated these Blacks to positions of leadership (Acts 13:1)?

    In the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul.

    Thinking that everyone with the epithet ‘the black’ in history was African is we wuz kangz tier reasoning

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. Ibn Issam says:

    Another great article by Arnold Isaacs, exposing the falsehoods of the highly well funded Islamophobia industry campaign to smear Islam and Muslims.

    I am always shocked to see so many bigoted, hateful, racist remarks in the comment section that are so often ignorant of true Islamic teachings, and real Muslim belief and sentiments. For instance, cherry picking verses from the Qur’an and quoting them out of context, (a tired Islamophobic tactic) does not prove a civilizational Jihad.

    Though I shouldn’t be surprised that the Islamophobia Campaign has certainly had its affect on numerous individuals who clearly can’t seem to do their own thinking or take an unbiased approach to Islam and Muslim people.

    Such a person would do well to deprogram themselves, in order to break free from the incessant drone of the Islamophobia smear campaign message, reeducate themselves with basic facts about the subject, and return to reality.

    Arnold Isaacs is right that the untruths of the Islamophobic smear campaign are not just bigoted and dishonest but dangerous.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Well funded campaign? Who is doing the funding?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. Talha says:

    This article is fairly good. This summary is also on point:

    The vast majority of American Muslims oppose extremism and violence by Muslims or anyone else and have no wish to live under the brutal rule practiced by jihadist fanatics. As a religious minority in a country where their faith makes them potential victims of hate crimes, Muslims have stronger reasons than most Americans for believing in and practicing religious tolerance, not holy war.

    There are for sure ISIS-fanbois lurking on Twitter and other places (these guys – assuming they are real and not traps – are the most low-IQ and knuckle-headed pieces of work in the Muslim community), but the super-majority of the Muslim community (especially in the US) doesn’t want anything to do with them and, frankly wishes they would all just go to some designated island for their caliphate LARP-fest.

    Also good points on the Muslim Brotherhood, which can barely keep a grip on power when put in control of Egypt (the country of their origin) and easily pushed aside by a tin-pot military dictatorship. Hardly a major threat to be concerned with. In fact, I would hope they stay out of US politics (other than local ones), it’s a dirty game played by someone else’s rules and waaaay too early to jump the gun on something like that. Concentrate on dawah, keeping SJW-ism from infecting the tradition (it is super annoying how many of these public Muslim politicians are pro-SJW on almost all topics – yuck) and let the politics flow organically a couple of generations later.

    Criticisms:
    1) Far too much usage of the Islamophobia meme – loses credibility.
    2) Not enough emphasis on how deeply involved Zionist (or pro-Zionist) groups are in this threat-inflation.

    I also think this article deals with the dynamics of the US specifically – it is too focused to be applied to minority Muslim communities in other countries.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  41. Eighthman says:
    @jilles dykstra
    No conspiracy at all, a 2009 EU official document states that sixty million immigrants are needed.
    Macron even called for 200 million.
    The idiot is not even capable of integrating the present five million Muslims in France.

    The illusion seems to be that they're needed because on average the original European population is aging.
    It may well be that undelying motives are to destroy the present 28 or so European cultures, so that the Great European Nation can be established, or that Merkel really believes that Germans are bad, they are guilty of two world wars and the holocaust, so a 'new German' must be created through mass immigration.
    Writing this I wonder if in fact Merkel is a racist, a negative one.

    I can understand the NWO obsession with destroying Euro- culture but what goes into its place?

    Broken welfare states full of angry entitled semi-jihadists? Where is the proof of assimilation?

    More than that, what about Israel and Zionist influence? This trend in the EU would eventually militate against Israeli interests, big time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha

    Where is the proof of assimilation?
     
    There is no assimilation. Integration is quite likely, though.

    If European countries go Muzzie, the outcome will depend on the process; is it a demographic replacement by non-native Muslims or do native Europeans themselves become Muslim. Malaysia is not Yemen is not Albania is not Niger...

    what goes into its place?
     
    If you have time, this is an interesting contrast about what happens to churches in a post-Christian societies:
    "Although others willing to pay three times the price to turn the church into a bar, it was sold to a Muslim group for much less money so God could still be worshiped in a house of God."
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SV4pURZYOy0

    "Where Churches Have Become Temples of Cheese, Fitness and Eroticism...The radical makeovers of Quebec churches reflect the drastic decline of the Catholic Church in a majority-Catholic Canadian province, where 95 percent of the population went to Mass in the 1950s but only 5 percent do so today."
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/30/world/canada/quebec-churches.html

    Now - people can have a problem with all this, but are they willing to pony up the money to keep these buildings going and attend them? Because talk is cheap - I have been involved in fundraising efforts for multiple mosques and it requires time, dedication and serious effort.

    Peace.
    , @jilles dykstra
    Why do you think Soros wants anything to replace the European cultures ?
    Why should his sentiments differ from the ideas of father and son Morgenthau ?
    Schacht at a dinner in the White House sat next to Morgenthau jr, he found him extraordinarily stupid.
    Hjalmar Schacht, ´76 Jahre meines Lebens’, Bad Wörishofen, 1953
    As I stated before, Churchill understood the consequences of the Morgenthau Plan of jr 'I'm not going to be chained to a corpse'.
    If the Morgenthau Plan is comparable to no deal between EU and GB, I do not think so, nevertheless:
    https://www.telegraaf.nl/nieuws/2378686/project-fear-voor-eu
    What the Brussels idiots think they're doing, I do not know.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. Wally says:
    @Talha
    Please, the Germans have been guilt tripped enough - that’s not cool anymore.

    Peace.

    said: “Please, the Germans have been guilt tripped enough – that’s not cool anymore.”

    Especially considering how fake & impossible the alleged ’6M Jews & gas chambers’ are.

    Only liars demand censorship.

    The ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the ‘holocaust’ scam debunked here: http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here: http://forum.codoh.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Wally says:

    I noticed that Arnold Issacs leaves Jews / Israel’s loathing of Muslims out of the picture.

    He quite expectedly does not mention Israel’s strictly enforced Jews Only immigration laws which are supported by US Jews.

    Issacs, a wolf in sheeps clothing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    From the very beginnings of Islam, Jews and Muslims have been allies, sharing the same objective: destruction of 'Rum' - the Christian Roman Empire. They always availed themselves of their 'cousinage'. "But you, too, are children of Abraham and sons of the patriarch. Arise with us and save us from service to the emperor of the Romans, and together we shall hold our realm. [The Arabs] were encouraged further hearing this, and went against Judaea and Asorestan (Syria)".
    There is no doubt but in the minds of Muslims that Mahomed was 'inspired' by Judaism (albeit in some of its 'heretical' forms - but all anti-Christian). The Muslim-Jewish squabbles and deceptive 'parting of the ways' were mostly due to claims of primacy in this unholy alliance. Who was the rightful heir of Abraham, Isaac (the legitimate son of Abraham) or Ishmael (his bastard son)? Who has rights over the 'Temple Mount' (the fake story of the 'ascent to heavens' of Mahomed from Jerusalem - implying that Mahomed had his revelation in the Jewish Temple - was too much for the Jews)?
    But this collaboration persisted in fact along the centuries, despite those apparent squabbles. Their 'cousinage' hold firm. Jews deny that Jesus was a descendant of Abraham. For them Jesus is 'Yeshua ben Pantera', the son of a Roman soldier and a prostitute. As illegitimate he is excluded from the 'abrahamic' coterie.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. pensword says:
    @Johnny Rottenborough
    They regularly quote a single sentence that refers to ‘destroying the Western civilization from within’ so that ‘God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions’

    For goodness’ sake, it isn’t just ‘a single sentence’, it is the word of Allah as revealed in Qur’an 8:39 – ‘Make war on them [the unbelievers] until idolatry is no more and Allah’s religion reigns supreme.’

    The objection to Islam is not its ‘threat to national security’ but to the backward societies it has spawned. Given half a chance, Islam will inevitably drag the West down to the same primitive level, a prospect which the West’s greatest enemy finds utterly delicious.

    Qur’an 8:39 – ‘Make war on them [the unbelievers] until idolatry is no more and Allah’s religion reigns supreme.’

    1. The Arabic term for “war” (harb) does not appear in this verse. The term qaatilu means “fight,” which does not necessitate an explicitly martial endeavor.

    2. The Arabic word usually translated as “idolatry” (shirk) appears nowhere in this verse. The term that appears is fitnah, more accurately translated here as “persecution,” which, given the historical context of this verse, applies to actual ~ as opposed to imaginary ~ acts of aggression.

    3. The Arabic word usually translated as “unbelievers” (kaafirun) is not only a bad translation of the term, it appears nowhere in this verse and is a misleading parenthetical addition.

    4. The phrase “… and Allah’s religion reigns supreme” should be translated “… and religion is for God alone.” The orthodox understanding of religion being “for God alone” is reflected in 2: 256, “No compulsion in religion,” whereby protection of religious liberty is explicitly codified. As such, there is no threat to your religion ~ or lack thereof ~ under the aegis of Islam.

    The objection to Islam is not its ‘threat to national security’ but to the backward societies it has spawned.

    When Islam was the preponderant influence in the Arab world, muslims “spawned” such innovations as inoculation, quarantine, coffee, spherical trigonometry and the world’s first university. Europe’s Renaissance wouldn’t have happened without those “backward societies” of which you speak.

    It isn’t Islam, but rather, the lack of it that has plagued the millenial muslim world for centuries. Being an American myself, I could easily recite a litany of phenomena that undermine the illusion of western “enlightenment,” but I find it more useful to share common ground between myself and people of understanding. If you’d rather bicker, have at it. I can’t be bothered with people who have nothing to “teach” me but ignorance.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johnny Rottenborough
    pensword—The translation is N J Dawood’s, first published in 1956. The root q-t-l, particularly its form III as used in Qur’an 8:39, is examined here by the Revd Mark Durie. If Durie is correct in saying that many form III verbs ‘denote an intentional, sustained activity directed towards an object’, Dawood’s use of ‘war’ seems reasonable.

    The Quranic Arabic Corpus translation of the preceding verse, 8:38, begins ‘Say to those who disbelieve’. Again, the use of ‘unbelievers’ seems reasonable.

    I think it is generally agreed that 2:256 is abrogated by later verses.

    Regarding ‘backward societies’, I had in mind Chapter 7 of Christopher Caldwell’s Reflections on the Revolution in Europe:

    ‘The Islamic world is an economic and intellectual basket case, the part of the potentially civilized world most left behind by progress, as the annual Arab Human Development Reports published by the United Nations make plain, year after year…Spain translates more foreign books in a year than all the Arabic-speaking countries have translated since the reign of Caliph Mamoun in the ninth century. Half of Arab youths polled want to emigrate from their countries. Outside of fossil fuels, the entire Arab world exports less than Finland does.’
    , @Karl
    44 pensword > coffee

    copied from the Ethiopians and copied long before Mohammed was born

    > spherical trigonometry

    stolen (at swordpoint) from Zoroastrian Persians


    > As such, there is no threat to your religion ~ or lack thereof ~ under the aegis of Islam.


    i'll mention that to the Christans in Pakistan

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. @Jake
    What do Jews and Mohammedans have in common in addition to claims of descent from Abraham and murderous contempt for one another?

    Their religious views, from which spring their basic cultural views, are anti-Christ to the core, and they do recognize that only white people built the Christendom that they despise.

    ‘…Their religious views, from which spring their basic cultural views, are anti-Christ to the core, and they do recognize that only white people built the Christendom that they despise…’

    That’s comic. You do realize that the Quran identifies Christ as a prophet, and asserts that he was the product of a virgin birth?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    And that he will come back to help lead the Ummah and we have a burial spot reserved for him in Madinah near the grave of the Prophet (pbuh).

    Most traditional Muslims see Christendom like a heretical older brother of sorts - which is what the early church fathers saw us as - an Ishmaelite heresy.

    Sure we scuffle a hell of a lot, but hey, boys will be boys.

    Peace.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. Ibn Issam says:

    For more information on the Islamophobia Network and the organizations that fund this deceptive hate manufacturing industry go to Center for American Progress and download the report below:

    Fear Inc. 2.0

    https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/religion/reports/2015/02/11/106394/fear-inc-2-0/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  47. Another crutch that Islamophobes like to lean on is the supposed economic failure of all Islamic societies.

    Well, agreed, Islamic countries aren’t in Western Europe or North America. However, on the other hand, many Latin American and subsaharan African countries would be ‘Christian’ — and some of them are doing very badly, thank you. Haiti? Paraguay? The Philippines are ‘Christian’ — and hardly the economic star of East Asia.

    Conversely, several Muslim states are doing quite well: Malaysia and Turkey come to mind. Lebanon’s always a disaster politically — but manages to do surprisingly well economically. Indonesia’s rapidly climbing out of ‘third world hellhole’ status.

    Actually, if one must rank countries by their professed religion, the hold Buddhism has on Southeast Asia makes that religion our great explanation for economic failure: Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos. Statistically, Buddhism would appear to be ‘worse’ than Islam.

    But maybe it all has little to do with religion, and beating up on Islam because it supposedly causes poverty is no more reasonable that asserting that everyone should become an Episcopalian because it makes you rich?

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    The British empire began with ruling the waves, but the empire really got under way with abundant coal and iron, and good inland waterways.
    As far as I know no Muslim country had or has iron and coal, without iron oil is useless.
    Bernard Lewis wrote his book about Islam 'What went wrong ?'.
    Well, overland trade stopped in the Ottoman empire because W European countries sailed around Africa.
    Present Turkey, more and more a mess, thanks to Erdogan.
    Indonesia, the country with most Muslims indeed, but not a Muslim country, Islam hardly has any political influence.
    The only, in my opinion, succesfull Muslim country is Iran.
    Holding out against USA sanctions.
    , @mark green
    You make excellent points. What's extremely important is the culture and DNA of these 'Muslim' or 'Buddhist' or 'Christian' nations/regions as far as determining their 1) long-term compatibility with the (white) West or 2) their potential for global economic competitiveness and likely cultural progress/development going forward.

    Basic question: Are the nations Caucasoid, Mongoloid or Negroid? This question should not be avoided.

    And within this demographic, how many are 'Ice People' (light skinned) vs. 'Sun People' (dark skinned)? These demographic factors often matter more than a culture's sometimes-shifting religious orientation.

    Ideologies can change/evolve rapidly. Not so a people's DNA.

    Muslim Turkey and Iran, for instance, have far more talent and potential going forward than nominally 'Christian' (but hopelessly backward) states like El Salvador, Venezuela, or Zimbabwe. It's the IQ and DNA, stupid.

    We should also keep in mind that virtually all sub-Saharan nations in Africa (as well as most uninhabitable 'inner cities' in the US) are majority-Christian yet incapable of lawful self-rule. Gee, how come?

    Why are these Christian-majority areas (even within the US) so abysmal compared to formerly-rising Muslim-majority states of Iraq, Syria or Libya? Is it the religion? Of course not.

    Much of it involves the DNA (temperment, cooperation and intelligence) of the residents.

    North Africa is mostly Caucasian. Sub-Saharan Africa is overwhelmingly Negroid. Religion is often a side-note in the story of how some nations/civilizations rise and others remain forever tribal and backward.

    The Islamophobic narrative about the 'Muslim' invasion of Europe is similarly distorted. This so-called 'invasion' is a direct consequence of serial, criminal, pro-Zionist military interventions conducted by the West throughout the Arab world. It's the Zionists, stupid.

    'Judeo-Christian' nations have criminally invaded Muslim-majority (anti-Zionist) counties and destroyed them. Who benefits?

    Why aren't the perpetrators of these mass-murders in prison?

    Incredibly, they're still 'leading' various Western states, appearing on television, writing books, giving lectures, and riding around in limousines and on private jets. The Iranians are right: this is political gangsterism.

    So-called Muslim states would be little threat to Europe or America if not for Zio-America's meddlesome campaigns of terror and intervention that have devastated Syria, Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon and Libya. Israel's arch-enemy, Iran, is next. We must try to stop this.

    This ongoing and dominant narrative which now blames 'Islam' for 'extremism' and the ongoing 'clash of civilizations' must be revised entirely.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. Wally says:
    @Eighthman
    Somebody tell me that the US isn't going to repeat the reactive errors of the McCarthy era and make enemies out of people who were otherwise useful. Or the mistakes of Hitler in expelling "Jewish Physics".

    I see lots of Muslim names anytime I walk into a hospital - encountering doctors who probably left whatever sh*thole country to make money here. That ain't very Ummah spirited.

    Just try to keep the poor jihadist-prone types out. You know, the ones that the FBI recruits online so that they can appear competent ( "We caught these guys from Buffalo/Detroit trying to.......")

    I swear it's enough to make a person believe in conspiracy theories when nations such as Germany keep importing unskilled labor that their economy has little or no use for, Muslim or not.

    Except that McCarthy was correct in his assessments.

    Please show us where Hitler expelled anyone because of their “physics”.

    I get your points, but I suggest you use historically accurate comparisons.
    You seem to have taken the bait.

    Thanks.

    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    • Replies: @Eighthman
    He didn't have to expel Jewish scientists. They left. Holocaust not required here. Europeans had demonstrated fission/chain reaction possibilities before anybody but Germans failed to create an atomic bomb. They screwed up and lost accordingly.

    And McCarthy was correct? No one innocent was hurt or affected by his witchhunt? Including Oppenheimer or Chinese scientists? Not possible in an imperfect world. Actions have consequences.

    Integration? If they are employed, well and good.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Talha says:
    @Eighthman
    I can understand the NWO obsession with destroying Euro- culture but what goes into its place?

    Broken welfare states full of angry entitled semi-jihadists? Where is the proof of assimilation?

    More than that, what about Israel and Zionist influence? This trend in the EU would eventually militate against Israeli interests, big time.

    Where is the proof of assimilation?

    There is no assimilation. Integration is quite likely, though.

    If European countries go Muzzie, the outcome will depend on the process; is it a demographic replacement by non-native Muslims or do native Europeans themselves become Muslim. Malaysia is not Yemen is not Albania is not Niger…

    what goes into its place?

    If you have time, this is an interesting contrast about what happens to churches in a post-Christian societies:
    “Although others willing to pay three times the price to turn the church into a bar, it was sold to a Muslim group for much less money so God could still be worshiped in a house of God.”

    “Where Churches Have Become Temples of Cheese, Fitness and Eroticism…The radical makeovers of Quebec churches reflect the drastic decline of the Catholic Church in a majority-Catholic Canadian province, where 95 percent of the population went to Mass in the 1950s but only 5 percent do so today.”

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/30/world/canada/quebec-churches.html

    Now – people can have a problem with all this, but are they willing to pony up the money to keep these buildings going and attend them? Because talk is cheap – I have been involved in fundraising efforts for multiple mosques and it requires time, dedication and serious effort.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. “Islamaphobia” is a contrived straw man word. The reason to reject islam and it’s practicioners is not fear but disgust. The philosophy of islam is antithetical to Liberty.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  51. Jeff77450 says:

    Mr. Isaacs, neither of us is going to change the other’s mind. I served in four Islamic visions of what can only be described as Hell on Earth, I kid you not. Said in all seriousness, the West is collectively *insane* to allow these people in and in large numbers. No, not all Muslims are quote-unquote bad although even the so-called moderates have beliefs that range from deeply disturbing to downright *hair-raising*. I’m telling you, Mr. Isaacs, and I’m quite serious, this is *not* going to end well for Western Civilization. (If Muslims are so benign then why is Israel resistant to allowing them in)?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  52. Talha says:
    @Colin Wright
    '...Their religious views, from which spring their basic cultural views, are anti-Christ to the core, and they do recognize that only white people built the Christendom that they despise...'

    That's comic. You do realize that the Quran identifies Christ as a prophet, and asserts that he was the product of a virgin birth?

    And that he will come back to help lead the Ummah and we have a burial spot reserved for him in Madinah near the grave of the Prophet (pbuh).

    Most traditional Muslims see Christendom like a heretical older brother of sorts – which is what the early church fathers saw us as – an Ishmaelite heresy.

    Sure we scuffle a hell of a lot, but hey, boys will be boys.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. @Eighthman
    I can understand the NWO obsession with destroying Euro- culture but what goes into its place?

    Broken welfare states full of angry entitled semi-jihadists? Where is the proof of assimilation?

    More than that, what about Israel and Zionist influence? This trend in the EU would eventually militate against Israeli interests, big time.

    Why do you think Soros wants anything to replace the European cultures ?
    Why should his sentiments differ from the ideas of father and son Morgenthau ?
    Schacht at a dinner in the White House sat next to Morgenthau jr, he found him extraordinarily stupid.
    Hjalmar Schacht, ´76 Jahre meines Lebens’, Bad Wörishofen, 1953
    As I stated before, Churchill understood the consequences of the Morgenthau Plan of jr ‘I’m not going to be chained to a corpse’.
    If the Morgenthau Plan is comparable to no deal between EU and GB, I do not think so, nevertheless:

    https://www.telegraaf.nl/nieuws/2378686/project-fear-voor-eu

    What the Brussels idiots think they’re doing, I do not know.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. @Colin Wright
    Another crutch that Islamophobes like to lean on is the supposed economic failure of all Islamic societies.

    Well, agreed, Islamic countries aren't in Western Europe or North America. However, on the other hand, many Latin American and subsaharan African countries would be 'Christian' -- and some of them are doing very badly, thank you. Haiti? Paraguay? The Philippines are 'Christian' -- and hardly the economic star of East Asia.

    Conversely, several Muslim states are doing quite well: Malaysia and Turkey come to mind. Lebanon's always a disaster politically -- but manages to do surprisingly well economically. Indonesia's rapidly climbing out of 'third world hellhole' status.

    Actually, if one must rank countries by their professed religion, the hold Buddhism has on Southeast Asia makes that religion our great explanation for economic failure: Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos. Statistically, Buddhism would appear to be 'worse' than Islam.

    But maybe it all has little to do with religion, and beating up on Islam because it supposedly causes poverty is no more reasonable that asserting that everyone should become an Episcopalian because it makes you rich?

    The British empire began with ruling the waves, but the empire really got under way with abundant coal and iron, and good inland waterways.
    As far as I know no Muslim country had or has iron and coal, without iron oil is useless.
    Bernard Lewis wrote his book about Islam ‘What went wrong ?’.
    Well, overland trade stopped in the Ottoman empire because W European countries sailed around Africa.
    Present Turkey, more and more a mess, thanks to Erdogan.
    Indonesia, the country with most Muslims indeed, but not a Muslim country, Islam hardly has any political influence.
    The only, in my opinion, succesfull Muslim country is Iran.
    Holding out against USA sanctions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Karl
    54 jilles dykstra > As far as I know no Muslim country had or has iron and coal, without iron oil is useless


    well, natural-resource-wise..... Singapore only has gobs and gobs of stray cats

    No wonder they're so damn poor
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. Eighthman says:
    @Wally
    Except that McCarthy was correct in his assessments.

    Please show us where Hitler expelled anyone because of their "physics".

    I get your points, but I suggest you use historically accurate comparisons.
    You seem to have taken the bait.

    Thanks.

    www.codoh.com

    He didn’t have to expel Jewish scientists. They left. Holocaust not required here. Europeans had demonstrated fission/chain reaction possibilities before anybody but Germans failed to create an atomic bomb. They screwed up and lost accordingly.

    And McCarthy was correct? No one innocent was hurt or affected by his witchhunt? Including Oppenheimer or Chinese scientists? Not possible in an imperfect world. Actions have consequences.

    Integration? If they are employed, well and good.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Yes, McCarthy correctly identified communists in many areas of influence within the US.

    http://libertyhangout.org/2017/05/mccarthy-was-right-there-were-communist-infiltrators-in-america/

    Who was hurt & how? Please tell us.

    you said: "Germans failed to create an atomic bomb. They screwed up and lost accordingly."

    Not according to Zionist propaganda:

    'Germans killed 20,000 Jews with atomic bomb'
    https://i.imgur.com/IjXE7OI.jpg

    The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are scientifically impossible frauds.
    See the 'holocaust' scam debunked here: http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here: http://forum.codoh.com
    , @Hippopotamusdrome


    Transcripts Kept Secret for 60 Years Bolster Defense of Oppenheimer’s Loyalty
    In the 1930s, like many liberals, Oppenheimer belonged to groups led or infiltrated by Communists; his brother, his wife and his former fiancée were party members.

     

    LOL.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. I think the article suggests something that is fairly narrow and restrictive. I have no knee jerk opposition to muslims. Black Muslims have been in the country for about 100 years and to my knowledge have never engaged violence on matters unrelated to their own internal issues. But I have only met Muslims from outside of the US who that there ought to be laws that make it a crime to criticize Islam or who correct me me if I don’t say,” the honorable” Mohammed.

    Those small observations give me pause.

    I also accept that that many muslims outside of the US can see our foreign policy as heavily influenced by christians and in some cases as hidden agenda to make war on Muslims. I fully grasp that contention.

    However, in the US the days of christians engaged in all out war over belief seems to have ended, I am not sure i buy that among the muslims we are importing in whose faith is suggestion that violence is acceptable or even laudable.

    Christ makes no such admonition and while christains may so engage — no testament regarding christ makes that case. If anything it is just the opposite.

    Again, these are observations not indictments to fear Muslims. Aside from the experience noted, i have found Muslims as most others –

    Read More
    • Replies: @DFH

    Black Muslims have been in the country for about 100 years and to my knowledge have never engaged violence on matters unrelated to their own internal issues
     
    Probably because you're a tool

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zebra_murders
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. @pensword
    Qur’an 8:39 – ‘Make war on them [the unbelievers] until idolatry is no more and Allah’s religion reigns supreme.’

    1. The Arabic term for "war" (harb) does not appear in this verse. The term qaatilu means "fight," which does not necessitate an explicitly martial endeavor.

    2. The Arabic word usually translated as "idolatry" (shirk) appears nowhere in this verse. The term that appears is fitnah, more accurately translated here as "persecution," which, given the historical context of this verse, applies to actual ~ as opposed to imaginary ~ acts of aggression.

    3. The Arabic word usually translated as "unbelievers" (kaafirun) is not only a bad translation of the term, it appears nowhere in this verse and is a misleading parenthetical addition.

    4. The phrase "... and Allah's religion reigns supreme" should be translated "... and religion is for God alone." The orthodox understanding of religion being "for God alone" is reflected in 2: 256, "No compulsion in religion," whereby protection of religious liberty is explicitly codified. As such, there is no threat to your religion ~ or lack thereof ~ under the aegis of Islam.

    The objection to Islam is not its ‘threat to national security’ but to the backward societies it has spawned.

    When Islam was the preponderant influence in the Arab world, muslims "spawned" such innovations as inoculation, quarantine, coffee, spherical trigonometry and the world's first university. Europe's Renaissance wouldn't have happened without those "backward societies" of which you speak.

    It isn't Islam, but rather, the lack of it that has plagued the millenial muslim world for centuries. Being an American myself, I could easily recite a litany of phenomena that undermine the illusion of western "enlightenment," but I find it more useful to share common ground between myself and people of understanding. If you'd rather bicker, have at it. I can't be bothered with people who have nothing to "teach" me but ignorance.

    pensword—The translation is N J Dawood’s, first published in 1956. The root q-t-l, particularly its form III as used in Qur’an 8:39, is examined here by the Revd Mark Durie. If Durie is correct in saying that many form III verbs ‘denote an intentional, sustained activity directed towards an object’, Dawood’s use of ‘war’ seems reasonable.

    The Quranic Arabic Corpus translation of the preceding verse, 8:38, begins ‘Say to those who disbelieve’. Again, the use of ‘unbelievers’ seems reasonable.

    I think it is generally agreed that 2:256 is abrogated by later verses.

    Regarding ‘backward societies’, I had in mind Chapter 7 of Christopher Caldwell’s Reflections on the Revolution in Europe:

    ‘The Islamic world is an economic and intellectual basket case, the part of the potentially civilized world most left behind by progress, as the annual Arab Human Development Reports published by the United Nations make plain, year after year…Spain translates more foreign books in a year than all the Arabic-speaking countries have translated since the reign of Caliph Mamoun in the ninth century. Half of Arab youths polled want to emigrate from their countries. Outside of fossil fuels, the entire Arab world exports less than Finland does.’

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha

    I think it is generally agreed that 2:256 is abrogated by later verses.
     
    No - the majority of the Muslim scholars hold that neither that nor verses like 60:8 have been abrogated in the sense of total abrogation. Verses of war (which these are, since they obviously come in a chapter called 'Anfaal' - literally 'Spoils of War') need to be viewed in context of the Qur'anic and hadith corpus in its entirety.

    Now there are definitely certain scholars of the Shafi'i school that held that these verses actually applied to all pagans and polytheists in toto and without exception; in which case pagans/polytheists have no choice but to convert or fight. The other, bigger, schools disagreed. And nobody applied these versus on the People of the Book - they were always given the dhimmi option by consensus.

    When it comes to these issue, it is much better to cut to the chase and just go straight to what the Muslim scholars have derived because they've already done the legwork of distilling the rulings from the primary sources. Discussing minutiae about the grammar of specific versus doesn't really get anybody anywhere unless you are an authority someone actually cares about listening to - the Islamic tradition is fairly inoculated from the opinions of non-Muslims on this matter. As a starting point, opinions on meanings of verses, transmission of hadith and even any testimony with regard to religious matters is completely rejected if one is a non-Muslim. No offense, but - our tradition, our rules.

    As far as backwards societies; the Muslim world is big some of it is still stuck in the 10th century (sometimes by choice - people want to keep to their tribal and nomadic ways - this is not going backwards, they simply have zero desire to catch up to the Jones'*) and some of it is more materially advanced than other non-Muslim parts of the world like South America, Indo-China, Africa, etc. Colin Wright did a pretty good breakdown.

    Peace.

    *And reap the whirlwind of:
    "My mom is transitioning to become my dad. How can I be supportive when I feel like I’m mourning my mom?"
    https://mic.com/articles/190525/my-mom-is-transitioning-to-become-my-dad-how-do-i-support-him-when-i-feel-like-im-mourning-my-mom#.RILD8VVmA
    , @pensword
    The root q-t-l, particularly its form III as used in Qur’an 8:39, is examined here by the Revd Mark Durie.

    Durie writes

    Although fight could involve killing, it does not necessarily imply it. A contest between boxers is a fight, as is a wrestling match between boys in a school yard. ... In contrast the Arabic form III qātala (qātilū in the 2nd person plural imperative), which is translated as 'fight' in English versions of the Quran, includes the meaning of killing.
     
    Hans Wehr's English-Arabic dictionary presents a mathematically precise breakdown of the root q-t-l:

    Form I of the verb includes the meanings "to kill, slay, murder, assassinate, mitigate, alleviate, know, master (a skill or a subject thoroughly), have long experience with life or be worldly wise," each of which may be construed upon examining the context in which it is used. Form II bears the meanings of "to massacre or cause carnage," a form which would support Durie's argument, had it appeared in 8:39.

    Form III may be rendered only as "to combat, battle, or fight." As such, Durie's claim that it "includes the meaning of killing" is false on its face and I see no reference to any reputable dictionary that would prove otherwise.

    As per Durie's Form III assertions about prolonged action: A sustained fight is not necessarily a martial war, nor does it require killing. For many years following the Battle of Badr (after which Surah 8 was sent down), the muslims were compelled to fight or die. It was just that simple. Some may assert that there are analogues to this today, though I'm reminded of ahaddith in which we're warned to "be the better son of Adam" in a time of widespread killing ~ the kind which most of us only hear about these days, knowing nothing of the reality.

    The Quranic Arabic Corpus translation of the preceding verse, 8:38, begins ‘Say to those who disbelieve’.

    The root k-f-r first and foremost connotes "covering," as in concealing something. Those being addressed in 8:38 recognize God's truth, yet deny or "cover" it. As such, the terms "infidels" and "disbelievers" aren't as accurate a rendering as "deniers."

    I think it is generally agreed that 2:256 is abrogated by later verses.

    There is no such "general agreement." 2: 256 forms the foundation of an unprecedented constitutional republic, one in which religious liberty remains inviolable.

    ‘The Islamic world is an economic and intellectual basket case ...

    Which is why American universities regularly acquire muslim talent from overseas. I'll take the literacy rate of Gaza against that of the United States any day, thank you. Or is it that I'm mistaken about Americans' collective intellectual superiority when they're confronted with lies about WMDs? I seem to recall a sizeable majority of them unwittingly jumped on the neocon bandwagon some 14 years ago, setting the current cavalcade of ever-cascading chaos in motion.

    It takes a special kind of ignorance to accomplish that. "Basket-case" doesn't begin to describe it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. Eighthman says:

    and while we’re at it…….. ( a pause for the NSA or the hasbara set to troll) Nobody ever seems to talk about the sheer overwhelming doom that the 9/11 narrative set upon the world. Let me explain:

    You have a bunch of night club going, alcohol drinking, strip club fans who somehow manage to be “Muslim” who end their lives in well planned suicide as pilots. Does college or lap dances dissuade them? Nope.

    Anybody see how that narrative makes the whole world hopeless? Nothing the west has to offer makes any difference to these supposed robot kamikaze zombies – who can’t be reformed or changed or seduced into non violent normalcy by the west.

    Actually, I could see the Iraq war as an attempt to overthrow the Arab world into consumerism and a semblance of democracy – instead of what the 9/11 story said about them. No wonder so many prefer a conspiracy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Druid
    911 was an inside job. Got the Zio-Neocons what the planned for for d Cade's!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. @anonymous
    Thank you Mr.Isaacs. You are doing a blessed job in exposing these cursed hypocrites. May peace be upon you.



    That said, let me say to everyone that it is amazing that European theists find true monotheism* so distasteful. Why, simply because it was irreversibly established (the real proof of the Almighty One’s infinite mercy to mankind) by a brown man, and primarily followed by brown men? Which is ironical because their own pagan human-worshipping faith so obviously borrowed heavily from pagan faiths of other brown men.

    Here is an image of “the father” of those brown pagans (yeah, those self-loathers like to depict themselves as palefaces too :) ).
    http://www.wordzz.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/brahma-01.jpeg

    And then, there is the thought that Islam is medieval, and followed only by “savages,” because of its “medeival-ness,” strictness, etc. So, because of its perceived “medeival-ness,” true monotheism is to be rejected as illogical, and paganism and human/idol-worship becomes more logical? Deluded fools.

    White supremacy has set the Europeans on the pagan polytheist path to Hell, and it is hilarious (and pathetic) that they exult in it.

    --

    * True Monotheism: One God, Infinitely Powerful (no power or might except with Him, hence no need for partners), Unique (like none other, unimaginable)
    You will find that none of these attributes of God contradict each other, so unlike much of pagan dogma.

    For 500 million pounds of homegrown rice, over the course of the last millennium, half billion starving Hindus were conned, which is the logical explanation, into believing the medieval Middle Eastern gobbledygook by the rice extracting Arab shysters, who were by all accounts intellectually lazy and had in all earnest, copied the Hebrew inspired biblical faith and rebranded as God given creed… the subcontinent suffers, even now, the noxious fumes of illiterate jihadists. No thanks, we’re all stocked up here with the malarkey!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. Talha says:
    @Johnny Rottenborough
    pensword—The translation is N J Dawood’s, first published in 1956. The root q-t-l, particularly its form III as used in Qur’an 8:39, is examined here by the Revd Mark Durie. If Durie is correct in saying that many form III verbs ‘denote an intentional, sustained activity directed towards an object’, Dawood’s use of ‘war’ seems reasonable.

    The Quranic Arabic Corpus translation of the preceding verse, 8:38, begins ‘Say to those who disbelieve’. Again, the use of ‘unbelievers’ seems reasonable.

    I think it is generally agreed that 2:256 is abrogated by later verses.

    Regarding ‘backward societies’, I had in mind Chapter 7 of Christopher Caldwell’s Reflections on the Revolution in Europe:

    ‘The Islamic world is an economic and intellectual basket case, the part of the potentially civilized world most left behind by progress, as the annual Arab Human Development Reports published by the United Nations make plain, year after year…Spain translates more foreign books in a year than all the Arabic-speaking countries have translated since the reign of Caliph Mamoun in the ninth century. Half of Arab youths polled want to emigrate from their countries. Outside of fossil fuels, the entire Arab world exports less than Finland does.’

    I think it is generally agreed that 2:256 is abrogated by later verses.

    No – the majority of the Muslim scholars hold that neither that nor verses like 60:8 have been abrogated in the sense of total abrogation. Verses of war (which these are, since they obviously come in a chapter called ‘Anfaal’ – literally ‘Spoils of War’) need to be viewed in context of the Qur’anic and hadith corpus in its entirety.

    Now there are definitely certain scholars of the Shafi’i school that held that these verses actually applied to all pagans and polytheists in toto and without exception; in which case pagans/polytheists have no choice but to convert or fight. The other, bigger, schools disagreed. And nobody applied these versus on the People of the Book – they were always given the dhimmi option by consensus.

    When it comes to these issue, it is much better to cut to the chase and just go straight to what the Muslim scholars have derived because they’ve already done the legwork of distilling the rulings from the primary sources. Discussing minutiae about the grammar of specific versus doesn’t really get anybody anywhere unless you are an authority someone actually cares about listening to – the Islamic tradition is fairly inoculated from the opinions of non-Muslims on this matter. As a starting point, opinions on meanings of verses, transmission of hadith and even any testimony with regard to religious matters is completely rejected if one is a non-Muslim. No offense, but – our tradition, our rules.

    As far as backwards societies; the Muslim world is big some of it is still stuck in the 10th century (sometimes by choice – people want to keep to their tribal and nomadic ways – this is not going backwards, they simply have zero desire to catch up to the Jones’*) and some of it is more materially advanced than other non-Muslim parts of the world like South America, Indo-China, Africa, etc. Colin Wright did a pretty good breakdown.

    Peace.

    *And reap the whirlwind of:
    “My mom is transitioning to become my dad. How can I be supportive when I feel like I’m mourning my mom?”

    https://mic.com/articles/190525/my-mom-is-transitioning-to-become-my-dad-how-do-i-support-him-when-i-feel-like-im-mourning-my-mom#.RILD8VVmA

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johnny Rottenborough
    Talha—any testimony with regard to religious matters is completely rejected if one is a non-Muslim. No offense

    No offence taken. As a non-Muslim, I am fully aware that Islam places me in the category of ‘vilest of all creatures’ [98:6]. The numerous similarities between Islam and Judaism are widely noted and commented upon. For example, as here, both religions regard out-groups as sub-human. Westerners are beginning to ask themselves if it is altogether wise to allow such religions to continue spreading their hatred in our midst.
    , @pensword
    As-salaamu 'alaikum.

    When it comes to these issue, it is much better to cut to the chase and just go straight to what the Muslim scholars have derived because they’ve already done the legwork of distilling the rulings from the primary sources.

    I tend to agree, though find it necessary to recall that the Prophet himself foretold the loss of knowledge among his people, a loss that would occur within a few generations of his worldly passing. Some "scholars" assert that this loss is yet to occur, but the grammar of the haddith belies such claims.

    The myriad ahaddith extolling the virtues of the 'ulama aren't referencing individuals with academic mastery. An 'alim is one who knows God and it requires no proficiency in Arabic nor memorization of The Qur'an to do that.

    As a starting point, opinions on meanings of verses, transmission of hadith and even any testimony with regard to religious matters is completely rejected if one is a non-Muslim. No offense, but – our tradition, our rules.

    One may evince an opinion consonant with Islam without an explicit testimony of faith, so I don't find this degree of exclusion incumbent upon us. Truth is always clearly distinguishable from falsehood anyways, right?

    What makes me pity these poor folk is their insistence that our understanding of Islam isn't genuine. Here we are, muslims in the (virtual) flesh who clearly stand against extremist distortions of our faith, and what do we countenance regularly from practitioners of a purportedly peaceful way of life but rejection of an understanding that would serve to advance peace? How can you help but feel sorry for someone like that?

    As far as backwards societies; the Muslim world is big some of it is still stuck in the 10th century (sometimes by choice – people want to keep to their tribal and nomadic ways – this is not going backwards, they simply have zero desire to catch up to the Jones’*) and some of it is more materially advanced than other non-Muslim parts of the world like South America, Indo-China, Africa, etc. Colin Wright did a pretty good breakdown.

    If following in the footsteps of Sodom isn't "backwards," I don't want to know where "forward" leads.
    , @Seraphim
    Admirable war on words and subtle distinctions that leaves you speechless.

    Is Yusuf Ali's translation to be considered to be 'the most faithful rendering available in English' or is he a simple 'traduttore, traditore'?

    8:38. Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them).
    8:39. And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah (1207*) altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do.(1208*)
    *1207 Cf. 2:193 and n. 207.
    *1208 If they cease from fighting and from the persecution of truth, Allah judges them by their actions and their motives, and would not wish that they should be harassed with further hostility. But if they refuse all terms, the righteous has nothing to fear: Allah will help and protect them.

    If the real meaning of the Quran is understandable only in Arabic by the Arabs, why to translate it at all, if the 'fight against unbelievers' is abrogated? Proselytism is a fight. Is it not a duty of Muslims to spread Islam 'altogether and everywhere' and make those who resist to 'desist' from 'Unbelief'? Until there is no more 'fitnah' ("trying to force Muslims to revert from their religion and re-embrace Kufr after they had believed is worse than killing, says Allah" through the mouth of the "highly influential historian, exegete and scholar during the Mamluk era in Syria, the "expert on tafsir and faqīh, Ibn Kathir? In other words until there is no more Christian 'proselytism' (and outward expressions of Christian Faith - like display of crosses- that might 'tempt' converts to Islam to revert to their former faith) and attempts to reconquer their stolen lands.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. 22pp22 says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    I see no mention of numbers of Muslims in various Western countries, or their sometimes distinctive characteristics. My impression is that US Muslims are an insignificant minority (unless they were all fanatics and one were looking for willing snipers). Moreover they are not generally unskilled or economically lower class. By contrast the UK seems to be suffering from having imported cheap labour from the dregs of inbreeding tribalists in the Empire several decades ago.

    My comments are based on where I have lived. I also know Vitry-sur-Seine in Paris where it’s even worse.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. DFH says:
    @EliteCommInc.
    I think the article suggests something that is fairly narrow and restrictive. I have no knee jerk opposition to muslims. Black Muslims have been in the country for about 100 years and to my knowledge have never engaged violence on matters unrelated to their own internal issues. But I have only met Muslims from outside of the US who that there ought to be laws that make it a crime to criticize Islam or who correct me me if I don't say," the honorable" Mohammed.


    Those small observations give me pause.

    I also accept that that many muslims outside of the US can see our foreign policy as heavily influenced by christians and in some cases as hidden agenda to make war on Muslims. I fully grasp that contention.


    However, in the US the days of christians engaged in all out war over belief seems to have ended, I am not sure i buy that among the muslims we are importing in whose faith is suggestion that violence is acceptable or even laudable.


    Christ makes no such admonition and while christains may so engage -- no testament regarding christ makes that case. If anything it is just the opposite.


    Again, these are observations not indictments to fear Muslims. Aside from the experience noted, i have found Muslims as most others --

    Black Muslims have been in the country for about 100 years and to my knowledge have never engaged violence on matters unrelated to their own internal issues

    Probably because you’re a tool

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zebra_murders

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. @Colin Wright
    Another crutch that Islamophobes like to lean on is the supposed economic failure of all Islamic societies.

    Well, agreed, Islamic countries aren't in Western Europe or North America. However, on the other hand, many Latin American and subsaharan African countries would be 'Christian' -- and some of them are doing very badly, thank you. Haiti? Paraguay? The Philippines are 'Christian' -- and hardly the economic star of East Asia.

    Conversely, several Muslim states are doing quite well: Malaysia and Turkey come to mind. Lebanon's always a disaster politically -- but manages to do surprisingly well economically. Indonesia's rapidly climbing out of 'third world hellhole' status.

    Actually, if one must rank countries by their professed religion, the hold Buddhism has on Southeast Asia makes that religion our great explanation for economic failure: Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos. Statistically, Buddhism would appear to be 'worse' than Islam.

    But maybe it all has little to do with religion, and beating up on Islam because it supposedly causes poverty is no more reasonable that asserting that everyone should become an Episcopalian because it makes you rich?

    You make excellent points. What’s extremely important is the culture and DNA of these ‘Muslim’ or ‘Buddhist’ or ‘Christian’ nations/regions as far as determining their 1) long-term compatibility with the (white) West or 2) their potential for global economic competitiveness and likely cultural progress/development going forward.

    Basic question: Are the nations Caucasoid, Mongoloid or Negroid? This question should not be avoided.

    And within this demographic, how many are ‘Ice People’ (light skinned) vs. ‘Sun People’ (dark skinned)? These demographic factors often matter more than a culture’s sometimes-shifting religious orientation.

    Ideologies can change/evolve rapidly. Not so a people’s DNA.

    Muslim Turkey and Iran, for instance, have far more talent and potential going forward than nominally ‘Christian’ (but hopelessly backward) states like El Salvador, Venezuela, or Zimbabwe. It’s the IQ and DNA, stupid.

    We should also keep in mind that virtually all sub-Saharan nations in Africa (as well as most uninhabitable ‘inner cities’ in the US) are majority-Christian yet incapable of lawful self-rule. Gee, how come?

    Why are these Christian-majority areas (even within the US) so abysmal compared to formerly-rising Muslim-majority states of Iraq, Syria or Libya? Is it the religion? Of course not.

    Much of it involves the DNA (temperment, cooperation and intelligence) of the residents.

    North Africa is mostly Caucasian. Sub-Saharan Africa is overwhelmingly Negroid. Religion is often a side-note in the story of how some nations/civilizations rise and others remain forever tribal and backward.

    The Islamophobic narrative about the ‘Muslim’ invasion of Europe is similarly distorted. This so-called ‘invasion’ is a direct consequence of serial, criminal, pro-Zionist military interventions conducted by the West throughout the Arab world. It’s the Zionists, stupid.

    ‘Judeo-Christian’ nations have criminally invaded Muslim-majority (anti-Zionist) counties and destroyed them. Who benefits?

    Why aren’t the perpetrators of these mass-murders in prison?

    Incredibly, they’re still ‘leading’ various Western states, appearing on television, writing books, giving lectures, and riding around in limousines and on private jets. The Iranians are right: this is political gangsterism.

    So-called Muslim states would be little threat to Europe or America if not for Zio-America’s meddlesome campaigns of terror and intervention that have devastated Syria, Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon and Libya. Israel’s arch-enemy, Iran, is next. We must try to stop this.

    This ongoing and dominant narrative which now blames ‘Islam’ for ‘extremism’ and the ongoing ‘clash of civilizations’ must be revised entirely.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    '...So-called Muslim states would be little threat to Europe or America if not for Zio-America’s meddlesome campaigns of terror and intervention that have devastated Syria, Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon and Libya. Israel’s arch-enemy, Iran, is next. We must try to stop this...'

    I'll add that it's hardly likely to stop with Iran. Iran actually doesn't pose much of a threat to Israel at all -- but Israel insists on seeing it as such.

    For whatever reason, Israel has always had an 'enemy' -- and when that 'enemy' is vanquished, it merely conceives another.

    Consider. From 1948 to Camp David in 1979, Egypt was the Great Satan. Then it was suborned, and Israel had no major enemy...but wait!

    There's the PLO in Lebanon. Another Palestinian faction entirely wounds the Israeli ambassador in England -- we've got to invade Lebanon and crush the PLO.

    That goes on until the PLO is defanged -- but now there's Hezbollah and Hamas. Hezbollah of course was only a 'threat' as long as Israel insisted on trying to conquer Lebanon -- once she gave up on that, Hezbollah ceased to pose any actual danger. It's really a very parochial group, with entirely local concerns.

    Hamas of course has been boxed into the Warsa...whoops, Gaza ghetto, so it can't do much.

    Gee. No enemy. What to do? What to do?

    Iran!

    Think if Iran is crushed this will actually end? I doubt it. Israel will always have to have an 'enemy.' At a guess, Turkey will be next up.

    , @Karl
    63 mark green > So-called Muslim states would be little threat to Europe or America if not for Zio-America’s meddlesome campaigns of terror and

    i'll be sure to mention that to all those who died defending the Gates of Vienna

    , @Malla
    The Zionist power in the West and Europe has to be broken before there can be peace in the world. Jewish control over White or Yellow East Asian countries (what if they take over and use China) and harbouring the high IQ technology as well as martial skills of the ice peoples is extremely dangerous for world security. Once this power is broken, the Western World and Russia will never have to interfere in the Middle East ever.
    That should be followed by sending all non Whites/half Whites (those who migrated after WW2) back out of Western countries/Russia. That way the Middle Eastern world does not interfere in the West and the West never interferes in the Middle Eastern World. All Jews can go to Israel and muslims (other than Albanians, Croats, Chechens) can leave the West and go back to Islamic countries.
    The Middle Eastern World does not have the military ability to threaten, let alone conquer Europe or North America or Japan. So there is no need for the West to ever interfere from a truly White nationalist point of view.
    This is the only solution for permanent peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. i hold no false beliefs that “all muslims are bad” imo it is only sheeple that believe such nonsense.
    but claiming the muslim brotherhood and cair is not extremist or borderline extremist islamic organisations is a reach or shilling. i admit the last 8-10 years have given me a slight Sunni bias, they have to many secrets hidden in their mosques here in Europe… Only Sunni mosques have been hiding weapons and hidden/helped/recruited terrorists to kill in the middle east for israeli/nato/saudi governments. MEK in Iran i know about them and their Albanian training camps, but i have not ever seen a MEK terror attack outside Iran so i do not consider them in the same way as aq,isis etc etc.. how many of those Sunni mosques had ties to MB/saudi arabia? are there any cair members with ties to known extremists imams in M.E Europe, do they have ties with MB saudi arabia and other M.E countries?
    how many of them support the illegal war in Syria, the death of Gadaffi etc etc?
    do some digging on this in M.E media and you will certainly not get the impession they feel any guilt over the mass crime wave and rape wave in Europe… Nah, they often call for more.
    I give no links, simply bc if you believe they are docile organisations you need to learn more about the real world outside the US and dive into foreign language sites. ffs every browser translates arabic,Persian and European sites very good these days.

    edit:typo and i forgot to type in Albania

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  65. @Ibn Issam
    Another great article by Arnold Isaacs, exposing the falsehoods of the highly well funded Islamophobia industry campaign to smear Islam and Muslims.

