The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPat Buchanan Archive
The Forever War?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

On May 22, Salman Abedi, 22, waiting at the entrance of the Arianna Grande pop concert in Manchester, blew himself up, killing almost two dozen people, among them parents waiting to pick up their children.

Saturday, three Islamic terrorists committed “suicide-by-cop,” using a van to run down pedestrians on London Bridge, and then slashing and stabbing patrons of pubs and diners in the nearby Borough Market.

By all accounts, the killers bore no special grudge against those they murdered. They appear not even to have known their victims.

Why, then, did they kill these strangers, and themselves?

A BBC eyewitness suggests a motive: “They shouted, ‘This is for Allah’, as they stabbed indiscriminately.”

The murderers were Muslims. The rationale for their crimes lies in the belief that their bloody deeds would inscribe them in a book of martyrs, and Allah would reward them with instant ascension into the paradise that awaits all good Muslims.

Ideas have consequences. And where might these crazed killers have gotten an idea like that?

Is there a strain of Islam, the basis of which can be found in the Quran, that would justify what the murderers did at London Bridge?

On Palm Sunday, an explosion in Tanta, 56 miles north of Cairo, killed 29 and injured 71 Copts as they prayed at the Mar Girgis church. A second blast at a church in Alexandria killed 18 and wounded 35.

On May 26, masked gunmen stopped two buses carrying Coptic Christians to Saint Samuel the Confessor Monastery in Egypt, and opened fire, killing 26 and wounding 25.

“I call on Egyptians to unite in the face of this brutal terrorism,” said Ahmed el-Tayeb, the grand imam of al-Azhar, Egypt’s 1,000-year-old center of Islamic learning.

Yet, years of such atrocities have effected a near-complete cleansing of Christianity from its cradle provinces in the Holy Land.

If these persecutors and killers of Christians are apostates to Islam, headed to hell for their savageries, why have not all the imams of the world, Shiite and Sunni, risen together to condemn them as heretics?

Clearly, from the suicide bombings and shootings of civilians in the Middle East, now across the West, there is a belief among some Muslims that what the killers are doing is moral and meritorious — taking the martyr’s path to salvation.

When have the imams of Saudi Arabia, the Middle East, and West ever stood as one to condemn all such acts as against the tenets of Islam?

In condemning the London Bridge attack, Prime Minister Theresa May said that recent atrocities across England were “bound together by the single evil ideology of Islamist extremism.”

Correct. There is an extremist school of Islam that needs to be purged from the West, even as this school of fanatics is seeking to purge Christianity from the East.

We are at war. And the imams of Islam need to answer the question: “Whose side are you on?”

Are honor killings of girls and women caught in adultery justified? Are lashings and executions of Christian converts justified?

Do people who hold such beliefs really belong in the United States or in the West during this long war with Islamist extremism?

Other questions need answering as well.

ORDER IT NOW

Is our commitment to diversity broad enough to embrace people with Islamist beliefs? Is our First Amendment freedom of speech and of religion extensive enough to cover the sermons of imams who use mosques to preach in favor of expelling Christians from the Middle East and an eventual takeover of the West for an Islam where Sharia replaces constitutional law?

Are such Islamist beliefs not intolerable and perilous for our republic?

Clearly, the West is in a civilizational struggle, with the outcome in some doubt.

Four years after Pearl Harbor, the Japanese empire had ceased to exist. Japan was smoldering ruins, its navy at the bottom of the Pacific. An American proconsul, Douglas MacArthur, was dictating to the Japanese from the Dai-Ichi building.
Today we are in the 16th year of a war begun on 9/11. We are mired down in Libya, Syria, Iraq and Yemen. Our victory in Afghanistan is being reversed by the Taliban.

While the ISIS caliphate is being eradicated in Raqqa and Mosul, its elements are in two dozen countries of the Mideast. Muslim migrants and refugees, ISIS and al-Qaida among them, are moving into Europe.

Terrorist attacks in the West grow in number and lethality every year. The new normal. Now, second-generation Muslims within Europe seem to be converting to a violent version of Islam.