    I am always shocked to see so many bigoted, hateful, racist remarks in the comment section that are so often ignorant of true Islamic teachings, and real Muslim belief and sentiments. For instance, cherry picking verses from the Qur'an and quoting them out of context, (a tired Islamophobic tactic) does not prove a civilizational Jihad.

    Though I shouldn't be surprised that the Islamophobia Campaign has certainly had its affect on numerous individuals who clearly can't seem to do their own thinking or take an unbiased approach to Islam and Muslim people.

    Such a person would do well to deprogram themselves, in order to break free from the incessant drone of the Islamophobia smear campaign message, reeducate themselves with basic facts about the subject, and return to reality.

    Arnold Isaacs is right that the untruths of the Islamophobic smear campaign are not just bigoted and dishonest but dangerous.

    Well funded campaign? Who is doing the funding?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. sondjata says:

    “And nobody applied these versus on the People of the Book – they were always given the dhimmi option by consensus.”

    because dhimmitude is the bestest thing ever.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    It's not - who said it was? It's heads and tails above "convert or fight" - do you not agree?

    It's always better to be the alphas in a society. When you open up the keys to the castle to everyone regardless of whether or not they hold your worldview, you get the cognitive dissonance that is often apparent in these forums:
    "Yaaay, we're so awesome - we treat everyone equally and allow equal opportunities to everyone - yaaay us!"

    Followed by:
    "Oh crap, the Jews are running the country!!! How did that...oh yeah..."

    Offer Muslims the dhimmi option in the West if it bugs you so much; what's stopping you? I'll sign up for it - what's the increase in my taxes going to be? 5, 10 percent?

    Peace.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. Yesterday morning, after I had finished watching a hard hitting Hindi language talk show in which they were discussing what to do with the illegal Bangladeshi Muslims, who had been living in the neighboring, Indian State of Assam, where the ‘English’ tea is produced, I went to the beach at Coney Island and just as I emerged from the ocean, I spotted who but the inimitable, Norman ‘Save the Palestinians from the Holocaust Industry Jews’ Finkelstein, jogging as usual on the beach, as if searching for something, alas, unknown to me, but the irony of the two events of that morning wasn’t lost me, and here I see an article that is also ironical in that, a set of Jews defending Muslims from another set of equally determined Jews opposing them. What to do? Oy vey!

    Talha, a frequent commentator on UNZ and not so subtle prosyletizer of Islam, must be in the hog heaven, pun intended, because someone has come out swinging to defend Islam and especially, the Muslim Brotherhood. And not just any defence but the title of ‘nonviolent’ attached to it. Imagine that! The Brotherhood an ideological companion of the Half Naked Fakir… Churchill must be laughing his derrier off in Valhalla. Nothing can be further from the truth!

    Gazwa e America, not unlike its predecessor, the Gazwa e Hind (the total subjugation of the Indian Subcontinent to the Will of Allah), is a tool in toto of various means to convert a population by hook or crook and that would include soft power of the ever obliging Jews in America. After all, if you wanted to prevent the eventual spread of the desert creed (just look at the once Zoroastrian Persia) then you wouldn’t promote their immigration into North America or Christian Europe actively and then once here, take out from your millennia old tool bag to defend them to the point of besmirching the native people. And if anything, the white Christians must be on to the trick since they must be aware of how a cohesive minority can come to dominate their most sacred instructions and in the process, it can also replace them in many an important functions in the country; they already have overlords who think differently from themselves, they don’t need further aiding and abetting by another fanatical religious group with whom they will come to loggerheads, sooner or later, for the direction of their country.

    Jews are neither going to accept non Jews as the ‘Chosen People’ nor ever adopt Christianity which leaves only their Semitic brethren inspired and the only one just as rigidly against the usuage of pigs in food consumption, Islam (Paganism is out notwithstanding the practice of yoga by Jewish men and women in culturally accepting cities and the Buddhism with its godless mantras maybe perfect for the spirituality lacking Chinese but not for the fanatics) with which to get things done and even if the idiotic Arabs may not have a grand scheme to takeover the world, the ‘Protocols’ ideals would surely come handy in handing over the Goyim to the Brotherhood to get them to enforce your own agenda, which may or mayn’t include the complete domination of the world, otherwise, what good is it proclaiming that our God cares for us more than anyone else?

    The article doesn’t assuage anxiety, it reinforces it!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    What you say makes no sense. Comparing the record of Muslim invasions of India to what is happening in the US is complete nonsense. The Muslims came into India with swords and spears and didn't ask permission. The ones in the US are here by complete legal recognition, they stood in line, filled out papers, etc. If the US wants to reverse that policy, totally fine - here's how you do it:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Otbml6WIQPo

    As far as spreading Islam in America - uh yeah, that's what we are supposed to do unless people stop us. Americans can also make it illegal to proselytize - again, refer to above video. Won't do much though, unless they want to clamp down on the internet.

    There is nothing being under the table here in the US - the dawah is on, we are quite public about it.

    Why don't you challenge it by inviting to Hinduism or whatever you follow - it's a free country.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. @Talha

    I think it is generally agreed that 2:256 is abrogated by later verses.
     
    No - the majority of the Muslim scholars hold that neither that nor verses like 60:8 have been abrogated in the sense of total abrogation. Verses of war (which these are, since they obviously come in a chapter called 'Anfaal' - literally 'Spoils of War') need to be viewed in context of the Qur'anic and hadith corpus in its entirety.

    Now there are definitely certain scholars of the Shafi'i school that held that these verses actually applied to all pagans and polytheists in toto and without exception; in which case pagans/polytheists have no choice but to convert or fight. The other, bigger, schools disagreed. And nobody applied these versus on the People of the Book - they were always given the dhimmi option by consensus.

    When it comes to these issue, it is much better to cut to the chase and just go straight to what the Muslim scholars have derived because they've already done the legwork of distilling the rulings from the primary sources. Discussing minutiae about the grammar of specific versus doesn't really get anybody anywhere unless you are an authority someone actually cares about listening to - the Islamic tradition is fairly inoculated from the opinions of non-Muslims on this matter. As a starting point, opinions on meanings of verses, transmission of hadith and even any testimony with regard to religious matters is completely rejected if one is a non-Muslim. No offense, but - our tradition, our rules.

    As far as backwards societies; the Muslim world is big some of it is still stuck in the 10th century (sometimes by choice - people want to keep to their tribal and nomadic ways - this is not going backwards, they simply have zero desire to catch up to the Jones'*) and some of it is more materially advanced than other non-Muslim parts of the world like South America, Indo-China, Africa, etc. Colin Wright did a pretty good breakdown.

    Peace.

    *And reap the whirlwind of:
    "My mom is transitioning to become my dad. How can I be supportive when I feel like I’m mourning my mom?"
    https://mic.com/articles/190525/my-mom-is-transitioning-to-become-my-dad-how-do-i-support-him-when-i-feel-like-im-mourning-my-mom#.RILD8VVmA

    Talha—any testimony with regard to religious matters is completely rejected if one is a non-Muslim. No offense

    No offence taken. As a non-Muslim, I am fully aware that Islam places me in the category of ‘vilest of all creatures’ [98:6]. The numerous similarities between Islam and Judaism are widely noted and commented upon. For example, as here, both religions regard out-groups as sub-human. Westerners are beginning to ask themselves if it is altogether wise to allow such religions to continue spreading their hatred in our midst.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha

    I am fully aware that Islam places me in the category of ‘vilest of all creatures’
     
    Meh...and I lost count of how many Christians told me I was going to burn in hell - let's be adults about this, shall we?

    both religions regard out-groups as sub-human
     
    No, this is hyperbole and makes no sense. This kind of thinking is apparent in ideologies rooted in materialist and racialist foundations. Islam doesn't care for race or ethnicity - Judaism does. Muslims invite people to our faith, Jews don't. Non-Muslims are simply humans that do not believe and are thus not part of the brotherhood of Islam. They can join anytime and be fully enfranchised with little effort - in fact this is highly encouraged and a specific goal since Islam is an evangelizing religion:
    "It may well be that Allah will bring forth love between you and those of them who are now your enemies. Allah is All-Powerful. Allah is Ever-Forgiving, Most Merciful." (60:7)

    There is no category for human beings other than Bani Adam (Children of Adam). You are mistaking not being considered part of a spiritual brotherhood as being considered sub-human which makes no sense; a brotherhood has rights and obligations - why should we consider non-Muslims as brothers? Does brotherhood not have a lexical significance?

    Furthermore, not granting certain categories of people the same rights as others does not entail considering them sub-human. In the US, non-citizens are not fully enfranchised and do not have the same rights as citizens - hardly means they are considered sub-human.

    Westerners are beginning to ask themselves if it is altogether wise
     
    Look, I'm cool with Westerners kicking out Muslims, just do it legally. Also, don't make up stuff about the religion - that's just not respectable.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. Talha says:
    @sondjata
    "And nobody applied these versus on the People of the Book – they were always given the dhimmi option by consensus."

    because dhimmitude is the bestest thing ever.

    It’s not – who said it was? It’s heads and tails above “convert or fight” – do you not agree?

    It’s always better to be the alphas in a society. When you open up the keys to the castle to everyone regardless of whether or not they hold your worldview, you get the cognitive dissonance that is often apparent in these forums:
    “Yaaay, we’re so awesome – we treat everyone equally and allow equal opportunities to everyone – yaaay us!”

    Followed by:
    “Oh crap, the Jews are running the country!!! How did that…oh yeah…”

    Offer Muslims the dhimmi option in the West if it bugs you so much; what’s stopping you? I’ll sign up for it – what’s the increase in my taxes going to be? 5, 10 percent?

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. DFH says:

    The leader of the Muslim group CAGE in Britain went on tv crying about how Jihadi John dindu nuffin and called him ‘a beautiful man’

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  71. Man would I love to punch Ted Cruz in the nose..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  72. All Muslims are not bad. All Jews are not bad. All white people are not bad.

    But diversity is our weakness. So lets not bring in more Muslims than are already here. They can’t do us any good and we don’t need them.

    Imperial Washington has been murdering Muslims in the Greater Middle East and North Africa in the millions since 9/11. That’s the real Islamophobia. It stands to reason that Muslims from that part of the world hate us. So lets not import people who hate us.

    Finally, it’s not hard to see what some (not all) Muslims are doing to Europe. Namely raping and stabbing Europeans. Most Americans would prefer not to be raped and/or stabbed.

    …. the more we scare ourselves with imaginary enemies, the harder it will be to find and protect ourselves from real ones.

    This I can agree with. While we fear Russia we fail to recognize our real enemy. Imperial Washington.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  73. Talha says:
    @Johnny Rottenborough
    Talha—any testimony with regard to religious matters is completely rejected if one is a non-Muslim. No offense

    No offence taken. As a non-Muslim, I am fully aware that Islam places me in the category of ‘vilest of all creatures’ [98:6]. The numerous similarities between Islam and Judaism are widely noted and commented upon. For example, as here, both religions regard out-groups as sub-human. Westerners are beginning to ask themselves if it is altogether wise to allow such religions to continue spreading their hatred in our midst.

    I am fully aware that Islam places me in the category of ‘vilest of all creatures’

    Meh…and I lost count of how many Christians told me I was going to burn in hell – let’s be adults about this, shall we?

    both religions regard out-groups as sub-human

    No, this is hyperbole and makes no sense. This kind of thinking is apparent in ideologies rooted in materialist and racialist foundations. Islam doesn’t care for race or ethnicity – Judaism does. Muslims invite people to our faith, Jews don’t. Non-Muslims are simply humans that do not believe and are thus not part of the brotherhood of Islam. They can join anytime and be fully enfranchised with little effort – in fact this is highly encouraged and a specific goal since Islam is an evangelizing religion:
    “It may well be that Allah will bring forth love between you and those of them who are now your enemies. Allah is All-Powerful. Allah is Ever-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (60:7)

    There is no category for human beings other than Bani Adam (Children of Adam). You are mistaking not being considered part of a spiritual brotherhood as being considered sub-human which makes no sense; a brotherhood has rights and obligations – why should we consider non-Muslims as brothers? Does brotherhood not have a lexical significance?

    Furthermore, not granting certain categories of people the same rights as others does not entail considering them sub-human. In the US, non-citizens are not fully enfranchised and do not have the same rights as citizens – hardly means they are considered sub-human.

    Westerners are beginning to ask themselves if it is altogether wise

    Look, I’m cool with Westerners kicking out Muslims, just do it legally. Also, don’t make up stuff about the religion – that’s just not respectable.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Agree: Colin Wright
    • Replies: @Johnny Rottenborough
    Talha—let’s be adults about this, shall we
    What kind of adult follows a religion which describes people as apes (2:65), apes and swine (5:60), and as being less enlightened than cattle (7:179 and 25:44)?

    You are mistaking not being considered part of a spiritual brotherhood as being considered sub-human which makes no sense
    No, I am simply quoting Allah’s opinion of non-Muslims, which does tend to coalesce around the bestial—that’s to say, the sub-human—end of the spectrum.

    don’t make up stuff about the religion
    I have no need. Give Islam enough rope and it hangs itself. I regret that, on this thread, you will receive no more replies from me.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. Bucky says:

    Yes, Gaffney and Geller and the like exaggerate greatly.

    However, they aren’t entirely wrong. They are certainly incorrect on the facts, but the fact is that Islam is a rival civilization and a rival nationalism. Muslims I’ve met often display disloyal attitudes towards the United States, often disdainful attitudes, wishing a diminishment of US power.

    While there certainly are problems with US foreign policy esp Israel, Muslims have an emotional stake in it and aren’t giving so much friendly corrective advice, but are seriously and deeply angry about the issue, and others.

    Would you see Muslims sticking to this country through tough times? Likely not. Deep down, there is no attachment to it, its traditional culture or its values. Muslim enlistment in the armed forces is below average and that likely reflects a disloyalty.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha

    wishing a diminishment of US power.
     
    Tons of people on this very forum want a diminished US power because of how off the rails it has gone within living memory.

    Muslim enlistment in the armed forces is below average and that likely reflects a disloyalty.
     
    ...or the fact that they don't want to help bomb Muslim countries into the stone age at Israel's behest - your pick.

    Peace.

    , @Colin Wright
    '...While there certainly are problems with US foreign policy esp Israel, Muslims have an emotional stake in it and aren’t giving so much friendly corrective advice, but are seriously and deeply angry about the issue...'

    It'd be bizarre if they weren't angry. Why shouldn't they be?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. Talha says:
    @Dagon Shield
    Yesterday morning, after I had finished watching a hard hitting Hindi language talk show in which they were discussing what to do with the illegal Bangladeshi Muslims, who had been living in the neighboring, Indian State of Assam, where the 'English' tea is produced, I went to the beach at Coney Island and just as I emerged from the ocean, I spotted who but the inimitable, Norman 'Save the Palestinians from the Holocaust Industry Jews' Finkelstein, jogging as usual on the beach, as if searching for something, alas, unknown to me, but the irony of the two events of that morning wasn't lost me, and here I see an article that is also ironical in that, a set of Jews defending Muslims from another set of equally determined Jews opposing them. What to do? Oy vey!

    Talha, a frequent commentator on UNZ and not so subtle prosyletizer of Islam, must be in the hog heaven, pun intended, because someone has come out swinging to defend Islam and especially, the Muslim Brotherhood. And not just any defence but the title of 'nonviolent' attached to it. Imagine that! The Brotherhood an ideological companion of the Half Naked Fakir... Churchill must be laughing his derrier off in Valhalla. Nothing can be further from the truth!

    Gazwa e America, not unlike its predecessor, the Gazwa e Hind (the total subjugation of the Indian Subcontinent to the Will of Allah), is a tool in toto of various means to convert a population by hook or crook and that would include soft power of the ever obliging Jews in America. After all, if you wanted to prevent the eventual spread of the desert creed (just look at the once Zoroastrian Persia) then you wouldn't promote their immigration into North America or Christian Europe actively and then once here, take out from your millennia old tool bag to defend them to the point of besmirching the native people. And if anything, the white Christians must be on to the trick since they must be aware of how a cohesive minority can come to dominate their most sacred instructions and in the process, it can also replace them in many an important functions in the country; they already have overlords who think differently from themselves, they don't need further aiding and abetting by another fanatical religious group with whom they will come to loggerheads, sooner or later, for the direction of their country.

    Jews are neither going to accept non Jews as the 'Chosen People' nor ever adopt Christianity which leaves only their Semitic brethren inspired and the only one just as rigidly against the usuage of pigs in food consumption, Islam (Paganism is out notwithstanding the practice of yoga by Jewish men and women in culturally accepting cities and the Buddhism with its godless mantras maybe perfect for the spirituality lacking Chinese but not for the fanatics) with which to get things done and even if the idiotic Arabs may not have a grand scheme to takeover the world, the 'Protocols' ideals would surely come handy in handing over the Goyim to the Brotherhood to get them to enforce your own agenda, which may or mayn't include the complete domination of the world, otherwise, what good is it proclaiming that our God cares for us more than anyone else?

    The article doesn't assuage anxiety, it reinforces it!

    What you say makes no sense. Comparing the record of Muslim invasions of India to what is happening in the US is complete nonsense. The Muslims came into India with swords and spears and didn’t ask permission. The ones in the US are here by complete legal recognition, they stood in line, filled out papers, etc. If the US wants to reverse that policy, totally fine – here’s how you do it:

    As far as spreading Islam in America – uh yeah, that’s what we are supposed to do unless people stop us. Americans can also make it illegal to proselytize – again, refer to above video. Won’t do much though, unless they want to clamp down on the internet.

    There is nothing being under the table here in the US – the dawah is on, we are quite public about it.

    Why don’t you challenge it by inviting to Hinduism or whatever you follow – it’s a free country.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dagon Shield
    Of course, no one would suggest that what happened in the subcontinent, is what's taking place in North America, at least not in terms of brutality. The new techniques and approaches are just as effective for the current times. A well vested minority, viz. Jews, while undermining the Christian majority, comes to the aid of another likeminded minority, for mutual benefit, all the while destabilising the opposition. And that's fundamentally unfair but who is worried about fairness when the enemy is the bane of their existence.

    As to my evangelizing others with my own beliefs or lack thereof, one thing is certain that I for one, refuse to believe with all my being, God, if it did exist, would not have first and last, appeared to a Semitic bunch, Jews or Arabs, and in the Middle East... if it did come, which would be a one shot in a gazillion, it would have shown itself to its own, much gentler creation and to a spot it can be proud off when it imagined it first.I and mine, don't see the need to add to the already, fraudulently crowded space-we'll wait for the creation to die out either on its own accord or by the actions of its greatest product, the MAN!

    It's always good to banter with you, Paisan!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. Talha says:
    @Bucky
    Yes, Gaffney and Geller and the like exaggerate greatly.

    However, they aren’t entirely wrong. They are certainly incorrect on the facts, but the fact is that Islam is a rival civilization and a rival nationalism. Muslims I’ve met often display disloyal attitudes towards the United States, often disdainful attitudes, wishing a diminishment of US power.

    While there certainly are problems with US foreign policy esp Israel, Muslims have an emotional stake in it and aren’t giving so much friendly corrective advice, but are seriously and deeply angry about the issue, and others.

    Would you see Muslims sticking to this country through tough times? Likely not. Deep down, there is no attachment to it, its traditional culture or its values. Muslim enlistment in the armed forces is below average and that likely reflects a disloyalty.

    wishing a diminishment of US power.

    Tons of people on this very forum want a diminished US power because of how off the rails it has gone within living memory.

    Muslim enlistment in the armed forces is below average and that likely reflects a disloyalty.

    …or the fact that they don’t want to help bomb Muslim countries into the stone age at Israel’s behest – your pick.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bucky
    There is a difference between advocating a more judicious use of US power and wishing for a confrontational China to reduce US power, or thinking that Iran should have nuclear weapons. Big difference. Pat Buchanan falls into the former camp but certainly not the second.

    Not everyone in the armed forces is killing Muslims. Some are serving in the Pacific and Europe.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. (((Arnold Isaacs))) has written an article from a Jewish perspective about Islam. There is a group in between these two: Christians. I am a Christian.

    (((Isaacs))) opinions about Islam are worthless because he does not know or understand what Islam is. As a Christian I can state that Islam is a Christian heresy. As a Christian I can state that modern day Jews are not the chosen and no longer have a covenant with God. Christianity is the new covenant. These are beliefs. There is something even more important than beliefs, biology.

    Most Muslims are black/Asians. Most modern day Jews are a mixed racial group. Jews have high intermarriage rate with blacks/Asians. Racially, black/Asians are not Western racial groups. The West is Caucasian/European/Christian/Euro-pagan. (((Isaacs))) is free to write what he wants, as long as it is from Israel. Jews are not Western and had nothing to do with the West’s development. He cannot tell Christians anything about Islam because everything he writes is written from a theologically/racially flawed perspective. Likewise, the scribblings of Muslim commentators like Talha, Ibn Issam are worthless. They are free to scribble what they wish as long as they do it in their inferior Muslim countries. Talha is Pakistani (Asian) and Muslim. Nothing Western here.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    Atilla: "As a Christian I can state that modern day Jews are not the chosen..."

    It's as if Atilla and the Christclowns have never read the Jew Testament.

    Romans 9:4 “The people of Israel, chosen.”
    Acts 3:25 “He said to Abraham, ‘Through your offspring all peoples on earth will be blessed.’”

    Atilla: "...and no longer have a covenant with [Jewgod]. Christianity is the new covenant."

    This is supposed to be good news? Maybe for sicko perverts.

    Philippians 3:3 "For it is we [Christians] who are the circumcision [baby-cock suckers]."

    So why would you want to be Jewhovah's new Cocksuckers? Because you're a sad, pathetic wanabee-Jew? Christclowns are worse than that rappin' whigger Eminem worshiping Detroit-Destroying-Dindus. Stop worshiping a race other than yours, Atilla. Yeah, that's exactly what you are doing. You're a Jewgger.

    "WE WORSHIP what we do know, for salvation is from THE JEWS." John 4:22
    , @Malla

    As a Christian I can state that modern day Jews are not the chosen and no longer have a covenant with God.
     
    They never had a covenant with God in the first place. Israelites were a different people.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqAqL1GE8g4

    Also did you know 'Brith' in Hebrew meant covenant and 'ish' means man and hence ‘British’ means covenant man.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Kd3TWRsDhg
    British are the Covenant People
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. @mark green
    You make excellent points. What's extremely important is the culture and DNA of these 'Muslim' or 'Buddhist' or 'Christian' nations/regions as far as determining their 1) long-term compatibility with the (white) West or 2) their potential for global economic competitiveness and likely cultural progress/development going forward.

    Basic question: Are the nations Caucasoid, Mongoloid or Negroid? This question should not be avoided.

    And within this demographic, how many are 'Ice People' (light skinned) vs. 'Sun People' (dark skinned)? These demographic factors often matter more than a culture's sometimes-shifting religious orientation.

    Ideologies can change/evolve rapidly. Not so a people's DNA.

    Muslim Turkey and Iran, for instance, have far more talent and potential going forward than nominally 'Christian' (but hopelessly backward) states like El Salvador, Venezuela, or Zimbabwe. It's the IQ and DNA, stupid.

    We should also keep in mind that virtually all sub-Saharan nations in Africa (as well as most uninhabitable 'inner cities' in the US) are majority-Christian yet incapable of lawful self-rule. Gee, how come?

    Why are these Christian-majority areas (even within the US) so abysmal compared to formerly-rising Muslim-majority states of Iraq, Syria or Libya? Is it the religion? Of course not.

    Much of it involves the DNA (temperment, cooperation and intelligence) of the residents.

    North Africa is mostly Caucasian. Sub-Saharan Africa is overwhelmingly Negroid. Religion is often a side-note in the story of how some nations/civilizations rise and others remain forever tribal and backward.

    The Islamophobic narrative about the 'Muslim' invasion of Europe is similarly distorted. This so-called 'invasion' is a direct consequence of serial, criminal, pro-Zionist military interventions conducted by the West throughout the Arab world. It's the Zionists, stupid.

    'Judeo-Christian' nations have criminally invaded Muslim-majority (anti-Zionist) counties and destroyed them. Who benefits?

    Why aren't the perpetrators of these mass-murders in prison?

    Incredibly, they're still 'leading' various Western states, appearing on television, writing books, giving lectures, and riding around in limousines and on private jets. The Iranians are right: this is political gangsterism.

    So-called Muslim states would be little threat to Europe or America if not for Zio-America's meddlesome campaigns of terror and intervention that have devastated Syria, Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon and Libya. Israel's arch-enemy, Iran, is next. We must try to stop this.

    This ongoing and dominant narrative which now blames 'Islam' for 'extremism' and the ongoing 'clash of civilizations' must be revised entirely.

    ‘…So-called Muslim states would be little threat to Europe or America if not for Zio-America’s meddlesome campaigns of terror and intervention that have devastated Syria, Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon and Libya. Israel’s arch-enemy, Iran, is next. We must try to stop this…’

    I’ll add that it’s hardly likely to stop with Iran. Iran actually doesn’t pose much of a threat to Israel at all — but Israel insists on seeing it as such.

    For whatever reason, Israel has always had an ‘enemy’ — and when that ‘enemy’ is vanquished, it merely conceives another.

    Consider. From 1948 to Camp David in 1979, Egypt was the Great Satan. Then it was suborned, and Israel had no major enemy…but wait!

    There’s the PLO in Lebanon. Another Palestinian faction entirely wounds the Israeli ambassador in England — we’ve got to invade Lebanon and crush the PLO.

    That goes on until the PLO is defanged — but now there’s Hezbollah and Hamas. Hezbollah of course was only a ‘threat’ as long as Israel insisted on trying to conquer Lebanon — once she gave up on that, Hezbollah ceased to pose any actual danger. It’s really a very parochial group, with entirely local concerns.

    Hamas of course has been boxed into the Warsa…whoops, Gaza ghetto, so it can’t do much.

    Gee. No enemy. What to do? What to do?

    Iran!

    Think if Iran is crushed this will actually end? I doubt it. Israel will always have to have an ‘enemy.’ At a guess, Turkey will be next up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {Iran is crushed}

    Iran cannot be 'crushed'.

    The only way it can be 'crushed' is by an all out nuke attack: nobody can be sure, but I doubt Russia will allow an all out nuke assault on a country on its (very sensitive) Southern border.

    Despite using everything other than nukes - e.g. unrestricted carpet bombing, chemical weapons, air-superiority, Naval supremacy, 550,000 US ground troops, a puppet ally, etc, etc - US was not able to crush Viet Nam. US does not have anywhere near that number of combat troops to deploy to Iran. (Iraqi invasion was ~200,000 US troops, ~45,000 UK troops.)
    And you cannot crush a country by bombing alone: you need ground troops to take and hold ground.


    {Turkey will be next up.}

    Turkey will never be the next, as far as US and Israel are concerned.
    Despite overt displays of (fake) 'hostility', US & Israel & Turkey are buddy-buddies.
    (long story and lots of reasons why).

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. @Talha

    I am fully aware that Islam places me in the category of ‘vilest of all creatures’
     
    Meh...and I lost count of how many Christians told me I was going to burn in hell - let's be adults about this, shall we?

    both religions regard out-groups as sub-human
     
    No, this is hyperbole and makes no sense. This kind of thinking is apparent in ideologies rooted in materialist and racialist foundations. Islam doesn't care for race or ethnicity - Judaism does. Muslims invite people to our faith, Jews don't. Non-Muslims are simply humans that do not believe and are thus not part of the brotherhood of Islam. They can join anytime and be fully enfranchised with little effort - in fact this is highly encouraged and a specific goal since Islam is an evangelizing religion:
    "It may well be that Allah will bring forth love between you and those of them who are now your enemies. Allah is All-Powerful. Allah is Ever-Forgiving, Most Merciful." (60:7)

    There is no category for human beings other than Bani Adam (Children of Adam). You are mistaking not being considered part of a spiritual brotherhood as being considered sub-human which makes no sense; a brotherhood has rights and obligations - why should we consider non-Muslims as brothers? Does brotherhood not have a lexical significance?

    Furthermore, not granting certain categories of people the same rights as others does not entail considering them sub-human. In the US, non-citizens are not fully enfranchised and do not have the same rights as citizens - hardly means they are considered sub-human.

    Westerners are beginning to ask themselves if it is altogether wise
     
    Look, I'm cool with Westerners kicking out Muslims, just do it legally. Also, don't make up stuff about the religion - that's just not respectable.

    Peace.

    Talha—let’s be adults about this, shall we
    What kind of adult follows a religion which describes people as apes (2:65), apes and swine (5:60), and as being less enlightened than cattle (7:179 and 25:44)?

    You are mistaking not being considered part of a spiritual brotherhood as being considered sub-human which makes no sense
    No, I am simply quoting Allah’s opinion of non-Muslims, which does tend to coalesce around the bestial—that’s to say, the sub-human—end of the spectrum.

    don’t make up stuff about the religion
    I have no need. Give Islam enough rope and it hangs itself. I regret that, on this thread, you will receive no more replies from me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @pensword
    What kind of adult follows a religion which describes people as apes (2:65), apes and swine (5:60), and as being less enlightened than cattle (7:179 and 25:44)?

    Perhaps you should ask some Christians, since Jesus himself is quoted as referring to Gentiles as dogs and swine. (Matthew 7:6)

    And here I thought you might have to offer something more than the usual drivel.

    Oh, well.
    , @Talha

    people as apes (2:65), apes and swine (5:60)
     
    Have you read the commentaries? That was an actual supernatural punishment for a specific group of Jews that broke the Sabbath. God expects better behavior.

    being less enlightened than cattle (7:179 and 25:44)
     
    Cattle worship God as they are supposed to. God insults those human beings that reject the message precisely because He expects better behavior. Which is why you don't see insults of rocks and trees in the Qur'an.

    As far as insults - as pensword pointed out - the Son of Mary (pbuh) used plenty of insults against those who refused to believe in him or were sinful; calling people vipers, etc. So again...meh.

    God insults human beings that don't fall in line with His expectations. So what? He has completely wiped them out before. He owns you - take it up with Him when you see Him if you feel insulted - don't shoot the messenger.


    you will receive no more replies from me
     
    As you wish - we were just warming up.

    Peace.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. pensword says:
    @Johnny Rottenborough
    pensword—The translation is N J Dawood’s, first published in 1956. The root q-t-l, particularly its form III as used in Qur’an 8:39, is examined here by the Revd Mark Durie. If Durie is correct in saying that many form III verbs ‘denote an intentional, sustained activity directed towards an object’, Dawood’s use of ‘war’ seems reasonable.

    The Quranic Arabic Corpus translation of the preceding verse, 8:38, begins ‘Say to those who disbelieve’. Again, the use of ‘unbelievers’ seems reasonable.

    I think it is generally agreed that 2:256 is abrogated by later verses.

    Regarding ‘backward societies’, I had in mind Chapter 7 of Christopher Caldwell’s Reflections on the Revolution in Europe:

    ‘The Islamic world is an economic and intellectual basket case, the part of the potentially civilized world most left behind by progress, as the annual Arab Human Development Reports published by the United Nations make plain, year after year…Spain translates more foreign books in a year than all the Arabic-speaking countries have translated since the reign of Caliph Mamoun in the ninth century. Half of Arab youths polled want to emigrate from their countries. Outside of fossil fuels, the entire Arab world exports less than Finland does.’

    The root q-t-l, particularly its form III as used in Qur’an 8:39, is examined here by the Revd Mark Durie.

    Durie writes

    Although fight could involve killing, it does not necessarily imply it. A contest between boxers is a fight, as is a wrestling match between boys in a school yard. … In contrast the Arabic form III qātala (qātilū in the 2nd person plural imperative), which is translated as ‘fight’ in English versions of the Quran, includes the meaning of killing.

    Hans Wehr’s English-Arabic dictionary presents a mathematically precise breakdown of the root q-t-l:

    Form I of the verb includes the meanings “to kill, slay, murder, assassinate, mitigate, alleviate, know, master (a skill or a subject thoroughly), have long experience with life or be worldly wise,” each of which may be construed upon examining the context in which it is used. Form II bears the meanings of “to massacre or cause carnage,” a form which would support Durie’s argument, had it appeared in 8:39.

    Form III may be rendered only as “to combat, battle, or fight.” As such, Durie’s claim that it “includes the meaning of killing” is false on its face and I see no reference to any reputable dictionary that would prove otherwise.

    As per Durie’s Form III assertions about prolonged action: A sustained fight is not necessarily a martial war, nor does it require killing. For many years following the Battle of Badr (after which Surah 8 was sent down), the muslims were compelled to fight or die. It was just that simple. Some may assert that there are analogues to this today, though I’m reminded of ahaddith in which we’re warned to “be the better son of Adam” in a time of widespread killing ~ the kind which most of us only hear about these days, knowing nothing of the reality.

    The Quranic Arabic Corpus translation of the preceding verse, 8:38, begins ‘Say to those who disbelieve’.

    The root k-f-r first and foremost connotes “covering,” as in concealing something. Those being addressed in 8:38 recognize God’s truth, yet deny or “cover” it. As such, the terms “infidels” and “disbelievers” aren’t as accurate a rendering as “deniers.”

    I think it is generally agreed that 2:256 is abrogated by later verses.

    There is no such “general agreement.” 2: 256 forms the foundation of an unprecedented constitutional republic, one in which religious liberty remains inviolable.

    ‘The Islamic world is an economic and intellectual basket case …

    Which is why American universities regularly acquire muslim talent from overseas. I’ll take the literacy rate of Gaza against that of the United States any day, thank you. Or is it that I’m mistaken about Americans’ collective intellectual superiority when they’re confronted with lies about WMDs? I seem to recall a sizeable majority of them unwittingly jumped on the neocon bandwagon some 14 years ago, setting the current cavalcade of ever-cascading chaos in motion.

    It takes a special kind of ignorance to accomplish that. “Basket-case” doesn’t begin to describe it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johnny Rottenborough
    pensword—During a ‘combat, battle or fight’, it has frequently been known for death to occur. Further to your mention of other forms of q-t-l, Quranic Arabic Corpus provides a handy though bloody list of all the appearances of the root in the Qur’an.

    If you find standard English translations of the Qur’an unsatisfactory, publish your own.

    Your claim of the inviolability of religious liberty is difficult to square with, for example, clause o11.9 of Reliance of the Traveller: ‘If non-Muslim subjects of the Islamic state refuse to conform to the rules of Islam, or to pay the non-Muslim poll tax, then their agreement with the state has been violated.’ They are then subject to any punishment deemed fit. As you will know, polytheists such as Hindus are presented with just two options, conversion or death.

    On WMDs, Western peoples trusted their governments. Western societies are high trust. Sadly, they have been infiltrated by outsiders who are adept in exploiting trust.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. Avery says:
    @Colin Wright
    '...So-called Muslim states would be little threat to Europe or America if not for Zio-America’s meddlesome campaigns of terror and intervention that have devastated Syria, Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon and Libya. Israel’s arch-enemy, Iran, is next. We must try to stop this...'

    I'll add that it's hardly likely to stop with Iran. Iran actually doesn't pose much of a threat to Israel at all -- but Israel insists on seeing it as such.

    For whatever reason, Israel has always had an 'enemy' -- and when that 'enemy' is vanquished, it merely conceives another.

    Consider. From 1948 to Camp David in 1979, Egypt was the Great Satan. Then it was suborned, and Israel had no major enemy...but wait!

    There's the PLO in Lebanon. Another Palestinian faction entirely wounds the Israeli ambassador in England -- we've got to invade Lebanon and crush the PLO.

    That goes on until the PLO is defanged -- but now there's Hezbollah and Hamas. Hezbollah of course was only a 'threat' as long as Israel insisted on trying to conquer Lebanon -- once she gave up on that, Hezbollah ceased to pose any actual danger. It's really a very parochial group, with entirely local concerns.

    Hamas of course has been boxed into the Warsa...whoops, Gaza ghetto, so it can't do much.

    Gee. No enemy. What to do? What to do?

    Iran!

    Think if Iran is crushed this will actually end? I doubt it. Israel will always have to have an 'enemy.' At a guess, Turkey will be next up.

    {Iran is crushed}

    Iran cannot be ‘crushed’.

    The only way it can be ‘crushed’ is by an all out nuke attack: nobody can be sure, but I doubt Russia will allow an all out nuke assault on a country on its (very sensitive) Southern border.

    Despite using everything other than nukes – e.g. unrestricted carpet bombing, chemical weapons, air-superiority, Naval supremacy, 550,000 US ground troops, a puppet ally, etc, etc – US was not able to crush Viet Nam. US does not have anywhere near that number of combat troops to deploy to Iran. (Iraqi invasion was ~200,000 US troops, ~45,000 UK troops.)
    And you cannot crush a country by bombing alone: you need ground troops to take and hold ground.

    {Turkey will be next up.}

    Turkey will never be the next, as far as US and Israel are concerned.
    Despite overt displays of (fake) ‘hostility’, US & Israel & Turkey are buddy-buddies.
    (long story and lots of reasons why).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. @Colin Wright
    Good piece. It's nice to see someone take up arms against the proposition that people will believe anything if you just repeat it often enough.

    Believe what?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Allan
    "Islam is peace."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. @Bucky
    Yes, Gaffney and Geller and the like exaggerate greatly.

    However, they aren’t entirely wrong. They are certainly incorrect on the facts, but the fact is that Islam is a rival civilization and a rival nationalism. Muslims I’ve met often display disloyal attitudes towards the United States, often disdainful attitudes, wishing a diminishment of US power.

    While there certainly are problems with US foreign policy esp Israel, Muslims have an emotional stake in it and aren’t giving so much friendly corrective advice, but are seriously and deeply angry about the issue, and others.

    Would you see Muslims sticking to this country through tough times? Likely not. Deep down, there is no attachment to it, its traditional culture or its values. Muslim enlistment in the armed forces is below average and that likely reflects a disloyalty.

    ‘…While there certainly are problems with US foreign policy esp Israel, Muslims have an emotional stake in it and aren’t giving so much friendly corrective advice, but are seriously and deeply angry about the issue…’

    It’d be bizarre if they weren’t angry. Why shouldn’t they be?

    Read More
    • Agree: Talha, Kratoklastes
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. Seraphim says:
    @Wally
    I noticed that Arnold Issacs leaves Jews / Israel's loathing of Muslims out of the picture.

    He quite expectedly does not mention Israel's strictly enforced Jews Only immigration laws which are supported by US Jews.

    Issacs, a wolf in sheeps clothing.

    http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/479/110/152.jpg

    From the very beginnings of Islam, Jews and Muslims have been allies, sharing the same objective: destruction of ‘Rum’ – the Christian Roman Empire. They always availed themselves of their ‘cousinage’. “But you, too, are children of Abraham and sons of the patriarch. Arise with us and save us from service to the emperor of the Romans, and together we shall hold our realm. [The Arabs] were encouraged further hearing this, and went against Judaea and Asorestan (Syria)”.
    There is no doubt but in the minds of Muslims that Mahomed was ‘inspired’ by Judaism (albeit in some of its ‘heretical’ forms – but all anti-Christian). The Muslim-Jewish squabbles and deceptive ‘parting of the ways’ were mostly due to claims of primacy in this unholy alliance. Who was the rightful heir of Abraham, Isaac (the legitimate son of Abraham) or Ishmael (his bastard son)? Who has rights over the ‘Temple Mount’ (the fake story of the ‘ascent to heavens’ of Mahomed from Jerusalem – implying that Mahomed had his revelation in the Jewish Temple – was too much for the Jews)?
    But this collaboration persisted in fact along the centuries, despite those apparent squabbles. Their ‘cousinage’ hold firm. Jews deny that Jesus was a descendant of Abraham. For them Jesus is ‘Yeshua ben Pantera’, the son of a Roman soldier and a prostitute. As illegitimate he is excluded from the ‘abrahamic’ coterie.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    So you too noticed that Issacs deliberately left out the obvious Jew / Israeli hatred & mass murder of Muslims.

    www.codoh.com
    , @Malla
    You may find this interesting

    Jews have attempted using Muslims as weapons against Europe in the past. This is old story. Check this out about how 12000 Moors could defeat 100000 Visigoths of Iberia. They had inside help.

    https://ia802702.us.archive.org/17/items/ThePlotAgainstTheChurch_192/PlotAgainstTheCurchComplete.pdf

    In Page 315, we read “Marcelino Menendez Pelayo, the renowned Spanish historian of the previous century, writes concerning the treachery of the Jews: “The indigenous population would have been able to show resistance to the handful of Arabs who crossed the Straits, but Witiza had disarmed them, levelled the towers to the ground and had the lances turned into harrows.”125 While the Visigoth kingdom disarmed under the influence of the Jewish advisors and friends of Witiza, dismantled its defence and destroyed its war power, the Jews encouraged the Musulmans to fall upon the Christian kingdom and to destroy it. Great preparations were made in North Africa for this. Into the land which the Jews wished to destroy they introduced pacifism, and into the land which should serve them as a tool to destroy the other, a warlike spirit. These classical tactics the Jews have applied in the course of centuries in different states and use them today with a perfection, in which they have attained experience in the course of centuries. ”

    So those they want to destroy they preach them pacifism (Whites told to accept a brown multicultural multiracial Sharia future, Islamophobia) and those they want to use as destroyers, they preach war (Wahabism, Marxist hatred for Whites ). History repeating itself.

    There are theories that Islam itself was was started by the ancestors of the Zionists to use Arabs as a tool to destroy the Aryan Persian and Byzantine Empires.

    http://thechristiansolution.com/tcs_book/SupportDocs_TCS/TCS158.htm

    http://www.thechristiansolution.com/Exilarch.html

    https://exposingthelieofislam.wordpress.com/the-truth-about-the-origins-and-spread-of-islam-how-the-jews-developed-the-program-of-islam-to-invade-and-destroy-the-east/

    Islam as a Jewish psy ops meant primarily to destroy Aryans, but it went wrong and now has a life of it’s own. The earliest Muslim Arabs realized the treachery of the Jews and thus many were killed in Medina and the Arabs wrote in warnings about Jews in Islamic literature.
    , @Malla
    You may find this interesting. Interesting questions about the existance of Prophet Mohammed.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dlXCrpKTt0
    , @Malla
    Straight from the horses mouth

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14PfttNqLnA

    Islamization of Europe Good for Jews Says Rabbi
    Their Mashiah (anti christ, dajjal) will only come when Europe is destroyed he says.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XK_cJgihG8

    Rabbi says migrant invasion "has to happen"
    It is about White genocide after all. The rabbi says Native Europeans will mix with Middle Easterners and we will have a brown Europe. Man, Why are the Jews so obsessed with finishing off White racial purity? What problem do they have if pure White people exist? What about White people scares them?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dXD2H0m74g

    We Control Islam and We'll Use It to Destroy the West
    Now, I am not so sure about the above conspiracy claims but it seems very interesting
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. @Talha
    What you say makes no sense. Comparing the record of Muslim invasions of India to what is happening in the US is complete nonsense. The Muslims came into India with swords and spears and didn't ask permission. The ones in the US are here by complete legal recognition, they stood in line, filled out papers, etc. If the US wants to reverse that policy, totally fine - here's how you do it:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Otbml6WIQPo

    As far as spreading Islam in America - uh yeah, that's what we are supposed to do unless people stop us. Americans can also make it illegal to proselytize - again, refer to above video. Won't do much though, unless they want to clamp down on the internet.

    There is nothing being under the table here in the US - the dawah is on, we are quite public about it.

    Why don't you challenge it by inviting to Hinduism or whatever you follow - it's a free country.

    Peace.

    Of course, no one would suggest that what happened in the subcontinent, is what’s taking place in North America, at least not in terms of brutality. The new techniques and approaches are just as effective for the current times. A well vested minority, viz. Jews, while undermining the Christian majority, comes to the aid of another likeminded minority, for mutual benefit, all the while destabilising the opposition. And that’s fundamentally unfair but who is worried about fairness when the enemy is the bane of their existence.

    As to my evangelizing others with my own beliefs or lack thereof, one thing is certain that I for one, refuse to believe with all my being, God, if it did exist, would not have first and last, appeared to a Semitic bunch, Jews or Arabs, and in the Middle East… if it did come, which would be a one shot in a gazillion, it would have shown itself to its own, much gentler creation and to a spot it can be proud off when it imagined it first.I and mine, don’t see the need to add to the already, fraudulently crowded space-we’ll wait for the creation to die out either on its own accord or by the actions of its greatest product, the MAN!

    It’s always good to banter with you, Paisan!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha

    when the enemy is the bane of their existence.
     
    I can't speak for Jews, but - as I said - we don't care to replace White Europeans. In fact, they need help getting their demographics back on course. That starts with figuring out how to restore the traditional institution of the family. As far as decline of Christianity - which, of course has been a rival faith - Europeans don't need our help in taking it down, they've been doing a heck of a job themselves and inviting us to do the same with our religion.

    I for one, refuse to believe with all my being, God, if it did exist, would not have first and last, appeared to a Semitic bunch, Jews or Arabs, and in the Middle East
     
    We do not hold this belief. Prophethood was never the monopoly of the Semites. That is not our narrative:
    "We sent a Messenger among every nation saying: ´Worship Allah and keep clear of all false gods.´ Among them were some whom Allah guided but others received the misguidance they deserved. Travel about the earth and see the final fate of the deniers." (16:36)

    "Lo! We have sent thee with the Truth, a bearer of glad tidings and a warner; and there is not a nation but a warner had passed among them." (35:24)

    Take it up with those who say otherwise. We have no reason to deny the prophethood of previous figures, which is why Muslims remain agnostic about them (erring on the side of caution):
    "It is very probable that many of the great religious figures of other traditions were true prophets. Similarly, we see traces of monotheism in the beliefs and practices of such traditions. However, we do not affirm prophethood or Divine Origins for any prophet or religion that the primary texts of the Qur'an and Prophetic sunna have not affirmed such for."
    http://islamqa.org/hanafi/qibla-hanafi/43746

    we’ll wait for the creation to die out either on its own accord or by the actions of its greatest product, the MAN!
     
    Oh Ok - you don't really offer any solutions other than "pass the pop corn". No problem, to each his own.

    It’s always good to banter with you, Paisan!
     
    Thanks, you as well.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. Bucky says:
    @Talha

    wishing a diminishment of US power.
     
    Tons of people on this very forum want a diminished US power because of how off the rails it has gone within living memory.

    Muslim enlistment in the armed forces is below average and that likely reflects a disloyalty.
     
    ...or the fact that they don't want to help bomb Muslim countries into the stone age at Israel's behest - your pick.

    Peace.

    There is a difference between advocating a more judicious use of US power and wishing for a confrontational China to reduce US power, or thinking that Iran should have nuclear weapons. Big difference. Pat Buchanan falls into the former camp but certainly not the second.

    Not everyone in the armed forces is killing Muslims. Some are serving in the Pacific and Europe.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha

    There is a difference between advocating a more judicious use of US power
     
    Agreed - I'm talking about the Buchanan idea - I don't know of many Muslims that want a confrontation between China and the US - in fact, I can't think of a single Muslim I've ever come across that desires this. As far as Iran and nuclear weapons; let's advocate for all nations to get rid of nuclear weapons (especially in that region - looking at you; Tel Aviv, Islamabad and New Delhi) - that is what I support. Can we agree that this is the most principled way forward?

    Some are serving in the Pacific and Europe.
     
    Soldiers get to decide which theaters they are deployed to? I did not know this.

    Peace.
    , @Colin Wright
    '...There is a difference between advocating a more judicious use of US power and wishing for a confrontational China to reduce US power, or thinking that Iran should have nuclear weapons...'

    If Iran had nuclear weapons, then it would be safe from the US and Israel.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. pensword says:
    @Talha

    I think it is generally agreed that 2:256 is abrogated by later verses.
     
    No - the majority of the Muslim scholars hold that neither that nor verses like 60:8 have been abrogated in the sense of total abrogation. Verses of war (which these are, since they obviously come in a chapter called 'Anfaal' - literally 'Spoils of War') need to be viewed in context of the Qur'anic and hadith corpus in its entirety.

    Now there are definitely certain scholars of the Shafi'i school that held that these verses actually applied to all pagans and polytheists in toto and without exception; in which case pagans/polytheists have no choice but to convert or fight. The other, bigger, schools disagreed. And nobody applied these versus on the People of the Book - they were always given the dhimmi option by consensus.

    When it comes to these issue, it is much better to cut to the chase and just go straight to what the Muslim scholars have derived because they've already done the legwork of distilling the rulings from the primary sources. Discussing minutiae about the grammar of specific versus doesn't really get anybody anywhere unless you are an authority someone actually cares about listening to - the Islamic tradition is fairly inoculated from the opinions of non-Muslims on this matter. As a starting point, opinions on meanings of verses, transmission of hadith and even any testimony with regard to religious matters is completely rejected if one is a non-Muslim. No offense, but - our tradition, our rules.