To fight them, we are being forced to circumscribe our sovereignty and empower police and intelligence agencies of which free men were once taught to be wary.

Wars, it is said, are the death of republics. And we now seem to be caught up in an endless war.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”

Copyright 2017 Creators.com.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: ISIS, Islam, Terrorism 
Hide 168 CommentsLeave a Comment
168 Comments to "The Forever War?"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. See it this way. Terrorists are doing the job white patriots won’t do.

    What did it take Vietnamese to kick out the foreigners? Terror against collaborators and invaders.

    What did it take Algerians to kick out the foreigners? Terror against collaborators and invaders.

    UK should be filled with Brit Cong. They should be using ‘any means necessary’ to deal with collaborators and invaders. But they are addicted to globopium of hedonism, debauchery, and mammon. They are so addicted to fun, homo-decadence, and afro-jive — the culture went from the Twist to the Twerk — that they won’t come to their senses.

    So, it seems the ONLY EFFECTIVE fight against globalism is coming from the Muslims. This is ironic since it was globalism that made it possible for Muslims to end up in Europe in huge numbers. Still, Muslims are throwing a monkey wrench into the machinery of globalism and messing it up. That’s something.

    Just think about it. If Muslims really are globalist and want to take over the West, they should not be doing terror. They should just smile and pretend to be nice. That will have a disarming effect on cucked out Europeans who welcome their own racial and cultural demise. So, No Terrorism is actually better for globalism and non-white takeover of the West.

    But these Muslims carry out acts of terror that is making native people think twice about the globalist project. Europeans are now so cucked and defenseless that they don’t mind mass invasion of their own nations by foreigners as long as foreigners take on homomania, slut culture, and jungle fever.
    Indeed, you don’t see any objection to black African immigration since white are all into ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs, and white men are totally cool with white wombs hatching mulattoes than white kids.

    [MORE]

    As it stands, most Europeans don’t mind the browning of Europe. They don’t mind ACOWW. They don’t mind non-whites becoming majorities. All they want is for non-whites to accept homomania. And blacks and Asians accept homomania. The ONLY people who resist it are certain kinds of Muslims. Also, Muslims are the ONLY ones who resist and denounce Slut Culture and Filth. Yes, yes, I know there are Muslim rape gangs and such, but they aren’t acting religiously. They are just horny men of Muslim background who are just overly ‘boing’. Islam has nothing to do with it.

    Anyway, White Europe now worships Diversity and wants its nations to become majority non-white. White Europe worships homomania, slut culture, feminism, and hedonism. And black Africans and Asians easily assimilate to that culture, so they are welcomed by whites. Many black Africans fail economically, but they have no problem with current ‘Western Values’ that are mostly derived from homo celebration, rap music and black sports, slut feminism, and etc. As for Christianity, Catholic Church is led by Poop Francis who’s for open borders and is probably a closet-homo. And most European churches are empty or celebrate homos. Many have black Africans as clerics. Pop music and Hollywood movies are uppermost on the menu of European elites when it comes to culture.

    The ONLY effective force that wages any kind of war on this globalism is the Muslims. Now, the Muslim agenda isn’t the same as that of white nationalists, BUT both have the common enemy of the decadent globalists.
    This is why it makes no sense for white nationalists to denounce Muslim terror in their defense of homos, cucks, sluts, interracists, and degenerates. Those very people denounce white nationalists and call for more immigration-invasion and replacism. They call for more homomania, even the forcing of churches to bend over to homo degeneracy. They call for raising white girls to jungle fever rap and black sports and submitting to ACOWW.
    These globalists are the worst enemies of white nationalists. So, if white nationalists don’t have the will to deal with that scum, they should at least enjoy the spectacle of Muslim terrorists apply the wrecking ball to globalism. I mean, who’d care if terrorists blew up Miley Cyrus, Katy Perry, Corbyn, May, Khan, Cold Play(they did some good songs though), U2(they had some good songs long ago), and etc?

    Just sit back and enjoy the spectacle. At any rate, national liberation comes only through violence. Just look at the American Revolution. And look at Algerian War of Independence. Algerians didn’t smile goofily like Nigel Farage.

    Muslims, you’re doing great work. Keep it up.