    As far as backwards societies; the Muslim world is big some of it is still stuck in the 10th century (sometimes by choice - people want to keep to their tribal and nomadic ways - this is not going backwards, they simply have zero desire to catch up to the Jones'*) and some of it is more materially advanced than other non-Muslim parts of the world like South America, Indo-China, Africa, etc. Colin Wright did a pretty good breakdown.

    Peace.

    *And reap the whirlwind of:
    "My mom is transitioning to become my dad. How can I be supportive when I feel like I’m mourning my mom?"
    https://mic.com/articles/190525/my-mom-is-transitioning-to-become-my-dad-how-do-i-support-him-when-i-feel-like-im-mourning-my-mom#.RILD8VVmA

    As-salaamu ‘alaikum.

    When it comes to these issue, it is much better to cut to the chase and just go straight to what the Muslim scholars have derived because they’ve already done the legwork of distilling the rulings from the primary sources.

    I tend to agree, though find it necessary to recall that the Prophet himself foretold the loss of knowledge among his people, a loss that would occur within a few generations of his worldly passing. Some “scholars” assert that this loss is yet to occur, but the grammar of the haddith belies such claims.

    The myriad ahaddith extolling the virtues of the ‘ulama aren’t referencing individuals with academic mastery. An ‘alim is one who knows God and it requires no proficiency in Arabic nor memorization of The Qur’an to do that.

    As a starting point, opinions on meanings of verses, transmission of hadith and even any testimony with regard to religious matters is completely rejected if one is a non-Muslim. No offense, but – our tradition, our rules.

    One may evince an opinion consonant with Islam without an explicit testimony of faith, so I don’t find this degree of exclusion incumbent upon us. Truth is always clearly distinguishable from falsehood anyways, right?

    What makes me pity these poor folk is their insistence that our understanding of Islam isn’t genuine. Here we are, muslims in the (virtual) flesh who clearly stand against extremist distortions of our faith, and what do we countenance regularly from practitioners of a purportedly peaceful way of life but rejection of an understanding that would serve to advance peace? How can you help but feel sorry for someone like that?

    As far as backwards societies; the Muslim world is big some of it is still stuck in the 10th century (sometimes by choice – people want to keep to their tribal and nomadic ways – this is not going backwards, they simply have zero desire to catch up to the Jones’*) and some of it is more materially advanced than other non-Muslim parts of the world like South America, Indo-China, Africa, etc. Colin Wright did a pretty good breakdown.

    If following in the footsteps of Sodom isn’t “backwards,” I don’t want to know where “forward” leads.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Wa alaikum assalaam, Bro

    An ‘alim is one who knows God and it requires no proficiency in Arabic nor memorization of The Qur’an to do that.
     
    While I understand the linguistic term can be quite encompassing (like the word "scholar"), you'll have to excuse me on this one; I'm pretty traditional when it comes to what I take as authoritative. I think there is a good reason why the Ummah has come to a general understanding when they use the term "aalim" or "ulema".

    One may evince an opinion consonant with Islam without an explicit testimony of faith
     
    Correct - only as coincidence. Muslims have never followed the opinions of non-Muslims on matters of the deen and I don't see any reason to start now.

    Truth is always clearly distinguishable from falsehood anyways, right?
     
    On some things, yes - like whether there is a pre-dawn prayer called Fajr or whether you have to fast from pre-dawn to sun-down during the days of Ramadan. These matters are effectively "Islam" or "Islamic doctrine" since nobody dissents. Other things are not so clear, which is why the ulema disagree.

    their insistence that our understanding of Islam isn’t genuine.
     
    LOL! Yeah, that tickles me.

    muslims in the (virtual) flesh who clearly stand against extremist distortions of our faith
     
    I agree with your sentiment here, but you know that; 1) Zionists are going full throttle on spreading distortions about Islamic doctrine and 2) unfortunately, we do have an extremism problem (it's not a majority or even close, but man can these guys cause trouble - did you hear about what some fools did in Tajikistan). So I can understand some people are quite confused and, honestly, correctly concerned about nincompoop Muslims - these people are willing to hear things out.

    Other people feel like hating on us - who cares? I don't, as long as they hate us for the correct reasons. Here's a great talk by Dr. Sahdee Elmasry on the subject:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CL0dOmGkWAc

    I mean, I expect no love from the corporate execs at Budweiser, do you?

    Wa salaam.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. pensword says:
    @Johnny Rottenborough
    Talha—let’s be adults about this, shall we
    What kind of adult follows a religion which describes people as apes (2:65), apes and swine (5:60), and as being less enlightened than cattle (7:179 and 25:44)?

    You are mistaking not being considered part of a spiritual brotherhood as being considered sub-human which makes no sense
    No, I am simply quoting Allah’s opinion of non-Muslims, which does tend to coalesce around the bestial—that’s to say, the sub-human—end of the spectrum.

    don’t make up stuff about the religion
    I have no need. Give Islam enough rope and it hangs itself. I regret that, on this thread, you will receive no more replies from me.

    What kind of adult follows a religion which describes people as apes (2:65), apes and swine (5:60), and as being less enlightened than cattle (7:179 and 25:44)?

    Perhaps you should ask some Christians, since Jesus himself is quoted as referring to Gentiles as dogs and swine. (Matthew 7:6)

    And here I thought you might have to offer something more than the usual drivel.

    Oh, well.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johnny Rottenborough
    pensword—The authors of these commentaries do not see the verse in quite such black-and-white terms. Note that I have replied to you without casting slurs on your character. If our paths should cross again, please do your best to reciprocate.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. Anon[266] • Disclaimer says:

    “Using techniques of manipulating public opinion, the West is trying to establish the illusion of a global forces with the fascist- like ideology of Wahhabi fundamentalism. As far as the West is concerned, Wahhabi and Islam are the same thing. It is because of this that the essential terrorism of Wahhabi ideas is being formulated so simply for public consumption: all Muslims are terrorists by nature.

    The preliminary objective of brainwashing (Islam is the basis of terrorism) is thus achieved. Therefore, the terrorist world of Islam should be maneuvered into fighting Russia. Russia and the Muslim world will destroy each other, and the West will gain access to the natural resources on their territories. The dollar pyramid will straighten once again, and the economic crisis will be over. Life goes on.”

    [...]

    However, some details indicate that this particular script has bogged down. The world is different now. In the past, it was sufficient to torch the Reichstag or assassinate a prince; but now, even the horrors of September 11 no longer suffice.

    That is why some sort of “fuel” is needed to give the script momentum - terrorist attacks on the scale of September 11, but not in America alone. Over there, in Europe, and in Russia as well. Anthrax is just a prelude. Controllable terrorism, however, has its own limits. Russia knows, for example, that “Chechen terrorists” will no longer suffice. After all, linking them to Islam is fairly difficult.”

    From:

    #14
    Novaya Gazeta
    No. 75
    October 2001
    THE THIRD FORCE OF WORLD WAR III
    Author: Viktor Minin
    [from WPS Monitoring Agency, http://www.wps.ru/e_index.html

    http://www.russialist.org/archives/5497-14.php

    http://www.russialist.org/archives/5497-14.php

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  90. Druid says:
    @forgottenpseudonym
    Almost every assertion in this article that Muslims are not generally supportive of extremism is false, unless Muslims in America are a wholly different proposition to Muslims in Europe. Unlikely.
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2014.935307

    I can see why you forgot your pseudonym. You’re an idiot. The vast majority od Moslems don’t support extremism. You must be a Zio or evangelist Zio, idiot

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. Talha says:
    @Bucky
    There is a difference between advocating a more judicious use of US power and wishing for a confrontational China to reduce US power, or thinking that Iran should have nuclear weapons. Big difference. Pat Buchanan falls into the former camp but certainly not the second.

    Not everyone in the armed forces is killing Muslims. Some are serving in the Pacific and Europe.

    There is a difference between advocating a more judicious use of US power

    Agreed – I’m talking about the Buchanan idea – I don’t know of many Muslims that want a confrontation between China and the US – in fact, I can’t think of a single Muslim I’ve ever come across that desires this. As far as Iran and nuclear weapons; let’s advocate for all nations to get rid of nuclear weapons (especially in that region – looking at you; Tel Aviv, Islamabad and New Delhi) – that is what I support. Can we agree that this is the most principled way forward?

    Some are serving in the Pacific and Europe.

    Soldiers get to decide which theaters they are deployed to? I did not know this.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bucky
    I have known Muslims who want China to “balance” the US. These are professional and prosperous people, actually not that different from San Bernardino shooter in income. This means by definition a decrease in American hegemony and power.

    I certainly understand why Iran wants nuclear weapons, but again, that is different from saying that Iran should have them, which certainly makes the situation worse. But again, the Muslims I have known thought that Iran should have the weapons because they were Muslim nationalists.

    While a reluctance of Muslims to serve in the armed forces is understandable, it still is that the reason for this reluctance is continued allegiance to outside and rival powers and rival nationality. Dual loyalty, often not even dual. The fact is that Islam is probably better understood not as a religion or a philosophy but more as a nationalism akin to Americanism.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. Druid says:
    @Johnny Rottenborough
    They regularly quote a single sentence that refers to ‘destroying the Western civilization from within’ so that ‘God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions’

    For goodness’ sake, it isn’t just ‘a single sentence’, it is the word of Allah as revealed in Qur’an 8:39 – ‘Make war on them [the unbelievers] until idolatry is no more and Allah’s religion reigns supreme.’

    The objection to Islam is not its ‘threat to national security’ but to the backward societies it has spawned. Given half a chance, Islam will inevitably drag the West down to the same primitive level, a prospect which the West’s greatest enemy finds utterly delicious.

    That idolatry referred to 6th century Arabia, not the Christian west, moron.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. I think you might want to read those scripture references again. That is not at all what the scripture says.

    good grief

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  94. Druid says:
    @Biff
    Islamaphobia is a Zionist invention. Nobody in America cared two shits about Muslim Arabs, until the PNAC/Clean Brake unleashed their plan. People need to be reminded that Muslim Arabs suck at most everything. They are not good terrorists/killers(do a body count over the past hundred years, and you’ll find out who can get the killing done. Hint - it ain’t Arabs) They don’t know how to industrialize a war machine(the Saudi’s can only purchase one, and then they still help using it - see Yemen). They are still stuck in the dark ages in attempts to modernize their societies. They fail social interaction(take a fucking bath - you stink!). And in no possible way could they put together enough collective Arabs brain cells to organize a 9/11 type of event.
    Infact, they are becoming such ineffective enemies, Russia has to be brought back into the fold to keep Americans scared enough to allow the government to continue to erode their liberties, and keep raking in a thousand billion dollars a year to keep them “safe”. Quite the racket - and the beat goes on - be afraid, VERY AFRAID!

    True!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. Druid says:
    @Jake
    What do Jews and Mohammedans have in common in addition to claims of descent from Abraham and murderous contempt for one another?

    Their religious views, from which spring their basic cultural views, are anti-Christ to the core, and they do recognize that only white people built the Christendom that they despise.

    I don’t think Moslems are anti- Christ as are the Jews. The prophet said that Christians were the closest to Moslems

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    It is beyond doubt that the Prophet does not refer to Christians in general, but to the heretical Judeo-'Christian' sect of the Ebionites, supposedly 'faithful to the original teachings of Jesus and thus sharing Islamic views about Jesus' humanity and also rejecting the redemptive death'.
    One of the first men to believe in the prophethood of Muhammad was possibly an Ebionite, or an Arian, or a Nestorian, monk named Waraqah ibn Nawfal, the cousin of Mohammed's wife Khadija, whom Muslims highly honor as a pious man with deep knowledge of the Christian scriptures. The Hadiths say that during the Pre-Islamic became a Christian and "used to write the writing with Hebrew letters. He would write from the Gospel in Hebrew as much as God wished him to write". Hebrew letters! He with his cousin Khadija are the true 'inspirers' of Mahomed. They most probably were Jews.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. Talha says:
    @pensword
    As-salaamu 'alaikum.

    When it comes to these issue, it is much better to cut to the chase and just go straight to what the Muslim scholars have derived because they’ve already done the legwork of distilling the rulings from the primary sources.

    I tend to agree, though find it necessary to recall that the Prophet himself foretold the loss of knowledge among his people, a loss that would occur within a few generations of his worldly passing. Some "scholars" assert that this loss is yet to occur, but the grammar of the haddith belies such claims.

    The myriad ahaddith extolling the virtues of the 'ulama aren't referencing individuals with academic mastery. An 'alim is one who knows God and it requires no proficiency in Arabic nor memorization of The Qur'an to do that.

    As a starting point, opinions on meanings of verses, transmission of hadith and even any testimony with regard to religious matters is completely rejected if one is a non-Muslim. No offense, but – our tradition, our rules.

    One may evince an opinion consonant with Islam without an explicit testimony of faith, so I don't find this degree of exclusion incumbent upon us. Truth is always clearly distinguishable from falsehood anyways, right?

    What makes me pity these poor folk is their insistence that our understanding of Islam isn't genuine. Here we are, muslims in the (virtual) flesh who clearly stand against extremist distortions of our faith, and what do we countenance regularly from practitioners of a purportedly peaceful way of life but rejection of an understanding that would serve to advance peace? How can you help but feel sorry for someone like that?

    As far as backwards societies; the Muslim world is big some of it is still stuck in the 10th century (sometimes by choice – people want to keep to their tribal and nomadic ways – this is not going backwards, they simply have zero desire to catch up to the Jones’*) and some of it is more materially advanced than other non-Muslim parts of the world like South America, Indo-China, Africa, etc. Colin Wright did a pretty good breakdown.

    If following in the footsteps of Sodom isn't "backwards," I don't want to know where "forward" leads.

    Wa alaikum assalaam, Bro

    An ‘alim is one who knows God and it requires no proficiency in Arabic nor memorization of The Qur’an to do that.

    While I understand the linguistic term can be quite encompassing (like the word “scholar”), you’ll have to excuse me on this one; I’m pretty traditional when it comes to what I take as authoritative. I think there is a good reason why the Ummah has come to a general understanding when they use the term “aalim” or “ulema”.

    One may evince an opinion consonant with Islam without an explicit testimony of faith

    Correct – only as coincidence. Muslims have never followed the opinions of non-Muslims on matters of the deen and I don’t see any reason to start now.

    Truth is always clearly distinguishable from falsehood anyways, right?

    On some things, yes – like whether there is a pre-dawn prayer called Fajr or whether you have to fast from pre-dawn to sun-down during the days of Ramadan. These matters are effectively “Islam” or “Islamic doctrine” since nobody dissents. Other things are not so clear, which is why the ulema disagree.

    their insistence that our understanding of Islam isn’t genuine.

    LOL! Yeah, that tickles me.

    muslims in the (virtual) flesh who clearly stand against extremist distortions of our faith

    I agree with your sentiment here, but you know that; 1) Zionists are going full throttle on spreading distortions about Islamic doctrine and 2) unfortunately, we do have an extremism problem (it’s not a majority or even close, but man can these guys cause trouble – did you hear about what some fools did in Tajikistan). So I can understand some people are quite confused and, honestly, correctly concerned about nincompoop Muslims – these people are willing to hear things out.

    Other people feel like hating on us – who cares? I don’t, as long as they hate us for the correct reasons. Here’s a great talk by Dr. Sahdee Elmasry on the subject:

    I mean, I expect no love from the corporate execs at Budweiser, do you?

    Wa salaam.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. Jon B says:

    Why is the UNZ Review supporting Islam? We lost Anatolia, much of central Asia, North Africa, and Spain for a while to Islam and its brown hordes. Islam is intolerant of other religions and is expressly supremacist. Enabling Islam is equivalent to enabling the browning of the West under a rudimentary brown religion. There is no defense. Giving comfort to the enemy is not forgivable.

    Read More
    • Disagree: Colin Wright
    • Replies: @Avery
    {Why is the UNZ Review supporting Islam?}

    UNZ supports no group, no religion, no political party, no ideology, ......no nothing.
    (observation based on reading and commenting @unz.com since it started)
    UNZ allows or invites columnists from the entire spectrum.
    UNZ also has a _very_ liberal posting policy to allow readers/posters to counter whatever the given columnist is advocating.

    {We lost Anatolia,}

    I'd rather our side stop using this Turk-inspired disinformation term: I always use "Asia Minor" instead. Although 'Anatolia' is a Greek-origin word meaning "the East", it has been corrupted by the invading UygurTürkoğlar nomads to obscure and erase the history of who lived in Asia Minor before the nomads showed up.

    For example, Turks speak about the (mythical) "Anatolian" people, or "Anatolian" culture, carefully avoiding mentioning "Armenian", or "Assyrian", or "Greek". The purpose is twofold: to erase the historic fact that Armenians, Assyrians, Pontic Greeks were the indigenous Christian peoples there - whom the nomad Muslim Turkic invaders wiped out - and create the impression that nomad Turks from East and Central Asia are one of the original, indigenous peoples of Asia Minor.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. @Bucky
    There is a difference between advocating a more judicious use of US power and wishing for a confrontational China to reduce US power, or thinking that Iran should have nuclear weapons. Big difference. Pat Buchanan falls into the former camp but certainly not the second.

    Not everyone in the armed forces is killing Muslims. Some are serving in the Pacific and Europe.

    ‘…There is a difference between advocating a more judicious use of US power and wishing for a confrontational China to reduce US power, or thinking that Iran should have nuclear weapons…’

    If Iran had nuclear weapons, then it would be safe from the US and Israel.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. Druid says:
    @Eighthman
    and while we're at it........ ( a pause for the NSA or the hasbara set to troll) Nobody ever seems to talk about the sheer overwhelming doom that the 9/11 narrative set upon the world. Let me explain:

    You have a bunch of night club going, alcohol drinking, strip club fans who somehow manage to be "Muslim" who end their lives in well planned suicide as pilots. Does college or lap dances dissuade them? Nope.

    Anybody see how that narrative makes the whole world hopeless? Nothing the west has to offer makes any difference to these supposed robot kamikaze zombies - who can't be reformed or changed or seduced into non violent normalcy by the west.

    Actually, I could see the Iraq war as an attempt to overthrow the Arab world into consumerism and a semblance of democracy - instead of what the 9/11 story said about them. No wonder so many prefer a conspiracy.

    911 was an inside job. Got the Zio-Neocons what the planned for for d Cade’s!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. Talha says:
    @Dagon Shield
    Of course, no one would suggest that what happened in the subcontinent, is what's taking place in North America, at least not in terms of brutality. The new techniques and approaches are just as effective for the current times. A well vested minority, viz. Jews, while undermining the Christian majority, comes to the aid of another likeminded minority, for mutual benefit, all the while destabilising the opposition. And that's fundamentally unfair but who is worried about fairness when the enemy is the bane of their existence.

    As to my evangelizing others with my own beliefs or lack thereof, one thing is certain that I for one, refuse to believe with all my being, God, if it did exist, would not have first and last, appeared to a Semitic bunch, Jews or Arabs, and in the Middle East... if it did come, which would be a one shot in a gazillion, it would have shown itself to its own, much gentler creation and to a spot it can be proud off when it imagined it first.I and mine, don't see the need to add to the already, fraudulently crowded space-we'll wait for the creation to die out either on its own accord or by the actions of its greatest product, the MAN!

    It's always good to banter with you, Paisan!

    when the enemy is the bane of their existence.

    I can’t speak for Jews, but – as I said – we don’t care to replace White Europeans. In fact, they need help getting their demographics back on course. That starts with figuring out how to restore the traditional institution of the family. As far as decline of Christianity – which, of course has been a rival faith – Europeans don’t need our help in taking it down, they’ve been doing a heck of a job themselves and inviting us to do the same with our religion.

    I for one, refuse to believe with all my being, God, if it did exist, would not have first and last, appeared to a Semitic bunch, Jews or Arabs, and in the Middle East

    We do not hold this belief. Prophethood was never the monopoly of the Semites. That is not our narrative:
    “We sent a Messenger among every nation saying: ´Worship Allah and keep clear of all false gods.´ Among them were some whom Allah guided but others received the misguidance they deserved. Travel about the earth and see the final fate of the deniers.” (16:36)

    “Lo! We have sent thee with the Truth, a bearer of glad tidings and a warner; and there is not a nation but a warner had passed among them.” (35:24)

    Take it up with those who say otherwise. We have no reason to deny the prophethood of previous figures, which is why Muslims remain agnostic about them (erring on the side of caution):
    “It is very probable that many of the great religious figures of other traditions were true prophets. Similarly, we see traces of monotheism in the beliefs and practices of such traditions. However, we do not affirm prophethood or Divine Origins for any prophet or religion that the primary texts of the Qur’an and Prophetic sunna have not affirmed such for.”

    http://islamqa.org/hanafi/qibla-hanafi/43746

    we’ll wait for the creation to die out either on its own accord or by the actions of its greatest product, the MAN!

    Oh Ok – you don’t really offer any solutions other than “pass the pop corn”. No problem, to each his own.

    It’s always good to banter with you, Paisan!

    Thanks, you as well.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. Seraphim says:
    @Talha

    I think it is generally agreed that 2:256 is abrogated by later verses.
     
    No - the majority of the Muslim scholars hold that neither that nor verses like 60:8 have been abrogated in the sense of total abrogation. Verses of war (which these are, since they obviously come in a chapter called 'Anfaal' - literally 'Spoils of War') need to be viewed in context of the Qur'anic and hadith corpus in its entirety.

    Now there are definitely certain scholars of the Shafi'i school that held that these verses actually applied to all pagans and polytheists in toto and without exception; in which case pagans/polytheists have no choice but to convert or fight. The other, bigger, schools disagreed. And nobody applied these versus on the People of the Book - they were always given the dhimmi option by consensus.

    When it comes to these issue, it is much better to cut to the chase and just go straight to what the Muslim scholars have derived because they've already done the legwork of distilling the rulings from the primary sources. Discussing minutiae about the grammar of specific versus doesn't really get anybody anywhere unless you are an authority someone actually cares about listening to - the Islamic tradition is fairly inoculated from the opinions of non-Muslims on this matter. As a starting point, opinions on meanings of verses, transmission of hadith and even any testimony with regard to religious matters is completely rejected if one is a non-Muslim. No offense, but - our tradition, our rules.

    As far as backwards societies; the Muslim world is big some of it is still stuck in the 10th century (sometimes by choice - people want to keep to their tribal and nomadic ways - this is not going backwards, they simply have zero desire to catch up to the Jones'*) and some of it is more materially advanced than other non-Muslim parts of the world like South America, Indo-China, Africa, etc. Colin Wright did a pretty good breakdown.

    Peace.

    *And reap the whirlwind of:
    "My mom is transitioning to become my dad. How can I be supportive when I feel like I’m mourning my mom?"
    https://mic.com/articles/190525/my-mom-is-transitioning-to-become-my-dad-how-do-i-support-him-when-i-feel-like-im-mourning-my-mom#.RILD8VVmA

    Admirable war on words and subtle distinctions that leaves you speechless.

    Is Yusuf Ali’s translation to be considered to be ‘the most faithful rendering available in English’ or is he a simple ‘traduttore, traditore’?

    8:38. Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them).
    8:39. And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah (1207*) altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do.(1208*)
    *1207 Cf. 2:193 and n. 207.
    *1208 If they cease from fighting and from the persecution of truth, Allah judges them by their actions and their motives, and would not wish that they should be harassed with further hostility. But if they refuse all terms, the righteous has nothing to fear: Allah will help and protect them.

    If the real meaning of the Quran is understandable only in Arabic by the Arabs, why to translate it at all, if the ‘fight against unbelievers’ is abrogated? Proselytism is a fight. Is it not a duty of Muslims to spread Islam ‘altogether and everywhere’ and make those who resist to ‘desist’ from ‘Unbelief’? Until there is no more ‘fitnah’ (“trying to force Muslims to revert from their religion and re-embrace Kufr after they had believed is worse than killing, says Allah” through the mouth of the “highly influential historian, exegete and scholar during the Mamluk era in Syria, the “expert on tafsir and faqīh, Ibn Kathir? In other words until there is no more Christian ‘proselytism’ (and outward expressions of Christian Faith – like display of crosses- that might ‘tempt’ converts to Islam to revert to their former faith) and attempts to reconquer their stolen lands.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha

    or is he a simple
     
    He was not a scholar nor does anybody take his commentary seriously in traditional circles since he wasn't a qualified exegete (a station not many have reached). I actually have a copy of his translation, I do like the flow of some of the prose - I prefer Sr. Aisha Bewley's.

    If the real meaning of the Quran is understandable only in Arabic by the Arabs
     
    Most Arabs couldn't point out the grammatical composition of any given sentence of the Qur'an - let alone the ones on the high rhetorical scales - it is a specialized science.

    why to translate it at all,
     
    As a crutch, since most Muslims don't have the time to study Arabic. Really doesn't matter since the idea of deriving rulings from an English translation is laughable.

    if the ‘fight against unbelievers’ is abrogated
     
    Who said it is abrogated? It was never abrogated. It was put into abeyance due to the international treaties of non-aggression that Muslims are signatory to. If non-Muslims return to the days of the British and French Empires, we return to the days of the Ottoman and Safavid.

    there is no more Christian ‘proselytism’
     
    Yes, that's not allowed in Muslim lands. But we aren't picking on Christians really since no one is allowed to proselytize. Like I said, if that bugs you so much, you can return the West to the days when proselytising in Christian lands wasn't allowed:
    "When the Roman Empire became Christian, apostates were punished by deprivation of all civil rights. They could not give evidence in a court of law, and could neither bequeath nor inherit property. To induce anyone to apostatize was an offence punishable with death [Theodosian Code, XVI, title 7, De apostatis; title 8, De Judæis; "Corpus juris romani ante-Justinianæi" (Bonn, 1840), 1521 - 1607; Code of Justinian I, title 7, De apostatis l. c. 60, 61]."
    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01624b.htm

    What's stopping you now? You guys obviously were fine with prohibiting it in previous times.


    like display of crosses
     
    No, that's usually fine, though - admittedly - certain scholars were pretty tough about not allowed processions and such through Muslim areas. They usually couldn't care less what Christians did in their own enclaves though.

    and attempts to reconquer their stolen lands
     
    You mean the ones Muslims curb-stomped Greek armies for? Hey man, we took them fair and square. Also...what the hell were Greeks and Romans doing in the Levant and North Africa? If you're going to call yourself the Byzantine Empire, for the love of God, at least have the aptitude to hold it against a bunch of semi-nomadic Arab tribes with second-class weapons and armor and practically no experience with large-scale battles.

    Look, I get you're really, really upset about this* (since you keep bringing this up) so let's make a deal...you guys in the West join up and powwow and figure out a plan to retake everything in the name of Christ - you know, get your carpet bombers ready and cruise missiles and all that holy stuff. Then get rid of the international treaties that you guys drafted (in the aftermath of going postal on each others' cities) and come get some land - you know our address since we haven't moved. I promise, I won't complain if you do it after getting rid of the international framework because then you won't be hypocrites and I can at least respect that.

    And please, at least have the balls to grab a rifle and come yourself - don't send someone else or someone else's kid like some pissy neocon - because that isn't respectable.

    Peace.

    *Especially since Christians had literally reconquered all Muslim lands - and then some - until fairly recently and somehow managed to screw that entire enterprise up within like a hundred and fifty years. We can't be blamed for your ineptitude.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    To back up that conclusion, the well-funded Islamophobia publicity machine incessantly repeats two specific assertions.

     

    What about the specific assertion that Muslims did 9/11? That is a false assertion that they are constantly repeating too, isn't it?

    Hi Jonathan, welcome back.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. Talha says:
    @Johnny Rottenborough
    Talha—let’s be adults about this, shall we
    What kind of adult follows a religion which describes people as apes (2:65), apes and swine (5:60), and as being less enlightened than cattle (7:179 and 25:44)?

    You are mistaking not being considered part of a spiritual brotherhood as being considered sub-human which makes no sense
    No, I am simply quoting Allah’s opinion of non-Muslims, which does tend to coalesce around the bestial—that’s to say, the sub-human—end of the spectrum.

    don’t make up stuff about the religion
    I have no need. Give Islam enough rope and it hangs itself. I regret that, on this thread, you will receive no more replies from me.

    people as apes (2:65), apes and swine (5:60)

    Have you read the commentaries? That was an actual supernatural punishment for a specific group of Jews that broke the Sabbath. God expects better behavior.

    being less enlightened than cattle (7:179 and 25:44)

    Cattle worship God as they are supposed to. God insults those human beings that reject the message precisely because He expects better behavior. Which is why you don’t see insults of rocks and trees in the Qur’an.

    As far as insults – as pensword pointed out – the Son of Mary (pbuh) used plenty of insults against those who refused to believe in him or were sinful; calling people vipers, etc. So again…meh.

    God insults human beings that don’t fall in line with His expectations. So what? He has completely wiped them out before. He owns you – take it up with Him when you see Him if you feel insulted – don’t shoot the messenger.

    you will receive no more replies from me

    As you wish – we were just warming up.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @anonymous
    Thank you Mr.Isaacs. You are doing a blessed job in exposing these cursed hypocrites. May peace be upon you.



    That said, let me say to everyone that it is amazing that European theists find true monotheism* so distasteful. Why, simply because it was irreversibly established (the real proof of the Almighty One’s infinite mercy to mankind) by a brown man, and primarily followed by brown men? Which is ironical because their own pagan human-worshipping faith so obviously borrowed heavily from pagan faiths of other brown men.

    Here is an image of “the father” of those brown pagans (yeah, those self-loathers like to depict themselves as palefaces too :) ).
    http://www.wordzz.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/brahma-01.jpeg

    And then, there is the thought that Islam is medieval, and followed only by “savages,” because of its “medeival-ness,” strictness, etc. So, because of its perceived “medeival-ness,” true monotheism is to be rejected as illogical, and paganism and human/idol-worship becomes more logical? Deluded fools.

    White supremacy has set the Europeans on the pagan polytheist path to Hell, and it is hilarious (and pathetic) that they exult in it.

    --

    * True Monotheism: One God, Infinitely Powerful (no power or might except with Him, hence no need for partners), Unique (like none other, unimaginable)
    You will find that none of these attributes of God contradict each other, so unlike much of pagan dogma.

    By brown pagans do you mean Hindus?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @anonymous
    Jake, you must really hate the atheist and agnostic St. Augustine, since the basic doctrines of the Calvinistic position had been vigorously defended by Augustine against Pelagius during the fifth century.

    "Augustine is so wholly with me, that if I wished to write a confession of my faith, I could do so with all fulness and satisfaction to myself out of his writings." -John Calvin

    “There is hardly a doctrine of Calvin that does not bear the marks of Augustine’s influence.” -Alvin L. Baker

    “The system of doctrine taught by Calvin is just the Augustinianism common to the whole body of the Reformers.” -B. B. Warfield

    “The main features of Calvin’s theology are found in the writings of St. Augustine to such an extent that many theologians regard Calvinism as a more fully developed form of Augustinianism.” - C. Gregg Singer

    Jilles denies he is a Calvinist or any kind of Christian. He is an atheist. His religion is anti Americanism.

    He’s unusually obsessed with the 500 years ago conflict between the Dutch Reformed Church and Catholics for an atheist.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    A typical jewish answer, criticism is based on emotions, not on facts
    Again, my question, do facts exist for jews ?
    Or is jewry still in the pre factual phase of truth: truth is what the leader says ?
    Felipe Fernández-Armesto, ‘Truth, A History and a Guide for the Perplexed’, New York 1997
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    I see no mention of numbers of Muslims in various Western countries, or their sometimes distinctive characteristics. My impression is that US Muslims are an insignificant minority (unless they were all fanatics and one were looking for willing snipers). Moreover they are not generally unskilled or economically lower class. By contrast the UK seems to be suffering from having imported cheap labour from the dregs of inbreeding tribalists in the Empire several decades ago.

    Isn’t it more lifelong welfare slugs instead of cheap labor?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Yes, if you are looking at the later damaging consequences of allowing in low grade immigrants as cheap labour or, for that matter, to run the 24 hour convenience store on low margins and without paying employees overtime.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. Bucky says:
    @Talha

    There is a difference between advocating a more judicious use of US power
     
    Agreed - I'm talking about the Buchanan idea - I don't know of many Muslims that want a confrontation between China and the US - in fact, I can't think of a single Muslim I've ever come across that desires this. As far as Iran and nuclear weapons; let's advocate for all nations to get rid of nuclear weapons (especially in that region - looking at you; Tel Aviv, Islamabad and New Delhi) - that is what I support. Can we agree that this is the most principled way forward?

    Some are serving in the Pacific and Europe.
     
    Soldiers get to decide which theaters they are deployed to? I did not know this.

    Peace.

    I have known Muslims who want China to “balance” the US. These are professional and prosperous people, actually not that different from San Bernardino shooter in income. This means by definition a decrease in American hegemony and power.

    I certainly understand why Iran wants nuclear weapons, but again, that is different from saying that Iran should have them, which certainly makes the situation worse. But again, the Muslims I have known thought that Iran should have the weapons because they were Muslim nationalists.

    While a reluctance of Muslims to serve in the armed forces is understandable, it still is that the reason for this reluctance is continued allegiance to outside and rival powers and rival nationality. Dual loyalty, often not even dual. The fact is that Islam is probably better understood not as a religion or a philosophy but more as a nationalism akin to Americanism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha

    This means by definition a decrease in American hegemony and power.
     
    This is bad, why exactly? Again, Mr. Buchanan wants us to roll back the empire - honest men like Dr. Ron Paul have asked for the same.

    that is different from saying that Iran should have them, which certainly makes the situation worse
     
    Muslims only see hypocrisy in this when people do not call for full nuclear disarmament of others. Why do others get to be the exception? Because they don't attack people unprovoked? You've heard of Iraq and Libya, right?

    it still is that the reason for this reluctance is continued allegiance to outside and rival powers and rival nationality
     
    That's your take on it, which is fine. I don't like the idea of dual national loyalty. If you come to the US, you should leave your other flag behind.

    Islam is probably better understood not as a religion or a philosophy but more as a nationalism akin to Americanism.
     
    This is an ahistoric understanding of religion in general. All religions formed the basis for national identity and the legal framework and even the legitimacy of the ruler (Defender of Christendom in the Realm) until relatively recently. There were entire Buddhist kingdoms and empires. Islam simply refuses to give up the role for organizing society as other religions have; you changed in this regard, we did not.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. Avery says:
    @Jon B
    Why is the UNZ Review supporting Islam? We lost Anatolia, much of central Asia, North Africa, and Spain for a while to Islam and its brown hordes. Islam is intolerant of other religions and is expressly supremacist. Enabling Islam is equivalent to enabling the browning of the West under a rudimentary brown religion. There is no defense. Giving comfort to the enemy is not forgivable.

    {Why is the UNZ Review supporting Islam?}

    UNZ supports no group, no religion, no political party, no ideology, ……no nothing.
    (observation based on reading and commenting @unz.com since it started)
    UNZ allows or invites columnists from the entire spectrum.
    UNZ also has a _very_ liberal posting policy to allow readers/posters to counter whatever the given columnist is advocating.

    {We lost Anatolia,}

    I’d rather our side stop using this Turk-inspired disinformation term: I always use “Asia Minor” instead. Although ‘Anatolia’ is a Greek-origin word meaning “the East”, it has been corrupted by the invading UygurTürkoğlar nomads to obscure and erase the history of who lived in Asia Minor before the nomads showed up.

    For example, Turks speak about the (mythical) “Anatolian” people, or “Anatolian” culture, carefully avoiding mentioning “Armenian”, or “Assyrian”, or “Greek”. The purpose is twofold: to erase the historic fact that Armenians, Assyrians, Pontic Greeks were the indigenous Christian peoples there – whom the nomad Muslim Turkic invaders wiped out – and create the impression that nomad Turks from East and Central Asia are one of the original, indigenous peoples of Asia Minor.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Karl
    108 Avery > UNZ allows or invites columnists from the entire spectrum

    except the corner of the spectrum which wishes to discuss.... what is the indigenous place of the Hebrew language?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. FKA Max says:
    @forgottenpseudonym
    Almost every assertion in this article that Muslims are not generally supportive of extremism is false, unless Muslims in America are a wholly different proposition to Muslims in Europe. Unlikely.
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2014.935307

    This is how China is, allegedly, dealing with its Muslim minority. Are they also Islamophobes or is that label just reserved for Westerners?

    China builds Gulag-like prisons for Muslims, calls them ‘political re-education centres’

    In April 2017, the atheist Communist Party issued ‘Naming Rules for Ethnic Minorities’, banning 29 names, including Muhammad, Islam, Jihad and Hajj.

    https://theprint.in/security/china-builds-gulag-like-prisons-for-muslims-calls-them-political-re-education-centres/91257/

    Is China building ‘political re-education’ camps for Muslim minorities?

    https://www.dw.com/en/is-china-building-political-re-education-camps-for-muslim-minorities/a-44334145

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. Seraphim says:
    @Druid
    I don't think Moslems are anti- Christ as are the Jews. The prophet said that Christians were the closest to Moslems

    It is beyond doubt that the Prophet does not refer to Christians in general, but to the heretical Judeo-’Christian’ sect of the Ebionites, supposedly ‘faithful to the original teachings of Jesus and thus sharing Islamic views about Jesus’ humanity and also rejecting the redemptive death’.
    One of the first men to believe in the prophethood of Muhammad was possibly an Ebionite, or an Arian, or a Nestorian, monk named Waraqah ibn Nawfal, the cousin of Mohammed’s wife Khadija, whom Muslims highly honor as a pious man with deep knowledge of the Christian scriptures. The Hadiths say that during the Pre-Islamic became a Christian and “used to write the writing with Hebrew letters. He would write from the Gospel in Hebrew as much as God wished him to write”. Hebrew letters! He with his cousin Khadija are the true ‘inspirers’ of Mahomed. They most probably were Jews.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Druid
    No argument from me. I agree!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. Wally says:
    @Seraphim
    From the very beginnings of Islam, Jews and Muslims have been allies, sharing the same objective: destruction of 'Rum' - the Christian Roman Empire. They always availed themselves of their 'cousinage'. "But you, too, are children of Abraham and sons of the patriarch. Arise with us and save us from service to the emperor of the Romans, and together we shall hold our realm. [The Arabs] were encouraged further hearing this, and went against Judaea and Asorestan (Syria)".
    There is no doubt but in the minds of Muslims that Mahomed was 'inspired' by Judaism (albeit in some of its 'heretical' forms - but all anti-Christian). The Muslim-Jewish squabbles and deceptive 'parting of the ways' were mostly due to claims of primacy in this unholy alliance. Who was the rightful heir of Abraham, Isaac (the legitimate son of Abraham) or Ishmael (his bastard son)? Who has rights over the 'Temple Mount' (the fake story of the 'ascent to heavens' of Mahomed from Jerusalem - implying that Mahomed had his revelation in the Jewish Temple - was too much for the Jews)?
    But this collaboration persisted in fact along the centuries, despite those apparent squabbles. Their 'cousinage' hold firm. Jews deny that Jesus was a descendant of Abraham. For them Jesus is 'Yeshua ben Pantera', the son of a Roman soldier and a prostitute. As illegitimate he is excluded from the 'abrahamic' coterie.

    So you too noticed that Issacs deliberately left out the obvious Jew / Israeli hatred & mass murder of Muslims.

    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. Wally says:
    @Eighthman
    He didn't have to expel Jewish scientists. They left. Holocaust not required here. Europeans had demonstrated fission/chain reaction possibilities before anybody but Germans failed to create an atomic bomb. They screwed up and lost accordingly.

    And McCarthy was correct? No one innocent was hurt or affected by his witchhunt? Including Oppenheimer or Chinese scientists? Not possible in an imperfect world. Actions have consequences.

    Integration? If they are employed, well and good.

    Yes, McCarthy correctly identified communists in many areas of influence within the US.

    http://libertyhangout.org/2017/05/mccarthy-was-right-there-were-communist-infiltrators-in-america/

    Who was hurt & how? Please tell us.

    you said: “Germans failed to create an atomic bomb. They screwed up and lost accordingly.”

    Not according to Zionist propaganda:

    ‘Germans killed 20,000 Jews with atomic bomb’

    The ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ are scientifically impossible frauds.
    See the ‘holocaust’ scam debunked here: http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here: http://forum.codoh.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. Talha says:
    @Seraphim
    Admirable war on words and subtle distinctions that leaves you speechless.

    Is Yusuf Ali's translation to be considered to be 'the most faithful rendering available in English' or is he a simple 'traduttore, traditore'?

    8:38. Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them).
    8:39. And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah (1207*) altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do.(1208*)
    *1207 Cf. 2:193 and n. 207.
    *1208 If they cease from fighting and from the persecution of truth, Allah judges them by their actions and their motives, and would not wish that they should be harassed with further hostility. But if they refuse all terms, the righteous has nothing to fear: Allah will help and protect them.

    If the real meaning of the Quran is understandable only in Arabic by the Arabs, why to translate it at all, if the 'fight against unbelievers' is abrogated? Proselytism is a fight. Is it not a duty of Muslims to spread Islam 'altogether and everywhere' and make those who resist to 'desist' from 'Unbelief'? Until there is no more 'fitnah' ("trying to force Muslims to revert from their religion and re-embrace Kufr after they had believed is worse than killing, says Allah" through the mouth of the "highly influential historian, exegete and scholar during the Mamluk era in Syria, the "expert on tafsir and faqīh, Ibn Kathir? In other words until there is no more Christian 'proselytism' (and outward expressions of Christian Faith - like display of crosses- that might 'tempt' converts to Islam to revert to their former faith) and attempts to reconquer their stolen lands.

    or is he a simple

    He was not a scholar nor does anybody take his commentary seriously in traditional circles since he wasn’t a qualified exegete (a station not many have reached). I actually have a copy of his translation, I do like the flow of some of the prose – I prefer Sr. Aisha Bewley’s.

    If the real meaning of the Quran is understandable only in Arabic by the Arabs

    Most Arabs couldn’t point out the grammatical composition of any given sentence of the Qur’an – let alone the ones on the high rhetorical scales – it is a specialized science.

    why to translate it at all,

    As a crutch, since most Muslims don’t have the time to study Arabic. Really doesn’t matter since the idea of deriving rulings from an English translation is laughable.

    if the ‘fight against unbelievers’ is abrogated

    Who said it is abrogated? It was never abrogated. It was put into abeyance due to the international treaties of non-aggression that Muslims are signatory to. If non-Muslims return to the days of the British and French Empires, we return to the days of the Ottoman and Safavid.

    there is no more Christian ‘proselytism’

    Yes, that’s not allowed in Muslim lands. But we aren’t picking on Christians really since no one is allowed to proselytize. Like I said, if that bugs you so much, you can return the West to the days when proselytising in Christian lands wasn’t allowed:
    “When the Roman Empire became Christian, apostates were punished by deprivation of all civil rights. They could not give evidence in a court of law, and could neither bequeath nor inherit property. To induce anyone to apostatize was an offence punishable with death [Theodosian Code, XVI, title 7, De apostatis; title 8, De Judæis; "Corpus juris romani ante-Justinianæi" (Bonn, 1840), 1521 - 1607; Code of Justinian I, title 7, De apostatis l. c. 60, 61].”

    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01624b.htm

    What’s stopping you now? You guys obviously were fine with prohibiting it in previous times.

    like display of crosses

    No, that’s usually fine, though – admittedly – certain scholars were pretty tough about not allowed processions and such through Muslim areas. They usually couldn’t care less what Christians did in their own enclaves though.

    and attempts to reconquer their stolen lands

    You mean the ones Muslims curb-stomped Greek armies for? Hey man, we took them fair and square. Also…what the hell were Greeks and Romans doing in the Levant and North Africa? If you’re going to call yourself the Byzantine Empire, for the love of God, at least have the aptitude to hold it against a bunch of semi-nomadic Arab tribes with second-class weapons and armor and practically no experience with large-scale battles.

    Look, I get you’re really, really upset about this* (since you keep bringing this up) so let’s make a deal…you guys in the West join up and powwow and figure out a plan to retake everything in the name of Christ – you know, get your carpet bombers ready and cruise missiles and all that holy stuff. Then get rid of the international treaties that you guys drafted (in the aftermath of going postal on each others’ cities) and come get some land – you know our address since we haven’t moved. I promise, I won’t complain if you do it after getting rid of the international framework because then you won’t be hypocrites and I can at least respect that.

    And please, at least have the balls to grab a rifle and come yourself – don’t send someone else or someone else’s kid like some pissy neocon – because that isn’t respectable.

    Peace.

    *Especially since Christians had literally reconquered all Muslim lands – and then some – until fairly recently and somehow managed to screw that entire enterprise up within like a hundred and fifty years. We can’t be blamed for your ineptitude.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    Now, if you find it so cool that Muslims are pissed off by the display of crosses in 'their areas', why these howlings about banning burkas in Christian areas? If they don't allow processions in their lands why are they so pissed off that they are not allowed to raise their bums in the middle of our streets (and blocking circulation)?
    It is good to hear the admission that the the fight to spread Islam was never abrogated. But don't raise the hell that people who don't want to hear of your Mahomed and couldn't care less about your Sharia are showing you the door. You don't want to see Christians on your lands, we don't want to see Muzzies on ours. Isn't that fair? Sure that they must been banned to proselytize.
    "you know our address since we haven’t moved". I thought that you live in America.

    Greeks and Romans were in Africa and in Levant building cities some hundreds of years before the looting marauders from the deserts came to destroy them and 'beat them fair and square'.

    , @pensword

    You mean the ones Muslims curb-stomped Greek armies for? Hey man, we took them fair and square. Also…what the hell were Greeks and Romans doing in the Levant and North Africa? If you’re going to call yourself the Byzantine Empire, for the love of God, at least have the aptitude to hold it against a bunch of semi-nomadic Arab tribes with second-class weapons and armor and practically no experience with large-scale battles.

    Look, I get you’re really, really upset about this* (since you keep bringing this up) so let’s make a deal…you guys in the West join up and powwow and figure out a plan to retake everything in the name of Christ – you know, get your carpet bombers ready and cruise missiles and all that holy stuff. Then get rid of the international treaties that you guys drafted (in the aftermath of going postal on each others’ cities) and come get some land – you know our address since we haven’t moved. I promise, I won’t complain if you do it after getting rid of the international framework because then you won’t be hypocrites and I can at least respect that.

    And please, at least have the balls to grab a rifle and come yourself – don’t send someone else or someone else’s kid like some pissy neocon – because that isn’t respectable.
     
    Talha akhi,

    Jazakumullah khayr for that comic relief. Sorely needed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. Talha says:
    @Bucky
    I have known Muslims who want China to “balance” the US. These are professional and prosperous people, actually not that different from San Bernardino shooter in income. This means by definition a decrease in American hegemony and power.

    I certainly understand why Iran wants nuclear weapons, but again, that is different from saying that Iran should have them, which certainly makes the situation worse. But again, the Muslims I have known thought that Iran should have the weapons because they were Muslim nationalists.

    While a reluctance of Muslims to serve in the armed forces is understandable, it still is that the reason for this reluctance is continued allegiance to outside and rival powers and rival nationality. Dual loyalty, often not even dual. The fact is that Islam is probably better understood not as a religion or a philosophy but more as a nationalism akin to Americanism.

    This means by definition a decrease in American hegemony and power.

    This is bad, why exactly? Again, Mr. Buchanan wants us to roll back the empire – honest men like Dr. Ron Paul have asked for the same.

    that is different from saying that Iran should have them, which certainly makes the situation worse

    Muslims only see hypocrisy in this when people do not call for full nuclear disarmament of others. Why do others get to be the exception? Because they don’t attack people unprovoked? You’ve heard of Iraq and Libya, right?

    it still is that the reason for this reluctance is continued allegiance to outside and rival powers and rival nationality

    That’s your take on it, which is fine. I don’t like the idea of dual national loyalty. If you come to the US, you should leave your other flag behind.

    Islam is probably better understood not as a religion or a philosophy but more as a nationalism akin to Americanism.

    This is an ahistoric understanding of religion in general. All religions formed the basis for national identity and the legal framework and even the legitimacy of the ruler (Defender of Christendom in the Realm) until relatively recently. There were entire Buddhist kingdoms and empires. Islam simply refuses to give up the role for organizing society as other religions have; you changed in this regard, we did not.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bucky
    It comes down to intentions, as I stated earlier.

    A US withdrawal from empire I would support if it were good for the USA and the regions involved, and it is a viable debate on the virtues of Pax Americana.

    In contrast, many Muslims want misfortune to befall the USA so that it will be forced to withdraw. See the difference?

    I can understand Iranian desire for nuclear weapons and I think that we should be more conciliatory towards them so that they aren’t so scared as to pursue them. Many Muslims point out the double standard—excuse me, but this isn’t from an objective viewpoint.

    This is solidarity with fellow Muslims.

    When it comes down to it, Muslims feel Muslim pain more than they feel Chinese pain or American pain or Russian pain. Again, understandable. Again, dual loyalty, often disloyalty.
    , @Fidelios Automata
    Buchanan and Ron Paul are 100% right about rolling back the Empire. But we should also oppose mass immigration, especially from culturally incompatible societies. It is the Satanic neoconservatives who promote both.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. @Anon
    Isn’t it more lifelong welfare slugs instead of cheap labor?

    Yes, if you are looking at the later damaging consequences of allowing in low grade immigrants as cheap labour or, for that matter, to run the 24 hour convenience store on low margins and without paying employees overtime.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. pensword says:

    I think there is a good reason why the Ummah has come to a general understanding when they use the term “aalim” or “ulema”.

    The reason is but a matter of expedience: most muslims seek answers they cannot reach on their own. Yet the original meaning of these terms is no small issue. Imam Ghazali didn’t place the topic of ‘ilm at the head of his Ihya arbitrarily. He did so precisely because a correct understanding of the term was needed when it became relegated to academic mastery rather than knowledge of God.

    I’m reminded of the man who, upon hearing the last two verses of al-Zalzalah, abruptly departed from the company of the Prophet and his companions, whereupon the Prophet counseled his companions to be like him, for whom a little knowledge sufficed as guidance. Most of those companions guaranteed the garden hadn’t committed much of The Qur’an to memory and a good number were illiterate, yet their rank is second only to the Prophets ‘alaihimus-salaam ~ as a consequence of their sincerity, NOT their scholarship.

    ALLAH speaks directly to all of humankind, without intermediary, in a language clear and precise. (The term ‘araba itself means “to clarify.”) Seek His Word and knowledge will follow, no priests required.

    only as coincidence.

    We don’t prohibit non-muslims from studying the religion nor from arriving at conclusions that differ from our own. That’s a strictly Talmudic prohibition.

    I acknowledge the possibility that, given already fulfilled prophecy concerning the Arab world’s loss of knowledge, anyone ~ muslim or otherwise ~ may arrive at a valid opinion or viewpoint about Islam that is entirely unique to our previous scholarship. Let them have at it. They might just learn something in the process.

    Muslims have never followed the opinions of non-Muslims on matters of the deen and I don’t see any reason to start now.

    It’s euphemistic to state that Isra’iliyyat has affected jurisprudence quite adversely. Apostasy and adultery were capital crimes only in Judaism until the Abbasid court “scholars” codified them as “shari’ah.” This legacy has continued in the millenial world ever since.

    Truth is aways clearly distinguishable from falsehood anyways, right?

    On some things, yes

    No. ALLAH means exactly what He says. The ‘ulama‘s disagreement in relation to matters of subordinate importance is, as explicitly stated by the Prophet, a mercy from ALLAH, not a competition between truth and falsehood. Were it otherwise, you’d be attributing falsehood to those whom you assign the title ‘ulama, na’oodhu billah.

    I agree with your sentiment here, but you know that

    I’ve known both for too many years. My comment was merely observational, though I appreciate your response, particularly the video from Dr. Elmasry, whose concern is well-grounded.

    Simply put: They won’t be satisfied with us until we become like them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha

    as a consequence of their sincerity, NOT their scholarship.
     
    I agree here. A person can be a very sincere worshiper and reach a very high station with just a little bit of knowledge and loads of sincerity. But can we also agree that even among the Companions (ra), not every one of them gave fatwas and rather the lion's share of them deferred to a group of less than ten when they were in need of religious rulings.

    We don’t prohibit non-muslims from studying the religion nor from arriving at conclusions that differ from our own.
     
    Sure, but we've never cared as to their conclusions either. And why should we? I doubt Catholics base their ecclesiastical conclusions based on input from Hindu pandits.

    Let them have at it. They might just learn something in the process.
     
    I'm fine with this and there are many non-Muslim academics that a deeply respect in this regard. However, for them to tell us that their conclusions are correct in spite of centuries of the ulema's views to the contrary is deeply presumptuous and arrogant.

    until the Abbasid court “scholars” codified them as “shari’ah.”
     
    Not sure I agree with this since there were plenty of scholars that concurred that had nothing to do with the Abbasid court, some of whom were persecuted by the caliphate and some under the jurisdiction of the Ummayyads in West Africa and Spain.

    No. ALLAH means exactly what He says. The ‘ulama‘s disagreement in relation to matters of subordinate importance is, as explicitly stated by the Prophet, a mercy from ALLAH, not a competition between truth and falsehood.
     
    OK - I'll concede this point. Differences of opinion are not about truth or falsehood, but some can get the ruling correct and some can get it incorrect; can we agree on this?
    “If a judge makes a ruling, striving to apply his reasoning (ijtihad) and he is correct, then he will have two rewards. If a judge makes a ruling, striving to apply his reasoning and he is mistaken, then he will have one reward.” - reported in Bukhari and Muslim

    They won’t be satisfied with us until we become like them.
     
    Sure. They gotta do what they gotta do, we gotta do what we gotta do. La kum deenukm wa liya deen.

    Wa salaam.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. @Jake
    Spoken like a Mohammedan living in the Low Countries among all the atheist and agnostic anti-Christendom fruits of Calvinism.

    Great parents of mine built a Mennist, Quaker, church around 1810.
    It still exists.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. @Anon
    Jilles denies he is a Calvinist or any kind of Christian. He is an atheist. His religion is anti Americanism.

    He’s unusually obsessed with the 500 years ago conflict between the Dutch Reformed Church and Catholics for an atheist.

    A typical jewish answer, criticism is based on emotions, not on facts
    Again, my question, do facts exist for jews ?
    Or is jewry still in the pre factual phase of truth: truth is what the leader says ?
    Felipe Fernández-Armesto, ‘Truth, A History and a Guide for the Perplexed’, New York 1997

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    said:
    "Or is jewry still in the pre factual phase of truth: truth is what the leader says ?"

    The notorious & famous dead Jew Elie Wiesel explained it best:

    "Some stories are true that never happened."

    - Elie Wiesel
     
    www.codoh.com
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. anonymous[312] • Disclaimer says:
    @attilathehen
    (((Arnold Isaacs))) has written an article from a Jewish perspective about Islam. There is a group in between these two: Christians. I am a Christian.

    (((Isaacs))) opinions about Islam are worthless because he does not know or understand what Islam is. As a Christian I can state that Islam is a Christian heresy. As a Christian I can state that modern day Jews are not the chosen and no longer have a covenant with God. Christianity is the new covenant. These are beliefs. There is something even more important than beliefs, biology.

    Most Muslims are black/Asians. Most modern day Jews are a mixed racial group. Jews have high intermarriage rate with blacks/Asians. Racially, black/Asians are not Western racial groups. The West is Caucasian/European/Christian/Euro-pagan. (((Isaacs))) is free to write what he wants, as long as it is from Israel. Jews are not Western and had nothing to do with the West's development. He cannot tell Christians anything about Islam because everything he writes is written from a theologically/racially flawed perspective. Likewise, the scribblings of Muslim commentators like Talha, Ibn Issam are worthless. They are free to scribble what they wish as long as they do it in their inferior Muslim countries. Talha is Pakistani (Asian) and Muslim. Nothing Western here.

    Atilla: “As a Christian I can state that modern day Jews are not the chosen…”

    It’s as if Atilla and the Christclowns have never read the Jew Testament.

    Romans 9:4 “The people of Israel, chosen.”
    Acts 3:25 “He said to Abraham, ‘Through your offspring all peoples on earth will be blessed.’”

    Atilla: “…and no longer have a covenant with [Jewgod]. Christianity is the new covenant.”

    This is supposed to be good news? Maybe for sicko perverts.

    Philippians 3:3 “For it is we [Christians] who are the circumcision [baby-cock suckers].”

    So why would you want to be Jewhovah’s new Cocksuckers? Because you’re a sad, pathetic wanabee-Jew? Christclowns are worse than that rappin’ whigger Eminem worshiping Detroit-Destroying-Dindus. Stop worshiping a race other than yours, Atilla. Yeah, that’s exactly what you are doing. You’re a Jewgger.

    WE WORSHIP what we do know, for salvation is from THE JEWS.” John 4:22

    Read More
    • Replies: @attilathehen
    Same old schtick Echoes of History. Try something new. How about starting a pagan religion?
    , @Malla
    Jews as a distinct people start from Judah (Yhuda and hence Yehudi). Abraham was the father of many peoples. And Judah did not even get the blessing of GOD. It was Joseph and Judah sold Joseph to slavery. So how are the Jews chosen people. They are not.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. @pensword
    The root q-t-l, particularly its form III as used in Qur’an 8:39, is examined here by the Revd Mark Durie.

    Durie writes

    Although fight could involve killing, it does not necessarily imply it. A contest between boxers is a fight, as is a wrestling match between boys in a school yard. ... In contrast the Arabic form III qātala (qātilū in the 2nd person plural imperative), which is translated as 'fight' in English versions of the Quran, includes the meaning of killing.
     
    Hans Wehr's English-Arabic dictionary presents a mathematically precise breakdown of the root q-t-l:

    Form I of the verb includes the meanings "to kill, slay, murder, assassinate, mitigate, alleviate, know, master (a skill or a subject thoroughly), have long experience with life or be worldly wise," each of which may be construed upon examining the context in which it is used. Form II bears the meanings of "to massacre or cause carnage," a form which would support Durie's argument, had it appeared in 8:39.

    Form III may be rendered only as "to combat, battle, or fight." As such, Durie's claim that it "includes the meaning of killing" is false on its face and I see no reference to any reputable dictionary that would prove otherwise.

    As per Durie's Form III assertions about prolonged action: A sustained fight is not necessarily a martial war, nor does it require killing. For many years following the Battle of Badr (after which Surah 8 was sent down), the muslims were compelled to fight or die. It was just that simple. Some may assert that there are analogues to this today, though I'm reminded of ahaddith in which we're warned to "be the better son of Adam" in a time of widespread killing ~ the kind which most of us only hear about these days, knowing nothing of the reality.

    The Quranic Arabic Corpus translation of the preceding verse, 8:38, begins ‘Say to those who disbelieve’.

    The root k-f-r first and foremost connotes "covering," as in concealing something. Those being addressed in 8:38 recognize God's truth, yet deny or "cover" it. As such, the terms "infidels" and "disbelievers" aren't as accurate a rendering as "deniers."

    I think it is generally agreed that 2:256 is abrogated by later verses.

    There is no such "general agreement." 2: 256 forms the foundation of an unprecedented constitutional republic, one in which religious liberty remains inviolable.

    ‘The Islamic world is an economic and intellectual basket case ...

    Which is why American universities regularly acquire muslim talent from overseas. I'll take the literacy rate of Gaza against that of the United States any day, thank you. Or is it that I'm mistaken about Americans' collective intellectual superiority when they're confronted with lies about WMDs? I seem to recall a sizeable majority of them unwittingly jumped on the neocon bandwagon some 14 years ago, setting the current cavalcade of ever-cascading chaos in motion.

    It takes a special kind of ignorance to accomplish that. "Basket-case" doesn't begin to describe it.

    pensword—During a ‘combat, battle or fight’, it has frequently been known for death to occur. Further to your mention of other forms of q-t-l, Quranic Arabic Corpus provides a handy though bloody list of all the appearances of the root in the Qur’an.

    If you find standard English translations of the Qur’an unsatisfactory, publish your own.

    Your claim of the inviolability of religious liberty is difficult to square with, for example, clause o11.9 of Reliance of the Traveller: ‘If non-Muslim subjects of the Islamic state refuse to conform to the rules of Islam, or to pay the non-Muslim poll tax, then their agreement with the state has been violated.’ They are then subject to any punishment deemed fit. As you will know, polytheists such as Hindus are presented with just two options, conversion or death.

    On WMDs, Western peoples trusted their governments. Western societies are high trust. Sadly, they have been infiltrated by outsiders who are adept in exploiting trust.

    Read More
    • Replies: @pensword
    During a ‘combat, battle or fight’, it has frequently been known for death to occur.

    Conjecture. I could surmise with equal validity that death does NOT frequently occur during a fight or battle. What you posit doesn't support your argument in the least.

    all the appearances of the root in the Qur’an

    Every rendering of Form III in that list includes the verb "fight," with the exception of two imprecations (i.e. "May God destroy the wicked!"). Once again, your argument fails.

    If you find standard English translations of the Qur’an unsatisfactory, publish your own.

    It's a work in progress, though there's a difference between critical analysis of select verse translations and wholesale dismissal of a Qur'an translation, the latter of which I've never done.

    Your claim of the inviolability of religious liberty is difficult to square with, for example, clause o11.9 of Reliance of the Traveller: ‘If non-Muslim subjects of the Islamic state refuse to conform to the rules of Islam, or to pay the non-Muslim poll tax, then their agreement with the state has been violated.’

    I have Keller's translation, which includes the Arabic side-by-side.

    al-Misri, the author, does not use the term ahkam al-millat (here rendered "rules of Islam") to imply that non-muslims must follow the shari'ah. In a muslim polity, there are two types of law: those of generally applicability and those applied within communities administrated independently of muslim authority. Here, al-Misri alludes to the former type of law.

    Think federal law versus state law, wherein (ideally) states enjoy a measure of autonomy from federal interference in the administration of their affairs. If you'd like, we could localize it even more, distinguishing dry counties from wet counties, or municipalities, or townships, or villages. Islam provides for similar autonomous rule.

    As for the jizyah, it was traditionally redistributed to the authorities of those communities from which it was collected. The amount collected was far less onerous than that which the average American pays today (when adjusting these statistics for inflation). In truth, Americans don't fare much better in this regard than did serfs in feudal Europe.

    As you will know, polytheists such as Hindus are presented with just two options, conversion or death.

    History belies your assertion, as numerous muslim rulers in the Indian subcontinent regarded Hindus as a protected class.

    On WMDs, Western peoples trusted their governments. Western societies are high trust. Sadly, they have been infiltrated by outsiders who are adept in exploiting trust.

    Speaking as a born-and-raised American, I can state with the utmost confidence that the "high trust" to which you refer arises from naivete. Americans have been so thoroughly deceived about so many things, it's difficult to know where to begin describing the scale of such deception. Public schooling might be a good starting point, though historically, it reaches back much further.

    We're hardly new to zionist deception.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. Seraphim says:
    @Talha

    or is he a simple
     
    He was not a scholar nor does anybody take his commentary seriously in traditional circles since he wasn't a qualified exegete (a station not many have reached). I actually have a copy of his translation, I do like the flow of some of the prose - I prefer Sr. Aisha Bewley's.

    If the real meaning of the Quran is understandable only in Arabic by the Arabs
     
    Most Arabs couldn't point out the grammatical composition of any given sentence of the Qur'an - let alone the ones on the high rhetorical scales - it is a specialized science.

    why to translate it at all,
     
    As a crutch, since most Muslims don't have the time to study Arabic. Really doesn't matter since the idea of deriving rulings from an English translation is laughable.

    if the ‘fight against unbelievers’ is abrogated
     
    Who said it is abrogated? It was never abrogated. It was put into abeyance due to the international treaties of non-aggression that Muslims are signatory to. If non-Muslims return to the days of the British and French Empires, we return to the days of the Ottoman and Safavid.

    there is no more Christian ‘proselytism’
     
    Yes, that's not allowed in Muslim lands. But we aren't picking on Christians really since no one is allowed to proselytize. Like I said, if that bugs you so much, you can return the West to the days when proselytising in Christian lands wasn't allowed:
    "When the Roman Empire became Christian, apostates were punished by deprivation of all civil rights. They could not give evidence in a court of law, and could neither bequeath nor inherit property. To induce anyone to apostatize was an offence punishable with death [Theodosian Code, XVI, title 7, De apostatis; title 8, De Judæis; "Corpus juris romani ante-Justinianæi" (Bonn, 1840), 1521 - 1607; Code of Justinian I, title 7, De apostatis l. c. 60, 61]."
    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01624b.htm

    What's stopping you now? You guys obviously were fine with prohibiting it in previous times.


    like display of crosses
     
    No, that's usually fine, though - admittedly - certain scholars were pretty tough about not allowed processions and such through Muslim areas. They usually couldn't care less what Christians did in their own enclaves though.

    and attempts to reconquer their stolen lands
     
    You mean the ones Muslims curb-stomped Greek armies for? Hey man, we took them fair and square. Also...what the hell were Greeks and Romans doing in the Levant and North Africa? If you're going to call yourself the Byzantine Empire, for the love of God, at least have the aptitude to hold it against a bunch of semi-nomadic Arab tribes with second-class weapons and armor and practically no experience with large-scale battles.

    Look, I get you're really, really upset about this* (since you keep bringing this up) so let's make a deal...you guys in the West join up and powwow and figure out a plan to retake everything in the name of Christ - you know, get your carpet bombers ready and cruise missiles and all that holy stuff. Then get rid of the international treaties that you guys drafted (in the aftermath of going postal on each others' cities) and come get some land - you know our address since we haven't moved. I promise, I won't complain if you do it after getting rid of the international framework because then you won't be hypocrites and I can at least respect that.

    And please, at least have the balls to grab a rifle and come yourself - don't send someone else or someone else's kid like some pissy neocon - because that isn't respectable.

    Peace.

    *Especially since Christians had literally reconquered all Muslim lands - and then some - until fairly recently and somehow managed to screw that entire enterprise up within like a hundred and fifty years. We can't be blamed for your ineptitude.

    Now, if you find it so cool that Muslims are pissed off by the display of crosses in ‘their areas’, why these howlings about banning burkas in Christian areas? If they don’t allow processions in their lands why are they so pissed off that they are not allowed to raise their bums in the middle of our streets (and blocking circulation)?
    It is good to hear the admission that the the fight to spread Islam was never abrogated. But don’t raise the hell that people who don’t want to hear of your Mahomed and couldn’t care less about your Sharia are showing you the door. You don’t want to see Christians on your lands, we don’t want to see Muzzies on ours. Isn’t that fair? Sure that they must been banned to proselytize.
    “you know our address since we haven’t moved”. I thought that you live in America.

    Greeks and Romans were in Africa and in Levant building cities some hundreds of years before the looting marauders from the deserts came to destroy them and ‘beat them fair and square’.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha

    if you find it so cool
     
    I don't - I merely pointed out (accurately) what certain medieval Islamic jurists stated - not even all of them. I'm fine with it. Have your crosses, have your processions - no sweat off my back.

    why these howlings about banning burkas in Christian areas?
     
    These aren't Christian areas - they call themselves secular countries - they virtue signal about how they are so enlightened and treat all religions the same. Muslims are simply pointing out the hypocrisy in their stance. Now, if these countries were to say; yeah, we've decided to go back to calling ourselves Christendom and ruling ourselves by a Christian legal framework derived from Biblical texts, then that would be a different story. Muslims don't have this cognitive dissonance - for example, here is the constitution of Iraq:
    "Article 2:
    First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:
    A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established."
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/12/AR2005101201450.html

    Just copy and paste into your constitutions and change the wordings slightly.


    If they don’t allow processions in their lands
     
    Most Muslim countries are fine with it. As far as those that don't - get with them and ask them to change the law.

    (and blocking circulation)
     
    Sometimes Muslims make a big stink about nothing, just ignore them. Say; we can't let you block traffic, end of story.

    people who don’t want to hear of your Mahomed and couldn’t care less about your Sharia are showing you the door.
     
    Hey, I don't mind. I'm a law abiding citizen. If I get an official federal notice in the mail telling me my citizenship is revoked and I have X number of months to leave, I will get with the wife and make plans to sell the house, pack my bags, etc. Until then, I'll do my thing.

    You don’t want to see Christians on your lands
     
    I'm totally fine with Christians in Muslim lands - their presence often predates Islam.

    we don’t want to see Muzzies on ours
     
    Sure, people like you don't - and that was pretty much the norm until relatively recently while the West still considered itself Christendom. Why did that stance change?

    Now I get along pretty well with my neighbors so you don't seem to speak for them. But it's a democracy, so if enough people want, they can change the laws to kick out Muslims. And it can all be done legally and in the open - and that's pretty awesome actually.


    Sure that they must been banned to proselytize.
     
    That's fine, change the laws.

    I thought that you live in America.
     
    I can move.

    Greeks and Romans were in Africa and in Levant building cities
     
    Yeah, those Greek and Roman marauders built some nice settlements and infrastructure after their initial invasions, they are still tourist attractions:
    https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/38

    Thanks for those.


    came to destroy them
     
    The Rashidun expansions were as clean as invasions could be; despite an exception here or there - the vast majority of cities (especially capital cities) were taken by negotiated surrenders. That was largely thanks to the ineptitude of the Byzantine command structure in not playing to their advantage and using defensive siege tactics that the Arabs were horrible at. Instead, they met the Muslims in open battle, assuming their outnumbered and lesser equipped adversaries would be a cake walk. They got trounced again and again and again and again...leaving their cities with small garrisons and no chance but to accept terms.

    Now some of the later Muslim conquerors - like the Turkic ones could be quite destructive but I don't think any of them ever pulled off anything remotely close to what the Romans did to Carthage.


    'beat them fair and square’
     
    Actually, now that I think about it, the Rashidun armies were outnumbered at every engagement (sometimes two to one).

    some hundreds of years
     
    Meh...as were the Moors in Spain. If you want to keep an empire, learn to defend it. This reminds me of the incident when the last ruler of the Emirate of Granada, Boabdil, surrendered to the Spanish armies and started weeping and his mother rebuked him, saying;
    "Do not weep like a woman for what you could not defend like a man."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. @Anin
    I am glad to be sighting you here, man.

    Thanks.

    You (and others) might be interested in a a satirical article on 9/11 and such that I wrote recently. It’s rather different from anything else I previously wrote:

    https://heresycentral.com/revusky/welcome-to-terra-prime/

    There is also the audio of my talk to the “Deep Truth” conference from June. It’s rather humorous. Or at least some people think so.

    https://heresycentral.com/revusky/my-talk-from-the-deep-truth-conference-june-2018/

    Any feedback on these things is quite welcome. In particular, I am interested in fomenting activity on the discussion forum I set up in a Q&A format. Some people might be interested in contributing an answer to the question: “What was your own personal red pill moment?”

    https://heresycentral.com/community/personal-testimony/what-was-your-own-personal-red-pill-moment/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. To see how Muslims behave, simply look at European countries where they have immigrated.

    When there are 1% Muslims, everything is peaceful.

    When there are 5% Muslims (Britain, 2011 census), there are bombings and shootings against infidels every few months. There is mass sexual abuse of underage girls in multiple towns, with the police and social services turning a blind eye for fear of being called racist. For the same reason, mainstream politicians find it impossible to halt mass immigration, such that the number of Muslims in Britain rose by 40% between 1991 and 2001, and by 70% between 2001 and 2011.

    Where there are 10% Muslims (France), there is even more Jihadist murder of infidels, and in addition Jewish institutions are targeted for attack, while Jews themselves are subjected to low-level intimidation if Muslims move into their neighbourhood.

    Where there are 43% Muslims (the Swedish city of Malmo) mainstream politicians are seriously considering introducing martial law because the level of gang violence is so bad.

    Of course, at least 90% of Muslims are peaceful, law-abiding people – but it takes only a small minority to wreck a country. Simply by counting murder cases, one can determine that killers of strangers for reasons of political, religious or ethnic hatred are about 50 times more common among mainstream Sunni Muslims than among native Europeans. Worse than that is the utter inability of politicians to deal with, or even acknowledge the existence of, any problems created by Muslims.

    You have not experienced this yet in the USA because the number of Sunni Muslims is so low – remembering not to count Shiites of Iranian heritage, or members of the home-grown “Nation of Islam”. Therefore it is understandable that you would regard negative attitudes to Islam as “hateful”, “Islamophobic”, and so on.

    Take a look at other countries. Please do not make the same mistakes that we have made.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    When there are 5% Muslims (Britain, 2011 census), there are bombings and shootings against infidels every few months.
     
    They all seem to be false flags or hoaxes, frankly. Just like the stuff you mention in France further down. It's all fake news.

    Where there are 43% Muslims (the Swedish city of Malmo) mainstream politicians are seriously considering introducing martial law because the level of gang violence is so bad.
     
    Oy vey. The mean streets of Malmo... By the way, where does this (surprisingly precise) datum come from? 43% of the population of Malmo, Sweden is Muslim?

    I don't think so, but it does seem to be some sort of talking point being put out there. Somebody on Quora asked recently whether the majority of people in Malmo were Muslims!!??

    https://www.quora.com/Are-the-majority-of-people-living-in-Malmö-Muslims

    So the meme is being put out there. The mean streets of Malmo. Oy vey.

    And you can see the responses, at least a couple from people who live in Malmo. Of course, it depends on what your definition of who a Muslim is. If it's people who actually observe the religion, then it's a pretty small percentage, like 3% or something like that. If it's somebody whose ethnic background is that of a majority Muslim place, then maybe it's more like 15% of Malmo. To me, that sounds like it might be about right. There are apparently about 800,000 Muslims in Sweden, or 8% of the population (by the ethnic definition surely) so that it's about twice as high a percentage in Malmo sounds reasonable.

    I have no doubt that there are some problems in Sweden, but frankly, for me, the "mean streets of Malmo" narrative does not withstand the proverbial laugh test. Now, granted, I have never been to Sweden. Maybe Sweden is really a terrifying place. Have you ever been there?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. @pensword
    What kind of adult follows a religion which describes people as apes (2:65), apes and swine (5:60), and as being less enlightened than cattle (7:179 and 25:44)?

    Perhaps you should ask some Christians, since Jesus himself is quoted as referring to Gentiles as dogs and swine. (Matthew 7:6)

    And here I thought you might have to offer something more than the usual drivel.

    Oh, well.

    pensword—The authors of these commentaries do not see the verse in quite such black-and-white terms. Note that I have replied to you without casting slurs on your character. If our paths should cross again, please do your best to reciprocate.

    Read More
    • Replies: @pensword
    The authors of these commentaries do not see the verse in quite such black-and-white terms.

    I see ...

    So you get to play the "commentary" card while rejecting commentaries about similar verses in The Qur'an? Sounds a bit duplicitous, Johnny.

    Note that I have replied to you without casting slurs on your character. If our paths should cross again, please do your best to reciprocate.

    I sense that you take offense to my description of your ridiculous characterization of Islam (i.e. "drivel"). I'll leave you to figure out the difference between this and a "slur on your character," though I humbly suggest you grow some thicker skin.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. @Eighthman
    He didn't have to expel Jewish scientists. They left. Holocaust not required here. Europeans had demonstrated fission/chain reaction possibilities before anybody but Germans failed to create an atomic bomb. They screwed up and lost accordingly.

    And McCarthy was correct? No one innocent was hurt or affected by his witchhunt? Including Oppenheimer or Chinese scientists? Not possible in an imperfect world. Actions have consequences.

    Integration? If they are employed, well and good.

    Transcripts Kept Secret for 60 Years Bolster Defense of Oppenheimer’s Loyalty
    In the 1930s, like many liberals, Oppenheimer belonged to groups led or infiltrated by Communists; his brother, his wife and his former fiancée were party members.

    LOL.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. Bucky says:
    @Talha

    This means by definition a decrease in American hegemony and power.
     
    This is bad, why exactly? Again, Mr. Buchanan wants us to roll back the empire - honest men like Dr. Ron Paul have asked for the same.

    that is different from saying that Iran should have them, which certainly makes the situation worse
     
    Muslims only see hypocrisy in this when people do not call for full nuclear disarmament of others. Why do others get to be the exception? Because they don't attack people unprovoked? You've heard of Iraq and Libya, right?

    it still is that the reason for this reluctance is continued allegiance to outside and rival powers and rival nationality
     
    That's your take on it, which is fine. I don't like the idea of dual national loyalty. If you come to the US, you should leave your other flag behind.

    Islam is probably better understood not as a religion or a philosophy but more as a nationalism akin to Americanism.
     
    This is an ahistoric understanding of religion in general. All religions formed the basis for national identity and the legal framework and even the legitimacy of the ruler (Defender of Christendom in the Realm) until relatively recently. There were entire Buddhist kingdoms and empires. Islam simply refuses to give up the role for organizing society as other religions have; you changed in this regard, we did not.

    Peace.

    It comes down to intentions, as I stated earlier.

    A US withdrawal from empire I would support if it were good for the USA and the regions involved, and it is a viable debate on the virtues of Pax Americana.

    In contrast, many Muslims want misfortune to befall the USA so that it will be forced to withdraw. See the difference?

    I can understand Iranian desire for nuclear weapons and I think that we should be more conciliatory towards them so that they aren’t so scared as to pursue them. Many Muslims point out the double standard—excuse me, but this isn’t from an objective viewpoint.

    This is solidarity with fellow Muslims.

    When it comes down to it, Muslims feel Muslim pain more than they feel Chinese pain or American pain or Russian pain. Again, understandable. Again, dual loyalty, often disloyalty.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha

    See the difference?
     
    I do - and that's on them. I can only speak for myself. I marched in the protests (with my baby daughter on my shoulders) against the Iraq war because I knew exactly that two things would occur:
    - We would destroy Iraq and make it worse
    - A bunch of US soldiers were going to be killed an maimed for no good reason

    We were dismissed by Bush as an "interest group".

    excuse me, but this isn’t from an objective viewpoint.
     
    No - it's quite objective. The only objective and principled stance to take is to say we should ban alll nuclear weapons - why aren't you for that? If you make exceptions, then you are biased for the exceptions. I have no bias in this regard; I want full nuclear disarmament as of yesterday...completely...without exceptions.

    Muslims feel Muslim pain
     
    Yes because this is part of what the duties of a spiritual brotherhood are - feeling the pain for one's fellow brothers in faith. Do you not empathize with the plight of Christians more than that of Hindus and Muslims? Why?

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. @Talha

    This means by definition a decrease in American hegemony and power.
     
    This is bad, why exactly? Again, Mr. Buchanan wants us to roll back the empire - honest men like Dr. Ron Paul have asked for the same.

    that is different from saying that Iran should have them, which certainly makes the situation worse
     
    Muslims only see hypocrisy in this when people do not call for full nuclear disarmament of others. Why do others get to be the exception? Because they don't attack people unprovoked? You've heard of Iraq and Libya, right?

    it still is that the reason for this reluctance is continued allegiance to outside and rival powers and rival nationality
     
    That's your take on it, which is fine. I don't like the idea of dual national loyalty. If you come to the US, you should leave your other flag behind.

    Islam is probably better understood not as a religion or a philosophy but more as a nationalism akin to Americanism.
     
    This is an ahistoric understanding of religion in general. All religions formed the basis for national identity and the legal framework and even the legitimacy of the ruler (Defender of Christendom in the Realm) until relatively recently. There were entire Buddhist kingdoms and empires. Islam simply refuses to give up the role for organizing society as other religions have; you changed in this regard, we did not.

    Peace.

    Buchanan and Ron Paul are 100% right about rolling back the Empire. But we should also oppose mass immigration, especially from culturally incompatible societies. It is the Satanic neoconservatives who promote both.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha

    also oppose mass immigration, especially from culturally incompatible societies
     
    No problems here. Mass immigration can cause very serious problems even from generally compatible cultures (I doubt Germany would think it a grand thing if millions of French were to come streaming in to settle in their country) so very different cultures may be a bridge too far.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. Talha says:
    @Fidelios Automata
    Buchanan and Ron Paul are 100% right about rolling back the Empire. But we should also oppose mass immigration, especially from culturally incompatible societies. It is the Satanic neoconservatives who promote both.

    also oppose mass immigration, especially from culturally incompatible societies

    No problems here. Mass immigration can cause very serious problems even from generally compatible cultures (I doubt Germany would think it a grand thing if millions of French were to come streaming in to settle in their country) so very different cultures may be a bridge too far.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. Talha says:
    @Bucky
    It comes down to intentions, as I stated earlier.

    A US withdrawal from empire I would support if it were good for the USA and the regions involved, and it is a viable debate on the virtues of Pax Americana.

    In contrast, many Muslims want misfortune to befall the USA so that it will be forced to withdraw. See the difference?

    I can understand Iranian desire for nuclear weapons and I think that we should be more conciliatory towards them so that they aren’t so scared as to pursue them. Many Muslims point out the double standard—excuse me, but this isn’t from an objective viewpoint.

    This is solidarity with fellow Muslims.

    When it comes down to it, Muslims feel Muslim pain more than they feel Chinese pain or American pain or Russian pain. Again, understandable. Again, dual loyalty, often disloyalty.

    See the difference?

    I do – and that’s on them. I can only speak for myself. I marched in the protests (with my baby daughter on my shoulders) against the Iraq war because I knew exactly that two things would occur:
    - We would destroy Iraq and make it worse
    - A bunch of US soldiers were going to be killed an maimed for no good reason

    We were dismissed by Bush as an “interest group”.

    excuse me, but this isn’t from an objective viewpoint.

    No – it’s quite objective. The only objective and principled stance to take is to say we should ban alll nuclear weapons – why aren’t you for that? If you make exceptions, then you are biased for the exceptions. I have no bias in this regard; I want full nuclear disarmament as of yesterday…completely…without exceptions.

    Muslims feel Muslim pain

    Yes because this is part of what the duties of a spiritual brotherhood are – feeling the pain for one’s fellow brothers in faith. Do you not empathize with the plight of Christians more than that of Hindus and Muslims? Why?

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bucky
    As I'm no longer a believing Christian, it is hard for me to say. I suppose I do feel a little more generous when a foreign community that is endangered is Christian. But the main issue is that Muslim terrorism has been a phenomena for damn near 50 years now and it affects my life in many indirect ways. In the 1990's we were on our way towards small government sustainability -- then 9/11 happened. Now, DC and NYC are bigger than ever before, and our federal government is this unrecognizable fiscally irresponsible creature. And of course terrorist events like San Bernardino, Boston Marathon, Times Square failed bombing, Orlando, Ft. Hood, Paris, London tram bombings, the list goes on and on.

    Nuclear weapons actually have kept the peace over the past seventy years, and so a total elimination would likely actually lead to more conflict. But even beyond that, the status quo is as it is. America has nukes, Russia has nukes, Israel has nukes. Any and all change in the status quo likely will occur in the Muslim world. Should Iran and Saudi Arabia get nukes? that is the relevant question right now. And no, they should not get nukes. Pakistan should definitely not have them.

    That America has certainly done wrong to the Muslim world is undeniable, but at the same time America has done much for the Muslim world as well, and this enmity and hostility that many Muslims feel for America is based at core not so much on mistreatment but on identity. And while it is understandable, it is still a threat that does not exist with other peoples.
    , @Seraphim
    We empathize with the plight of Christians in Muslim lands. For example, with the victims of the bombings of Churches in Egypt. Or Syria. Or Iraq.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. m___ says:

    Incompatibility with consumerism is ignored. Not terrorism but breeding the real danger of Islam. Religion only fosters science and filosophy, it is not an exclusive driver of progress or logical thinking. Religeon is an hostorical and sociological reality mostly. It defines the meaning of correlation as to co-existing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  131. Talha says:
    @Seraphim
    Now, if you find it so cool that Muslims are pissed off by the display of crosses in 'their areas', why these howlings about banning burkas in Christian areas? If they don't allow processions in their lands why are they so pissed off that they are not allowed to raise their bums in the middle of our streets (and blocking circulation)?
    It is good to hear the admission that the the fight to spread Islam was never abrogated. But don't raise the hell that people who don't want to hear of your Mahomed and couldn't care less about your Sharia are showing you the door. You don't want to see Christians on your lands, we don't want to see Muzzies on ours. Isn't that fair? Sure that they must been banned to proselytize.
    "you know our address since we haven’t moved". I thought that you live in America.

    Greeks and Romans were in Africa and in Levant building cities some hundreds of years before the looting marauders from the deserts came to destroy them and 'beat them fair and square'.

    if you find it so cool

    I don’t – I merely pointed out (accurately) what certain medieval Islamic jurists stated – not even all of them. I’m fine with it. Have your crosses, have your processions – no sweat off my back.

    why these howlings about banning burkas in Christian areas?

    These aren’t Christian areas – they call themselves secular countries – they virtue signal about how they are so enlightened and treat all religions the same. Muslims are simply pointing out the hypocrisy in their stance. Now, if these countries were to say; yeah, we’ve decided to go back to calling ourselves Christendom and ruling ourselves by a Christian legal framework derived from Biblical texts, then that would be a different story. Muslims don’t have this cognitive dissonance – for example, here is the constitution of Iraq:
    “Article 2:
    First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:
    A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/12/AR2005101201450.html

    Just copy and paste into your constitutions and change the wordings slightly.

    If they don’t allow processions in their lands

    Most Muslim countries are fine with it. As far as those that don’t – get with them and ask them to change the law.

    (and blocking circulation)

    Sometimes Muslims make a big stink about nothing, just ignore them. Say; we can’t let you block traffic, end of story.

    people who don’t want to hear of your Mahomed and couldn’t care less about your Sharia are showing you the door.

    Hey, I don’t mind. I’m a law abiding citizen. If I get an official federal notice in the mail telling me my citizenship is revoked and I have X number of months to leave, I will get with the wife and make plans to sell the house, pack my bags, etc. Until then, I’ll do my thing.

    You don’t want to see Christians on your lands

    I’m totally fine with Christians in Muslim lands – their presence often predates Islam.

    we don’t want to see Muzzies on ours

    Sure, people like you don’t – and that was pretty much the norm until relatively recently while the West still considered itself Christendom. Why did that stance change?

    Now I get along pretty well with my neighbors so you don’t seem to speak for them. But it’s a democracy, so if enough people want, they can change the laws to kick out Muslims. And it can all be done legally and in the open – and that’s pretty awesome actually.

    Sure that they must been banned to proselytize.

    That’s fine, change the laws.

    I thought that you live in America.

    I can move.

    Greeks and Romans were in Africa and in Levant building cities

    Yeah, those Greek and Roman marauders built some nice settlements and infrastructure after their initial invasions, they are still tourist attractions:

    https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/38

    Thanks for those.

    came to destroy them

    The Rashidun expansions were as clean as invasions could be; despite an exception here or there – the vast majority of cities (especially capital cities) were taken by negotiated surrenders. That was largely thanks to the ineptitude of the Byzantine command structure in not playing to their advantage and using defensive siege tactics that the Arabs were horrible at. Instead, they met the Muslims in open battle, assuming their outnumbered and lesser equipped adversaries would be a cake walk. They got trounced again and again and again and again…leaving their cities with small garrisons and no chance but to accept terms.

    Now some of the later Muslim conquerors – like the Turkic ones could be quite destructive but I don’t think any of them ever pulled off anything remotely close to what the Romans did to Carthage.

    ‘beat them fair and square’

    Actually, now that I think about it, the Rashidun armies were outnumbered at every engagement (sometimes two to one).

    some hundreds of years

    Meh…as were the Moors in Spain. If you want to keep an empire, learn to defend it. This reminds me of the incident when the last ruler of the Emirate of Granada, Boabdil, surrendered to the Spanish armies and started weeping and his mother rebuked him, saying;
    “Do not weep like a woman for what you could not defend like a man.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    It looks like you have a hard on every time you talk about the Rashidun.
    I wonder why do you bring the example of Carthage and not of Jerusalem? Jerusalem was the center of your 'abrahamic' cousins, which your supermen Rashidun warriors 'liberated' for them. Carthage was not 'abrahamic' by any stretch of imagination. Quite the contrary, they were the same 'idolator' Canaanites as the ones the Yahve/Allah commands to destroy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. @anonymous
    Atilla: "As a Christian I can state that modern day Jews are not the chosen..."

    It's as if Atilla and the Christclowns have never read the Jew Testament.

    Romans 9:4 “The people of Israel, chosen.”
    Acts 3:25 “He said to Abraham, ‘Through your offspring all peoples on earth will be blessed.’”

    Atilla: "...and no longer have a covenant with [Jewgod]. Christianity is the new covenant."

    This is supposed to be good news? Maybe for sicko perverts.

    Philippians 3:3 "For it is we [Christians] who are the circumcision [baby-cock suckers]."

    So why would you want to be Jewhovah's new Cocksuckers? Because you're a sad, pathetic wanabee-Jew? Christclowns are worse than that rappin' whigger Eminem worshiping Detroit-Destroying-Dindus. Stop worshiping a race other than yours, Atilla. Yeah, that's exactly what you are doing. You're a Jewgger.

    "WE WORSHIP what we do know, for salvation is from THE JEWS." John 4:22

    Same old schtick Echoes of History. Try something new. How about starting a pagan religion?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Same tired deflection from the fact that you worship a foreign brown middle-eastern Asian Rabbi Jew named Jesus. Sad.

    I'm white; if you are too, you'd be better off worshiping me, back in the day when you might have had any sexual market value and I would accept your worship. Too late now, you have to settle for shit-skin love, like so many other wrinkled Euro cat-ladies with barren wombs and dry breasts like Merkel's.

    As far as pagan religions go, do you celebrate "Easter?" Try finding that word in either Jew Testament. (The word isn't there, but references to the holiday Easter are, and not in a positive light.) http://www.openbible.info/topics/ishtar

    You already know Christmas trees and Easter eggs were originally Pagan, and you probably know the seasonal timing of the two holidays is Pagan too. Mildly interesting. Not what you'll find here. What you'll discover at POCM is that ancient cultures around the Mediterranean shared a set of ideas about Gods and their powers and place in the universe—and that Christianity adopted those ideas, and applied them to Jesus. http://pocm.info/
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. @James N. Kennett
    To see how Muslims behave, simply look at European countries where they have immigrated.

    When there are 1% Muslims, everything is peaceful.

    When there are 5% Muslims (Britain, 2011 census), there are bombings and shootings against infidels every few months. There is mass sexual abuse of underage girls in multiple towns, with the police and social services turning a blind eye for fear of being called racist. For the same reason, mainstream politicians find it impossible to halt mass immigration, such that the number of Muslims in Britain rose by 40% between 1991 and 2001, and by 70% between 2001 and 2011.

    Where there are 10% Muslims (France), there is even more Jihadist murder of infidels, and in addition Jewish institutions are targeted for attack, while Jews themselves are subjected to low-level intimidation if Muslims move into their neighbourhood.

    Where there are 43% Muslims (the Swedish city of Malmo) mainstream politicians are seriously considering introducing martial law because the level of gang violence is so bad.

    Of course, at least 90% of Muslims are peaceful, law-abiding people - but it takes only a small minority to wreck a country. Simply by counting murder cases, one can determine that killers of strangers for reasons of political, religious or ethnic hatred are about 50 times more common among mainstream Sunni Muslims than among native Europeans. Worse than that is the utter inability of politicians to deal with, or even acknowledge the existence of, any problems created by Muslims.

    You have not experienced this yet in the USA because the number of Sunni Muslims is so low - remembering not to count Shiites of Iranian heritage, or members of the home-grown "Nation of Islam". Therefore it is understandable that you would regard negative attitudes to Islam as "hateful", "Islamophobic", and so on.

    Take a look at other countries. Please do not make the same mistakes that we have made.

    When there are 5% Muslims (Britain, 2011 census), there are bombings and shootings against infidels every few months.

    They all seem to be false flags or hoaxes, frankly. Just like the stuff you mention in France further down. It’s all fake news.

    Where there are 43% Muslims (the Swedish city of Malmo) mainstream politicians are seriously considering introducing martial law because the level of gang violence is so bad.

    Oy vey. The mean streets of Malmo… By the way, where does this (surprisingly precise) datum come from? 43% of the population of Malmo, Sweden is Muslim?

    I don’t think so, but it does seem to be some sort of talking point being put out there. Somebody on Quora asked recently whether the majority of people in Malmo were Muslims!!??

    https://www.quora.com/Are-the-majority-of-people-living-in-Malmö-Muslims

    So the meme is being put out there. The mean streets of Malmo. Oy vey.

    And you can see the responses, at least a couple from people who live in Malmo. Of course, it depends on what your definition of who a Muslim is. If it’s people who actually observe the religion, then it’s a pretty small percentage, like 3% or something like that. If it’s somebody whose ethnic background is that of a majority Muslim place, then maybe it’s more like 15% of Malmo. To me, that sounds like it might be about right. There are apparently about 800,000 Muslims in Sweden, or 8% of the population (by the ethnic definition surely) so that it’s about twice as high a percentage in Malmo sounds reasonable.

    I have no doubt that there are some problems in Sweden, but frankly, for me, the “mean streets of Malmo” narrative does not withstand the proverbial laugh test. Now, granted, I have never been to Sweden. Maybe Sweden is really a terrifying place. Have you ever been there?

    Read More
    • Replies: @James N. Kennett

    They all seem to be false flags or hoaxes, frankly. Just like the stuff you mention in France further down. It’s all fake news.
     
    This is not the USA, where the FBI will find a fantasist, get him to press a button that supposedly detonates a bomb, and then throw him in the slammer for 400 years. The attacks are real.

    So the meme is being put out there. The mean streets of Malmo. Oy vey.

    ...

    I have no doubt that there are some problems in Sweden, but frankly, for me, the “mean streets of Malmo” narrative does not withstand the proverbial laugh test.

     

    This is what I would have said 20 years ago (without the "Oy vey"). Malmo was one of the safest cities in the world. What you don't realise is how quickly things can change.

    In 2016 a Birmingham (UK) family visited relatives in Sweden, and during their visit one of their children was killed in a grenade attack. 20 years ago this story would not only have failed the laugh test, it would have generated a parsing error. What has changed is that all the people involved, both families as well as the attackers, are of Somali origin; and grenade attacks are the preferred method of dispute resolution among Somalis in Sweden.

    https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/yuusuf-warsame-grenade-attack-death-11953145

    Go ahead, laugh. Ridicule me in Yiddish if that is your thing. It is your privilege to be unteachable and to repeat the mistakes that other countries have made.
    , @Colin Wright
    '...Maybe Sweden is really a terrifying place. Have you ever been there?'

    In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king...

    I have been to Sweden -- albeit only for three days. On the other hand, while I am definitely opposed to 'come one, come all,' diversity, and all the rest of it, I have to admit that from what I saw in Stockholm, it all seemed to be working rather well. I was a little chagrined to see that, but there it was.

    Perhaps the nativist right should focus on France or Germany, better?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. Anonymous[366] • Disclaimer says:
    @attilathehen
    Same old schtick Echoes of History. Try something new. How about starting a pagan religion?

    Same tired deflection from the fact that you worship a foreign brown middle-eastern Asian Rabbi Jew named Jesus. Sad.

    I’m white; if you are too, you’d be better off worshiping me, back in the day when you might have had any sexual market value and I would accept your worship. Too late now, you have to settle for shit-skin love, like so many other wrinkled Euro cat-ladies with barren wombs and dry breasts like Merkel’s.

    As far as pagan religions go, do you celebrate “Easter?” Try finding that word in either Jew Testament. (The word isn’t there, but references to the holiday Easter are, and not in a positive light.) http://www.openbible.info/topics/ishtar

    You already know Christmas trees and Easter eggs were originally Pagan, and you probably know the seasonal timing of the two holidays is Pagan too. Mildly interesting. Not what you’ll find here. What you’ll discover at POCM is that ancient cultures around the Mediterranean shared a set of ideas about Gods and their powers and place in the universe—and that Christianity adopted those ideas, and applied them to Jesus. http://pocm.info/

    Read More
    • Replies: @mark green
    Interesting, and largely true. I agree with your implied suggestion that Whites do not need to worship yarns involving a Jewish savior. Biblical lore is basically flat earth nonsense involving 'miracles'. It's pre-scientific and superstitious. The Jesus story and its accompanying baggage has become counter-productive to contemporary White interests.

    Indeed, Christian Zionism is being used to bind us politically to Israel along with that state's fanatical quest for regional (global?) supremacy. This agenda is inimical to the interests of Whites whose ancestral lands are now being overrun by Hispanics, Muslims, Africans, Indians and others. Incredibly, it's the Jews who are orchestrating this transformation.

    We need to get one fact clear: commonality (not 'diversity') is our strength.

    It's diversity that will be our undoing. The Israelis understand this. But crypto-Israelis in the West have brillianty marketed junk sociology, to our detriment. And the diversity myth has empowered them. Clever. Diabolical.

    It's apparent that most Jews have little affection (or even respect) for the Christian religion or the well-being of the (non-Jewish) White race. So we're being taken to the cleaners.

    What doe this add up to? Jews are our competitors, not our allies. We should respond accordingly.

    The case can be made that White Americans have more in common with Christian Russia than parasitic, supremacist Israel. So it's time for a realignment.

    Therefore, European-derived Whites need to move beyond the ancient Jesus myth and embrace new ideas that will unify us as a people and prepare us for a racially-conscious, globally-competitive world. We also need to get Israel off our backs.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. pensword says:
    @Johnny Rottenborough
    pensword—During a ‘combat, battle or fight’, it has frequently been known for death to occur. Further to your mention of other forms of q-t-l, Quranic Arabic Corpus provides a handy though bloody list of all the appearances of the root in the Qur’an.

    If you find standard English translations of the Qur’an unsatisfactory, publish your own.

    Your claim of the inviolability of religious liberty is difficult to square with, for example, clause o11.9 of Reliance of the Traveller: ‘If non-Muslim subjects of the Islamic state refuse to conform to the rules of Islam, or to pay the non-Muslim poll tax, then their agreement with the state has been violated.’ They are then subject to any punishment deemed fit. As you will know, polytheists such as Hindus are presented with just two options, conversion or death.

    On WMDs, Western peoples trusted their governments. Western societies are high trust. Sadly, they have been infiltrated by outsiders who are adept in exploiting trust.

    During a ‘combat, battle or fight’, it has frequently been known for death to occur.

    Conjecture. I could surmise with equal validity that death does NOT frequently occur during a fight or battle. What you posit doesn’t support your argument in the least.

    all the appearances of the root in the Qur’an

    Every rendering of Form III in that list includes the verb “fight,” with the exception of two imprecations (i.e. “May God destroy the wicked!”). Once again, your argument fails.

    If you find standard English translations of the Qur’an unsatisfactory, publish your own.

    It’s a work in progress, though there’s a difference between critical analysis of select verse translations and wholesale dismissal of a Qur’an translation, the latter of which I’ve never done.

    Your claim of the inviolability of religious liberty is difficult to square with, for example, clause o11.9 of Reliance of the Traveller: ‘If non-Muslim subjects of the Islamic state refuse to conform to the rules of Islam, or to pay the non-Muslim poll tax, then their agreement with the state has been violated.’