    By the way, this ‘war’ isn’t about religion. After all, Malaysians are not attacking the West. Indonesians aren’t doing it either. Even Iranians are not doing it because it hasn’t been invaded and messed up.

    This is the result of the chaos created by Wars for Israel directed by the US against the Muslim World. To be sure, it goes back to the Cold War when the West decided to arm Jihadis against communism. One thing that the US realized was that Islam is a powerful force against secular communism. After all, East Asia fell easily to communism in China, North Korea, Vietnam, etc.
    Confucianism was no match. But communism failed in Indonesia, a Muslim nation. Communism also made inroads into Catholic Latin America. It came to power in Cuba and Nicaragua. It had powerful footholds in other Latin American nations even if they failed to take power. Communism also took over some African nations: Ethiopia, Mozambique, and Angola.

    But almost no Islamic nation turned communist even though there were some Marxist-Muslim organizations. Communism was like a new religion, and it seemed to be on the move around the world. It seemed to have messianic fervor. Against it, native reactionary values and American pop culture seemed to offer nothing compelling. After all, the Spartan Marxists in Vietnam won out over Coca Cola US imperialism in Vietnam. Even though capitalism is ultimately the more productive system, it takes time for capitalist economies to grow and come together. In contrast, communism allows for instant totalitarian unity and power. This was why North Vietnam was favored over South Vietnam. If South Vietnam could be protected for several decades, it could develop a capitalist economy that could produce enough wealth and arms to defend itself from the North. But in the short term, the totalitarian north was more united and disciplined than the south. Likewise, North Korea could have whupped South Korea until 1985 even though South had double the population and more wealth. North had greater unity and discipline. Capitalism needs time to produce enough wealth and productivity so that it can afford a military that can defend itself.

    Anyway, there was a time when the US really did fear the messianic power of communism. And they feared nations would fall to communism one by one all over the world. Communism offered a simple idea, something like a modern gospel.
    In contrast, the US offered money, but money was without values or meaning. It was mercenary and even demoralizing.
    US stood for ‘democracy’, but in third world nations, it caused more problems. Also, democracy allowed leftist subversives to operate. So, democracy became risky, and the US ended up backing right-wing autocracies. But this was bad for US because it got associated with unsavory figures like Pinochet and Somoza.

    But the US realized that Islam was one force that will now cower to communism. Islam was a powerful force. It knocked out US puppet in Iran. This alarmed the US, but it also gave the US an idea, especially as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan happened at the same time. If Islam is powerful enough to topple the Shah, it is powerful enough to mess up Soviet Union in Afghanistan. USSR would have its own Vietnam. And the US proved to be right.
    US couldn’t do much with Bay of Pigs because the mercenary Cuban exiles were unpopular in Cuba. Also, Castro’s brand of national-marxism had messianic power in Cuba. In contrast, the Mujahadeen, though cruel and barbaric, were also tough and heroic. They were willing to risk all and fight like hell, like Zealots against the Romans. Also, their David-vs-Goliath struggle inspired many Muslims from other nations to join the Jihad. And as USSR was then close to India, it gave Pakistan a chance to play a key role as an Islamic leader against godless communism.

    So, radical Islamism all started there. But why did the Afghan War prove to be far more problematic than the Iranian one? One reason was Iran is Shia, which makes it relatively isolated as Muslim power since most Muslim nations are Sunni. Also, the war with Iraq made Iran focus mostly on its next-door foe than anything else. Also, Iranian Revolution, despite its internationalist outreach, was essentially a domestic affair. It was Islamic Nationalism. After all, the Iranian Revolution was made entirely by Iranians themselves. Also, as Persians are an advanced people, they maintained a modern society despite some of the Islamic fervor and craziness. They were not like Taliban crazies or Wahabi extremists. Also, it had taken a short time for the Muslims in Iran to topple the Shah and take power.

    In contrast, it took a long bitter war in Afghanistan. Also, as Afghanis are a backward people, they have no means to create a modern society like Iran. Also, the Afghani struggle soon became an pan-Islamic struggle and attracted Jihadis from all over, not least from Saudi Arabia, the funder and sponsor of extreme Islamic ideology. So, Afghanistan proved to be the training and breeding ground for the Jihadis that would come to define so much of the Muslim world after the Cold War.