    I have Keller’s translation, which includes the Arabic side-by-side.

    al-Misri, the author, does not use the term ahkam al-millat (here rendered “rules of Islam”) to imply that non-muslims must follow the shari’ah. In a muslim polity, there are two types of law: those of generally applicability and those applied within communities administrated independently of muslim authority. Here, al-Misri alludes to the former type of law.

    Think federal law versus state law, wherein (ideally) states enjoy a measure of autonomy from federal interference in the administration of their affairs. If you’d like, we could localize it even more, distinguishing dry counties from wet counties, or municipalities, or townships, or villages. Islam provides for similar autonomous rule.

    As for the jizyah, it was traditionally redistributed to the authorities of those communities from which it was collected. The amount collected was far less onerous than that which the average American pays today (when adjusting these statistics for inflation). In truth, Americans don’t fare much better in this regard than did serfs in feudal Europe.

    As you will know, polytheists such as Hindus are presented with just two options, conversion or death.

    History belies your assertion, as numerous muslim rulers in the Indian subcontinent regarded Hindus as a protected class.

    On WMDs, Western peoples trusted their governments. Western societies are high trust. Sadly, they have been infiltrated by outsiders who are adept in exploiting trust.

    Speaking as a born-and-raised American, I can state with the utmost confidence that the “high trust” to which you refer arises from naivete. Americans have been so thoroughly deceived about so many things, it’s difficult to know where to begin describing the scale of such deception. Public schooling might be a good starting point, though historically, it reaches back much further.

    We’re hardly new to zionist deception.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johnny Rottenborough
    pensword—Your argument that death is infrequent in battle has great entertainment value. Many thanks.

    I linked to the Quranic Arabic Corpus list simply to illustrate the violent nature of Islam, which I think the list does rather well.

    Religions which are subject to restrictions on how they are practised (see Reliance of the Traveller o11.5) do not enjoy liberty, as you claim.

    The Muslim rulers who sacrificed themselves to hellfire rather than punish polytheists for their crime of shirk presumably regretted their decision pretty quickly.

    It’s always interesting to observe Muslims attempting to defend their, frankly, indefensible religion—trying to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, as it were. Thank you for giving so much of your time to someone who has ‘nothing to teach you but ignorance.’

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. pensword says:
    @Johnny Rottenborough
    pensword—The authors of these commentaries do not see the verse in quite such black-and-white terms. Note that I have replied to you without casting slurs on your character. If our paths should cross again, please do your best to reciprocate.

    The authors of these commentaries do not see the verse in quite such black-and-white terms.

    I see …

    So you get to play the “commentary” card while rejecting commentaries about similar verses in The Qur’an? Sounds a bit duplicitous, Johnny.

    Note that I have replied to you without casting slurs on your character. If our paths should cross again, please do your best to reciprocate.

    I sense that you take offense to my description of your ridiculous characterization of Islam (i.e. “drivel”). I’ll leave you to figure out the difference between this and a “slur on your character,” though I humbly suggest you grow some thicker skin.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. pensword says:
    @Talha

    or is he a simple
     
    He was not a scholar nor does anybody take his commentary seriously in traditional circles since he wasn't a qualified exegete (a station not many have reached). I actually have a copy of his translation, I do like the flow of some of the prose - I prefer Sr. Aisha Bewley's.

    If the real meaning of the Quran is understandable only in Arabic by the Arabs
     
    Most Arabs couldn't point out the grammatical composition of any given sentence of the Qur'an - let alone the ones on the high rhetorical scales - it is a specialized science.

    why to translate it at all,
     
    As a crutch, since most Muslims don't have the time to study Arabic. Really doesn't matter since the idea of deriving rulings from an English translation is laughable.

    if the ‘fight against unbelievers’ is abrogated
     
    Who said it is abrogated? It was never abrogated. It was put into abeyance due to the international treaties of non-aggression that Muslims are signatory to. If non-Muslims return to the days of the British and French Empires, we return to the days of the Ottoman and Safavid.

    there is no more Christian ‘proselytism’
     
    Yes, that's not allowed in Muslim lands. But we aren't picking on Christians really since no one is allowed to proselytize. Like I said, if that bugs you so much, you can return the West to the days when proselytising in Christian lands wasn't allowed:
    "When the Roman Empire became Christian, apostates were punished by deprivation of all civil rights. They could not give evidence in a court of law, and could neither bequeath nor inherit property. To induce anyone to apostatize was an offence punishable with death [Theodosian Code, XVI, title 7, De apostatis; title 8, De Judæis; "Corpus juris romani ante-Justinianæi" (Bonn, 1840), 1521 - 1607; Code of Justinian I, title 7, De apostatis l. c. 60, 61]."
    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01624b.htm

    What's stopping you now? You guys obviously were fine with prohibiting it in previous times.


    like display of crosses
     
    No, that's usually fine, though - admittedly - certain scholars were pretty tough about not allowed processions and such through Muslim areas. They usually couldn't care less what Christians did in their own enclaves though.

    and attempts to reconquer their stolen lands
     
    You mean the ones Muslims curb-stomped Greek armies for? Hey man, we took them fair and square. Also...what the hell were Greeks and Romans doing in the Levant and North Africa? If you're going to call yourself the Byzantine Empire, for the love of God, at least have the aptitude to hold it against a bunch of semi-nomadic Arab tribes with second-class weapons and armor and practically no experience with large-scale battles.

    Look, I get you're really, really upset about this* (since you keep bringing this up) so let's make a deal...you guys in the West join up and powwow and figure out a plan to retake everything in the name of Christ - you know, get your carpet bombers ready and cruise missiles and all that holy stuff. Then get rid of the international treaties that you guys drafted (in the aftermath of going postal on each others' cities) and come get some land - you know our address since we haven't moved. I promise, I won't complain if you do it after getting rid of the international framework because then you won't be hypocrites and I can at least respect that.

    And please, at least have the balls to grab a rifle and come yourself - don't send someone else or someone else's kid like some pissy neocon - because that isn't respectable.

    Peace.

    *Especially since Christians had literally reconquered all Muslim lands - and then some - until fairly recently and somehow managed to screw that entire enterprise up within like a hundred and fifty years. We can't be blamed for your ineptitude.

    You mean the ones Muslims curb-stomped Greek armies for? Hey man, we took them fair and square. Also…what the hell were Greeks and Romans doing in the Levant and North Africa? If you’re going to call yourself the Byzantine Empire, for the love of God, at least have the aptitude to hold it against a bunch of semi-nomadic Arab tribes with second-class weapons and armor and practically no experience with large-scale battles.

    Look, I get you’re really, really upset about this* (since you keep bringing this up) so let’s make a deal…you guys in the West join up and powwow and figure out a plan to retake everything in the name of Christ – you know, get your carpet bombers ready and cruise missiles and all that holy stuff. Then get rid of the international treaties that you guys drafted (in the aftermath of going postal on each others’ cities) and come get some land – you know our address since we haven’t moved. I promise, I won’t complain if you do it after getting rid of the international framework because then you won’t be hypocrites and I can at least respect that.

    And please, at least have the balls to grab a rifle and come yourself – don’t send someone else or someone else’s kid like some pissy neocon – because that isn’t respectable.

    Talha akhi,

    Jazakumullah khayr for that comic relief. Sorely needed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Wa iyyakum,

    No problem – I seriously don’t understand people being crabby about something that happened 14 centuries ago, especially due to their own criminal negligence and bad policies. Like pissing off local Christians (in their own words):
    “Very often he [Heraclius] used ruthless oppression through which many Syrians, Copts, and Armenians became martyrs. The persecution of the Syrian Church by the Byzantine Empire did not end until the appearance of Islam….When the Arab Muslims marched into Syria they were welcomed by the Syrians who saw the new rulers as saviors who freed them from the yoke of the Byzantines because the Byzantines tried by force to assimilate them into the Byzantine Church…Therefore the Syrians under the Byzantine and Persian powers saw the Islamic conquerors as liberators and not as occupiers. The Syrians put great hope in them, not only because the Muslims liberated them from their religious trouble but also because they relieved the Syrians of the burdensome taxes that were placed on their backs.”

    http://syrianorthodoxchurch.org/2010/03/a-short-overview-of-the-common-history/

    Again, if they want to come for Damascus or Alexandria or Constantinople – they know where to find us. Otherwise they can stop nagging and complaining like old women about it and try to map out a better future that is less confrontational for both sides.

    Wa salaam.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. Talha says:
    @pensword
    I think there is a good reason why the Ummah has come to a general understanding when they use the term “aalim” or “ulema”.

    The reason is but a matter of expedience: most muslims seek answers they cannot reach on their own. Yet the original meaning of these terms is no small issue. Imam Ghazali didn't place the topic of 'ilm at the head of his Ihya arbitrarily. He did so precisely because a correct understanding of the term was needed when it became relegated to academic mastery rather than knowledge of God.

    I'm reminded of the man who, upon hearing the last two verses of al-Zalzalah, abruptly departed from the company of the Prophet and his companions, whereupon the Prophet counseled his companions to be like him, for whom a little knowledge sufficed as guidance. Most of those companions guaranteed the garden hadn't committed much of The Qur'an to memory and a good number were illiterate, yet their rank is second only to the Prophets 'alaihimus-salaam ~ as a consequence of their sincerity, NOT their scholarship.

    ALLAH speaks directly to all of humankind, without intermediary, in a language clear and precise. (The term 'araba itself means "to clarify.") Seek His Word and knowledge will follow, no priests required.

    only as coincidence.

    We don't prohibit non-muslims from studying the religion nor from arriving at conclusions that differ from our own. That's a strictly Talmudic prohibition.

    I acknowledge the possibility that, given already fulfilled prophecy concerning the Arab world's loss of knowledge, anyone ~ muslim or otherwise ~ may arrive at a valid opinion or viewpoint about Islam that is entirely unique to our previous scholarship. Let them have at it. They might just learn something in the process.

    Muslims have never followed the opinions of non-Muslims on matters of the deen and I don’t see any reason to start now.

    It's euphemistic to state that Isra'iliyyat has affected jurisprudence quite adversely. Apostasy and adultery were capital crimes only in Judaism until the Abbasid court "scholars" codified them as "shari'ah." This legacy has continued in the millenial world ever since.

    Truth is aways clearly distinguishable from falsehood anyways, right?
     
    On some things, yes

    No. ALLAH means exactly what He says. The 'ulama's disagreement in relation to matters of subordinate importance is, as explicitly stated by the Prophet, a mercy from ALLAH, not a competition between truth and falsehood. Were it otherwise, you'd be attributing falsehood to those whom you assign the title 'ulama, na'oodhu billah.

    I agree with your sentiment here, but you know that

    I've known both for too many years. My comment was merely observational, though I appreciate your response, particularly the video from Dr. Elmasry, whose concern is well-grounded.

    Simply put: They won't be satisfied with us until we become like them.

    as a consequence of their sincerity, NOT their scholarship.

    I agree here. A person can be a very sincere worshiper and reach a very high station with just a little bit of knowledge and loads of sincerity. But can we also agree that even among the Companions (ra), not every one of them gave fatwas and rather the lion’s share of them deferred to a group of less than ten when they were in need of religious rulings.

    We don’t prohibit non-muslims from studying the religion nor from arriving at conclusions that differ from our own.

    Sure, but we’ve never cared as to their conclusions either. And why should we? I doubt Catholics base their ecclesiastical conclusions based on input from Hindu pandits.

    Let them have at it. They might just learn something in the process.

    I’m fine with this and there are many non-Muslim academics that a deeply respect in this regard. However, for them to tell us that their conclusions are correct in spite of centuries of the ulema’s views to the contrary is deeply presumptuous and arrogant.

    until the Abbasid court “scholars” codified them as “shari’ah.”

    Not sure I agree with this since there were plenty of scholars that concurred that had nothing to do with the Abbasid court, some of whom were persecuted by the caliphate and some under the jurisdiction of the Ummayyads in West Africa and Spain.

    No. ALLAH means exactly what He says. The ‘ulama‘s disagreement in relation to matters of subordinate importance is, as explicitly stated by the Prophet, a mercy from ALLAH, not a competition between truth and falsehood.

    OK – I’ll concede this point. Differences of opinion are not about truth or falsehood, but some can get the ruling correct and some can get it incorrect; can we agree on this?
    “If a judge makes a ruling, striving to apply his reasoning (ijtihad) and he is correct, then he will have two rewards. If a judge makes a ruling, striving to apply his reasoning and he is mistaken, then he will have one reward.” – reported in Bukhari and Muslim

    They won’t be satisfied with us until we become like them.

    Sure. They gotta do what they gotta do, we gotta do what we gotta do. La kum deenukm wa liya deen.

    Wa salaam.

    Read More
    • Replies: @pensword
    Wa 'alaikumus-salaam.

    Thank you for your time and effort. I'll cut to the proverbial chase:

    Apostasy, adultery and abrogation ~ among other matters ~ require a fresh perspective, one that does not hold Abbasid era jurisprudence as some kind of inviolable catechism superseding God's Word. I'm not of the "Qur'an only" schismatics, but it is instructive that 'Umar burned his entire collection of ahaddith, and there is, in fact, a haddith upon which this destruction was predicated.

    1. There is not a single verse in The Qur'an that mandates capital punishment for apostasy, nor is there one example of The Prophet ever ordering an execution simply because a muslim decided not to be muslim anymore. There are only ahaddith that state a muslim who "changes his religion" should be killed, but this does not address simple apostasy. Rather, it refers to those who endeavor to literally "change THE religion," such as the renegades who openly declared that zakat was no longer a pillar of the religion following the worldly passing of The Prophet, thereby raising a false flag.

    The distortion of this haddith was a convenient way for the Abbasid sultanate to make dissent from its authority a capital crime.

    2. There is a haddith concerning an alleged rajm verse which was supposedly eaten by a goat, never included in The Qur'an, but given a de jure Qur'anic imprimatur. The strongest "proof" of this is a speech attributed to 'Umar that is entirely uncharacteristic of him, one in which he excuses himself from ordering inclusion of the verse for fear of how this would be perceived.

    That's not 'Umar. Not by a longshot. You can line up a host of as many luminaries as you might find that allegedly corroborate the narrative. The matn simply doesn't withstand close scrutiny.

    Moreover, if the punishment of a slave is half that of a free person, how do you half-lapidate an adulterer who is a slave?

    3. The ayat of abrogation refer to Scripture that preceded The Qur'an, not ayat within The Qur'an itself. To claim otherwise is to undermine the integrity of The Qur'an as it has been preserved. Furthermore, among those who disagree with this statement, there is no unanimity of consensus upon which verses abrogate others.

    I am fully aware that these views make me an "outlier" among most muslims, a "protestant muslim" of sorts, but they are consonant both with The Qur'an and prophecy. I do NOT advocate a wholesale dismissal of scholarship that arose primarily during the Abbasid era. I'm well aware that respected imams and shuyukh of the period appear to have held views at odds with what I've presented, but I don't find it incumbent upon me to accept at face value what others attribute to them. That may be traditional, but it's certainly not obligatory.

    I sense a renaissance under foot, one that will, insha'ALLAH, inspire muslims to re-evaluate the vaunted canons of their tradition, clear away the dross therein and behold their sacred texts as the companions of their prophets once did.

    May ALLAH grant us such vision.
    , @pensword
    the evidence for stoning is not based on an alleged verse but solid hadith.

    It's based on both, though remains flawed.

    First, I take issue with the canonization of ahaddith collections. Unlike The Qur'an, they do not constitute an inviolable word; such is the implicit nature of them, handed down from one party to another, arriving at the end of a lengthy chain whose probity depends upon an "ijma'" that, in reality, was a manufactured consensus. The widely-accepted age of 'Aisha upon her marriage comes to mind immediately. Imam Bukhari included it in his Sahih, yet it doesn't withstand close scrutiny.

    Ahaddith may serve as guidance, or a complement, but where contrast raises its head, The Qur'an invariably supersedes them. That's elementary fiqh.

    As per lapidation of adulterers, it's a strictly Torah-based law. (Violation of any one of the Ten Commandments constituted a capital crime.) You'll find that the "evidence" in ahaddith more often than not concerns The Prophet's application of The Torah in relation to Jewish offenders, which is how he adjudicated legal matters brought to him from the leaders of Jewish tribes in and around Medina. Additionally, the effective Law of God was lapidation for adultery before the ayat commanding 100 lashes for adultery abrogated it. All of these facts must be considered when analyzing the available evidence.

    But ... old traditions die hard. Fact is, there isn't even an ijma' about what ijma' is, opinions are just that varied on the topic. To believe that the Abbasid rise to power occurred without partisanship or prejudice and that these factors never influenced how history was summarily recorded for us is just too tall a demand. Long-standing perspectives on apostasy, adultery and abrogation have made too many hypocrites for far too long.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. Druid says:
    @Seraphim
    It is beyond doubt that the Prophet does not refer to Christians in general, but to the heretical Judeo-'Christian' sect of the Ebionites, supposedly 'faithful to the original teachings of Jesus and thus sharing Islamic views about Jesus' humanity and also rejecting the redemptive death'.
    One of the first men to believe in the prophethood of Muhammad was possibly an Ebionite, or an Arian, or a Nestorian, monk named Waraqah ibn Nawfal, the cousin of Mohammed's wife Khadija, whom Muslims highly honor as a pious man with deep knowledge of the Christian scriptures. The Hadiths say that during the Pre-Islamic became a Christian and "used to write the writing with Hebrew letters. He would write from the Gospel in Hebrew as much as God wished him to write". Hebrew letters! He with his cousin Khadija are the true 'inspirers' of Mahomed. They most probably were Jews.

    No argument from me. I agree!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. Talha says:
    @pensword

    You mean the ones Muslims curb-stomped Greek armies for? Hey man, we took them fair and square. Also…what the hell were Greeks and Romans doing in the Levant and North Africa? If you’re going to call yourself the Byzantine Empire, for the love of God, at least have the aptitude to hold it against a bunch of semi-nomadic Arab tribes with second-class weapons and armor and practically no experience with large-scale battles.

    Look, I get you’re really, really upset about this* (since you keep bringing this up) so let’s make a deal…you guys in the West join up and powwow and figure out a plan to retake everything in the name of Christ – you know, get your carpet bombers ready and cruise missiles and all that holy stuff. Then get rid of the international treaties that you guys drafted (in the aftermath of going postal on each others’ cities) and come get some land – you know our address since we haven’t moved. I promise, I won’t complain if you do it after getting rid of the international framework because then you won’t be hypocrites and I can at least respect that.

    And please, at least have the balls to grab a rifle and come yourself – don’t send someone else or someone else’s kid like some pissy neocon – because that isn’t respectable.
     
    Talha akhi,

    Jazakumullah khayr for that comic relief. Sorely needed.

    Wa iyyakum,

    No problem – I seriously don’t understand people being crabby about something that happened 14 centuries ago, especially due to their own criminal negligence and bad policies. Like pissing off local Christians (in their own words):
    “Very often he [Heraclius] used ruthless oppression through which many Syrians, Copts, and Armenians became martyrs. The persecution of the Syrian Church by the Byzantine Empire did not end until the appearance of Islam….When the Arab Muslims marched into Syria they were welcomed by the Syrians who saw the new rulers as saviors who freed them from the yoke of the Byzantines because the Byzantines tried by force to assimilate them into the Byzantine Church…Therefore the Syrians under the Byzantine and Persian powers saw the Islamic conquerors as liberators and not as occupiers. The Syrians put great hope in them, not only because the Muslims liberated them from their religious trouble but also because they relieved the Syrians of the burdensome taxes that were placed on their backs.”

    http://syrianorthodoxchurch.org/2010/03/a-short-overview-of-the-common-history/

    Again, if they want to come for Damascus or Alexandria or Constantinople – they know where to find us. Otherwise they can stop nagging and complaining like old women about it and try to map out a better future that is less confrontational for both sides.

    Wa salaam.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mike P
    Interesting background about the oppression of the Syrian church, I wasn't aware of that.

    I generally agree with you, but I think you are being unduly harsh on Heraclius when alleging his 'criminal negligence' or 'ineptitude'. He had rallied his empire from a very low point and beaten considerable odds in his wars on multiple fronts, particularly so against the Parthians. That war had completely worn out both sides, and the Arabs had the good luck to confront and conquer both in a very enfeebled state.

    Heraclius was one of the all-time great soldier-kings/emperors; his defeat at the hands of the brave and able Arabs does not change that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. bucky says:
    @Talha

    See the difference?
     
    I do - and that's on them. I can only speak for myself. I marched in the protests (with my baby daughter on my shoulders) against the Iraq war because I knew exactly that two things would occur:
    - We would destroy Iraq and make it worse
    - A bunch of US soldiers were going to be killed an maimed for no good reason

    We were dismissed by Bush as an "interest group".

    excuse me, but this isn’t from an objective viewpoint.
     
    No - it's quite objective. The only objective and principled stance to take is to say we should ban alll nuclear weapons - why aren't you for that? If you make exceptions, then you are biased for the exceptions. I have no bias in this regard; I want full nuclear disarmament as of yesterday...completely...without exceptions.

    Muslims feel Muslim pain
     
    Yes because this is part of what the duties of a spiritual brotherhood are - feeling the pain for one's fellow brothers in faith. Do you not empathize with the plight of Christians more than that of Hindus and Muslims? Why?

    Peace.

    As I’m no longer a believing Christian, it is hard for me to say. I suppose I do feel a little more generous when a foreign community that is endangered is Christian. But the main issue is that Muslim terrorism has been a phenomena for damn near 50 years now and it affects my life in many indirect ways. In the 1990′s we were on our way towards small government sustainability — then 9/11 happened. Now, DC and NYC are bigger than ever before, and our federal government is this unrecognizable fiscally irresponsible creature. And of course terrorist events like San Bernardino, Boston Marathon, Times Square failed bombing, Orlando, Ft. Hood, Paris, London tram bombings, the list goes on and on.

    Nuclear weapons actually have kept the peace over the past seventy years, and so a total elimination would likely actually lead to more conflict. But even beyond that, the status quo is as it is. America has nukes, Russia has nukes, Israel has nukes. Any and all change in the status quo likely will occur in the Muslim world. Should Iran and Saudi Arabia get nukes? that is the relevant question right now. And no, they should not get nukes. Pakistan should definitely not have them.

    That America has certainly done wrong to the Muslim world is undeniable, but at the same time America has done much for the Muslim world as well, and this enmity and hostility that many Muslims feel for America is based at core not so much on mistreatment but on identity. And while it is understandable, it is still a threat that does not exist with other peoples.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha

    that Muslim terrorism has been a phenomena for damn near 50 years now and it affects my life in many indirect ways
     
    There is no justification for terrorism - at all. Killing innocent people for the wrongs committed by foreign policies of governments is never justified. Of course, the scourge of terrorism is far worse in the Muslim world itself - terrorists have killed and maimed far more Muslims than the pin-prick attacks in the West, so we are well aware that this is a major problem we need to bring under control. That said, it does NOT help when our government goes cowboy on relatively stable and functional states like Iraq and Libya and makes them terrorist breeding grounds.

    Nuclear weapons...
     
    This entire paragraph is full of contradictions. If there is one thing that is completely clear to the developing world right now it is that; if you do not want to be invaded like Panama, Iraq, Libya get nukes like North Korea and they'll take you seriously and start negotiating. We. Did. This.

    so a total elimination would likely actually lead to more conflict
     
    If they have kept nations out of conflict as a deterrent then there is no reason not to have more nations have them in the Middle East to prevent further international conflict.

    America has nukes, Russia has nukes, Israel has nukes.
     
    You forgot China, North Korea, India, France, etc.

    Any and all change in the status quo likely will occur in the Muslim world. And no, they should not get nukes.
     
    This sounds to Muslims like; well, we have them and that's just how it is, but you cannot have them...because...stuff.

    Pakistan should definitely not have them.
     
    And Pakistan is somehow excluded from "the status quo is as it is" club? For what magical reason? Its nuclear posture is completely defensive. They detonated their nukes around two weeks right after India detonated theirs. India is considered an existential threat (three times its size) with which Pakistan has fought multiple major border wars. What gives us the moral right to dictate terms to them?

    If anything, their nuclear exchange with India will be limited and local. It is our potential nuclear exchange with Russia or China that has the potential of kicking off the chain events to kill off around one third (at least) of the human population. There is no such fear from a Pakistan/Indian exchange. And besides, you said yourself that nuclear weapons deter war - so that's a good thing.

    The above points you have made are why the Muslim world completely does not take Western views about nuclear weapons seriously. There is no principled moral stance, there is simply somebody chiding the Muslim world for legitimately seeking a deterrence to having their lands invaded. Muslims are near a quarter of the world's population, they will ignore being spoken down to.

    Now if full and universal nuclear disarmament is on the table, that is great - this is a principled and moral way forward for everyone and Muslims should absolutely work with nations cooperatively to achieve such a goal.


    but at the same time America has done much for the Muslim world as well
     
    No disagreements there. I think Muslims that see the US as having only made a negative influence in the world as being fairly childish actually.

    based at core not so much on mistreatment but on identity
     
    There is no doubt there is some of this going on; identity politics is the "in thing" right now and some Muslims are riding that train.

    Peace.

    , @Mike P

    But the main issue is that Muslim terrorism has been a phenomena for damn near 50 years now and it affects my life in many indirect ways. In the 1990′s we were on our way towards small government sustainability — then 9/11 happened.
     
    9/11 was not "Muslim terror" but a Mossad/CIA co-production. See for example the excellent books by David Ray Griffin on the matter, right here on this site. Also the hard-hitting books by Christopher Bollyn. The influx of refugees cum terrorists into Western countries is also orchestrated by the same actors - see for example the recent evacuation of the terrorist "White Helmets" by Israel and their announced resettlement in various Western countries.

    Israel wants to rile up the people in the West against all Muslims. To this end, Israel acts as the main state sponsor of "Muslim terrorism," both real and fake.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. @pensword
    During a ‘combat, battle or fight’, it has frequently been known for death to occur.

    Conjecture. I could surmise with equal validity that death does NOT frequently occur during a fight or battle. What you posit doesn't support your argument in the least.

    all the appearances of the root in the Qur’an

    Every rendering of Form III in that list includes the verb "fight," with the exception of two imprecations (i.e. "May God destroy the wicked!"). Once again, your argument fails.

    If you find standard English translations of the Qur’an unsatisfactory, publish your own.

    It's a work in progress, though there's a difference between critical analysis of select verse translations and wholesale dismissal of a Qur'an translation, the latter of which I've never done.

    Your claim of the inviolability of religious liberty is difficult to square with, for example, clause o11.9 of Reliance of the Traveller: ‘If non-Muslim subjects of the Islamic state refuse to conform to the rules of Islam, or to pay the non-Muslim poll tax, then their agreement with the state has been violated.’

    I have Keller's translation, which includes the Arabic side-by-side.

    al-Misri, the author, does not use the term ahkam al-millat (here rendered "rules of Islam") to imply that non-muslims must follow the shari'ah. In a muslim polity, there are two types of law: those of generally applicability and those applied within communities administrated independently of muslim authority. Here, al-Misri alludes to the former type of law.

    Think federal law versus state law, wherein (ideally) states enjoy a measure of autonomy from federal interference in the administration of their affairs. If you'd like, we could localize it even more, distinguishing dry counties from wet counties, or municipalities, or townships, or villages. Islam provides for similar autonomous rule.

    As for the jizyah, it was traditionally redistributed to the authorities of those communities from which it was collected. The amount collected was far less onerous than that which the average American pays today (when adjusting these statistics for inflation). In truth, Americans don't fare much better in this regard than did serfs in feudal Europe.

    As you will know, polytheists such as Hindus are presented with just two options, conversion or death.

    History belies your assertion, as numerous muslim rulers in the Indian subcontinent regarded Hindus as a protected class.

    On WMDs, Western peoples trusted their governments. Western societies are high trust. Sadly, they have been infiltrated by outsiders who are adept in exploiting trust.

    Speaking as a born-and-raised American, I can state with the utmost confidence that the "high trust" to which you refer arises from naivete. Americans have been so thoroughly deceived about so many things, it's difficult to know where to begin describing the scale of such deception. Public schooling might be a good starting point, though historically, it reaches back much further.

    We're hardly new to zionist deception.

    pensword—Your argument that death is infrequent in battle has great entertainment value. Many thanks.

    I linked to the Quranic Arabic Corpus list simply to illustrate the violent nature of Islam, which I think the list does rather well.

    Religions which are subject to restrictions on how they are practised (see Reliance of the Traveller o11.5) do not enjoy liberty, as you claim.

    The Muslim rulers who sacrificed themselves to hellfire rather than punish polytheists for their crime of shirk presumably regretted their decision pretty quickly.

    It’s always interesting to observe Muslims attempting to defend their, frankly, indefensible religion—trying to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, as it were. Thank you for giving so much of your time to someone who has ‘nothing to teach you but ignorance.’

    Read More
    • Replies: @pensword
    Your argument that death is infrequent in battle has great entertainment value. Many thanks.

    Wish I could say the same for your obfuscation, but ... Alas.

    Religions which are subject to restrictions on how they are practised (see Reliance of the Traveller o11.5) do not enjoy liberty, as you claim.

    In that case, no religion in America enjoys liberty.

    FWIW, the application of Reliance isn't obligatory upon muslim rulers. It's eight centuries removed from the Constitution of Medina, which ~ rather conspicuously ~ you ignore, ostrich-style.

    Thank you for giving so much of your time to someone who has ‘nothing to teach you but ignorance.’

    Hey, if the shoe fits ... Thanks for confirming you're here to do nothing but bicker.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. @Anonymous
    Same tired deflection from the fact that you worship a foreign brown middle-eastern Asian Rabbi Jew named Jesus. Sad.

    I'm white; if you are too, you'd be better off worshiping me, back in the day when you might have had any sexual market value and I would accept your worship. Too late now, you have to settle for shit-skin love, like so many other wrinkled Euro cat-ladies with barren wombs and dry breasts like Merkel's.

    As far as pagan religions go, do you celebrate "Easter?" Try finding that word in either Jew Testament. (The word isn't there, but references to the holiday Easter are, and not in a positive light.) http://www.openbible.info/topics/ishtar

    You already know Christmas trees and Easter eggs were originally Pagan, and you probably know the seasonal timing of the two holidays is Pagan too. Mildly interesting. Not what you'll find here. What you'll discover at POCM is that ancient cultures around the Mediterranean shared a set of ideas about Gods and their powers and place in the universe—and that Christianity adopted those ideas, and applied them to Jesus. http://pocm.info/
     

    Interesting, and largely true. I agree with your implied suggestion that Whites do not need to worship yarns involving a Jewish savior. Biblical lore is basically flat earth nonsense involving ‘miracles’. It’s pre-scientific and superstitious. The Jesus story and its accompanying baggage has become counter-productive to contemporary White interests.

    Indeed, Christian Zionism is being used to bind us politically to Israel along with that state’s fanatical quest for regional (global?) supremacy. This agenda is inimical to the interests of Whites whose ancestral lands are now being overrun by Hispanics, Muslims, Africans, Indians and others. Incredibly, it’s the Jews who are orchestrating this transformation.

    We need to get one fact clear: commonality (not ‘diversity’) is our strength.

    It’s diversity that will be our undoing. The Israelis understand this. But crypto-Israelis in the West have brillianty marketed junk sociology, to our detriment. And the diversity myth has empowered them. Clever. Diabolical.

    It’s apparent that most Jews have little affection (or even respect) for the Christian religion or the well-being of the (non-Jewish) White race. So we’re being taken to the cleaners.

    What doe this add up to? Jews are our competitors, not our allies. We should respond accordingly.

    The case can be made that White Americans have more in common with Christian Russia than parasitic, supremacist Israel. So it’s time for a realignment.

    Therefore, European-derived Whites need to move beyond the ancient Jesus myth and embrace new ideas that will unify us as a people and prepare us for a racially-conscious, globally-competitive world. We also need to get Israel off our backs.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    Please share with us these 'new ideas' which would unify 'us'. 'White' Americans might have more in common with Christian Russia. But they must be made aware that Christian Russia has very little in common with the 'White' Americans. They do love the ancient myth of the 'brown Jesus'. 'Incredibly' your 'White' Americans have more in common with Israel who loathe the 'brown Jesus' with the same gusto. The 'White' Americans are the 'lost tribes of Israel', are they not?
    , @Anonymous
    That "we also need to get Israel off our backs," is quite correct, but rather difficult when 72% of Americans use the Jewish storytelling of heaven to assuage their mortality salience. Similarly, 71% of Americans last year used alcohol to drown their other sorrows.

    “Two great European narcotics, alcohol and Christianity.” (Friedrich Nietzsche)

    And the narcotic dealers of ethanol and eternal life always demand payment.

    “For if the Gentiles have shared in the Jews’ spiritual blessings, they owe it to the Jews to share with them their material blessings.” (Romans 15:27)

    https://i.4pcdn.org/pol/1391835596391.png
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. Mike P says:
    @Talha
    Wa iyyakum,

    No problem – I seriously don’t understand people being crabby about something that happened 14 centuries ago, especially due to their own criminal negligence and bad policies. Like pissing off local Christians (in their own words):
    “Very often he [Heraclius] used ruthless oppression through which many Syrians, Copts, and Armenians became martyrs. The persecution of the Syrian Church by the Byzantine Empire did not end until the appearance of Islam….When the Arab Muslims marched into Syria they were welcomed by the Syrians who saw the new rulers as saviors who freed them from the yoke of the Byzantines because the Byzantines tried by force to assimilate them into the Byzantine Church…Therefore the Syrians under the Byzantine and Persian powers saw the Islamic conquerors as liberators and not as occupiers. The Syrians put great hope in them, not only because the Muslims liberated them from their religious trouble but also because they relieved the Syrians of the burdensome taxes that were placed on their backs.”

    http://syrianorthodoxchurch.org/2010/03/a-short-overview-of-the-common-history/

    Again, if they want to come for Damascus or Alexandria or Constantinople – they know where to find us. Otherwise they can stop nagging and complaining like old women about it and try to map out a better future that is less confrontational for both sides.

    Wa salaam.

    Interesting background about the oppression of the Syrian church, I wasn’t aware of that.

    I generally agree with you, but I think you are being unduly harsh on Heraclius when alleging his ‘criminal negligence’ or ‘ineptitude’. He had rallied his empire from a very low point and beaten considerable odds in his wars on multiple fronts, particularly so against the Parthians. That war had completely worn out both sides, and the Arabs had the good luck to confront and conquer both in a very enfeebled state.

    Heraclius was one of the all-time great soldier-kings/emperors; his defeat at the hands of the brave and able Arabs does not change that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hi Mike P,

    Perhaps, but it's not just Heraclius, it was the entire Byzantine command structure for massively underestimating their foe and refusing to learn from their mistakes time and time again.

    That war had completely worn out both sides, and the Arabs had the good luck to confront and conquer both in a very enfeebled state.
     
    But they had had far more years to recover from those conflicts than the Arabs did from the Ridda Wars (Wars of Apostasy) which were basically an Arabian civil war where the hijazi territory asserted its control over recalcitrant and seceding territories - that was far more damaging to the Arabs as a whole. civil wars are the absolute most draining for any people.

    Heraclius was one of the all-time great soldier-kings/emperors; his defeat at the hands of the brave and able Arabs does not change that.
     
    OK - I'll give you that - he did give the Persians quite a rout.

    Peace.
    , @Seraphim
    He is not 'unduly' harsh on Heraclius. He follows the Arab hagiography of the wars, with all its literary tropes and exagerations. He relies only on Arab sources, far later than the events, which give fantastic numbers of troops engaged in the battle. 140,000 Byzantines against 30,000. How could such a weak force defeat such an enormous army if not due to the exceptional warrior skills off the Rashidun, the genius of Muslim commander, the ineptitude of Byzantine generals, the decadence of the Byzantine Empire and the will of Allah?
    The truth is as always much more prosaic. Contemporary sources talk only of an army of 70,000, even 40,000 defeated in an ambush, by an army of about the same size. The 'ineptitude' of the generals was actually treason, some Roman soldiers proclaiming one of their generals, Baanes/Vahan (a Monophysite Armenian), as emperor and of Jabalah Ibn Al-Aiham, the last ruler of the Ghassanid state (Christian Arabs, vassals of the Empire) in Syria and Jordan in the 7th century AD. Some sources suggest an outbreak of plague, which was raging at the time in Syria.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. Ibn Issam says:

    Like the citizens of the Persian Empire, the citizens of the Byzantine Empire were overburdened with heavy taxes which consumed a large percentage of their individual wealth. The status of most people in the Byzantine empire was that of being extremely overtaxed, underpaid, or even slavery. When the Muslims arrived they offered a much lower tax of 2.5% for those who converted to Islam, or offered the Jizyah tax rate of 5-10% (and exemption from military service) to those who preferred to remain in their own faith tradition. Many entered into Islam, not only because of the economic feasibility of the situation but also because, they held Unitarian beliefs (similar to Islamic Unitarian beliefs) that had been forbidden by the Byzantine Church.

    It is easy to repeat the false accusation that Islam was “Spread by the sword” but the reality is that Islam spread so quickly because it was not only a religious belief that agreed with many non-Muslims to begin with, but because it was also a social justice movement that liberated people from the tyranny of oppression, burdensome taxes, slavery, etc.

    If Americans and westerners were offered the incredible opportunity to lower their tax rate from 33-40% (or more) of their salary to either only paying 2.5% in taxes by converting to Islam, or to only 5-10% tax rate while keeping their faith, taking advantage of military exemption by paying Jizyah……I am sure many would jump at such an opportunity even today!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    Actually, the Muslims did not free the citizens of the Roman Empire from taxes. They took over the taxes for themselves. They liberated them from slavery because they were able to bring slaves from jihad.
    , @Anonymous
    I, For One, Welcome Our New Muslim Overlords.

    1. Lower taxes!
    2. Make Woman Amish Again! (MWAA.ha.ha.ha!)
    3. No more shaving in the morning with Amish beards!
    4. Toss Milo off the roof!
    5. Throw the Jew down the well, so our country can be free!

    What's not to like?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. To Talha:

    Hang in there. You’re fighting the good fight.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    Call 'the good fight' by its real name: Jihad. Cultural jihad, or civilizational jihad, if you want.
    , @Talha
    Thanks Colin,

    Much respect.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. Talha says:
    @Mike P
    Interesting background about the oppression of the Syrian church, I wasn't aware of that.

    I generally agree with you, but I think you are being unduly harsh on Heraclius when alleging his 'criminal negligence' or 'ineptitude'. He had rallied his empire from a very low point and beaten considerable odds in his wars on multiple fronts, particularly so against the Parthians. That war had completely worn out both sides, and the Arabs had the good luck to confront and conquer both in a very enfeebled state.

    Heraclius was one of the all-time great soldier-kings/emperors; his defeat at the hands of the brave and able Arabs does not change that.

    Hi Mike P,

    Perhaps, but it’s not just Heraclius, it was the entire Byzantine command structure for massively underestimating their foe and refusing to learn from their mistakes time and time again.

    That war had completely worn out both sides, and the Arabs had the good luck to confront and conquer both in a very enfeebled state.

    But they had had far more years to recover from those conflicts than the Arabs did from the Ridda Wars (Wars of Apostasy) which were basically an Arabian civil war where the hijazi territory asserted its control over recalcitrant and seceding territories – that was far more damaging to the Arabs as a whole. civil wars are the absolute most draining for any people.

    Heraclius was one of the all-time great soldier-kings/emperors; his defeat at the hands of the brave and able Arabs does not change that.

    OK – I’ll give you that – he did give the Persians quite a rout.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. Seraphim says:
    @Colin Wright
    To Talha:

    Hang in there. You're fighting the good fight.

    Call ‘the good fight’ by its real name: Jihad. Cultural jihad, or civilizational jihad, if you want.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    'Call ‘the good fight’ by its real name: Jihad...'

    No, thank you. I'll call the good fight what it has always been: the stand of reason against blind bigotry, the appeal to what Lincoln called 'the better angels of our nature,' the refusal to be cowed by hatred and ignorance.

    Who is right and who is wrong can shift. On this thread, in this argument, Talha is in the right, and those who would abuse and vilify Islam are in the wrong. Some times, in some places, one can see the line between good and evil quite clearly. This is one of those times and places.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. Seraphim says:
    @Talha

    See the difference?
     
    I do - and that's on them. I can only speak for myself. I marched in the protests (with my baby daughter on my shoulders) against the Iraq war because I knew exactly that two things would occur:
    - We would destroy Iraq and make it worse
    - A bunch of US soldiers were going to be killed an maimed for no good reason

    We were dismissed by Bush as an "interest group".

    excuse me, but this isn’t from an objective viewpoint.
     
    No - it's quite objective. The only objective and principled stance to take is to say we should ban alll nuclear weapons - why aren't you for that? If you make exceptions, then you are biased for the exceptions. I have no bias in this regard; I want full nuclear disarmament as of yesterday...completely...without exceptions.

    Muslims feel Muslim pain
     
    Yes because this is part of what the duties of a spiritual brotherhood are - feeling the pain for one's fellow brothers in faith. Do you not empathize with the plight of Christians more than that of Hindus and Muslims? Why?

    Peace.

    We empathize with the plight of Christians in Muslim lands. For example, with the victims of the bombings of Churches in Egypt. Or Syria. Or Iraq.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    '...We empathize with the plight of Christians in Muslim lands. For example, with the victims of the bombings of Churches in Egypt. Or Syria. Or Iraq...'

    Do you? Why do I suspect you don't give a shit, per se? Or are you equally concerned by the fate of Christians in Israel?

    It can be bleakly humorous. The successive authoritarian regimes in Egypt have long made a practice of using their impoverished Christian population as scapegoats. This largely stopped when the Muslim Brotherhood came to power; aside from everything else, the Quran largely forbids such persecution, you see.

    Then the Muslim Brotherhood was overthrown. The state-condoned attacks on Christians resumed. No one (except presumably the Christians) minds. Just so long as the Muslim Brotherhood isn't in power.

    The hypocrisy and cynicism is stunning.
    , @Talha
    Absolutely - I am in 100% agreement. There is no cause or justification to be killing off peaceful Christian minorities. Those Muslims who commit such acts - in complete violation of covenants of security that were drafted as far back as the Companions themselves - have no support from me. They will stand for their crimes on the Day of Judgement if they escape justice here.

    This is a very valid criticism of a very dangerous trend in certain parts of the Muslim world.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. Seraphim says:
    @Ibn Issam
    Like the citizens of the Persian Empire, the citizens of the Byzantine Empire were overburdened with heavy taxes which consumed a large percentage of their individual wealth. The status of most people in the Byzantine empire was that of being extremely overtaxed, underpaid, or even slavery. When the Muslims arrived they offered a much lower tax of 2.5% for those who converted to Islam, or offered the Jizyah tax rate of 5-10% (and exemption from military service) to those who preferred to remain in their own faith tradition. Many entered into Islam, not only because of the economic feasibility of the situation but also because, they held Unitarian beliefs (similar to Islamic Unitarian beliefs) that had been forbidden by the Byzantine Church.

    It is easy to repeat the false accusation that Islam was “Spread by the sword” but the reality is that Islam spread so quickly because it was not only a religious belief that agreed with many non-Muslims to begin with, but because it was also a social justice movement that liberated people from the tyranny of oppression, burdensome taxes, slavery, etc.

    If Americans and westerners were offered the incredible opportunity to lower their tax rate from 33-40% (or more) of their salary to either only paying 2.5% in taxes by converting to Islam, or to only 5-10% tax rate while keeping their faith, taking advantage of military exemption by paying Jizyah……I am sure many would jump at such an opportunity even today!

    Actually, the Muslims did not free the citizens of the Roman Empire from taxes. They took over the taxes for themselves. They liberated them from slavery because they were able to bring slaves from jihad.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    'Actually, the Muslims did not free the citizens of the Roman Empire from taxes. They took over the taxes for themselves. They liberated them from slavery because they were able to bring slaves from jihad.'

    My impression is that the Muslims, first, freed the citizens of the Roman Empire from governmental oppression. The 'Byzantine' (look up alternate meanings of the word) bureaucracy was fantastically overstaffed and given to attempting to minutely regulate everything. The Muslim conquerors were limited in number and quite uninterested in any of that. Just pony up this tax, don't build new churches, and we're happy.

    Second, the Muslims freed -- ironically -- much of the Christian (not to mention the Jewish) population from religious persecution. The Muslims didn't care if you were a Monophysite or whatever. Have at it -- just don't get uppity. This phenomenon would have a later echo in the ready Greek acquiescence in Ottoman conquest: 'better the Turk than the Frank.'
    , @Ibn Issam
    @ Seraphim

    'Actually, the Muslims did not free the citizens of the Roman Empire from taxes. They took over the taxes for themselves.
     
    Exactly, but at a much lower tax rate! The Jizyah was really a religious offer, to non-Muslims, of financial liberation and freedom from oppressive overbearing taxes of the Imperial Christian (or non-Muslim) state.

    They liberated them from slavery because they were able to bring slaves from jihad.
     
    Any slave who converted to Islam was freed, as a Muslim should not hold his own brother Muslim in slavery. Likewise, slaves who were captured in war, could also accept Islam and be freed. Slavery was a fact of life in that time, but unlike the Bible, the Qur’an established the means for its eventual demise, as purchasing slaves was no longer a wise financial investment.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. Seraphim says:
    @mark green
    Interesting, and largely true. I agree with your implied suggestion that Whites do not need to worship yarns involving a Jewish savior. Biblical lore is basically flat earth nonsense involving 'miracles'. It's pre-scientific and superstitious. The Jesus story and its accompanying baggage has become counter-productive to contemporary White interests.

    Indeed, Christian Zionism is being used to bind us politically to Israel along with that state's fanatical quest for regional (global?) supremacy. This agenda is inimical to the interests of Whites whose ancestral lands are now being overrun by Hispanics, Muslims, Africans, Indians and others. Incredibly, it's the Jews who are orchestrating this transformation.

    We need to get one fact clear: commonality (not 'diversity') is our strength.

    It's diversity that will be our undoing. The Israelis understand this. But crypto-Israelis in the West have brillianty marketed junk sociology, to our detriment. And the diversity myth has empowered them. Clever. Diabolical.

    It's apparent that most Jews have little affection (or even respect) for the Christian religion or the well-being of the (non-Jewish) White race. So we're being taken to the cleaners.

    What doe this add up to? Jews are our competitors, not our allies. We should respond accordingly.

    The case can be made that White Americans have more in common with Christian Russia than parasitic, supremacist Israel. So it's time for a realignment.

    Therefore, European-derived Whites need to move beyond the ancient Jesus myth and embrace new ideas that will unify us as a people and prepare us for a racially-conscious, globally-competitive world. We also need to get Israel off our backs.

    Please share with us these ‘new ideas’ which would unify ‘us’. ‘White’ Americans might have more in common with Christian Russia. But they must be made aware that Christian Russia has very little in common with the ‘White’ Americans. They do love the ancient myth of the ‘brown Jesus’. ‘Incredibly’ your ‘White’ Americans have more in common with Israel who loathe the ‘brown Jesus’ with the same gusto. The ‘White’ Americans are the ‘lost tribes of Israel’, are they not?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. @Seraphim
    Call 'the good fight' by its real name: Jihad. Cultural jihad, or civilizational jihad, if you want.

    ‘Call ‘the good fight’ by its real name: Jihad…’

    No, thank you. I’ll call the good fight what it has always been: the stand of reason against blind bigotry, the appeal to what Lincoln called ‘the better angels of our nature,’ the refusal to be cowed by hatred and ignorance.

    Who is right and who is wrong can shift. On this thread, in this argument, Talha is in the right, and those who would abuse and vilify Islam are in the wrong. Some times, in some places, one can see the line between good and evil quite clearly. This is one of those times and places.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    I wonder whether you are a 'fellow traveler' or a 'useful idiot'.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. @Seraphim
    We empathize with the plight of Christians in Muslim lands. For example, with the victims of the bombings of Churches in Egypt. Or Syria. Or Iraq.

    ‘…We empathize with the plight of Christians in Muslim lands. For example, with the victims of the bombings of Churches in Egypt. Or Syria. Or Iraq…’

    Do you? Why do I suspect you don’t give a shit, per se? Or are you equally concerned by the fate of Christians in Israel?

    It can be bleakly humorous. The successive authoritarian regimes in Egypt have long made a practice of using their impoverished Christian population as scapegoats. This largely stopped when the Muslim Brotherhood came to power; aside from everything else, the Quran largely forbids such persecution, you see.

    Then the Muslim Brotherhood was overthrown. The state-condoned attacks on Christians resumed. No one (except presumably the Christians) minds. Just so long as the Muslim Brotherhood isn’t in power.

    The hypocrisy and cynicism is stunning.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. @Jonathan Revusky

    When there are 5% Muslims (Britain, 2011 census), there are bombings and shootings against infidels every few months.
     
    They all seem to be false flags or hoaxes, frankly. Just like the stuff you mention in France further down. It's all fake news.

    Where there are 43% Muslims (the Swedish city of Malmo) mainstream politicians are seriously considering introducing martial law because the level of gang violence is so bad.
     
    Oy vey. The mean streets of Malmo... By the way, where does this (surprisingly precise) datum come from? 43% of the population of Malmo, Sweden is Muslim?

    I don't think so, but it does seem to be some sort of talking point being put out there. Somebody on Quora asked recently whether the majority of people in Malmo were Muslims!!??

    https://www.quora.com/Are-the-majority-of-people-living-in-Malmö-Muslims

    So the meme is being put out there. The mean streets of Malmo. Oy vey.

    And you can see the responses, at least a couple from people who live in Malmo. Of course, it depends on what your definition of who a Muslim is. If it's people who actually observe the religion, then it's a pretty small percentage, like 3% or something like that. If it's somebody whose ethnic background is that of a majority Muslim place, then maybe it's more like 15% of Malmo. To me, that sounds like it might be about right. There are apparently about 800,000 Muslims in Sweden, or 8% of the population (by the ethnic definition surely) so that it's about twice as high a percentage in Malmo sounds reasonable.

    I have no doubt that there are some problems in Sweden, but frankly, for me, the "mean streets of Malmo" narrative does not withstand the proverbial laugh test. Now, granted, I have never been to Sweden. Maybe Sweden is really a terrifying place. Have you ever been there?

    They all seem to be false flags or hoaxes, frankly. Just like the stuff you mention in France further down. It’s all fake news.

    This is not the USA, where the FBI will find a fantasist, get him to press a button that supposedly detonates a bomb, and then throw him in the slammer for 400 years. The attacks are real.

    So the meme is being put out there. The mean streets of Malmo. Oy vey.

    I have no doubt that there are some problems in Sweden, but frankly, for me, the “mean streets of Malmo” narrative does not withstand the proverbial laugh test.

    This is what I would have said 20 years ago (without the “Oy vey”). Malmo was one of the safest cities in the world. What you don’t realise is how quickly things can change.

    In 2016 a Birmingham (UK) family visited relatives in Sweden, and during their visit one of their children was killed in a grenade attack. 20 years ago this story would not only have failed the laugh test, it would have generated a parsing error. What has changed is that all the people involved, both families as well as the attackers, are of Somali origin; and grenade attacks are the preferred method of dispute resolution among Somalis in Sweden.

    https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/yuusuf-warsame-grenade-attack-death-11953145

    Go ahead, laugh. Ridicule me in Yiddish if that is your thing. It is your privilege to be unteachable and to repeat the mistakes that other countries have made.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
    I posed two questions to you:

    1. Where does this figure of Malmo being 43% Muslim come from?

    2. Have you yourself ever been in Sweden?

    These are very straightforward questions. If there is to be any pretense that this is an honest, good-faithed discussion, you really must answer the above questions.


    It is your privilege to be unteachable and to repeat the mistakes that other countries have made.
     
    Well, I'm quite willing to be taught what Sweden is like. I admit openly that I have never been there myself. However, I decline to be educated about the topic of Sweden by someone who has never set foot there. That is why I posed the question.

    Well, I assume you never have been in Sweden. The fact that you dodge the question says as much.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. Seraphim says:
    @Talha

    if you find it so cool
     
    I don't - I merely pointed out (accurately) what certain medieval Islamic jurists stated - not even all of them. I'm fine with it. Have your crosses, have your processions - no sweat off my back.

    why these howlings about banning burkas in Christian areas?
     
    These aren't Christian areas - they call themselves secular countries - they virtue signal about how they are so enlightened and treat all religions the same. Muslims are simply pointing out the hypocrisy in their stance. Now, if these countries were to say; yeah, we've decided to go back to calling ourselves Christendom and ruling ourselves by a Christian legal framework derived from Biblical texts, then that would be a different story. Muslims don't have this cognitive dissonance - for example, here is the constitution of Iraq:
    "Article 2:
    First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:
    A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established."
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/12/AR2005101201450.html

    Just copy and paste into your constitutions and change the wordings slightly.


    If they don’t allow processions in their lands
     
    Most Muslim countries are fine with it. As far as those that don't - get with them and ask them to change the law.

    (and blocking circulation)
     
    Sometimes Muslims make a big stink about nothing, just ignore them. Say; we can't let you block traffic, end of story.

    people who don’t want to hear of your Mahomed and couldn’t care less about your Sharia are showing you the door.
     
    Hey, I don't mind. I'm a law abiding citizen. If I get an official federal notice in the mail telling me my citizenship is revoked and I have X number of months to leave, I will get with the wife and make plans to sell the house, pack my bags, etc. Until then, I'll do my thing.

    You don’t want to see Christians on your lands
     
    I'm totally fine with Christians in Muslim lands - their presence often predates Islam.

    we don’t want to see Muzzies on ours
     
    Sure, people like you don't - and that was pretty much the norm until relatively recently while the West still considered itself Christendom. Why did that stance change?

    Now I get along pretty well with my neighbors so you don't seem to speak for them. But it's a democracy, so if enough people want, they can change the laws to kick out Muslims. And it can all be done legally and in the open - and that's pretty awesome actually.


    Sure that they must been banned to proselytize.
     
    That's fine, change the laws.

    I thought that you live in America.
     
    I can move.

    Greeks and Romans were in Africa and in Levant building cities
     
    Yeah, those Greek and Roman marauders built some nice settlements and infrastructure after their initial invasions, they are still tourist attractions:
    https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/38

    Thanks for those.


    came to destroy them
     
    The Rashidun expansions were as clean as invasions could be; despite an exception here or there - the vast majority of cities (especially capital cities) were taken by negotiated surrenders. That was largely thanks to the ineptitude of the Byzantine command structure in not playing to their advantage and using defensive siege tactics that the Arabs were horrible at. Instead, they met the Muslims in open battle, assuming their outnumbered and lesser equipped adversaries would be a cake walk. They got trounced again and again and again and again...leaving their cities with small garrisons and no chance but to accept terms.

    Now some of the later Muslim conquerors - like the Turkic ones could be quite destructive but I don't think any of them ever pulled off anything remotely close to what the Romans did to Carthage.


    'beat them fair and square’
     
    Actually, now that I think about it, the Rashidun armies were outnumbered at every engagement (sometimes two to one).

    some hundreds of years
     
    Meh...as were the Moors in Spain. If you want to keep an empire, learn to defend it. This reminds me of the incident when the last ruler of the Emirate of Granada, Boabdil, surrendered to the Spanish armies and started weeping and his mother rebuked him, saying;
    "Do not weep like a woman for what you could not defend like a man."

    It looks like you have a hard on every time you talk about the Rashidun.
    I wonder why do you bring the example of Carthage and not of Jerusalem? Jerusalem was the center of your ‘abrahamic’ cousins, which your supermen Rashidun warriors ‘liberated’ for them. Carthage was not ‘abrahamic’ by any stretch of imagination. Quite the contrary, they were the same ‘idolator’ Canaanites as the ones the Yahve/Allah commands to destroy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    'It looks like you have a hard on every time you talk about the Rashidun...'

    Oh great. We're going to go there. This should be really edifying.

    You brought it up. What gives you a 'hard on', Seraphim?
    , @Talha

    the Rashidun
     
    The Rashidun are our exemplars. They are the ones whose example is used to derive Muslim praxis in matters of war, statecraft, politics, dealing with rebellion and a whole host of other issues. If the Rashidun did something and the other Companions accepted the action, it becomes a valid source of deriving law.

    Muslim scholars do not derive legal precedent from the actions of anyone else; Ummayad, Ottoman, etc. Rather, the Rashidun are the yardstick by which all other Muslim rulers are to be judged.

    example of Carthage
     
    To show that this idea of marauding Arabs is bunk when civilized peoples like Romans were capable of far more brutal and destructive conquests. You can go to Iran and also see what little Alexander left standing of Persepolis.

    Jerusalem was the center of your ‘abrahamic’ cousins,
     
    Jerusalem was the crown jewel of the Levant - the holy city where multiple prophets (pbut) walked and preached and prayed. Jewish ties to it made little difference.

    It was, of course, another negotiated surrender - being so important that the Caliph Umar (ra) was willing to journey to personally accept the patriarch surrender the city over.

    supermen Rashidun warriors
     
    We prefer warrior saints.

    ‘liberated’ for them
     
    No, Muslims kept control of the city - there is no evidence they ever handed it over to Jews. You seem to have a deep-seated hatred for Jews - which is fine. People like me don't - so trying to guilt-trip me by pointing out that we did something positive for them doesn't really work. Damn right we let them back into the city - Byzantium had no right to keep them out. And then Saladin (ra) did it again. You ought to remind the Zionists about this since they seem to have forgotten. Though some Jews have not:
    “It is interest to note here that, as far as Palestine is concerned, the right of Jews to ‘return’ to live in this small area of land was accepted by all successive Muslim rulers from the Muslim conquest to the end of the nineteenth century, when Zionist settlement there became entangled in European weltpolitik. Gibb and Bowen relate how, when the Jews of Europe ‘learned of the paradisiacal life awaiting them in Turkey’ and many of them set out for Palestine, it was not the Muslims who objected but the [Christian] Franciscans of Jerusalem, ‘who talked the Pope into forbidding the Venetians to carry Jewish passengers to the Holy Land.’ This was not the first time Jerusalem Christians tried to prevail on Muslim rulers to ban Jews from living in the city. A similar attempt was made first when the second Caliph, Omar, entered Jerusalem at the time of its conquest by the Muslim army in the seventh century, and again when Salah ad-Din [Saladin] drove out the Crusaders in the twelfth. On both of these occasions, the Christian patriarch of the city tried to persuade the Muslim conquerors to prevent Jews from living in or (as in the latter case) returning to Jerusalem after they had been expelled from it by the Christians. Both Omar and Salah ad-Din refused to heed their pleas.”
    http://ufdc.ufl.edu/AA00011671/00001

    Carthage was not ‘abrahamic’ by any stretch of imagination.
     
    Neither was Rome.

    they were the same ‘idolator’ Canaanites as the ones the Yahve/Allah commands to destroy.
     
    So...you're saying...that the pagan Romans were doing Yahve/Jesus' work by totally burning the pagan Carthage to the ground? I'll have to think about that one.

    Of course the Vandals eventually took over those old North African stomping grounds and then went ape on Rome, so there's that.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. @Seraphim
    Actually, the Muslims did not free the citizens of the Roman Empire from taxes. They took over the taxes for themselves. They liberated them from slavery because they were able to bring slaves from jihad.

    ‘Actually, the Muslims did not free the citizens of the Roman Empire from taxes. They took over the taxes for themselves. They liberated them from slavery because they were able to bring slaves from jihad.’

    My impression is that the Muslims, first, freed the citizens of the Roman Empire from governmental oppression. The ‘Byzantine’ (look up alternate meanings of the word) bureaucracy was fantastically overstaffed and given to attempting to minutely regulate everything. The Muslim conquerors were limited in number and quite uninterested in any of that. Just pony up this tax, don’t build new churches, and we’re happy.

    Second, the Muslims freed — ironically — much of the Christian (not to mention the Jewish) population from religious persecution. The Muslims didn’t care if you were a Monophysite or whatever. Have at it — just don’t get uppity. This phenomenon would have a later echo in the ready Greek acquiescence in Ottoman conquest: ‘better the Turk than the Frank.’

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    No 'Franks'. It actually was: "I would rather see a Turkish turban in the midst of the City than the Latin mitre", a phrase uttered by a high official Loukas Nottaras in the context of a the policy of balance that Byzance was trying to maintain between its the Ottomans and the treacherous Western 'allies'. Loukas was executed along with his sons by Mahomed II, with the exception of the youngest one who was taken to the Sultans harem for his pleasure.

    Liever Turks dan Paaps ("Rather Turkish than Papist"), also Liever Turksch dan Paus ("Rather Turkish than Pope"), was a Dutch slogan during the Dutch Revolt of the end of the 16th century. It was a policy statement of Protestants seeking an alliance with the Turks against the Hapsburgs.
    , @Talha

    The ‘Byzantine’ (look up alternate meanings of the word) bureaucracy was fantastically overstaffed and given to attempting to minutely regulate everything.
     
    The word "Melkite" or "King's man" used to denote Greek adherents to the Byzantine church was actually an insult by the local dissenting Christians:
    “Melkite Catholics” are those Greek or Byzantine Catholic Churches that have their origins in the Middle East. “Melkite” is from the Syriac word “malka” (“King”). It was originally a pejorative term for all Middle-Eastern Christians who accepted the teachings of the Council of Calcedon (A.D. 451) and the Byzantine Emperor.
    https://stjoseph.org.au/trust-your-good-father/

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. Allan says:
    @Bierstiefel
    Believe what?

    “Islam is peace.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. @Seraphim
    It looks like you have a hard on every time you talk about the Rashidun.
    I wonder why do you bring the example of Carthage and not of Jerusalem? Jerusalem was the center of your 'abrahamic' cousins, which your supermen Rashidun warriors 'liberated' for them. Carthage was not 'abrahamic' by any stretch of imagination. Quite the contrary, they were the same 'idolator' Canaanites as the ones the Yahve/Allah commands to destroy.

    ‘It looks like you have a hard on every time you talk about the Rashidun…’

    Oh great. We’re going to go there. This should be really edifying.

    You brought it up. What gives you a ‘hard on’, Seraphim?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    Angels have no sex.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. pensword says:
    @Johnny Rottenborough
    pensword—Your argument that death is infrequent in battle has great entertainment value. Many thanks.

    I linked to the Quranic Arabic Corpus list simply to illustrate the violent nature of Islam, which I think the list does rather well.

    Religions which are subject to restrictions on how they are practised (see Reliance of the Traveller o11.5) do not enjoy liberty, as you claim.

    The Muslim rulers who sacrificed themselves to hellfire rather than punish polytheists for their crime of shirk presumably regretted their decision pretty quickly.

    It’s always interesting to observe Muslims attempting to defend their, frankly, indefensible religion—trying to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, as it were. Thank you for giving so much of your time to someone who has ‘nothing to teach you but ignorance.’

    Your argument that death is infrequent in battle has great entertainment value. Many thanks.

    Wish I could say the same for your obfuscation, but … Alas.

    Religions which are subject to restrictions on how they are practised (see Reliance of the Traveller o11.5) do not enjoy liberty, as you claim.

    In that case, no religion in America enjoys liberty.

    FWIW, the application of Reliance isn’t obligatory upon muslim rulers. It’s eight centuries removed from the Constitution of Medina, which ~ rather conspicuously ~ you ignore, ostrich-style.

    Thank you for giving so much of your time to someone who has ‘nothing to teach you but ignorance.’

    Hey, if the shoe fits … Thanks for confirming you’re here to do nothing but bicker.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. @Jonathan Revusky

    When there are 5% Muslims (Britain, 2011 census), there are bombings and shootings against infidels every few months.
     
    They all seem to be false flags or hoaxes, frankly. Just like the stuff you mention in France further down. It's all fake news.

    Where there are 43% Muslims (the Swedish city of Malmo) mainstream politicians are seriously considering introducing martial law because the level of gang violence is so bad.
     
    Oy vey. The mean streets of Malmo... By the way, where does this (surprisingly precise) datum come from? 43% of the population of Malmo, Sweden is Muslim?

    I don't think so, but it does seem to be some sort of talking point being put out there. Somebody on Quora asked recently whether the majority of people in Malmo were Muslims!!??

    https://www.quora.com/Are-the-majority-of-people-living-in-Malmö-Muslims

    So the meme is being put out there. The mean streets of Malmo. Oy vey.

    And you can see the responses, at least a couple from people who live in Malmo. Of course, it depends on what your definition of who a Muslim is. If it's people who actually observe the religion, then it's a pretty small percentage, like 3% or something like that. If it's somebody whose ethnic background is that of a majority Muslim place, then maybe it's more like 15% of Malmo. To me, that sounds like it might be about right. There are apparently about 800,000 Muslims in Sweden, or 8% of the population (by the ethnic definition surely) so that it's about twice as high a percentage in Malmo sounds reasonable.

    I have no doubt that there are some problems in Sweden, but frankly, for me, the "mean streets of Malmo" narrative does not withstand the proverbial laugh test. Now, granted, I have never been to Sweden. Maybe Sweden is really a terrifying place. Have you ever been there?

    ‘…Maybe Sweden is really a terrifying place. Have you ever been there?’

    In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king…

    I have been to Sweden — albeit only for three days. On the other hand, while I am definitely opposed to ‘come one, come all,’ diversity, and all the rest of it, I have to admit that from what I saw in Stockholm, it all seemed to be working rather well. I was a little chagrined to see that, but there it was.

    Perhaps the nativist right should focus on France or Germany, better?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    I have to admit that from what I saw in Stockholm, it all seemed to be working rather well. I was a little chagrined to see that...
     
    You were chagrined to see that things seemed to be working rather well.... That's an interesting statement. LOL!

    Regarding Malmo, Sweden specifically, I came across a discussion on a Tripadvisor forum where some American Jewish guy is querying whether it is safe to go to Malmo. "I hear the place is full of evil antisemites, oy vey." Look here:

    https://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowTopic-g189839-i1558-k3299563-o10-Islamic_Gangs_in_Malmo-Malmo_Skane_County.html

    The above goes straight to the second page of comments because I found, in particular the exchange there quite comical. You see, various people who answered this guy actually live in Malmo! So, like the commenter in #11 says simply:

    I live in Malmö (central) and have never seen anything like what you are talking about.
     
    and then some guy in #12 says:

    Common knowledge from newspapers and TV.
     
    I mean to say, the guy in #11 is saying: "I live there" and somebody responds that all these problems that the guy who lives there has never seen are "common knowledge from newspapers and TV", i.e. "What do you know? You just live there!"

    And then another guy in #13 pipes in and says:

    I am sorry, is this a joke?? I live in Sweden and haven´´t even heard of it.
     
    And then the same guy #14 comes back and says:


    It has been extensively reported on Swedish TV and newspapers for the past few weeks.

     

    Of course, the guy doesn't provide any links to what he's talking about. You can only imagine which newspapers the guy reads. But really, you have to be a special kind of idiot to be lecturing people about what a disaster zone Malmo is when the people you're lecturing actually live there! (And you have never even been there yourself!) You know better because you saw something on TV!

    And then the next person who pipes in, in #15 says:

    I'm visiting Malmo and have done a fair bit of research into the area. I've not hear anything about this. I certainly feel no hesitation to visit the area.

     

    And there are other comments there from people with direct experience of the place. Now, granted, the above thread is from back in 2010, so maybe there has been some radical deterioration of the situation, but I kinda doubt it frankly. I doubt that Malmo is that different now from what is was eight years ago. What this mostly tells you is that whoever has been putting out these memes have been at it for a while.

    Perhaps the nativist right should focus on France or Germany, better?
     
    Well, if the point of said "focus" is to show that France and/or Germany is some sort of Mad Max dystopia, the results of any investigation, an honest one anyway, won't be terribly different from looking at Sweden. I don't think so. From the perspective of anybody from the USA, there is no place in those countries that is very scary.

    I myself live in Spain. A friend of mine is half German on his Mom's side, grew up speaking German at home as well as Spanish. Last year, not long after I wrote my sarcastic "the Muslim Rape Army is coming to Getcha..." article, he told me that he had gone to a party (here in Spain) full of German people and was asking people about all this sort of stuff. You know, if you read the right-wing press (as well as some of the writers here like Sailer and Derbyshire) you would think that white girls in Germany are getting raped right, left, and center.

    He asked various people at the party about this, people who live in various places in Germany. The long and short of it is this: They did not know WTF he was talking about! Women there would typically reply: "What? I live in X city and it's totally safe. I go everywhere any time of the night and there is no danger."

    But then again, what do these people know? They just live there!

    Now, to be clear, there are perfectly logical reasons to be opposed to large amounts of immigration -- of Muslims or anybody else. All I've said whenever the topic comes up is that the anti-immigration case should be made honestly. What you see on sites like this is where people get so emotionally attached to these narratives about how white girls in Germany or Sweden are getting raped right, left, and center by the swarthy savages and... you know, though there are surely some cases here and there, just by the laws of large numbers, it is really outrageously exaggerated. In particular, when the people who actually live in these places know how overblown all this storytelling is, then all the anti-immigration people are doing is maneuvering themselves into a position where most ordinary middle-of-the-road people would classify them as a bunch of kooks.

    And, frankly, the position of the people who get so committed to these narratives gets increasingly nutty. I, no advocate of mass immigration, have pointed out at times that all this stuff about the "Muslim rape army" is really overblown nonsense and a lot of these things are just synthetic events, never happened. That is clear enough actually. But then, you tell people this and they get utterly enraged and repeat angrily these stories....

    Well, the deeper problem is that highly ideological people -- whether on the left or the right -- by and large, it's easy to play them like a fiddle.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. Just like most Christians have never read the Bible, most Muslims have not read the Koran. They are all oblivious to the details of their religion, not only for what is found in their “Holy Scriptures” but also of all the supportive theological and philosophical remunerations.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  162. Talha says:
    @Seraphim
    We empathize with the plight of Christians in Muslim lands. For example, with the victims of the bombings of Churches in Egypt. Or Syria. Or Iraq.

    Absolutely – I am in 100% agreement. There is no cause or justification to be killing off peaceful Christian minorities. Those Muslims who commit such acts – in complete violation of covenants of security that were drafted as far back as the Companions themselves – have no support from me. They will stand for their crimes on the Day of Judgement if they escape justice here.

    This is a very valid criticism of a very dangerous trend in certain parts of the Muslim world.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. Seraphim says:
    @Colin Wright
    'It looks like you have a hard on every time you talk about the Rashidun...'

    Oh great. We're going to go there. This should be really edifying.

    You brought it up. What gives you a 'hard on', Seraphim?

    Angels have no sex.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    Asexuals! Maybe Jesus, when he attempted to be clever with the Sadducees in Mt 22:30, had never before read the author of Genesis 6:2, who claimed "the sons of the several deities saw the daughters of mankind that they were beautiful; and they took to them wives whomsoever they chose." As the saying goes, 2 Jews, 3 opinions.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. cassandra says:

    A few easily verifiable points, in Google, about Islamic current events and modern history.

    Pew research polls indicate that supporters of Islamic extremist policies aren’t a “tiny minority” at all, but around 10-30% of the Muslim population, depending on which specific issues are queried of which population. The number of remaining moderate Muslims is irrelevant since they’re not a problem, and don’t have much political influence anyway.

    The Explanatory Memorandum has been mentioned above. It was accidentally discovered in 2004 in a basement in Virginia during the FBI’s investigation of the Holy Land Foundation. The document outlines the Muslim Brotherhood’s Plans for America, as of late 1980’s.

    In part, the Explanatory Memorandum reads, “The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

    The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928, by Hassan al-Banna, Tariq Ramadan’s grandpere. Wikipedia: “The Brotherhood’s stated goal is to instill the Quran and the Sunnah as the “sole reference point for … ordering the life of the Muslim family, individual, community … and STATE”. (Emphasis mine). In 1964, Sayyid al-Qutb laid out the Muslim Brotherhood’s stategy in the guide Milestones (downloadable pdf). The Milestones are the stages in a plan for restoring Islamic ascendancy over the West. A thrilling read.

    The Council on American Islamic Relations was indicted as a co-conspirator in the Holy Land trial. CAIR and ISNA (Islamic Society of North America) are mainstream Islamic organizations, representing not only a lobbysists, but providing cabinet-level and security advisors. An interesting place to start is by investigating DHS-appointed Mohamed Elibiary, his antics and connections. He appointed Hillary’s Saudi assistant Huma Abedeen, who once associate-edited the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, run by her parents, still run by her mother. Their political viewpoints make interesting reading.

    In November 2011, John Brennan acceded to the wishes of CAIR and purged specific references to Islam from anti-terrorist training in our security agencies. (Coincidentally, I’m sure, Hillary Clinton was given a $500,000 personal gift of jewelry by the Saudi king in early 2012.) Philip Haney and Stephen Dougherty are two former agents who have discussed the foolishness of this purge. The slides “DHS CRCL CVE Training – Dos and Donts” now show that trainers who are Muslim reformers or “get in the weeds” of history should be avoided.

    There are sporadic but reliable reports of Imam’s touting how Islam will take over Europe via faster breeding, and how constitutions will be changed to Sharia once there is a demographic majority. Denmark’s recent program to investigate what’s being preached in mosques is one specific source for these revelations. Englishman Anjem Choudary was a frequent British commentator on this plan, though he’s been quiet since his imprisonment. His youtube videos cheerfully explain how wonderful this will be.

    All this is delightful if you’re someone who hopes to eventually see a Sharia system imposed by political activity. On the other hand, if you support the limitations imposed on our government by the Bill of Rights, and would prefer Western political rules over Sharia law, maybe not so much. For you, abhorrence isn’t phobic, just sane.

    The problem is that Islam is a religion with a side-program to subdue me politically and to bring me under Sharia law. Simply asserting my political rights thus becomes an act of self-defense. If a doctrine extends its tentacles into the arena of public politics, it must expect resistance, and even offense, from those who disagree. I’d feel no different about Libertarians. Many are fine individuals, but I oppose Libertarian politics for its naïvete (a separate debate), in the same way that I oppose Islamic politics for its barbarism. If you don’t want me to critique your religious system, you must separate it from your politics.

    “Do not weep like a woman for what you could not defend like a man.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    '...The problem is that Islam is a religion with a side-program to subdue me politically and to bring me under Sharia law...'

    Oh great. So never mind global warming, the ever-increasing flood of 'migrants,' our march to war with Iran, our ever-increasing reliance on magic money, the hollowing out of the American economy, the collapse of our society, and our spectacularly dysfunctional and unaffordable health care system.

    Let's worry about how the Muslims are about to impose 'shariah law' on us. Yep: that's the real danger.
    , @Ibn Issam
    Many of the points in your comment were addressed by Isaacs in his article. Did you read the article? Regurgitating the same old accusations does not make them true.

    There are Evangelical, and Fundamentalist Christian groups that bring their religious beliefs into politics, (Fallwell’s “Moral Majority;” Evangelical lobby; etc.) Most American politicians are by default Christian. Other groups on the Christian Right engage in politics with the professed aim to establish a Christian theocracy based on Biblical Law. Such Christian extremist groups condemn Muslim extremism as a threat to the country and their way of life, while clearly endorsing their own form of spiritual warfare and extreme religious authoritarianism.

    It’s Time to Start Calling Evangelicals What They Are……..
    https://medium.com/@jcweatherby_49412/its-time-to-start-calling-evangelicals-what-they-are-the-american-taliban-4a41731296e4

    Of course there are many moderate and liberal Christians who care more about specific issues rather than voting strictly along religious lines. However, speaking exclusively about threats from religion, I think the Christian Right is a more direct threat to Secular Governments in the West than any non-existent shariah law bogey-man. If fundamentalist Christians with their greater numbers, money, and influence cannot achieve a theocracy in the modern West until now, what makes you think that a minority group of Muslims would fair any better?

    While you are busy fear mongering and quivering in the corner afraid of the non-existent long shot threat of Muslims taking over the government, numerous other religious based organizations already seem to have achieved that aim. But you don’t seem to be up in arms about that.

    They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby- by Pau Findley
    https://www.google.com/search?q=they+dare+to+speak+out&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&gws_rd=ssl&safe=active

    AIPAC Returns to Washington Who is interfering with American democracy? Philip Giraldi
    http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/aipac-returns-to-washington/

    The Yellow Peril Comes to Washington Following the Israeli model? Philip Giraldi
    http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/the-yellow-peril-comes-to-washington/

    If you are scared of Muslim babies and worried about an alleged “demographic threat” then start having more children of your own. I have attended numerous Masjids all my life and have never heard any Imams preaching that we Muslims should have as many babies as possible in order to “take over the world.” It just sounds paranoid and laughable. Would Muslims love to live in a Muslim majority world? Sure why wouldn’t we? But wouldn’t any Christian wish the same for himself and his religion, or wouldn’t any religious person wish the same for his religion? It’s all just wishful thinking. No need to freak out about it.

    Anjem Choudary
     
    Anjem Choudary was an agent provocateur and an embarrassment.

    Like you, some Muslims are simply exercising their political right to peacefully participate and engage in a political process, and that is not a crime the last time I checked. Feel free to exercise your political rights all you like, and we Muslims will endeavor to do the same. It only takes a little bit of mutual understanding and respect to live together in peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. Seraphim says:
    @Colin Wright
    'Actually, the Muslims did not free the citizens of the Roman Empire from taxes. They took over the taxes for themselves. They liberated them from slavery because they were able to bring slaves from jihad.'

    My impression is that the Muslims, first, freed the citizens of the Roman Empire from governmental oppression. The 'Byzantine' (look up alternate meanings of the word) bureaucracy was fantastically overstaffed and given to attempting to minutely regulate everything. The Muslim conquerors were limited in number and quite uninterested in any of that. Just pony up this tax, don't build new churches, and we're happy.

    Second, the Muslims freed -- ironically -- much of the Christian (not to mention the Jewish) population from religious persecution. The Muslims didn't care if you were a Monophysite or whatever. Have at it -- just don't get uppity. This phenomenon would have a later echo in the ready Greek acquiescence in Ottoman conquest: 'better the Turk than the Frank.'

    No ‘Franks’. It actually was: “I would rather see a Turkish turban in the midst of the City than the Latin mitre”, a phrase uttered by a high official Loukas Nottaras in the context of a the policy of balance that Byzance was trying to maintain between its the Ottomans and the treacherous Western ‘allies’. Loukas was executed along with his sons by Mahomed II, with the exception of the youngest one who was taken to the Sultans harem for his pleasure.

    Liever Turks dan Paaps (“Rather Turkish than Papist”), also Liever Turksch dan Paus (“Rather Turkish than Pope”), was a Dutch slogan during the Dutch Revolt of the end of the 16th century. It was a policy statement of Protestants seeking an alliance with the Turks against the Hapsburgs.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. Seraphim says:
    @Colin Wright
    'Call ‘the good fight’ by its real name: Jihad...'

    No, thank you. I'll call the good fight what it has always been: the stand of reason against blind bigotry, the appeal to what Lincoln called 'the better angels of our nature,' the refusal to be cowed by hatred and ignorance.

    Who is right and who is wrong can shift. On this thread, in this argument, Talha is in the right, and those who would abuse and vilify Islam are in the wrong. Some times, in some places, one can see the line between good and evil quite clearly. This is one of those times and places.

    I wonder whether you are a ‘fellow traveler’ or a ‘useful idiot’.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    'I wonder whether you are a ‘fellow traveler’ or a ‘useful idiot’. '

    Well, I'm certainly not a fellow traveler. While I can find theology interesting, all religions fail with me right at the front door: I think it unlikely that God exists. Even if He did, I fail to see why He should care what we did, or want us to pray to Him. I mean seriously: do you concern yourself with the attitude of the ants in your basement? Is it important to you that they pray to you daily?

    So that leaves 'useful idiot.' I guess -- I really, really don't see Islam as posing a threat. Now, allowing in masses of immigrants does -- but they could be (and are) Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh, Bahai, and animist as well. They can be Muslim or not. It's a matter of indifference to me. I just don't want more immigrants.

    However, Islam in particular a danger? Not really -- certainly not to the United States. Indeed, if I was going to perceive any religious group as a threat, I'd pick Evangelical Christians. Let's put a damper on all their nonsense -- and then fret about 'shariah law.'

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. pensword says:
    @Talha

    as a consequence of their sincerity, NOT their scholarship.
     
    I agree here. A person can be a very sincere worshiper and reach a very high station with just a little bit of knowledge and loads of sincerity. But can we also agree that even among the Companions (ra), not every one of them gave fatwas and rather the lion's share of them deferred to a group of less than ten when they were in need of religious rulings.

    We don’t prohibit non-muslims from studying the religion nor from arriving at conclusions that differ from our own.
     
    Sure, but we've never cared as to their conclusions either. And why should we? I doubt Catholics base their ecclesiastical conclusions based on input from Hindu pandits.

    Let them have at it. They might just learn something in the process.
     
    I'm fine with this and there are many non-Muslim academics that a deeply respect in this regard. However, for them to tell us that their conclusions are correct in spite of centuries of the ulema's views to the contrary is deeply presumptuous and arrogant.

    until the Abbasid court “scholars” codified them as “shari’ah.”
     
    Not sure I agree with this since there were plenty of scholars that concurred that had nothing to do with the Abbasid court, some of whom were persecuted by the caliphate and some under the jurisdiction of the Ummayyads in West Africa and Spain.

    No. ALLAH means exactly what He says. The ‘ulama‘s disagreement in relation to matters of subordinate importance is, as explicitly stated by the Prophet, a mercy from ALLAH, not a competition between truth and falsehood.
     
    OK - I'll concede this point. Differences of opinion are not about truth or falsehood, but some can get the ruling correct and some can get it incorrect; can we agree on this?
    “If a judge makes a ruling, striving to apply his reasoning (ijtihad) and he is correct, then he will have two rewards. If a judge makes a ruling, striving to apply his reasoning and he is mistaken, then he will have one reward.” - reported in Bukhari and Muslim

    They won’t be satisfied with us until we become like them.
     
    Sure. They gotta do what they gotta do, we gotta do what we gotta do. La kum deenukm wa liya deen.

    Wa salaam.

    Wa ‘alaikumus-salaam.

    Thank you for your time and effort. I’ll cut to the proverbial chase:

    Apostasy, adultery and abrogation ~ among other matters ~ require a fresh perspective, one that does not hold Abbasid era jurisprudence as some kind of inviolable catechism superseding God’s Word. I’m not of the “Qur’an only” schismatics, but it is instructive that ‘Umar burned his entire collection of ahaddith, and there is, in fact, a haddith upon which this destruction was predicated.

    1. There is not a single verse in The Qur’an that mandates capital punishment for apostasy, nor is there one example of The Prophet ever ordering an execution simply because a muslim decided not to be muslim anymore. There are only ahaddith that state a muslim who “changes his religion” should be killed, but this does not address simple apostasy. Rather, it refers to those who endeavor to literally “change THE religion,” such as the renegades who openly declared that zakat was no longer a pillar of the religion following the worldly passing of The Prophet, thereby raising a false flag.

    The distortion of this haddith was a convenient way for the Abbasid sultanate to make dissent from its authority a capital crime.

    2. There is a haddith concerning an alleged rajm verse which was supposedly eaten by a goat, never included in The Qur’an, but given a de jure Qur’anic imprimatur. The strongest “proof” of this is a speech attributed to ‘Umar that is entirely uncharacteristic of him, one in which he excuses himself from ordering inclusion of the verse for fear of how this would be perceived.

    That’s not ‘Umar. Not by a longshot. You can line up a host of as many luminaries as you might find that allegedly corroborate the narrative. The matn simply doesn’t withstand close scrutiny.

    Moreover, if the punishment of a slave is half that of a free person, how do you half-lapidate an adulterer who is a slave?

    3. The ayat of abrogation refer to Scripture that preceded The Qur’an, not ayat within The Qur’an itself. To claim otherwise is to undermine the integrity of The Qur’an as it has been preserved. Furthermore, among those who disagree with this statement, there is no unanimity of consensus upon which verses abrogate others.

    I am fully aware that these views make me an “outlier” among most muslims, a “protestant muslim” of sorts, but they are consonant both with The Qur’an and prophecy. I do NOT advocate a wholesale dismissal of scholarship that arose primarily during the Abbasid era. I’m well aware that respected imams and shuyukh of the period appear to have held views at odds with what I’ve presented, but I don’t find it incumbent upon me to accept at face value what others attribute to them. That may be traditional, but it’s certainly not obligatory.

    I sense a renaissance under foot, one that will, insha’ALLAH, inspire muslims to re-evaluate the vaunted canons of their tradition, clear away the dross therein and behold their sacred texts as the companions of their prophets once did.

    May ALLAH grant us such vision.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Wa alaikum assalaam bro,

    There is not a single verse in The Qur’an that mandates capital punishment for apostasy, nor is there one example of The Prophet ever ordering an execution simply because a muslim decided not to be muslim anymore.
     
    Correct, which is why there is a difference of opinion on it and Hanafi scholars like Imam Sarakhsi (ra) wrote how personal apostasy was different than apostasy coupled with treasonous actions based on the variant hadith in question. There is plenty of room to revisit the issue in light of the different political structure of state today versus the past and the notion of citizenship (as Ottoman scholars did with the tanzimat reforms). There is a good brother who is writing up a comprehensive paper on this for the Yaqeen Institute and he told me it is due within the month - inshaAllah.

    However, being as it is, I do not think you will get a consensus on the matter; some Muslim countries will continue to kill apostates by implementing the majority classical ruling.

    There is a haddith concerning an alleged rajm verse
     
    I've heard of this. To be honest, I haven't done much diving into this particular issue, but my understanding is that the evidence for stoning is not based on an alleged verse but solid hadith. When issues have consensus backing on them, I tend to not even look into details since I can hardly imagine everyone got it wrong. I don't see a problem with stoning adulterers though personally, but I have a major, major problem with people trying to skirt around the absolutely rigid evidence required to convict a person; the act has to be so public that four adult males (with upright character) need to be able to see vaginal/anal penetration and report it without any delay or hesitation. Anybody who is that flagrantly degenerate (or stupid) in a Muslim country just earned a Darwin Award courtesy of medium sized rocks.

    there is no unanimity of consensus upon which verses abrogate others.
     
    Never has been, which is why you see variant rulings based upon the assumptions of different scholars.

    I don’t find it incumbent upon me to accept at face value what others attribute to them.
     
    I'm pretty open with these things and I'm fully on board with difference of opinion. My safety net is always ijmaa. If we have had ijmaa on something for 14 centuries, then I don't really see a need (or legitimacy) in changing it. Otherwise you get these weird things where all of a sudden some group thinks Islam is down with LGBT Pride or something.

    But I'm kind of a traditional Sunni Hanafi in that regard.

    May ALLAH grant us such vision.
     
    Ameen, may He keep us on the sirat al-mustaqim. Wa salaam.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. Anonymous[211] • Disclaimer says:
    @mark green
    Interesting, and largely true. I agree with your implied suggestion that Whites do not need to worship yarns involving a Jewish savior. Biblical lore is basically flat earth nonsense involving 'miracles'. It's pre-scientific and superstitious. The Jesus story and its accompanying baggage has become counter-productive to contemporary White interests.

    Indeed, Christian Zionism is being used to bind us politically to Israel along with that state's fanatical quest for regional (global?) supremacy. This agenda is inimical to the interests of Whites whose ancestral lands are now being overrun by Hispanics, Muslims, Africans, Indians and others. Incredibly, it's the Jews who are orchestrating this transformation.

    We need to get one fact clear: commonality (not 'diversity') is our strength.

    It's diversity that will be our undoing. The Israelis understand this. But crypto-Israelis in the West have brillianty marketed junk sociology, to our detriment. And the diversity myth has empowered them. Clever. Diabolical.

    It's apparent that most Jews have little affection (or even respect) for the Christian religion or the well-being of the (non-Jewish) White race. So we're being taken to the cleaners.

    What doe this add up to? Jews are our competitors, not our allies. We should respond accordingly.

    The case can be made that White Americans have more in common with Christian Russia than parasitic, supremacist Israel. So it's time for a realignment.

    Therefore, European-derived Whites need to move beyond the ancient Jesus myth and embrace new ideas that will unify us as a people and prepare us for a racially-conscious, globally-competitive world. We also need to get Israel off our backs.

    That “we also need to get Israel off our backs,” is quite correct, but rather difficult when 72% of Americans use the Jewish storytelling of heaven to assuage their mortality salience. Similarly, 71% of Americans last year used alcohol to drown their other sorrows.

    “Two great European narcotics, alcohol and Christianity.” (Friedrich Nietzsche)

    And the narcotic dealers of ethanol and eternal life always demand payment.

    “For if the Gentiles have shared in the Jews’ spiritual blessings, they owe it to the Jews to share with them their material blessings.” (Romans 15:27)

    Read More
    • Replies: @mark green
    I'm a dedicated wine drinker but I get your point. Cheers!
    , @Seraphim
    Nietzsche, Marx. Two compères for the variety show 'God is dead'. Nietzsche drank to much of the 'Liquid Jew'. No wonder that he died insane.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. Talha says:
    @Colin Wright
    To Talha:

    Hang in there. You're fighting the good fight.

    Thanks Colin,

    Much respect.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. anonymous[242] • Disclaimer says:
    @Seraphim
    Angels have no sex.

    Asexuals! Maybe Jesus, when he attempted to be clever with the Sadducees in Mt 22:30, had never before read the author of Genesis 6:2, who claimed “the sons of the several deities saw the daughters of mankind that they were beautiful; and they took to them wives whomsoever they chose.” As the saying goes, 2 Jews, 3 opinions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    You are clever by half. Genesis 6:2 does not speak of angels (and the translation you use, either the
    Good News Translation, or the International Standard Version, is BS). Always use KJV.

    Genesis 6:2 says 'Sons of God' in all translations both from the 'Hebrew' Bible (bənê hāʼĕlōhîm) and Septuagint (υἱοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ ) and Vulgata (filii Dei).
    They were men:
    "And it came to pass when men began to be numerous upon the earth, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God having seen the daughters of men that they were beautiful, took to themselves wives of all whom they chose. 3 And the Lord God said, My Spirit shall certainly not remain among these men for ever, because they are flesh, but their days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 4 Now the giants were upon the earth in those days; and after that when the sons of God were wont to go in to the daughters of men, they bore [children to them, those were the giants of old, the men of renown".

    The traditional interpretation (Judaic and Christian) is that they were the offspring of Seth.
    The 'angels' are spiritual beings, body-less powers (mal’akh, ἄγγελος, angelus). Seraphim are the highest in the hierarchy, the closest to God.
    The interpretation of 'sons of God' as the 'fallen angels' was made in non-canonical writings.
    Jesus was speaking of 'angels of God in heaven' (ἄγγελοι Θεοῦ ἐν οὐρανῷ, angeli Dei in cælo).

    Go back to your Bible school.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. @Anonymous
    That "we also need to get Israel off our backs," is quite correct, but rather difficult when 72% of Americans use the Jewish storytelling of heaven to assuage their mortality salience. Similarly, 71% of Americans last year used alcohol to drown their other sorrows.

    “Two great European narcotics, alcohol and Christianity.” (Friedrich Nietzsche)

    And the narcotic dealers of ethanol and eternal life always demand payment.

    “For if the Gentiles have shared in the Jews’ spiritual blessings, they owe it to the Jews to share with them their material blessings.” (Romans 15:27)

    https://i.4pcdn.org/pol/1391835596391.png

    I’m a dedicated wine drinker but I get your point. Cheers!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. Talha says:
    @pensword
    Wa 'alaikumus-salaam.

    Thank you for your time and effort. I'll cut to the proverbial chase:

    Apostasy, adultery and abrogation ~ among other matters ~ require a fresh perspective, one that does not hold Abbasid era jurisprudence as some kind of inviolable catechism superseding God's Word. I'm not of the "Qur'an only" schismatics, but it is instructive that 'Umar burned his entire collection of ahaddith, and there is, in fact, a haddith upon which this destruction was predicated.

    1. There is not a single verse in The Qur'an that mandates capital punishment for apostasy, nor is there one example of The Prophet ever ordering an execution simply because a muslim decided not to be muslim anymore. There are only ahaddith that state a muslim who "changes his religion" should be killed, but this does not address simple apostasy. Rather, it refers to those who endeavor to literally "change THE religion," such as the renegades who openly declared that zakat was no longer a pillar of the religion following the worldly passing of The Prophet, thereby raising a false flag.

    The distortion of this haddith was a convenient way for the Abbasid sultanate to make dissent from its authority a capital crime.

    2. There is a haddith concerning an alleged rajm verse which was supposedly eaten by a goat, never included in The Qur'an, but given a de jure Qur'anic imprimatur. The strongest "proof" of this is a speech attributed to 'Umar that is entirely uncharacteristic of him, one in which he excuses himself from ordering inclusion of the verse for fear of how this would be perceived.

    That's not 'Umar. Not by a longshot. You can line up a host of as many luminaries as you might find that allegedly corroborate the narrative. The matn simply doesn't withstand close scrutiny.

    Moreover, if the punishment of a slave is half that of a free person, how do you half-lapidate an adulterer who is a slave?

    3. The ayat of abrogation refer to Scripture that preceded The Qur'an, not ayat within The Qur'an itself. To claim otherwise is to undermine the integrity of The Qur'an as it has been preserved. Furthermore, among those who disagree with this statement, there is no unanimity of consensus upon which verses abrogate others.

    I am fully aware that these views make me an "outlier" among most muslims, a "protestant muslim" of sorts, but they are consonant both with The Qur'an and prophecy. I do NOT advocate a wholesale dismissal of scholarship that arose primarily during the Abbasid era. I'm well aware that respected imams and shuyukh of the period appear to have held views at odds with what I've presented, but I don't find it incumbent upon me to accept at face value what others attribute to them. That may be traditional, but it's certainly not obligatory.

    I sense a renaissance under foot, one that will, insha'ALLAH, inspire muslims to re-evaluate the vaunted canons of their tradition, clear away the dross therein and behold their sacred texts as the companions of their prophets once did.

    May ALLAH grant us such vision.

    Wa alaikum assalaam bro,

    There is not a single verse in The Qur’an that mandates capital punishment for apostasy, nor is there one example of The Prophet ever ordering an execution simply because a muslim decided not to be muslim anymore.

    Correct, which is why there is a difference of opinion on it and Hanafi scholars like Imam Sarakhsi (ra) wrote how personal apostasy was different than apostasy coupled with treasonous actions based on the variant hadith in question. There is plenty of room to revisit the issue in light of the different political structure of state today versus the past and the notion of citizenship (as Ottoman scholars did with the tanzimat reforms). There is a good brother who is writing up a comprehensive paper on this for the Yaqeen Institute and he told me it is due within the month – inshaAllah.

    However, being as it is, I do not think you will get a consensus on the matter; some Muslim countries will continue to kill apostates by implementing the majority classical ruling.

    There is a haddith concerning an alleged rajm verse

    I’ve heard of this. To be honest, I haven’t done much diving into this particular issue, but my understanding is that the evidence for stoning is not based on an alleged verse but solid hadith. When issues have consensus backing on them, I tend to not even look into details since I can hardly imagine everyone got it wrong. I don’t see a problem with stoning adulterers though personally, but I have a major, major problem with people trying to skirt around the absolutely rigid evidence required to convict a person; the act has to be so public that four adult males (with upright character) need to be able to see vaginal/anal penetration and report it without any delay or hesitation. Anybody who is that flagrantly degenerate (or stupid) in a Muslim country just earned a Darwin Award courtesy of medium sized rocks.

    there is no unanimity of consensus upon which verses abrogate others.

    Never has been, which is why you see variant rulings based upon the assumptions of different scholars.

    I don’t find it incumbent upon me to accept at face value what others attribute to them.

    I’m pretty open with these things and I’m fully on board with difference of opinion. My safety net is always ijmaa. If we have had ijmaa on something for 14 centuries, then I don’t really see a need (or legitimacy) in changing it. Otherwise you get these weird things where all of a sudden some group thinks Islam is down with LGBT Pride or something.

    But I’m kind of a traditional Sunni Hanafi in that regard.

    May ALLAH grant us such vision.

    Ameen, may He keep us on the sirat al-mustaqim. Wa salaam.

    Read More
    • Replies: @cassandra

    There is not a single verse in The Qur’an that mandates capital punishment for apostasy, nor is there one example of The Prophet ever ordering an execution simply because a muslim decided not to be muslim anymore.
     
    Do I misunderstand Surah 4.89?
    "They wish that you reject Faith, as they have rejected Faith, and thus you become equal (like one another). So take not Auliya' (protectors or friends) from them, till they emigrate in the Way of Allah (to Muhammed). But if they turn back (from Islam), take (hold of) them and kill them wherever you find them, and take neither Auliya (protectors or friends) nor helpers from them."

    Granted not from the Quran, but here's Mohammed's policy expressed in Bukhari 9.84.57
    "Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"

    This looks close enough to execution or capital punishment where I wouldn't be inclined to quibble over the outcome were it directed at me. More to the point, I wouldn't like to see my community incorporating these injunctions in attitudes or laws.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. Talha says:
    @Seraphim
    It looks like you have a hard on every time you talk about the Rashidun.
    I wonder why do you bring the example of Carthage and not of Jerusalem? Jerusalem was the center of your 'abrahamic' cousins, which your supermen Rashidun warriors 'liberated' for them. Carthage was not 'abrahamic' by any stretch of imagination. Quite the contrary, they were the same 'idolator' Canaanites as the ones the Yahve/Allah commands to destroy.

    the Rashidun

    The Rashidun are our exemplars. They are the ones whose example is used to derive Muslim praxis in matters of war, statecraft, politics, dealing with rebellion and a whole host of other issues. If the Rashidun did something and the other Companions accepted the action, it becomes a valid source of deriving law.

    Muslim scholars do not derive legal precedent from the actions of anyone else; Ummayad, Ottoman, etc. Rather, the Rashidun are the yardstick by which all other Muslim rulers are to be judged.

    example of Carthage

    To show that this idea of marauding Arabs is bunk when civilized peoples like Romans were capable of far more brutal and destructive conquests. You can go to Iran and also see what little Alexander left standing of Persepolis.

    Jerusalem was the center of your ‘abrahamic’ cousins,

    Jerusalem was the crown jewel of the Levant – the holy city where multiple prophets (pbut) walked and preached and prayed. Jewish ties to it made little difference.

    It was, of course, another negotiated surrender – being so important that the Caliph Umar (ra) was willing to journey to personally accept the patriarch surrender the city over.

    supermen Rashidun warriors

    We prefer warrior saints.

    ‘liberated’ for them

    No, Muslims kept control of the city – there is no evidence they ever handed it over to Jews. You seem to have a deep-seated hatred for Jews – which is fine. People like me don’t – so trying to guilt-trip me by pointing out that we did something positive for them doesn’t really work. Damn right we let them back into the city – Byzantium had no right to keep them out. And then Saladin (ra) did it again. You ought to remind the Zionists about this since they seem to have forgotten. Though some Jews have not:
    “It is interest to note here that, as far as Palestine is concerned, the right of Jews to ‘return’ to live in this small area of land was accepted by all successive Muslim rulers from the Muslim conquest to the end of the nineteenth century, when Zionist settlement there became entangled in European weltpolitik. Gibb and Bowen relate how, when the Jews of Europe ‘learned of the paradisiacal life awaiting them in Turkey’ and many of them set out for Palestine, it was not the Muslims who objected but the [Christian] Franciscans of Jerusalem, ‘who talked the Pope into forbidding the Venetians to carry Jewish passengers to the Holy Land.’ This was not the first time Jerusalem Christians tried to prevail on Muslim rulers to ban Jews from living in the city. A similar attempt was made first when the second Caliph, Omar, entered Jerusalem at the time of its conquest by the Muslim army in the seventh century, and again when Salah ad-Din [Saladin] drove out the Crusaders in the twelfth. On both of these occasions, the Christian patriarch of the city tried to persuade the Muslim conquerors to prevent Jews from living in or (as in the latter case) returning to Jerusalem after they had been expelled from it by the Christians. Both Omar and Salah ad-Din refused to heed their pleas.”

    http://ufdc.ufl.edu/AA00011671/00001

    Carthage was not ‘abrahamic’ by any stretch of imagination.

    Neither was Rome.

    they were the same ‘idolator’ Canaanites as the ones the Yahve/Allah commands to destroy.

    So…you’re saying…that the pagan Romans were doing Yahve/Jesus’ work by totally burning the pagan Carthage to the ground? I’ll have to think about that one.

    Of course the Vandals eventually took over those old North African stomping grounds and then went ape on Rome, so there’s that.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    Now you had your orgasm. Warrior saints!

    Didn't you know that the Carthaginians were sacrificing their childre like the Canaanites?

    Diodorus Siculus:
    "There was in their city a bronze image of Cronus, extending its hands, palms up and sloping towards the ground, so that each of the children when placed thereon rolled down and fell into a sort of gaping pit filled with fire".

    Wikipedia:
    "Moloch[a] is the biblical name of a Canaanite god associated with child sacrifice. The name of this deity is also sometimes spelled Molech, Milcom, or Malcam.
    The name Moloch results from a dysphemic vocalisation in the Second Temple period of a theonym based on the root mlk, "king". There are a number of Canaanite gods with names based on this root, which became summarily associated with Moloch, including Biblical מַלְכָּם‎ Malkam "great king" (KJV Milcom), which appears to refer to a god of the Ammonites, as well as Tyrian Melqart and others.
    Rabbinical tradition depicted Moloch as a bronze statue heated with fire into which the victims were thrown. This has been associated with reports by Greco-Roman authors on the child sacrifices in Carthage to Baal Hammon, especially since archaeological excavations since the 1920s have produced evidence for child sacrifice in Carthage as well as inscriptions including the term MLK, either a theonym or a technical term associated with sacrifice. In interpretatio graeca, the Phoenician god was identified with Cronus, due to the parallel mytheme of Cronus devouring his children".
    , @Karl
    173 Talha > when the second Caliph, Omar, entered Jerusalem at the time of its conquest by the Muslim army in the seventh century


    so we agree, that Mohammed never entered the precincts of Herod's Temple Mount

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. Seraphim says:
    @Anonymous
    That "we also need to get Israel off our backs," is quite correct, but rather difficult when 72% of Americans use the Jewish storytelling of heaven to assuage their mortality salience. Similarly, 71% of Americans last year used alcohol to drown their other sorrows.

    “Two great European narcotics, alcohol and Christianity.” (Friedrich Nietzsche)

    And the narcotic dealers of ethanol and eternal life always demand payment.

    “For if the Gentiles have shared in the Jews’ spiritual blessings, they owe it to the Jews to share with them their material blessings.” (Romans 15:27)

    https://i.4pcdn.org/pol/1391835596391.png

    Nietzsche, Marx. Two compères for the variety show ‘God is dead’. Nietzsche drank to much of the ‘Liquid Jew’. No wonder that he died insane.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Marx? He lifted his famous Communist maxim nearly word-for-word from the two following passages in the Jew Testament:

    • "Each according to his ability." Matthew 25:15
    • "All things were common property to them...and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need." Acts 4:32-35

    Insane? That's Jesus. Jew Testament says so:

    • When his friends heard it, they went out to seize him: for they said, "He is insane." Mark 3:21

    And Nietzsche was mourning, not celebrating that God is dead in modern society. No different than a typical preacher pointing out the same observation:

    "God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves? That which was the holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet possessed has bled to death under our knives. Who will wipe this blood off us? With what water could we purify ourselves?"

    But do keep up your puerile attacks, Seraphim, it's always fun showing how knavish you are. Maybe you should lay off the Liquid Jew yourself.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. Talha says:
    @Colin Wright
    'Actually, the Muslims did not free the citizens of the Roman Empire from taxes. They took over the taxes for themselves. They liberated them from slavery because they were able to bring slaves from jihad.'

    My impression is that the Muslims, first, freed the citizens of the Roman Empire from governmental oppression. The 'Byzantine' (look up alternate meanings of the word) bureaucracy was fantastically overstaffed and given to attempting to minutely regulate everything. The Muslim conquerors were limited in number and quite uninterested in any of that. Just pony up this tax, don't build new churches, and we're happy.

    Second, the Muslims freed -- ironically -- much of the Christian (not to mention the Jewish) population from religious persecution. The Muslims didn't care if you were a Monophysite or whatever. Have at it -- just don't get uppity. This phenomenon would have a later echo in the ready Greek acquiescence in Ottoman conquest: 'better the Turk than the Frank.'

    The ‘Byzantine’ (look up alternate meanings of the word) bureaucracy was fantastically overstaffed and given to attempting to minutely regulate everything.

    The word “Melkite” or “King’s man” used to denote Greek adherents to the Byzantine church was actually an insult by the local dissenting Christians:
    “Melkite Catholics” are those Greek or Byzantine Catholic Churches that have their origins in the Middle East. “Melkite” is from the Syriac word “malka” (“King”). It was originally a pejorative term for all Middle-Eastern Christians who accepted the teachings of the Council of Calcedon (A.D. 451) and the Byzantine Emperor.

    https://stjoseph.org.au/trust-your-good-father/

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. Talha says:
    @bucky
    As I'm no longer a believing Christian, it is hard for me to say. I suppose I do feel a little more generous when a foreign community that is endangered is Christian. But the main issue is that Muslim terrorism has been a phenomena for damn near 50 years now and it affects my life in many indirect ways. In the 1990's we were on our way towards small government sustainability -- then 9/11 happened. Now, DC and NYC are bigger than ever before, and our federal government is this unrecognizable fiscally irresponsible creature. And of course terrorist events like San Bernardino, Boston Marathon, Times Square failed bombing, Orlando, Ft. Hood, Paris, London tram bombings, the list goes on and on.

    Nuclear weapons actually have kept the peace over the past seventy years, and so a total elimination would likely actually lead to more conflict. But even beyond that, the status quo is as it is. America has nukes, Russia has nukes, Israel has nukes. Any and all change in the status quo likely will occur in the Muslim world. Should Iran and Saudi Arabia get nukes? that is the relevant question right now. And no, they should not get nukes. Pakistan should definitely not have them.

    That America has certainly done wrong to the Muslim world is undeniable, but at the same time America has done much for the Muslim world as well, and this enmity and hostility that many Muslims feel for America is based at core not so much on mistreatment but on identity. And while it is understandable, it is still a threat that does not exist with other peoples.

    that Muslim terrorism has been a phenomena for damn near 50 years now and it affects my life in many indirect ways

    There is no justification for terrorism – at all. Killing innocent people for the wrongs committed by foreign policies of governments is never justified. Of course, the scourge of terrorism is far worse in the Muslim world itself – terrorists have killed and maimed far more Muslims than the pin-prick attacks in the West, so we are well aware that this is a major problem we need to bring under control. That said, it does NOT help when our government goes cowboy on relatively stable and functional states like Iraq and Libya and makes them terrorist breeding grounds.

    Nuclear weapons…

    This entire paragraph is full of contradictions. If there is one thing that is completely clear to the developing world right now it is that; if you do not want to be invaded like Panama, Iraq, Libya get nukes like North Korea and they’ll take you seriously and start negotiating. We. Did. This.

    so a total elimination would likely actually lead to more conflict

    If they have kept nations out of conflict as a deterrent then there is no reason not to have more nations have them in the Middle East to prevent further international conflict.

    America has nukes, Russia has nukes, Israel has nukes.

    You forgot China, North Korea, India, France, etc.

    Any and all change in the status quo likely will occur in the Muslim world. And no, they should not get nukes.

    This sounds to Muslims like; well, we have them and that’s just how it is, but you cannot have them…because…stuff.

    Pakistan should definitely not have them.

    And Pakistan is somehow excluded from “the status quo is as it is” club? For what magical reason? Its nuclear posture is completely defensive. They detonated their nukes around two weeks right after India detonated theirs. India is considered an existential threat (three times its size) with which Pakistan has fought multiple major border wars. What gives us the moral right to dictate terms to them?

    If anything, their nuclear exchange with India will be limited and local. It is our potential nuclear exchange with Russia or China that has the potential of kicking off the chain events to kill off around one third (at least) of the human population. There is no such fear from a Pakistan/Indian exchange. And besides, you said yourself that nuclear weapons deter war – so that’s a good thing.

    The above points you have made are why the Muslim world completely does not take Western views about nuclear weapons seriously. There is no principled moral stance, there is simply somebody chiding the Muslim world for legitimately seeking a deterrence to having their lands invaded. Muslims are near a quarter of the world’s population, they will ignore being spoken down to.

    Now if full and universal nuclear disarmament is on the table, that is great – this is a principled and moral way forward for everyone and Muslims should absolutely work with nations cooperatively to achieve such a goal.

    but at the same time America has done much for the Muslim world as well

    No disagreements there. I think Muslims that see the US as having only made a negative influence in the world as being fairly childish actually.

    based at core not so much on mistreatment but on identity

    There is no doubt there is some of this going on; identity politics is the “in thing” right now and some Muslims are riding that train.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    '...If anything, their nuclear exchange with India will be limited and local. It is our potential nuclear exchange with Russia or China that has the potential of kicking off the chain events to kill off around one third (at least) of the human population. There is no such fear from a Pakistan/Indian exchange. And besides, you said yourself that nuclear weapons deter war – so that’s a good thing...'

    Israel's actually the biggest threat. If that nation were an individual, it'd be considered criminally insane -- and it's got nukes.

    Lots and lots of nukes. If the rest of the world could think clearly, we'd immediately slap a total embargo on Israel until it surrendered all its WMD's and agreed to continuous and rigorous inspections. It's absurdly dangerous to allow her to have them. As it is, what's eventually going to happen is that Israel is going to use its nukes, and then we'll wake up to the threat.
    , @bucky
    The reason for distrust of nuclear weapons being in the hands of Muslim countries is because of the phenomena of terrorism, and not just that but suicidal terrorism. You saying it is wrong etc is nice, but it still happened, and we have to deal with it.

    And it may be unfair, based on stereotypes, etc, but this is nuclear war. Any and all factors are in play in preventing it from happening.

    Nuclear proliferation increases the risk of nuclear conflict, thus. While these small wars are unfortunate, nuclear weapons are what has kept a WWIII from occurring and that scale is truly gigantic.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. @cassandra
    A few easily verifiable points, in Google, about Islamic current events and modern history.

    Pew research polls indicate that supporters of Islamic extremist policies aren’t a “tiny minority” at all, but around 10-30% of the Muslim population, depending on which specific issues are queried of which population. The number of remaining moderate Muslims is irrelevant since they’re not a problem, and don't have much political influence anyway.

    The Explanatory Memorandum has been mentioned above. It was accidentally discovered in 2004 in a basement in Virginia during the FBI's investigation of the Holy Land Foundation. The document outlines the Muslim Brotherhood’s Plans for America, as of late 1980’s.

    In part, the Explanatory Memorandum reads, “The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

    The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928, by Hassan al-Banna, Tariq Ramadan’s grandpere. Wikipedia: “The Brotherhood's stated goal is to instill the Quran and the Sunnah as the "sole reference point for ... ordering the life of the Muslim family, individual, community ... and STATE". (Emphasis mine). In 1964, Sayyid al-Qutb laid out the Muslim Brotherhood’s stategy in the guide Milestones (downloadable pdf). The Milestones are the stages in a plan for restoring Islamic ascendancy over the West. A thrilling read.

    The Council on American Islamic Relations was indicted as a co-conspirator in the Holy Land trial. CAIR and ISNA (Islamic Society of North America) are mainstream Islamic organizations, representing not only a lobbysists, but providing cabinet-level and security advisors. An interesting place to start is by investigating DHS-appointed Mohamed Elibiary, his antics and connections. He appointed Hillary’s Saudi assistant Huma Abedeen, who once associate-edited the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, run by her parents, still run by her mother. Their political viewpoints make interesting reading.

    In November 2011, John Brennan acceded to the wishes of CAIR and purged specific references to Islam from anti-terrorist training in our security agencies. (Coincidentally, I’m sure, Hillary Clinton was given a $500,000 personal gift of jewelry by the Saudi king in early 2012.) Philip Haney and Stephen Dougherty are two former agents who have discussed the foolishness of this purge. The slides "DHS CRCL CVE Training - Dos and Donts" now show that trainers who are Muslim reformers or "get in the weeds" of history should be avoided.

    There are sporadic but reliable reports of Imam’s touting how Islam will take over Europe via faster breeding, and how constitutions will be changed to Sharia once there is a demographic majority. Denmark’s recent program to investigate what’s being preached in mosques is one specific source for these revelations. Englishman Anjem Choudary was a frequent British commentator on this plan, though he’s been quiet since his imprisonment. His youtube videos cheerfully explain how wonderful this will be.

    All this is delightful if you’re someone who hopes to eventually see a Sharia system imposed by political activity. On the other hand, if you support the limitations imposed on our government by the Bill of Rights, and would prefer Western political rules over Sharia law, maybe not so much. For you, abhorrence isn’t phobic, just sane.

    The problem is that Islam is a religion with a side-program to subdue me politically and to bring me under Sharia law. Simply asserting my political rights thus becomes an act of self-defense. If a doctrine extends its tentacles into the arena of public politics, it must expect resistance, and even offense, from those who disagree. I’d feel no different about Libertarians. Many are fine individuals, but I oppose Libertarian politics for its naïvete (a separate debate), in the same way that I oppose Islamic politics for its barbarism. If you don't want me to critique your religious system, you must separate it from your politics.

    “Do not weep like a woman for what you could not defend like a man.”
     

    ‘…The problem is that Islam is a religion with a side-program to subdue me politically and to bring me under Sharia law…’

    Oh great. So never mind global warming, the ever-increasing flood of ‘migrants,’ our march to war with Iran, our ever-increasing reliance on magic money, the hollowing out of the American economy, the collapse of our society, and our spectacularly dysfunctional and unaffordable health care system.

    Let’s worry about how the Muslims are about to impose ‘shariah law’ on us. Yep: that’s the real danger.

    Read More
    • Replies: @cassandra

    Oh great. So never mind global warming, the ever-increasing flood of ‘migrants,’ our march to war with Iran, our ever-increasing reliance on magic money, the hollowing out of the American economy, the collapse of our society, and our spectacularly dysfunctional and unaffordable health care system.
     
    Can't you panic over more than one apocalypse at a time?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. pensword says:
    @Talha

    as a consequence of their sincerity, NOT their scholarship.
     
    I agree here. A person can be a very sincere worshiper and reach a very high station with just a little bit of knowledge and loads of sincerity. But can we also agree that even among the Companions (ra), not every one of them gave fatwas and rather the lion's share of them deferred to a group of less than ten when they were in need of religious rulings.

    We don’t prohibit non-muslims from studying the religion nor from arriving at conclusions that differ from our own.
     
    Sure, but we've never cared as to their conclusions either. And why should we? I doubt Catholics base their ecclesiastical conclusions based on input from Hindu pandits.

    Let them have at it. They might just learn something in the process.
     
    I'm fine with this and there are many non-Muslim academics that a deeply respect in this regard. However, for them to tell us that their conclusions are correct in spite of centuries of the ulema's views to the contrary is deeply presumptuous and arrogant.

    until the Abbasid court “scholars” codified them as “shari’ah.”
     
    Not sure I agree with this since there were plenty of scholars that concurred that had nothing to do with the Abbasid court, some of whom were persecuted by the caliphate and some under the jurisdiction of the Ummayyads in West Africa and Spain.

    No. ALLAH means exactly what He says. The ‘ulama‘s disagreement in relation to matters of subordinate importance is, as explicitly stated by the Prophet, a mercy from ALLAH, not a competition between truth and falsehood.
     
    OK - I'll concede this point. Differences of opinion are not about truth or falsehood, but some can get the ruling correct and some can get it incorrect; can we agree on this?
    “If a judge makes a ruling, striving to apply his reasoning (ijtihad) and he is correct, then he will have two rewards. If a judge makes a ruling, striving to apply his reasoning and he is mistaken, then he will have one reward.” - reported in Bukhari and Muslim

    They won’t be satisfied with us until we become like them.
     
    Sure. They gotta do what they gotta do, we gotta do what we gotta do. La kum deenukm wa liya deen.

    Wa salaam.

    the evidence for stoning is not based on an alleged verse but solid hadith.

    It’s based on both, though remains flawed.

    First, I take issue with the canonization of ahaddith collections. Unlike The Qur’an, they do not constitute an inviolable word; such is the implicit nature of them, handed down from one party to another, arriving at the end of a lengthy chain whose probity depends upon an “ijma’” that, in reality, was a manufactured consensus. The widely-accepted age of ‘Aisha upon her marriage comes to mind immediately. Imam Bukhari included it in his Sahih, yet it doesn’t withstand close scrutiny.

    Ahaddith may serve as guidance, or a complement, but where contrast raises its head, The Qur’an invariably supersedes them. That’s elementary fiqh.

    As per lapidation of adulterers, it’s a strictly Torah-based law. (Violation of any one of the Ten Commandments constituted a capital crime.) You’ll find that the “evidence” in ahaddith more often than not concerns The Prophet’s application of The Torah in relation to Jewish offenders, which is how he adjudicated legal matters brought to him from the leaders of Jewish tribes in and around Medina. Additionally, the effective Law of God was lapidation for adultery before the ayat commanding 100 lashes for adultery abrogated it. All of these facts must be considered when analyzing the available evidence.

    But … old traditions die hard. Fact is, there isn’t even an ijma’ about what ijma’ is, opinions are just that varied on the topic. To believe that the Abbasid rise to power occurred without partisanship or prejudice and that these factors never influenced how history was summarily recorded for us is just too tall a demand. Long-standing perspectives on apostasy, adultery and abrogation have made too many hypocrites for far too long.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. @Seraphim
    I wonder whether you are a 'fellow traveler' or a 'useful idiot'.

    ‘I wonder whether you are a ‘fellow traveler’ or a ‘useful idiot’. ‘

    Well, I’m certainly not a fellow traveler. While I can find theology interesting, all religions fail with me right at the front door: I think it unlikely that God exists. Even if He did, I fail to see why He should care what we did, or want us to pray to Him. I mean seriously: do you concern yourself with the attitude of the ants in your basement? Is it important to you that they pray to you daily?

    So that leaves ‘useful idiot.’ I guess — I really, really don’t see Islam as posing a threat. Now, allowing in masses of immigrants does — but they could be (and are) Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh, Bahai, and animist as well. They can be Muslim or not. It’s a matter of indifference to me. I just don’t want more immigrants.

    However, Islam in particular a danger? Not really — certainly not to the United States. Indeed, if I was going to perceive any religious group as a threat, I’d pick Evangelical Christians. Let’s put a damper on all their nonsense — and then fret about ‘shariah law.’

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    It leaves us indeed with the second variant. And we can leave it at that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. @Talha

    that Muslim terrorism has been a phenomena for damn near 50 years now and it affects my life in many indirect ways
     
    There is no justification for terrorism - at all. Killing innocent people for the wrongs committed by foreign policies of governments is never justified. Of course, the scourge of terrorism is far worse in the Muslim world itself - terrorists have killed and maimed far more Muslims than the pin-prick attacks in the West, so we are well aware that this is a major problem we need to bring under control. That said, it does NOT help when our government goes cowboy on relatively stable and functional states like Iraq and Libya and makes them terrorist breeding grounds.

    Nuclear weapons...
     
    This entire paragraph is full of contradictions. If there is one thing that is completely clear to the developing world right now it is that; if you do not want to be invaded like Panama, Iraq, Libya get nukes like North Korea and they'll take you seriously and start negotiating. We. Did. This.

    so a total elimination would likely actually lead to more conflict
     
    If they have kept nations out of conflict as a deterrent then there is no reason not to have more nations have them in the Middle East to prevent further international conflict.

    America has nukes, Russia has nukes, Israel has nukes.
     
    You forgot China, North Korea, India, France, etc.

    Any and all change in the status quo likely will occur in the Muslim world. And no, they should not get nukes.
     
    This sounds to Muslims like; well, we have them and that's just how it is, but you cannot have them...because...stuff.

    Pakistan should definitely not have them.
     
    And Pakistan is somehow excluded from "the status quo is as it is" club? For what magical reason? Its nuclear posture is completely defensive. They detonated their nukes around two weeks right after India detonated theirs. India is considered an existential threat (three times its size) with which Pakistan has fought multiple major border wars. What gives us the moral right to dictate terms to them?

    If anything, their nuclear exchange with India will be limited and local. It is our potential nuclear exchange with Russia or China that has the potential of kicking off the chain events to kill off around one third (at least) of the human population. There is no such fear from a Pakistan/Indian exchange. And besides, you said yourself that nuclear weapons deter war - so that's a good thing.

    The above points you have made are why the Muslim world completely does not take Western views about nuclear weapons seriously. There is no principled moral stance, there is simply somebody chiding the Muslim world for legitimately seeking a deterrence to having their lands invaded. Muslims are near a quarter of the world's population, they will ignore being spoken down to.

    Now if full and universal nuclear disarmament is on the table, that is great - this is a principled and moral way forward for everyone and Muslims should absolutely work with nations cooperatively to achieve such a goal.


    but at the same time America has done much for the Muslim world as well
     
    No disagreements there. I think Muslims that see the US as having only made a negative influence in the world as being fairly childish actually.

    based at core not so much on mistreatment but on identity
     
    There is no doubt there is some of this going on; identity politics is the "in thing" right now and some Muslims are riding that train.

    Peace.

    ‘…If anything, their nuclear exchange with India will be limited and local. It is our potential nuclear exchange with Russia or China that has the potential of kicking off the chain events to kill off around one third (at least) of the human population. There is no such fear from a Pakistan/Indian exchange. And besides, you said yourself that nuclear weapons deter war – so that’s a good thing…’

    Israel’s actually the biggest threat. If that nation were an individual, it’d be considered criminally insane — and it’s got nukes.

    Lots and lots of nukes. If the rest of the world could think clearly, we’d immediately slap a total embargo on Israel until it surrendered all its WMD’s and agreed to continuous and rigorous inspections. It’s absurdly dangerous to allow her to have them. As it is, what’s eventually going to happen is that Israel is going to use its nukes, and then we’ll wake up to the threat.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bucky
    Being anti-Israel is still not America first. America first is America first, and it means treating. Israel objectively and not purely positively or negatively.

    That Israel has nuclear weapons, and has not used nuclear weapons since acquiring them, means that the status quo works. Might be disgusting on some level, but it works.

    Changing this status quo may raises the chances of nuclear weapons being used.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. cassandra says:
    @Talha
    Wa alaikum assalaam bro,

    There is not a single verse in The Qur’an that mandates capital punishment for apostasy, nor is there one example of The Prophet ever ordering an execution simply because a muslim decided not to be muslim anymore.
     
    Correct, which is why there is a difference of opinion on it and Hanafi scholars like Imam Sarakhsi (ra) wrote how personal apostasy was different than apostasy coupled with treasonous actions based on the variant hadith in question. There is plenty of room to revisit the issue in light of the different political structure of state today versus the past and the notion of citizenship (as Ottoman scholars did with the tanzimat reforms). There is a good brother who is writing up a comprehensive paper on this for the Yaqeen Institute and he told me it is due within the month - inshaAllah.

    However, being as it is, I do not think you will get a consensus on the matter; some Muslim countries will continue to kill apostates by implementing the majority classical ruling.

    There is a haddith concerning an alleged rajm verse
     
    I've heard of this. To be honest, I haven't done much diving into this particular issue, but my understanding is that the evidence for stoning is not based on an alleged verse but solid hadith. When issues have consensus backing on them, I tend to not even look into details since I can hardly imagine everyone got it wrong. I don't see a problem with stoning adulterers though personally, but I have a major, major problem with people trying to skirt around the absolutely rigid evidence required to convict a person; the act has to be so public that four adult males (with upright character) need to be able to see vaginal/anal penetration and report it without any delay or hesitation. Anybody who is that flagrantly degenerate (or stupid) in a Muslim country just earned a Darwin Award courtesy of medium sized rocks.

    there is no unanimity of consensus upon which verses abrogate others.
     
    Never has been, which is why you see variant rulings based upon the assumptions of different scholars.

    I don’t find it incumbent upon me to accept at face value what others attribute to them.
     
    I'm pretty open with these things and I'm fully on board with difference of opinion. My safety net is always ijmaa. If we have had ijmaa on something for 14 centuries, then I don't really see a need (or legitimacy) in changing it. Otherwise you get these weird things where all of a sudden some group thinks Islam is down with LGBT Pride or something.

    But I'm kind of a traditional Sunni Hanafi in that regard.

    May ALLAH grant us such vision.
     
    Ameen, may He keep us on the sirat al-mustaqim. Wa salaam.

    There is not a single verse in The Qur’an that mandates capital punishment for apostasy, nor is there one example of The Prophet ever ordering an execution simply because a muslim decided not to be muslim anymore.

    Do I misunderstand Surah 4.89?
    “They wish that you reject Faith, as they have rejected Faith, and thus you become equal (like one another). So take not Auliya’ (protectors or friends) from them, till they emigrate in the Way of Allah (to Muhammed). But if they turn back (from Islam), take (hold of) them and kill them wherever you find them, and take neither Auliya (protectors or friends) nor helpers from them.”

    Granted not from the Quran, but here’s Mohammed’s policy expressed in Bukhari 9.84.57
    “Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to ‘Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn ‘Abbas who said, “If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah’s Apostle forbade it, saying, ‘Do not punish anybody with Allah’s punishment (fire).’ I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah’s Apostle, ‘Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.’”

    This looks close enough to execution or capital punishment where I wouldn’t be inclined to quibble over the outcome were it directed at me. More to the point, I wouldn’t like to see my community incorporating these injunctions in attitudes or laws.

    Read More
    • Replies: @pensword
    Do I misunderstand Surah 4.89?

    Yes, you do.

    But if they turn back (from Islam), take (hold of) them and kill them wherever you find them, and take neither Auliya (protectors or friends) nor helpers from them.

    The antecedent of "they" is "the hypocrites," as mentioned in the preceding verse. The verb in the original Arabic is "tawallaw," which does not translate as "turn back," but rather, as "take over." As such, it does not address simple apostasy, but rather, the hypocrites' assumption of political authority.

    Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.

    Already addressed here.
    , @Ibn Issam

    Bukhari 9.84.57
     
    Ali Ibn Abi Talib Did Not Burn Apostates Alive – Historical Analysis
    https://discover-the-truth.com/2017/03/11/ali-ibn-abi-talib-did-not-burn-apostates-alive-historical-analysis/
    , @Talha

    Do I misunderstand Surah 4.89?
     
    Yes - this incident has to do with a group of people (hypocrites) that claimed to be Muslim yet supported the Makkans - Makkah was at war with Madinah at the time. You should read the commentaries like this one of the relevant verses:
    "Al-`Awfi reported that Ibn `Abbas said that the Ayah was revealed about some people in Makkah who said they embraced Islam, yet they gave their support to the idolators."
    http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=621&Itemid=59

    The hadith you cite needs to be taken into account with other hadith that give details like:
    "The Messenger of Allah (pbuh), said: 'The blood of a man who is a Muslim is not lawful (i.e. cannot be lawfully shed), save if he belongs to one of three (classes): a married man who is an adulterer; life for a life (i.e. for murder); one who is a deserter of his religion, abandoning the community.'" -reported in Bukhari & Muslim

    "It is not permissible to shed the blood of a Muslim except in three cases: An adulterer who had been married, who should be stoned to death; a man who killed another man intentionally, who should be killed; and a man who left Islam and waged war against Allah, the Might and Sublime, and His Messenger, who should be killed, or crucified, or banished from the land." - reported in an-Nisai

    The question at hand is how these hadith (and other factors) qualify the one you pointed out. This is the debate among Muslim scholars.

    And this is the reason why I feel debating these small details with non-Muslims is a waste of time. Because there is a bunch of stuff out there and the scholars debated about what the word "and" meant in this instance and whether or not they accepted a hadith that others considered to be sound, but that they didn't and whether one hadith abrogates or qualifies another. Trust me, I'm currently reading a medieval called al-Hidayah (by Imam Marghinani [ra]) with a qualified Hanafi mufti and these details are all over these works with one group of scholars championing their view over others and what not.

    Furthermore, neither you nor I are qualified to derive rulings from these primary texts (especially in English) and - frankly - nobody in the Muslim world cares what either of us has to say because the guys who set the rules are men who have spent 40-50 years of their lives studying and debating these minute details like these (Shaykh Abu Ghuddah [ra] walking with his teacher, one of the last great Ottoman scholars, Shaykh al-Kawthari [ra]):
    http://www.aboghodda.com/oldimages/w_zahidbig.jpg

    So it's best to stick to discussing what the scholars and institutions have ruled because those are the fatwas that count where the rubber meets the road.

    As far as apostasy, there is simply a difference of opinion on the matter. Many scholars definitely ruled that apostates are killed simply for changing their religion, but scholars from the school that I follow considered the punishment due to the political implications and the act being associated with treason and rebellion - which is precisely why the Hanafi school does not execute female apostates since they are not considered a political/military threat. And this is not even taking into account the official stances of extinct schools of law.

    What's the upshot of all this? Well, that there really is no clear cut answer since there is difference of opinion on the issue. Certain Muslim polities will continue to execute apostates and certain ones will not unless they make themselves a political/military threat to the state. What will happen in the US if it goes majority Muzzie? I have no clue, but my bet is on the latter.

    Peace.

    Note: This following statement is accurate; the Prophet ever ordering an execution simply because a muslim decided not to be Muslim anymore.

    Though the hadith show that he gave instructions on what to do with apostates - there is no evidence of an actual execution he ordered and carried out of an apostate who simply left Islam.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. bucky says:
    @Talha

    that Muslim terrorism has been a phenomena for damn near 50 years now and it affects my life in many indirect ways
     
    There is no justification for terrorism - at all. Killing innocent people for the wrongs committed by foreign policies of governments is never justified. Of course, the scourge of terrorism is far worse in the Muslim world itself - terrorists have killed and maimed far more Muslims than the pin-prick attacks in the West, so we are well aware that this is a major problem we need to bring under control. That said, it does NOT help when our government goes cowboy on relatively stable and functional states like Iraq and Libya and makes them terrorist breeding grounds.

    Nuclear weapons...
     
    This entire paragraph is full of contradictions. If there is one thing that is completely clear to the developing world right now it is that; if you do not want to be invaded like Panama, Iraq, Libya get nukes like North Korea and they'll take you seriously and start negotiating. We. Did. This.

    so a total elimination would likely actually lead to more conflict
     
    If they have kept nations out of conflict as a deterrent then there is no reason not to have more nations have them in the Middle East to prevent further international conflict.

    America has nukes, Russia has nukes, Israel has nukes.
     
    You forgot China, North Korea, India, France, etc.

    Any and all change in the status quo likely will occur in the Muslim world. And no, they should not get nukes.
     
    This sounds to Muslims like; well, we have them and that's just how it is, but you cannot have them...because...stuff.

    Pakistan should definitely not have them.
     
    And Pakistan is somehow excluded from "the status quo is as it is" club? For what magical reason? Its nuclear posture is completely defensive. They detonated their nukes around two weeks right after India detonated theirs. India is considered an existential threat (three times its size) with which Pakistan has fought multiple major border wars. What gives us the moral right to dictate terms to them?

    If anything, their nuclear exchange with India will be limited and local. It is our potential nuclear exchange with Russia or China that has the potential of kicking off the chain events to kill off around one third (at least) of the human population. There is no such fear from a Pakistan/Indian exchange. And besides, you said yourself that nuclear weapons deter war - so that's a good thing.

    The above points you have made are why the Muslim world completely does not take Western views about nuclear weapons seriously. There is no principled moral stance, there is simply somebody chiding the Muslim world for legitimately seeking a deterrence to having their lands invaded. Muslims are near a quarter of the world's population, they will ignore being spoken down to.

    Now if full and universal nuclear disarmament is on the table, that is great - this is a principled and moral way forward for everyone and Muslims should absolutely work with nations cooperatively to achieve such a goal.


    but at the same time America has done much for the Muslim world as well
     
    No disagreements there. I think Muslims that see the US as having only made a negative influence in the world as being fairly childish actually.

    based at core not so much on mistreatment but on identity
     
    There is no doubt there is some of this going on; identity politics is the "in thing" right now and some Muslims are riding that train.

    Peace.

    The reason for distrust of nuclear weapons being in the hands of Muslim countries is because of the phenomena of terrorism, and not just that but suicidal terrorism. You saying it is wrong etc is nice, but it still happened, and we have to deal with it.

    And it may be unfair, based on stereotypes, etc, but this is nuclear war. Any and all factors are in play in preventing it from happening.

    Nuclear proliferation increases the risk of nuclear conflict, thus. While these small wars are unfortunate, nuclear weapons are what has kept a WWIII from occurring and that scale is truly gigantic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    And the US dropped two bombs on a non-nuclear capable foe. And your concerns simply dismiss a regime like North Korea who can be negotiated with but apparently Muslims cannot. Pakistan is in no rush to hand over its nuclear weapons to any terrorists and they are some of the most secure facilities and arms in the country.

    In fact, we - the US - still have a first-strike policy:
    https://www.armscontrol.org/blog/2017-11-15/us-should-adopt-no-first-use-nuclear-launch-policy

    Any and all factors are in play in preventing it from happening.
     
    So let's remove all factors at play such that we are completely free from this fear; full and universal nuclear disarmament.

    Look, we can do this all day, but unless non-Muslim nations are willing to come to the table and speak to Muslim nations like peers, all of this will be seen and posturing and hypocrisy.

    While these small wars are unfortunate
     
    That's easy to say when your cities aren't swiss-cheese waste lands and hundreds of thousands of your citizens haven't been killed. We keep on attacking and destroying countries that have not attacked us - the list keeps growing and now it might be Iran next.

    Why wouldn't every country in the Muslim world want to get a deterrence capability?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. Anonymous[158] • Disclaimer says:
    @Seraphim
    Nietzsche, Marx. Two compères for the variety show 'God is dead'. Nietzsche drank to much of the 'Liquid Jew'. No wonder that he died insane.

    Marx? He lifted his famous Communist maxim nearly word-for-word from the two following passages in the Jew Testament:

    • “Each according to his ability.” Matthew 25:15
    • “All things were common property to them…and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.” Acts 4:32-35

    Insane? That’s Jesus. Jew Testament says so:

    • When his friends heard it, they went out to seize him: for they said, “He is insane.” Mark 3:21

    And Nietzsche was mourning, not celebrating that God is dead in modern society. No different than a typical preacher pointing out the same observation:

    “God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves? That which was the holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet possessed has bled to death under our knives. Who will wipe this blood off us? With what water could we purify ourselves?”

    But do keep up your puerile attacks, Seraphim, it’s always fun showing how knavish you are. Maybe you should lay off the Liquid Jew yourself.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. Seraphim says:
    @Talha

    the Rashidun
     
    The Rashidun are our exemplars. They are the ones whose example is used to derive Muslim praxis in matters of war, statecraft, politics, dealing with rebellion and a whole host of other issues. If the Rashidun did something and the other Companions accepted the action, it becomes a valid source of deriving law.

    Muslim scholars do not derive legal precedent from the actions of anyone else; Ummayad, Ottoman, etc. Rather, the Rashidun are the yardstick by which all other Muslim rulers are to be judged.

    example of Carthage
     
    To show that this idea of marauding Arabs is bunk when civilized peoples like Romans were capable of far more brutal and destructive conquests. You can go to Iran and also see what little Alexander left standing of Persepolis.

    Jerusalem was the center of your ‘abrahamic’ cousins,
     
    Jerusalem was the crown jewel of the Levant - the holy city where multiple prophets (pbut) walked and preached and prayed. Jewish ties to it made little difference.

    It was, of course, another negotiated surrender - being so important that the Caliph Umar (ra) was willing to journey to personally accept the patriarch surrender the city over.

    supermen Rashidun warriors
     
    We prefer warrior saints.

    ‘liberated’ for them
     
    No, Muslims kept control of the city - there is no evidence they ever handed it over to Jews. You seem to have a deep-seated hatred for Jews - which is fine. People like me don't - so trying to guilt-trip me by pointing out that we did something positive for them doesn't really work. Damn right we let them back into the city - Byzantium had no right to keep them out. And then Saladin (ra) did it again. You ought to remind the Zionists about this since they seem to have forgotten. Though some Jews have not:
    “It is interest to note here that, as far as Palestine is concerned, the right of Jews to ‘return’ to live in this small area of land was accepted by all successive Muslim rulers from the Muslim conquest to the end of the nineteenth century, when Zionist settlement there became entangled in European weltpolitik. Gibb and Bowen relate how, when the Jews of Europe ‘learned of the paradisiacal life awaiting them in Turkey’ and many of them set out for Palestine, it was not the Muslims who objected but the [Christian] Franciscans of Jerusalem, ‘who talked the Pope into forbidding the Venetians to carry Jewish passengers to the Holy Land.’ This was not the first time Jerusalem Christians tried to prevail on Muslim rulers to ban Jews from living in the city. A similar attempt was made first when the second Caliph, Omar, entered Jerusalem at the time of its conquest by the Muslim army in the seventh century, and again when Salah ad-Din [Saladin] drove out the Crusaders in the twelfth. On both of these occasions, the Christian patriarch of the city tried to persuade the Muslim conquerors to prevent Jews from living in or (as in the latter case) returning to Jerusalem after they had been expelled from it by the Christians. Both Omar and Salah ad-Din refused to heed their pleas.”
    http://ufdc.ufl.edu/AA00011671/00001

    Carthage was not ‘abrahamic’ by any stretch of imagination.
     
    Neither was Rome.

    they were the same ‘idolator’ Canaanites as the ones the Yahve/Allah commands to destroy.
     
    So...you're saying...that the pagan Romans were doing Yahve/Jesus' work by totally burning the pagan Carthage to the ground? I'll have to think about that one.

    Of course the Vandals eventually took over those old North African stomping grounds and then went ape on Rome, so there's that.

    Peace.

    Now you had your orgasm. Warrior saints!

    Didn’t you know that the Carthaginians were sacrificing their childre like the Canaanites?

    Diodorus Siculus:
    “There was in their city a bronze image of Cronus, extending its hands, palms up and sloping towards the ground, so that each of the children when placed thereon rolled down and fell into a sort of gaping pit filled with fire”.

    Wikipedia:
    “Moloch[a] is the biblical name of a Canaanite god associated with child sacrifice. The name of this deity is also sometimes spelled Molech, Milcom, or Malcam.
    The name Moloch results from a dysphemic vocalisation in the Second Temple period of a theonym based on the root mlk, “king”. There are a number of Canaanite gods with names based on this root, which became summarily associated with Moloch, including Biblical מַלְכָּם‎ Malkam “great king” (KJV Milcom), which appears to refer to a god of the Ammonites, as well as Tyrian Melqart and others.
    Rabbinical tradition depicted Moloch as a bronze statue heated with fire into which the victims were thrown. This has been associated with reports by Greco-Roman authors on the child sacrifices in Carthage to Baal Hammon, especially since archaeological excavations since the 1920s have produced evidence for child sacrifice in Carthage as well as inscriptions including the term MLK, either a theonym or a technical term associated with sacrifice. In interpretatio graeca, the Phoenician god was identified with Cronus, due to the parallel mytheme of Cronus devouring his children”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Malla
    Very interesting, Cronos is Saturn. Jews rest on Saturday (day of Saturn). The Tefillin (black box Jews mount on their head while praying) and black boxes in general represent Saturn. Jews tie the tefillin to the middle finger, the finger of Saturn. Jews have been accused of blood libel for ages.

    https://www.hebrewacademymiami.org/files/cache/b66044eb0db0fcfe736b7982bf581bc5_f2834.png

    The world is full of black cubes

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-KK3HRutEVSA/VZmhMo9UKVI/AAAAAAABOsA/y1AWQ217B2A/s1600/1ac140b8bf.jpg

    Even the meditation room in the United Nations HQ has a black cube

    http://www.eliteagenda.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Meditation-Room-UN.png

    UN MEDITATION ROOM (WIERD)

    Also in Lord of the Rings (J.R. Tolkien) and the Rings of Nibelungs (Richard Wagner), rings represent Money, Gold, power, control etc....
    Saturn has rings, Saturn (Souron, Satan) is the lord of the rings. Both Wagner and Tolkein warn us.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. Seraphim says:
    @Mike P
    Interesting background about the oppression of the Syrian church, I wasn't aware of that.

    I generally agree with you, but I think you are being unduly harsh on Heraclius when alleging his 'criminal negligence' or 'ineptitude'. He had rallied his empire from a very low point and beaten considerable odds in his wars on multiple fronts, particularly so against the Parthians. That war had completely worn out both sides, and the Arabs had the good luck to confront and conquer both in a very enfeebled state.

    Heraclius was one of the all-time great soldier-kings/emperors; his defeat at the hands of the brave and able Arabs does not change that.

    He is not ‘unduly’ harsh on Heraclius. He follows the Arab hagiography of the wars, with all its literary tropes and exagerations. He relies only on Arab sources, far later than the events, which give fantastic numbers of troops engaged in the battle. 140,000 Byzantines against 30,000. How could such a weak force defeat such an enormous army if not due to the exceptional warrior skills off the Rashidun, the genius of Muslim commander, the ineptitude of Byzantine generals, the decadence of the Byzantine Empire and the will of Allah?
    The truth is as always much more prosaic. Contemporary sources talk only of an army of 70,000, even 40,000 defeated in an ambush, by an army of about the same size. The ‘ineptitude’ of the generals was actually treason, some Roman soldiers proclaiming one of their generals, Baanes/Vahan (a Monophysite Armenian), as emperor and of Jabalah Ibn Al-Aiham, the last ruler of the Ghassanid state (Christian Arabs, vassals of the Empire) in Syria and Jordan in the 7th century AD. Some sources suggest an outbreak of plague, which was raging at the time in Syria.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha

    He relies only on Arab sources, far later than the events, which give fantastic numbers of troops engaged in the battle.
     
    Nope - I'm actually taking into account the estimates of modern historians. This is a good account of the Battle of Yarmouk and estimates a very reasonable 40,000 Byzantine force against a 25,000 Rashidun force:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ct4OSmdZ3M

    Classic strategy of how to use light cavalry against heavy cataphracts for maximum results.

    Peace.

    Note: For people interested in this subject from academic sources I highly recommend the works of PRof. David Nicolle who is a great military historian on the subject of the Muslim conquests. Specifically this one:
    https://www.amazon.com/Islamic-Conquests-632-750-Essential-Histories/dp/1846032733/

    And also this specific book he wrote just concentrating on the Battle of Yarmouk:
    https://www.amazon.com/Yarmuk-AD-636-conquest-Campaign/dp/1855324148/

    Another great book is by Prof. Robert Hoyland, an expert on contemporaneous non-Muslim texts of the era:
    https://www.amazon.com/Gods-Path-Conquests-Creation-Civilization-ebook/dp/B00L4CK12A/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. Malla says:
    @anonymous
    Atilla: "As a Christian I can state that modern day Jews are not the chosen..."

    It's as if Atilla and the Christclowns have never read the Jew Testament.

    Romans 9:4 “The people of Israel, chosen.”
    Acts 3:25 “He said to Abraham, ‘Through your offspring all peoples on earth will be blessed.’”

    Atilla: "...and no longer have a covenant with [Jewgod]. Christianity is the new covenant."

    This is supposed to be good news? Maybe for sicko perverts.

    Philippians 3:3 "For it is we [Christians] who are the circumcision [baby-cock suckers]."

    So why would you want to be Jewhovah's new Cocksuckers? Because you're a sad, pathetic wanabee-Jew? Christclowns are worse than that rappin' whigger Eminem worshiping Detroit-Destroying-Dindus. Stop worshiping a race other than yours, Atilla. Yeah, that's exactly what you are doing. You're a Jewgger.

    "WE WORSHIP what we do know, for salvation is from THE JEWS." John 4:22

    Jews as a distinct people start from Judah (Yhuda and hence Yehudi). Abraham was the father of many peoples. And Judah did not even get the blessing of GOD. It was Joseph and Judah sold Joseph to slavery. So how are the Jews chosen people. They are not.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. Malla says:
    @attilathehen
    (((Arnold Isaacs))) has written an article from a Jewish perspective about Islam. There is a group in between these two: Christians. I am a Christian.

    (((Isaacs))) opinions about Islam are worthless because he does not know or understand what Islam is. As a Christian I can state that Islam is a Christian heresy. As a Christian I can state that modern day Jews are not the chosen and no longer have a covenant with God. Christianity is the new covenant. These are beliefs. There is something even more important than beliefs, biology.

    Most Muslims are black/Asians. Most modern day Jews are a mixed racial group. Jews have high intermarriage rate with blacks/Asians. Racially, black/Asians are not Western racial groups. The West is Caucasian/European/Christian/Euro-pagan. (((Isaacs))) is free to write what he wants, as long as it is from Israel. Jews are not Western and had nothing to do with the West's development. He cannot tell Christians anything about Islam because everything he writes is written from a theologically/racially flawed perspective. Likewise, the scribblings of Muslim commentators like Talha, Ibn Issam are worthless. They are free to scribble what they wish as long as they do it in their inferior Muslim countries. Talha is Pakistani (Asian) and Muslim. Nothing Western here.

    As a Christian I can state that modern day Jews are not the chosen and no longer have a covenant with God.

    They never had a covenant with God in the first place. Israelites were a different people.

    Also did you know ‘Brith’ in Hebrew meant covenant and ‘ish’ means man and hence ‘British’ means covenant man.

    British are the Covenant People

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. Seraphim says:
    @Colin Wright
    'I wonder whether you are a ‘fellow traveler’ or a ‘useful idiot’. '

    Well, I'm certainly not a fellow traveler. While I can find theology interesting, all religions fail with me right at the front door: I think it unlikely that God exists. Even if He did, I fail to see why He should care what we did, or want us to pray to Him. I mean seriously: do you concern yourself with the attitude of the ants in your basement? Is it important to you that they pray to you daily?

    So that leaves 'useful idiot.' I guess -- I really, really don't see Islam as posing a threat. Now, allowing in masses of immigrants does -- but they could be (and are) Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh, Bahai, and animist as well. They can be Muslim or not. It's a matter of indifference to me. I just don't want more immigrants.

    However, Islam in particular a danger? Not really -- certainly not to the United States. Indeed, if I was going to perceive any religious group as a threat, I'd pick Evangelical Christians. Let's put a damper on all their nonsense -- and then fret about 'shariah law.'

    It leaves us indeed with the second variant. And we can leave it at that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. Malla says:
    @Seraphim
    Now you had your orgasm. Warrior saints!

    Didn't you know that the Carthaginians were sacrificing their childre like the Canaanites?

    Diodorus Siculus:
    "There was in their city a bronze image of Cronus, extending its hands, palms up and sloping towards the ground, so that each of the children when placed thereon rolled down and fell into a sort of gaping pit filled with fire".

    Wikipedia:
    "Moloch[a] is the biblical name of a Canaanite god associated with child sacrifice. The name of this deity is also sometimes spelled Molech, Milcom, or Malcam.
    The name Moloch results from a dysphemic vocalisation in the Second Temple period of a theonym based on the root mlk, "king". There are a number of Canaanite gods with names based on this root, which became summarily associated with Moloch, including Biblical מַלְכָּם‎ Malkam "great king" (KJV Milcom), which appears to refer to a god of the Ammonites, as well as Tyrian Melqart and others.
    Rabbinical tradition depicted Moloch as a bronze statue heated with fire into which the victims were thrown. This has been associated with reports by Greco-Roman authors on the child sacrifices in Carthage to Baal Hammon, especially since archaeological excavations since the 1920s have produced evidence for child sacrifice in Carthage as well as inscriptions including the term MLK, either a theonym or a technical term associated with sacrifice. In interpretatio graeca, the Phoenician god was identified with Cronus, due to the parallel mytheme of Cronus devouring his children".

    Very interesting, Cronos is Saturn. Jews rest on Saturday (day of Saturn). The Tefillin (black box Jews mount on their head while praying) and black boxes in general represent Saturn. Jews tie the tefillin to the middle finger, the finger of Saturn. Jews have been accused of blood libel for ages.

    The world is full of black cubes

    Even the meditation room in the United Nations HQ has a black cube

    UN MEDITATION ROOM (WIERD)

    Also in Lord of the Rings (J.R. Tolkien) and the Rings of Nibelungs (Richard Wagner), rings represent Money, Gold, power, control etc….
    Saturn has rings, Saturn (Souron, Satan) is the lord of the rings. Both Wagner and Tolkein warn us.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Malla
    Christianity on the other hand is connected to the Sun. Sun and Saturn are enemies. Chistmas is Yule, 25 Dec is the day the Sun is born again (Northern Hemisphere). For 3 days days from Dec 22 to Dec 24, the Sun is considered dead and lies in the vicinity of the constellation 'Southern Crux' or Southern Cross, December 25th (Winter Solstace) the sun is born again and we have longer days. Hence we have Jesus died on the cross for 3 days and was born again.

    http://cornerofknowledge.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/3Days.jpg

    Hence 'Son of God' is literally 'SUN of GOD' Jesus is the SUN, enemy of SATURN.
    Hence Christianity is a Sun based religion as against Judaism which is a Saturn based religion and are enemies.
    So is Shinto and Japan, hence we have the Sun on the Japanese flag. The most high diety of Shinto is the Sun goddess Amaterasu. The Japanese Imperial family (oldest continues royal family on Earth) is said to have descended from Emperor Jimmu who himself is said to have descended from the Sun Goddess Amaterasu.

    http://www.mother-god.com/images/amaterasu-square.jpg

    SUN GODDESS AMATERASU OMIKAMI

    Yule, the Northern European pagan festival held on 25th Dec before Christmas was imposed on it means 'Wheel'. Wheel here represents the wheel of seasons.

    http://wiccanspells.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/The-Sabbats.jpg

    Northern European Pagan Wheel or Yule

    The concept of this Wheel or Chakra comes in Buddhism too as Buddha was a Scythian from Central Asia. The Scythians were closely related to the Northern Europeans celebrating Yule. This Buddhist wheel is found on the Indian National flag.

    https://buddhaweekly.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/DHARMA-wheel.jpg
    BUDDHIST DHARMA WHEEL

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. Mike P says:
    @bucky
    As I'm no longer a believing Christian, it is hard for me to say. I suppose I do feel a little more generous when a foreign community that is endangered is Christian. But the main issue is that Muslim terrorism has been a phenomena for damn near 50 years now and it affects my life in many indirect ways. In the 1990's we were on our way towards small government sustainability -- then 9/11 happened. Now, DC and NYC are bigger than ever before, and our federal government is this unrecognizable fiscally irresponsible creature. And of course terrorist events like San Bernardino, Boston Marathon, Times Square failed bombing, Orlando, Ft. Hood, Paris, London tram bombings, the list goes on and on.

    Nuclear weapons actually have kept the peace over the past seventy years, and so a total elimination would likely actually lead to more conflict. But even beyond that, the status quo is as it is. America has nukes, Russia has nukes, Israel has nukes. Any and all change in the status quo likely will occur in the Muslim world. Should Iran and Saudi Arabia get nukes? that is the relevant question right now. And no, they should not get nukes. Pakistan should definitely not have them.

    That America has certainly done wrong to the Muslim world is undeniable, but at the same time America has done much for the Muslim world as well, and this enmity and hostility that many Muslims feel for America is based at core not so much on mistreatment but on identity. And while it is understandable, it is still a threat that does not exist with other peoples.

    But the main issue is that Muslim terrorism has been a phenomena for damn near 50 years now and it affects my life in many indirect ways. In the 1990′s we were on our way towards small government sustainability — then 9/11 happened.

    9/11 was not “Muslim terror” but a Mossad/CIA co-production. See for example the excellent books by David Ray Griffin on the matter, right here on this site. Also the hard-hitting books by Christopher Bollyn. The influx of refugees cum terrorists into Western countries is also orchestrated by the same actors – see for example the recent evacuation of the terrorist “White Helmets” by Israel and their announced resettlement in various Western countries.

    Israel wants to rile up the people in the West against all Muslims. To this end, Israel acts as the main state sponsor of “Muslim terrorism,” both real and fake.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Malla
    The Judeans are using the West as a weapon against the Islamic World via invasions and Muslims as weapons against the peoples of the West vis immigration. Hence the wierd 'Invade the World, invite the World' policy of Western Zio Regimes.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. Seraphim says:
    @anonymous
    Asexuals! Maybe Jesus, when he attempted to be clever with the Sadducees in Mt 22:30, had never before read the author of Genesis 6:2, who claimed "the sons of the several deities saw the daughters of mankind that they were beautiful; and they took to them wives whomsoever they chose." As the saying goes, 2 Jews, 3 opinions.

    You are clever by half. Genesis 6:2 does not speak of angels (and the translation you use, either the
    Good News Translation, or the International Standard Version, is BS). Always use KJV.

    Genesis 6:2 says ‘Sons of God’ in all translations both from the ‘Hebrew’ Bible (bənê hāʼĕlōhîm) and Septuagint (υἱοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ ) and Vulgata (filii Dei).
    They were men:
    “And it came to pass when men began to be numerous upon the earth, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God having seen the daughters of men that they were beautiful, took to themselves wives of all whom they chose. 3 And the Lord God said, My Spirit shall certainly not remain among these men for ever, because they are flesh, but their days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 4 Now the giants were upon the earth in those days; and after that when the sons of God were wont to go in to the daughters of men, they bore [children to them, those were the giants of old, the men of renown”.

    The traditional interpretation (Judaic and Christian) is that they were the offspring of Seth.
    The ‘angels’ are spiritual beings, body-less powers (mal’akh, ἄγγελος, angelus). Seraphim are the highest in the hierarchy, the closest to God.
    The interpretation of ‘sons of God’ as the ‘fallen angels’ was made in non-canonical writings.
    Jesus was speaking of ‘angels of God in heaven’ (ἄγγελοι Θεοῦ ἐν οὐρανῷ, angeli Dei in cælo).

    Go back to your Bible school.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    You're lying again, Seraphim. The "sons of Seth" gloss is not traditional, but a modern interpretation according to Ellicott's Commentary. And it's clearly wrong, as Seth was a son of adam, a man, which is distinctly contrasted with the sons of the Elohim deities in Gen. 6:2. Give it another try, as there are two other truly traditional interpretations.

    The funny part here is that Elohim is plural. Many deities there are. The KJV is deceitful about that, falsely interpreting a plural word into the singular form. That's completely dishonest translating. No wonder you like it.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. Malla says:
    @Malla
    Very interesting, Cronos is Saturn. Jews rest on Saturday (day of Saturn). The Tefillin (black box Jews mount on their head while praying) and black boxes in general represent Saturn. Jews tie the tefillin to the middle finger, the finger of Saturn. Jews have been accused of blood libel for ages.

    https://www.hebrewacademymiami.org/files/cache/b66044eb0db0fcfe736b7982bf581bc5_f2834.png

    The world is full of black cubes

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-KK3HRutEVSA/VZmhMo9UKVI/AAAAAAABOsA/y1AWQ217B2A/s1600/1ac140b8bf.jpg

    Even the meditation room in the United Nations HQ has a black cube

    http://www.eliteagenda.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Meditation-Room-UN.png

    UN MEDITATION ROOM (WIERD)

    Also in Lord of the Rings (J.R. Tolkien) and the Rings of Nibelungs (Richard Wagner), rings represent Money, Gold, power, control etc....
    Saturn has rings, Saturn (Souron, Satan) is the lord of the rings. Both Wagner and Tolkein warn us.

    Christianity on the other hand is connected to the Sun. Sun and Saturn are enemies. Chistmas is Yule, 25 Dec is the day the Sun is born again (Northern Hemisphere). For 3 days days from Dec 22 to Dec 24, the Sun is considered dead and lies in the vicinity of the constellation ‘Southern Crux’ or Southern Cross, December 25th (Winter Solstace) the sun is born again and we have longer days. Hence we have Jesus died on the cross for 3 days and was born again.

    Hence ‘Son of God’ is literally ‘SUN of GOD’ Jesus is the SUN, enemy of SATURN.
    Hence Christianity is a Sun based religion as against Judaism which is a Saturn based religion and are enemies.
    So is Shinto and Japan, hence we have the Sun on the Japanese flag. The most high diety of Shinto is the Sun goddess Amaterasu. The Japanese Imperial family (oldest continues royal family on Earth) is said to have descended from Emperor Jimmu who himself is said to have descended from the Sun Goddess Amaterasu.

    SUN GODDESS AMATERASU OMIKAMI

    Yule, the Northern European pagan festival held on 25th Dec before Christmas was imposed on it means ‘Wheel’. Wheel here represents the wheel of seasons.

    Northern European Pagan Wheel or Yule

    The concept of this Wheel or Chakra comes in Buddhism too as Buddha was a Scythian from Central Asia. The Scythians were closely related to the Northern Europeans celebrating Yule. This Buddhist wheel is found on the Indian National flag.
    BUDDHIST DHARMA WHEEL

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    If Christianity is connected solely [giggle] to the Sun, then why is the Spring Equinox holiday Easter governed by the Moon phases, causing it to be celebrated anywhere from March 22 to April 25?

    http://rdrdbiblestudy.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/RDRD-Bible-Study-When-Easter-Passover.jpg
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. pensword says:
    @cassandra

    There is not a single verse in The Qur’an that mandates capital punishment for apostasy, nor is there one example of The Prophet ever ordering an execution simply because a muslim decided not to be muslim anymore.
     
    Do I misunderstand Surah 4.89?
    "They wish that you reject Faith, as they have rejected Faith, and thus you become equal (like one another). So take not Auliya' (protectors or friends) from them, till they emigrate in the Way of Allah (to Muhammed). But if they turn back (from Islam), take (hold of) them and kill them wherever you find them, and take neither Auliya (protectors or friends) nor helpers from them."

    Granted not from the Quran, but here's Mohammed's policy expressed in Bukhari 9.84.57
    "Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"

    This looks close enough to execution or capital punishment where I wouldn't be inclined to quibble over the outcome were it directed at me. More to the point, I wouldn't like to see my community incorporating these injunctions in attitudes or laws.

    Do I misunderstand Surah 4.89?

    Yes, you do.

    But if they turn back (from Islam), take (hold of) them and kill them wherever you find them, and take neither Auliya (protectors or friends) nor helpers from them.

    The antecedent of “they” is “the hypocrites,” as mentioned in the preceding verse. The verb in the original Arabic is “tawallaw,” which does not translate as “turn back,” but rather, as “take over.” As such, it does not address simple apostasy, but rather, the hypocrites’ assumption of political authority.

    Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.

    Already addressed here.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. Ibn Issam says:
    @Seraphim
    Actually, the Muslims did not free the citizens of the Roman Empire from taxes. They took over the taxes for themselves. They liberated them from slavery because they were able to bring slaves from jihad.

    @ Seraphim

    ‘Actually, the Muslims did not free the citizens of the Roman Empire from taxes. They took over the taxes for themselves.

    Exactly, but at a much lower tax rate! The Jizyah was really a religious offer, to non-Muslims, of financial liberation and freedom from oppressive overbearing taxes of the Imperial Christian (or non-Muslim) state.

    They liberated them from slavery because they were able to bring slaves from jihad.

    Any slave who converted to Islam was freed, as a Muslim should not hold his own brother Muslim in slavery. Likewise, slaves who were captured in war, could also accept Islam and be freed. Slavery was a fact of life in that time, but unlike the Bible, the Qur’an established the means for its eventual demise, as purchasing slaves was no longer a wise financial investment.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bucky
    This low taxes argument is pretty weird. It relies on an assumption that Muslim rulers were simply...better? Than Christian rulers? Magically? The tax rate was what it was because of secular needs of the state. It is hard to see how Muslim rulers means magically lower taxes or better rule.

    Simply put, all empires are created by the sword, and Islam is no exception. To say otherwise is to engage in an Islamic exceptionalism and an Islamic chauvinism. Western scholars tend to exhibit the Christian trait of humility and xenophilia, and often act as gullible white knights for what is essentially Islamic propaganda. To put it in more contemporary terms...they are cucks.

    This isn’t to say that Islamic conquest was any more evil than other conquests throughout history.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. Malla says:
    @Mike P

    But the main issue is that Muslim terrorism has been a phenomena for damn near 50 years now and it affects my life in many indirect ways. In the 1990′s we were on our way towards small government sustainability — then 9/11 happened.
     
    9/11 was not "Muslim terror" but a Mossad/CIA co-production. See for example the excellent books by David Ray Griffin on the matter, right here on this site. Also the hard-hitting books by Christopher Bollyn. The influx of refugees cum terrorists into Western countries is also orchestrated by the same actors - see for example the recent evacuation of the terrorist "White Helmets" by Israel and their announced resettlement in various Western countries.

    Israel wants to rile up the people in the West against all Muslims. To this end, Israel acts as the main state sponsor of "Muslim terrorism," both real and fake.

    The Judeans are using the West as a weapon against the Islamic World via invasions and Muslims as weapons against the peoples of the West vis immigration. Hence the wierd ‘Invade the World, invite the World’ policy of Western Zio Regimes.

    Read More
    • Agree: Mike P
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. anonymous[774] • Disclaimer says:
    @Seraphim
    You are clever by half. Genesis 6:2 does not speak of angels (and the translation you use, either the
    Good News Translation, or the International Standard Version, is BS). Always use KJV.

    Genesis 6:2 says 'Sons of God' in all translations both from the 'Hebrew' Bible (bənê hāʼĕlōhîm) and Septuagint (υἱοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ ) and Vulgata (filii Dei).
    They were men:
    "And it came to pass when men began to be numerous upon the earth, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God having seen the daughters of men that they were beautiful, took to themselves wives of all whom they chose. 3 And the Lord God said, My Spirit shall certainly not remain among these men for ever, because they are flesh, but their days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 4 Now the giants were upon the earth in those days; and after that when the sons of God were wont to go in to the daughters of men, they bore [children to them, those were the giants of old, the men of renown".

    The traditional interpretation (Judaic and Christian) is that they were the offspring of Seth.
    The 'angels' are spiritual beings, body-less powers (mal’akh, ἄγγελος, angelus). Seraphim are the highest in the hierarchy, the closest to God.
    The interpretation of 'sons of God' as the 'fallen angels' was made in non-canonical writings.
    Jesus was speaking of 'angels of God in heaven' (ἄγγελοι Θεοῦ ἐν οὐρανῷ, angeli Dei in cælo).

    Go back to your Bible school.

    You’re lying again, Seraphim. The “sons of Seth” gloss is not traditional, but a modern interpretation according to Ellicott’s Commentary. And it’s clearly wrong, as Seth was a son of adam, a man, which is distinctly contrasted with the sons of the Elohim deities in Gen. 6:2. Give it another try, as there are two other truly traditional interpretations.

    The funny part here is that Elohim is plural. Many deities there are. The KJV is deceitful about that, falsely interpreting a plural word into the singular form. That’s completely dishonest translating. No wonder you like it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. Anonymous[211] • Disclaimer says:
    @Malla
    Christianity on the other hand is connected to the Sun. Sun and Saturn are enemies. Chistmas is Yule, 25 Dec is the day the Sun is born again (Northern Hemisphere). For 3 days days from Dec 22 to Dec 24, the Sun is considered dead and lies in the vicinity of the constellation 'Southern Crux' or Southern Cross, December 25th (Winter Solstace) the sun is born again and we have longer days. Hence we have Jesus died on the cross for 3 days and was born again.

    http://cornerofknowledge.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/3Days.jpg

    Hence 'Son of God' is literally 'SUN of GOD' Jesus is the SUN, enemy of SATURN.
    Hence Christianity is a Sun based religion as against Judaism which is a Saturn based religion and are enemies.
    So is Shinto and Japan, hence we have the Sun on the Japanese flag. The most high diety of Shinto is the Sun goddess Amaterasu. The Japanese Imperial family (oldest continues royal family on Earth) is said to have descended from Emperor Jimmu who himself is said to have descended from the Sun Goddess Amaterasu.

    http://www.mother-god.com/images/amaterasu-square.jpg

    SUN GODDESS AMATERASU OMIKAMI

    Yule, the Northern European pagan festival held on 25th Dec before Christmas was imposed on it means 'Wheel'. Wheel here represents the wheel of seasons.

    http://wiccanspells.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/The-Sabbats.jpg

    Northern European Pagan Wheel or Yule

    The concept of this Wheel or Chakra comes in Buddhism too as Buddha was a Scythian from Central Asia. The Scythians were closely related to the Northern Europeans celebrating Yule. This Buddhist wheel is found on the Indian National flag.

    https://buddhaweekly.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/DHARMA-wheel.jpg
    BUDDHIST DHARMA WHEEL

    If Christianity is connected solely [giggle] to the Sun, then why is the Spring Equinox holiday Easter governed by the Moon phases, causing it to be celebrated anywhere from March 22 to April 25?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Malla
    Easter might be an European pagan concept adopted by European Christianity. If I am not mistaken there is a European Goddess named Ēostre or Ostara, Goddess of spring and dawn. Anyways it may not solely be based on the Sun, but Jesus has a lot of similarities with the Sun.

    https://www.stellastarwoman.com/sites/default/files/field/image/blog_post/Winter%20Solstice%20-%20Sun%20on%20the%20Southern%20Cross.jpg

    As you can see, the three kings of the East are basically three stars of the Orion belt following Sirius (Star in the East), who point to the place of Sun rise (Birth if the Son/Sun) on December 25th in the Northern Hemisphere.

    There are many similarities in between the Sun on Dec 25th and the story of Christ's birth

    https://pics.me.me/december-december-25th-three-kings-of-orions-belt-sirius-star-9980043.png

    Also I wanted to add that the cross is cube (Saturn, time, Cronos) opened.

    https://i1.wp.com/testbook.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Cube-Unfolded.png?

    Hence through the cross, one conquers Saturn/Satan/Cronos/ time. Cronos/Saturn is the God of time hence the term 'chronology' related to time. Through Christ you conquer Judaism.

    Besides the Sun is not the only heavenly power related to Christianity. Christianity is also connected to Jupiter (Brihaspati), the planet of knowledge and an enemy of Saturn as well.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEuj4pw9JyM

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. Talha says:
    @bucky
    The reason for distrust of nuclear weapons being in the hands of Muslim countries is because of the phenomena of terrorism, and not just that but suicidal terrorism. You saying it is wrong etc is nice, but it still happened, and we have to deal with it.

    And it may be unfair, based on stereotypes, etc, but this is nuclear war. Any and all factors are in play in preventing it from happening.

    Nuclear proliferation increases the risk of nuclear conflict, thus. While these small wars are unfortunate, nuclear weapons are what has kept a WWIII from occurring and that scale is truly gigantic.

    And the US dropped two bombs on a non-nuclear capable foe. And your concerns simply dismiss a regime like North Korea who can be negotiated with but apparently Muslims cannot. Pakistan is in no rush to hand over its nuclear weapons to any terrorists and they are some of the most secure facilities and arms in the country.

    In fact, we – the US – still have a first-strike policy:

    https://www.armscontrol.org/blog/2017-11-15/us-should-adopt-no-first-use-nuclear-launch-policy

    Any and all factors are in play in preventing it from happening.

    So let’s remove all factors at play such that we are completely free from this fear; full and universal nuclear disarmament.

    Look, we can do this all day, but unless non-Muslim nations are willing to come to the table and speak to Muslim nations like peers, all of this will be seen and posturing and hypocrisy.

    While these small wars are unfortunate

    That’s easy to say when your cities aren’t swiss-cheese waste lands and hundreds of thousands of your citizens haven’t been killed. We keep on attacking and destroying countries that have not attacked us – the list keeps growing and now it might be Iran next.

    Why wouldn’t every country in the Muslim world want to get a deterrence capability?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bucky
    Pakistan a few years back saw a tolerant politician murdered by his own body guard for opposing a blasphemy law. And that blasphemy was is basically a tool for oppressing religious minorities.

    And let’s not forget the 2008 Mumbai attacks.

    Or that Bin Laden was sitting secure in Pakistan for damn near a decade?

    There is a reason why the Pentagon views Pakistan so suspiciously on nuclear weapons. North Korea as well has issues, and I do not like their having nuclear weapons, as they have a record of encouraging proliferation, but when was the last time that NK citizens did a Mumbai? And there is a danger that NK could use nuclear weapons to force a unification on their terms.

    Proliferation increases the real risk of nuclear war, and thus nuclear fallout effects on the environment.

    The sheer number of suicide operations by Muslim militants does make you wonder to what degree does MAD act as a deterrent. And the fanaticism and intolerance on display—Ahok in Indonesia being imprisoned for “blasphemy” makes you question their rational decision abilities.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. @James N. Kennett

    They all seem to be false flags or hoaxes, frankly. Just like the stuff you mention in France further down. It’s all fake news.
     
    This is not the USA, where the FBI will find a fantasist, get him to press a button that supposedly detonates a bomb, and then throw him in the slammer for 400 years. The attacks are real.

    So the meme is being put out there. The mean streets of Malmo. Oy vey.

    ...

    I have no doubt that there are some problems in Sweden, but frankly, for me, the “mean streets of Malmo” narrative does not withstand the proverbial laugh test.

     

    This is what I would have said 20 years ago (without the "Oy vey"). Malmo was one of the safest cities in the world. What you don't realise is how quickly things can change.

    In 2016 a Birmingham (UK) family visited relatives in Sweden, and during their visit one of their children was killed in a grenade attack. 20 years ago this story would not only have failed the laugh test, it would have generated a parsing error. What has changed is that all the people involved, both families as well as the attackers, are of Somali origin; and grenade attacks are the preferred method of dispute resolution among Somalis in Sweden.

    https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/yuusuf-warsame-grenade-attack-death-11953145

    Go ahead, laugh. Ridicule me in Yiddish if that is your thing. It is your privilege to be unteachable and to repeat the mistakes that other countries have made.

    I posed two questions to you:

    1. Where does this figure of Malmo being 43% Muslim come from?

    2. Have you yourself ever been in Sweden?

    These are very straightforward questions. If there is to be any pretense that this is an honest, good-faithed discussion, you really must answer the above questions.

    It is your privilege to be unteachable and to repeat the mistakes that other countries have made.

    Well, I’m quite willing to be taught what Sweden is like. I admit openly that I have never been there myself. However, I decline to be educated about the topic of Sweden by someone who has never set foot there. That is why I posed the question.

    Well, I assume you never have been in Sweden. The fact that you dodge the question says as much.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James N. Kennett

    I posed two questions to you:
    1. Where does this figure of Malmo being 43% Muslim come from?
    2. Have you yourself ever been in Sweden?
     
    1. The figure of 43% is a mistake. Multiple sources suggest a figure of 20%. You will note, however, that this strengthens rather than weakens my argument, because it implies that a given level of criminality occurs with a lower percentage of Muslims!

    2. No, I haven't been in Sweden.

    It is possible to observe problems in a remote country through reports of homicide. Lesser crimes can be covered up, or invented from thin air. However, when there is a string of homicides, it is likely to be accompanied by a multitude of lesser crimes. Homicide is the observable tip of an unquantifiable iceberg.

    For this reason, and also because you believe that


    If there is to be any pretense that this is an honest, good-faithed discussion, you really must answer the above questions.

     

    I would like to ask you what is the evidence for your assertion that all Islamist attacks in Britain and France are "fake news" - either "false flags" or "hoaxes"? You said

    They all seem to be false flags or hoaxes, frankly. Just like the stuff you mention in France further down. It’s all fake news.

     

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. Talha says:
    @Seraphim
    He is not 'unduly' harsh on Heraclius. He follows the Arab hagiography of the wars, with all its literary tropes and exagerations. He relies only on Arab sources, far later than the events, which give fantastic numbers of troops engaged in the battle. 140,000 Byzantines against 30,000. How could such a weak force defeat such an enormous army if not due to the exceptional warrior skills off the Rashidun, the genius of Muslim commander, the ineptitude of Byzantine generals, the decadence of the Byzantine Empire and the will of Allah?
    The truth is as always much more prosaic. Contemporary sources talk only of an army of 70,000, even 40,000 defeated in an ambush, by an army of about the same size. The 'ineptitude' of the generals was actually treason, some Roman soldiers proclaiming one of their generals, Baanes/Vahan (a Monophysite Armenian), as emperor and of Jabalah Ibn Al-Aiham, the last ruler of the Ghassanid state (Christian Arabs, vassals of the Empire) in Syria and Jordan in the 7th century AD. Some sources suggest an outbreak of plague, which was raging at the time in Syria.

    He relies only on Arab sources, far later than the events, which give fantastic numbers of troops engaged in the battle.

    Nope – I’m actually taking into account the estimates of modern historians. This is a good account of the Battle of Yarmouk and estimates a very reasonable 40,000 Byzantine force against a 25,000 Rashidun force:

    Classic strategy of how to use light cavalry against heavy cataphracts for maximum results.

    Peace.

    Note: For people interested in this subject from academic sources I highly recommend the works of PRof. David Nicolle who is a great military historian on the subject of the Muslim conquests. Specifically this one:

    https://www.amazon.com/Islamic-Conquests-632-750-Essential-Histories/dp/1846032733/

    And also this specific book he wrote just concentrating on the Battle of Yarmouk:

    https://www.amazon.com/Yarmuk-AD-636-conquest-Campaign/dp/1855324148/

    Another great book is by Prof. Robert Hoyland, an expert on contemporaneous non-Muslim texts of the era:

    https://www.amazon.com/Gods-Path-Conquests-Creation-Civilization-ebook/dp/B00L4CK12A/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ibn Issam
    Talha,
    I commend you for your efforts at working to present an honest and more accurate understanding of Islam and Muslim history, perspectives, beliefs, etc. to others. Your informative comments are always well balanced, fair, polite, educative, and very interesting to read. I encourage you to continue as I am sure you are having a positive effect.

    If we want to diminish the effects of Islamophobia (the subject of Isaacs article) then we Muslims, and other friends who are fair minded, honest and truthful individuals must step up to the plate and do our best to present the facts which will help others to see through the Islamophobia Industry's campaign of mistruths, half-truths, smears, slanders, distortions, lies and deception.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  201. Ibn Issam says:
    @cassandra

    There is not a single verse in The Qur’an that mandates capital punishment for apostasy, nor is there one example of The Prophet ever ordering an execution simply because a muslim decided not to be muslim anymore.
     
    Do I misunderstand Surah 4.89?
    "They wish that you reject Faith, as they have rejected Faith, and thus you become equal (like one another). So take not Auliya' (protectors or friends) from them, till they emigrate in the Way of Allah (to Muhammed). But if they turn back (from Islam), take (hold of) them and kill them wherever you find them, and take neither Auliya (protectors or friends) nor helpers from them."

    Granted not from the Quran, but here's Mohammed's policy expressed in Bukhari 9.84.57
    "Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"

    This looks close enough to execution or capital punishment where I wouldn't be inclined to quibble over the outcome were it directed at me. More to the point, I wouldn't like to see my community incorporating these injunctions in attitudes or laws.

    Bukhari 9.84.57

    Ali Ibn Abi Talib Did Not Burn Apostates Alive – Historical Analysis

    https://discover-the-truth.com/2017/03/11/ali-ibn-abi-talib-did-not-burn-apostates-alive-historical-analysis/

    Read More
    • Replies: @cassandra

    "Ali Ibn Abi Talib Did Not Burn Apostates Alive"
     
    You've misdirected off point: The issue I addressed is whether apostates should be executed, not how. Bukhari 9.84.57 says

    I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah’s Apostle, ‘Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'
     
    That is the second of my two counterexamples to Talha's statement:

    There is not a single verse in The Qur’an that mandates capital punishment for apostasy, nor is there one example of The Prophet ever ordering an execution simply because a muslim decided not to be muslim anymore.
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. Ibn Issam says:
    @Talha

    He relies only on Arab sources, far later than the events, which give fantastic numbers of troops engaged in the battle.
     
    Nope - I'm actually taking into account the estimates of modern historians. This is a good account of the Battle of Yarmouk and estimates a very reasonable 40,000 Byzantine force against a 25,000 Rashidun force:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ct4OSmdZ3M

    Classic strategy of how to use light cavalry against heavy cataphracts for maximum results.

    Peace.

    Note: For people interested in this subject from academic sources I highly recommend the works of PRof. David Nicolle who is a great military historian on the subject of the Muslim conquests. Specifically this one:
    https://www.amazon.com/Islamic-Conquests-632-750-Essential-Histories/dp/1846032733/

    And also this specific book he wrote just concentrating on the Battle of Yarmouk:
    https://www.amazon.com/Yarmuk-AD-636-conquest-Campaign/dp/1855324148/

    Another great book is by Prof. Robert Hoyland, an expert on contemporaneous non-Muslim texts of the era:
    https://www.amazon.com/Gods-Path-Conquests-Creation-Civilization-ebook/dp/B00L4CK12A/

    Talha,
    I commend you for your efforts at working to present an honest and more accurate understanding of Islam and Muslim history, perspectives, beliefs, etc. to others. Your informative comments are always well balanced, fair, polite, educative, and very interesting to read. I encourage you to continue as I am sure you are having a positive effect.

    If we want to diminish the effects of Islamophobia (the subject of Isaacs article) then we Muslims, and other friends who are fair minded, honest and truthful individuals must step up to the plate and do our best to present the facts which will help others to see through the Islamophobia Industry’s campaign of mistruths, half-truths, smears, slanders, distortions, lies and deception.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Salaam bro and thanks.

    I consulted with one of my teachers about this and he gave me the go ahead so, here I am. I think the best approach is to be reasonable and just explain things as they are. Some people will like what we have to say and others will hate it. As Dr. Shadee Elmasry said in the video (and as my teachers have taught me), the point is not to make people like us - the point is to present the tradition as it has been handed down to us and let the chips fall where they may.

    Some people will hate us and Islam - and that's OK (nothing new about this) - as long as they hate it according to what it actually says, not some straw man that only exists in their mind.

    Keep me in your prayers this Friday.

    Also, good reference for that website - it has a lot of great info - jazakAllahu khair.

    Wa salaam.
    , @attilathehen
    " Islamophobia Industry’s campaign of mistruths, half-truths, smears, slanders, distortions, lies and deception." Islam is a campaign of mistruths, half-truths, smears, slanders, distortions, lies and deception. It is an evil Christian heresy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  203. Anonymous[158] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ibn Issam
    Like the citizens of the Persian Empire, the citizens of the Byzantine Empire were overburdened with heavy taxes which consumed a large percentage of their individual wealth. The status of most people in the Byzantine empire was that of being extremely overtaxed, underpaid, or even slavery. When the Muslims arrived they offered a much lower tax of 2.5% for those who converted to Islam, or offered the Jizyah tax rate of 5-10% (and exemption from military service) to those who preferred to remain in their own faith tradition. Many entered into Islam, not only because of the economic feasibility of the situation but also because, they held Unitarian beliefs (similar to Islamic Unitarian beliefs) that had been forbidden by the Byzantine Church.

    It is easy to repeat the false accusation that Islam was “Spread by the sword” but the reality is that Islam spread so quickly because it was not only a religious belief that agreed with many non-Muslims to begin with, but because it was also a social justice movement that liberated people from the tyranny of oppression, burdensome taxes, slavery, etc.

    If Americans and westerners were offered the incredible opportunity to lower their tax rate from 33-40% (or more) of their salary to either only paying 2.5% in taxes by converting to Islam, or to only 5-10% tax rate while keeping their faith, taking advantage of military exemption by paying Jizyah……I am sure many would jump at such an opportunity even today!

    I, For One, Welcome Our New Muslim Overlords.

    1. Lower taxes!
    2. Make Woman Amish Again! (MWAA.ha.ha.ha!)
    3. No more shaving in the morning with Amish beards!
    4. Toss Milo off the roof!
    5. Throw the Jew down the well, so our country can be free!

    What’s not to like?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ibn Issam
    Items 2-5 are from your own misperceptions, not from Islam.

    "Overlords"?

    I think Muslims would settle for being treated in a fair and equitable way, and just living their lives in peace.
    , @Malla
    You forget more good points of Islamic rule

    1] Banning of usury or riba. All those elite Joo banker pigs will be thrown off the top of buildings for looting people for so many years. Tearing down of the federal reserve/Bank of England/Central banks and the use of gold/silver coins instead of scammy paper currency or digital currency. No more inflation or Jew 'financial instruments'.
    2] Ugly feminist bitches will be put in burkha.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  204. Ibn Issam says:

    I highly recommend the following website which endeavors to help alleviate the confusion about Islam by publish well researched articles that address in depth and in great detail many of the misunderstandings, accusations, ideological, polemical, and bigoted attacks that are often made against it.

    https://discover-the-truth.com/2014/11/08/about/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  205. @Colin Wright
    '...Maybe Sweden is really a terrifying place. Have you ever been there?'

    In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king...

    I have been to Sweden -- albeit only for three days. On the other hand, while I am definitely opposed to 'come one, come all,' diversity, and all the rest of it, I have to admit that from what I saw in Stockholm, it all seemed to be working rather well. I was a little chagrined to see that, but there it was.

    Perhaps the nativist right should focus on France or Germany, better?

    I have to admit that from what I saw in Stockholm, it all seemed to be working rather well. I was a little chagrined to see that…

    You were chagrined to see that things seemed to be working rather well…. That’s an interesting statement. LOL!

    Regarding Malmo, Sweden specifically, I came across a discussion on a Tripadvisor forum where some American Jewish guy is querying whether it is safe to go to Malmo. “I hear the place is full of evil antisemites, oy vey.” Look here:

    https://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowTopic-g189839-i1558-k3299563-o10-Islamic_Gangs_in_Malmo-Malmo_Skane_County.html

    The above goes straight to the second page of comments because I found, in particular the exchange there quite comical. You see, various people who answered this guy actually live in Malmo! So, like the commenter in #11 says simply:

    I live in Malmö (central) and have never seen anything like what you are talking about.

    and then some guy in #12 says:

    Common knowledge from newspapers and TV.

    I mean to say, the guy in #11 is saying: “I live there” and somebody responds that all these problems that the guy who lives there has never seen are “common knowledge from newspapers and TV”, i.e. “What do you know? You just live there!”

    And then another guy in #13 pipes in and says:

    I am sorry, is this a joke?? I live in Sweden and haven´´t even heard of it.

    And then the same guy #14 comes back and says:

    It has been extensively reported on Swedish TV and newspapers for the past few weeks.

    Of course, the guy doesn’t provide any links to what he’s talking about. You can only imagine which newspapers the guy reads. But really, you have to be a special kind of idiot to be lecturing people about what a disaster zone Malmo is when the people you’re lecturing actually live there! (And you have never even been there yourself!) You know better because you saw something on TV!

    And then the next person who pipes in, in #15 says:

    I’m visiting Malmo and have done a fair bit of research into the area. I’ve not hear anything about this. I certainly feel no hesitation to visit the area.

    And there are other comments there from people with direct experience of the place. Now, granted, the above thread is from back in 2010, so maybe there has been some radical deterioration of the situation, but I kinda doubt it frankly. I doubt that Malmo is that different now from what is was eight years ago. What this mostly tells you is that whoever has been putting out these memes have been at it for a while.

    Perhaps the nativist right should focus on France or Germany, better?

    Well, if the point of said “focus” is to show that France and/or Germany is some sort of Mad Max dystopia, the results of any investigation, an honest one anyway, won’t be terribly different from looking at Sweden. I don’t think so. From the perspective of anybody from the USA, there is no place in those countries that is very scary.

    I myself live in Spain. A friend of mine is half German on his Mom’s side, grew up speaking German at home as well as Spanish. Last year, not long after I wrote my sarcastic “the Muslim Rape Army is coming to Getcha…” article, he told me that he had gone to a party (here in Spain) full of German people and was asking people about all this sort of stuff. You know, if you read the right-wing press (as well as some of the writers here like Sailer and Derbyshire) you would think that white girls in Germany are getting raped right, left, and center.

    He asked various people at the party about this, people who live in various places in Germany. The long and short of it is this: They did not know WTF he was talking about! Women there would typically reply: “What? I live in X city and it’s totally safe. I go everywhere any time of the night and there is no danger.”

    But then again, what do these people know? They just live there!

    Now, to be clear, there are perfectly logical reasons to be opposed to large amounts of immigration — of Muslims or anybody else. All I’ve said whenever the topic comes up is that the anti-immigration case should be made honestly. What you see on sites like this is where people get so emotionally attached to these narratives about how white girls in Germany or Sweden are getting raped right, left, and center by the swarthy savages and… you know, though there are surely some cases here and there, just by the laws of large numbers, it is really outrageously exaggerated. In particular, when the people who actually live in these places know how overblown all this storytelling is, then all the anti-immigration people are doing is maneuvering themselves into a position where most ordinary middle-of-the-road people would classify them as a bunch of kooks.

    And, frankly, the position of the people who get so committed to these narratives gets increasingly nutty. I, no advocate of mass immigration, have pointed out at times that all this stuff about the “Muslim rape army” is really overblown nonsense and a lot of these things are just synthetic events, never happened. That is clear enough actually. But then, you tell people this and they get utterly enraged and repeat angrily these stories….

    Well, the deeper problem is that highly ideological people — whether on the left or the right — by and large, it’s easy to play them like a fiddle.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ibn Issam
    Johnathan - There is certainly a lot of fake news and misinformation out there today, especially whenever Islam is mentioned... I appreciate your honesty in trying to set the record straight.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  206. Malla says:
    @Anonymous
    If Christianity is connected solely [giggle] to the Sun, then why is the Spring Equinox holiday Easter governed by the Moon phases, causing it to be celebrated anywhere from March 22 to April 25?

    http://rdrdbiblestudy.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/RDRD-Bible-Study-When-Easter-Passover.jpg

    Easter might be an European pagan concept adopted by European Christianity. If I am not mistaken there is a European Goddess named Ēostre or Ostara, Goddess of spring and dawn. Anyways it may not solely be based on the Sun, but Jesus has a lot of similarities with the Sun.

    As you can see, the three kings of the East are basically three stars of the Orion belt following Sirius (Star in the East), who point to the place of Sun rise (Birth if the Son/Sun) on December 25th in the Northern Hemisphere.

    There are many similarities in between the Sun on Dec 25th and the story of Christ’s birth

    Also I wanted to add that the cross is cube (Saturn, time, Cronos) opened.

    https://i1.wp.com/testbook.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Cube-Unfolded.png?

    Hence through the cross, one conquers Saturn/Satan/Cronos/ time. Cronos/Saturn is the God of time hence the term ‘chronology’ related to time. Through Christ you conquer Judaism.

    Besides the Sun is not the only heavenly power related to Christianity. Christianity is also connected to Jupiter (Brihaspati), the planet of knowledge and an enemy of Saturn as well.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  207. Ibn Issam says:
    @cassandra
    A few easily verifiable points, in Google, about Islamic current events and modern history.

    Pew research polls indicate that supporters of Islamic extremist policies aren’t a “tiny minority” at all, but around 10-30% of the Muslim population, depending on which specific issues are queried of which population. The number of remaining moderate Muslims is irrelevant since they’re not a problem, and don't have much political influence anyway.

    The Explanatory Memorandum has been mentioned above. It was accidentally discovered in 2004 in a basement in Virginia during the FBI's investigation of the Holy Land Foundation. The document outlines the Muslim Brotherhood’s Plans for America, as of late 1980’s.

    In part, the Explanatory Memorandum reads, “The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

    The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928, by Hassan al-Banna, Tariq Ramadan’s grandpere. Wikipedia: “The Brotherhood's stated goal is to instill the Quran and the Sunnah as the "sole reference point for ... ordering the life of the Muslim family, individual, community ... and STATE". (Emphasis mine). In 1964, Sayyid al-Qutb laid out the Muslim Brotherhood’s stategy in the guide Milestones (downloadable pdf). The Milestones are the stages in a plan for restoring Islamic ascendancy over the West. A thrilling read.

    The Council on American Islamic Relations was indicted as a co-conspirator in the Holy Land trial. CAIR and ISNA (Islamic Society of North America) are mainstream Islamic organizations, representing not only a lobbysists, but providing cabinet-level and security advisors. An interesting place to start is by investigating DHS-appointed Mohamed Elibiary, his antics and connections. He appointed Hillary’s Saudi assistant Huma Abedeen, who once associate-edited the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, run by her parents, still run by her mother. Their political viewpoints make interesting reading.

    In November 2011, John Brennan acceded to the wishes of CAIR and purged specific references to Islam from anti-terrorist training in our security agencies. (Coincidentally, I’m sure, Hillary Clinton was given a $500,000 personal gift of jewelry by the Saudi king in early 2012.) Philip Haney and Stephen Dougherty are two former agents who have discussed the foolishness of this purge. The slides "DHS CRCL CVE Training - Dos and Donts" now show that trainers who are Muslim reformers or "get in the weeds" of history should be avoided.

    There are sporadic but reliable reports of Imam’s touting how Islam will take over Europe via faster breeding, and how constitutions will be changed to Sharia once there is a demographic majority. Denmark’s recent program to investigate what’s being preached in mosques is one specific source for these revelations. Englishman Anjem Choudary was a frequent British commentator on this plan, though he’s been quiet since his imprisonment. His youtube videos cheerfully explain how wonderful this will be.

    All this is delightful if you’re someone who hopes to eventually see a Sharia system imposed by political activity. On the other hand, if you support the limitations imposed on our government by the Bill of Rights, and would prefer Western political rules over Sharia law, maybe not so much. For you, abhorrence isn’t phobic, just sane.

    The problem is that Islam is a religion with a side-program to subdue me politically and to bring me under Sharia law. Simply asserting my political rights thus becomes an act of self-defense. If a doctrine extends its tentacles into the arena of public politics, it must expect resistance, and even offense, from those who disagree. I’d feel no different about Libertarians. Many are fine individuals, but I oppose Libertarian politics for its naïvete (a separate debate), in the same way that I oppose Islamic politics for its barbarism. If you don't want me to critique your religious system, you must separate it from your politics.

    “Do not weep like a woman for what you could not defend like a man.”
     

    Many of the points in your comment were addressed by Isaacs in his article. Did you read the article? Regurgitating the same old accusations does not make them true.

    There are Evangelical, and Fundamentalist Christian groups that bring their religious beliefs into politics, (Fallwell’s “Moral Majority;” Evangelical lobby; etc.) Most American politicians are by default Christian. Other groups on the Christian Right engage in politics with the professed aim to establish a Christian theocracy based on Biblical Law. Such Christian extremist groups condemn Muslim extremism as a threat to the country and their way of life, while clearly endorsing their own form of spiritual warfare and extreme religious authoritarianism.

    It’s Time to Start Calling Evangelicals What They Are……..

    https://medium.com/@jcweatherby_49412/its-time-to-start-calling-evangelicals-what-they-are-the-american-taliban-4a41731296e4

    Of course there are many moderate and liberal Christians who care more about specific issues rather than voting strictly along religious lines. However, speaking exclusively about threats from religion, I think the Christian Right is a more direct threat to Secular Governments in the West than any non-existent shariah law bogey-man. If fundamentalist Christians with their greater numbers, money, and influence cannot achieve a theocracy in the modern West until now, what makes you think that a minority group of Muslims would fair any better?

    While you are busy fear mongering and quivering in the corner afraid of the non-existent long shot threat of Muslims taking over the government, numerous other religious based organizations already seem to have achieved that aim. But you don’t seem to be up in arms about that.

    They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel’s Lobby- by Pau Findley

    https://www.google.com/search?q=they+dare+to+speak+out&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&gws_rd=ssl&safe=active

    AIPAC Returns to Washington Who is interfering with American democracy? Philip Giraldi

    http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/aipac-returns-to-washington/

    The Yellow Peril Comes to Washington Following the Israeli model? Philip Giraldi

    http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/the-yellow-peril-comes-to-washington/

    If you are scared of Muslim babies and worried about an alleged “demographic threat” then start having more children of your own. I have attended numerous Masjids all my life and have never heard any Imams preaching that we Muslims should have as many babies as possible in order to “take over the world.” It just sounds paranoid and laughable. Would Muslims love to live in a Muslim majority world? Sure why wouldn’t we? But wouldn’t any Christian wish the same for himself and his religion, or wouldn’t any religious person wish the same for his religion? It’s all just wishful thinking. No need to freak out about it.

    Anjem Choudary

    Anjem Choudary was an agent provocateur and an embarrassment.

    Like you, some Muslims are simply exercising their political right to peacefully participate and engage in a political process, and that is not a crime the last time I checked. Feel free to exercise your political rights all you like, and we Muslims will endeavor to do the same. It only takes a little bit of mutual understanding and respect to live together in peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Malla
    Anjem Choudary is a MI5 agent.
    , @cassandra

    Many of the points in your comment were addressed by Isaacs in his article. Did you read the article?
     
    I did. There were so many unsupported assertions that it read more like a credo written to believers in Islamophobia than to its sceptics. Isaacs studiously avoided confronting sincere concerns directly, but attempted to dismiss them instead. I would have been interested in hearing serious arguments, but the author gives the impression of trying to hide the weakness of his arguments behind a smokescreen of innuendo. This behavior made me even more sceptical of his position.

    Discussions of articles with this approach, where assertions outweigh evidence so heavily, usually devolve into “Yes he did! No he didn’t!” exchanges. To stop the food fight, it’s best to go back to original reports that pertain to the conflict to resolve disagreements. That's exactly why I provided the search topics, because the reader is better off going back and checking the stories themselves than trying to make sense of a poorly-reasoned article.

    Isaacs suggests that Gaffney, Spencer and Geller should be ignored, because of their interpretation of the Explanatory Memorandum. These people and others regard the circumstantial evidence surrounding this document strong enough for it to be taken seriously as representing Ikhwan (Brotherhood) views. Isaacs doesn’t. His refutation should have offered an argument for giving author Akram’s comments an interpretation different from its face value. Instead, he just regurgitated opinions of his cohorts, and provided nothing directly germaine to the Memorandum controversy.

    Regarding a couple of your other points:

    While you are busy fear mongering and quivering in the corner afraid of the non-existent long shot threat of Muslims taking over the government, numerous other religious based organizations already seem to have achieved that aim. But you don’t seem to be up in arms about that.
     
    No need to go off topic: you may rest assured I've been quivering over a whole plethora of concerns, though I admit I do sometimes escape my corner. I try to be an equal-opportunity fearmonger as well, though that generally takes more effort than I care to expend.

    Anjem Choudary was an agent provocateur and an embarrassment.

     

    I'd be very interested in evidence that he had extracurricular interests, apart from Islam, that is. (The list of whom he embarrassed is probably too long to discuss in a single blog.)

    Like you, some Muslims are simply exercising their political right to peacefully participate and engage in a political process, and that is not a crime the last time I checked.
     
    I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment, but sadly, some others are overcome by enthusiasm. Libertarians "are simply exercising their political right to peacefully participate and engage in a political process" too, but critics who draw derogatory cartoons of Murray Rothbard don't face physical danger. The same can't be said for Islam.

    At the very beginning, Isaacs asserted that Islamophobia was based on provable falsehoods. I wish he would have provided some. The best he came up with was that some evidence suggesting Islamic perfidy isn't airtight, which might be a critique with which to start a discussion, but is hardly a counterargument.

    Theo Van Gogh and editors of Charlie Hebdo might have something to say about that, had they not been murdered. Salman Rushdie, Ali Hirsan Ali, Geert Widers, Ibn Warraq, whatever you may think of their views, all require security guards for their survival. When political art and action, no matter how controversial, become life-threatening occupations, we should all be examining who is creating the threat. That's not phobic.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  208. Bucky says:
    @Talha
    And the US dropped two bombs on a non-nuclear capable foe. And your concerns simply dismiss a regime like North Korea who can be negotiated with but apparently Muslims cannot. Pakistan is in no rush to hand over its nuclear weapons to any terrorists and they are some of the most secure facilities and arms in the country.

    In fact, we - the US - still have a first-strike policy:
    https://www.armscontrol.org/blog/2017-11-15/us-should-adopt-no-first-use-nuclear-launch-policy

    Any and all factors are in play in preventing it from happening.
     
    So let's remove all factors at play such that we are completely free from this fear; full and universal nuclear disarmament.

    Look, we can do this all day, but unless non-Muslim nations are willing to come to the table and speak to Muslim nations like peers, all of this will be seen and posturing and hypocrisy.

    While these small wars are unfortunate
     
    That's easy to say when your cities aren't swiss-cheese waste lands and hundreds of thousands of your citizens haven't been killed. We keep on attacking and destroying countries that have not attacked us - the list keeps growing and now it might be Iran next.

    Why wouldn't every country in the Muslim world want to get a deterrence capability?

    Pakistan a few years back saw a tolerant politician murdered by his own body guard for opposing a blasphemy law. And that blasphemy was is basically a tool for oppressing religious minorities.

    And let’s not forget the 2008 Mumbai attacks.

    Or that Bin Laden was sitting secure in Pakistan for damn near a decade?

    There is a reason why the Pentagon views Pakistan so suspiciously on nuclear weapons. North Korea as well has issues, and I do not like their having nuclear weapons, as they have a record of encouraging proliferation, but when was the last time that NK citizens did a Mumbai? And there is a danger that NK could use nuclear weapons to force a unification on their terms.

    Proliferation increases the real risk of nuclear war, and thus nuclear fallout effects on the environment.

    The sheer number of suicide operations by Muslim militants does make you wonder to what degree does MAD act as a deterrent. And the fanaticism and intolerance on display—Ahok in Indonesia being imprisoned for “blasphemy” makes you question their rational decision abilities.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha

    by his own body guard for opposing a blasphemy law
     
    And the guard was executed for committing murder - why didn't the news media report that?

    Or that Bin Laden was sitting secure in Pakistan for damn near a decade?
     
    Have they concluded that Pakistan security knew where he was? You also know that Cuban terrorists have lived in Miami for years without any hassle, right? Our government knows where they are, but they were useful against Castro so...

    Proliferation increases the real risk of nuclear war, and thus nuclear fallout e