    Now, if the US had not meddled in the Gulf War, there would be no Jihadis messing up Middle East. Sure, there would be some terrorists and extremists, but most of them would be kept under wraps by ruthless regimes of Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and etc. Even though all such regimes, like US and Israel, lent a hand to terrorists, none of them tolerated terrorists within their own borders. So, things were mostly safe.

    But the Gulf War fatally weakened Hussein in Iraq, and then sanctions weakened it further.
    Still, Hussein was in power to keep things in order. So, terrorists couldn’t run freely in Iraq.
    But US made a fatal mistake. After Gulf War, it placed US troops in Saudi Arabia, and this pissed off Muslims, especially those who’d been battle-hardened and radicalized in the hellfire of Afghanistan. So, allies turned enemies. US that had aided the Jihadis in Afghanistan found itself at war with them. Now, if Afghanis had defeated the USSR on their own, it wouldn’t have mattered. Afghanis didn’t much care if US were in Saudi Arabia or not. But because Afghanis won with the aid of foreign Jihadis, they got pulled into the global conflict. As a token of appreciation, Afghanis opened their nation to foreign Jihadis since they’d fought in the Afghan War against the USSR. Afghanis didn’t know that Osama and others of his ilk were plotting global war from the hills of Afghanistan.

    9/11 happened, and the US entered Afghanistan. Even at that point, the horror could have been contained. All the US needed to do was flush out terrorists and Jihadis in Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan. Also, Iran and other nations were willing to help. Syria helped too. Not only did they fear the ire of the US but they too had no use for extreme Sunni terrorists. During the Afghan-Soviet War, those Jihadis had their hands full fighting the Russkies.
    But after the war, they still had trigger-finger and were looking to serve a cause. It’s like German military men after WWI still looking for a fight. So, when US decided to flush out Jihadis in Afghanistan, most Muslim nations were relieved. Better that than have those Jihadis come to their nations and start trouble.

    But then, the real craziness happened. Zionists figured they could use 9/11 to wage Wars for Israel and reset things in the Middle East. Maybe US could topple existing regimes, prop up puppet ‘democratic’ regimes, and make the Middle East a vassal of the US. But Iraq went horribly. Absent Hussein and Baath Party networks, the nation spiraled into chaos. The US invasion threw out the baby with the Baath Party. Iraq soon turned into a haven of terrorists. And contrary to US expectations, the new democratic regime in Iraq grew closer to Iran than to the US.
    US intended to take out Iraq as a first step toward taking out Iran, but it only strengthened Iran. And this pissed off Jews almighty. So, Jews had to cook up some new scheme to mess things up. So, Jews kept on creating hysteria about Iran nukes to push sanctions to cripple Iranian economy. And then, under Obama, the US exploited Arab Spring to encourage mass revolts that led to social chaos and civil wars in Libya and Syria.
    And it was then that the US and its allies aided the Jihadis to run wild.
    Unlike Afghan Jihadis who were romanticized as heroes, martyrs, and freedom-fighters by the US Media in the 1980s, the new Jihadis couldn’t be openly supported. They were Alqaeda remnants, and despite American amnesia, people still remember 9/11 = Alqaeda. Also, ISIS was worse. As ISIS terror was shown all over the internet, it was impossible to spin them as good guys. So, the US couldn’t support them directly. But like the neo-Nazis in Maidan in Ukraine, these crazy Jihadis were useful in messing up Libya and Syria.

    Though ostensibly modern, civilized, and urbane, the Jewish Supremacist elites in the US are no less radical, zealous, ruthless, and vicious in their animus, vendetta, and deviousness. As supporters of Israeli Supremacism in the Middle East and US globalist supremacy(as US power is now synonymous with Jewish power), the Jewish Supremacist elements in the US will do ANYTHING to further their interests. They may be modern but they have ancient tribal blood flowing through their veins. They are like cosmopolitan Zealots. It’s like their use of ‘gay rights’. It’s not just tolerance for homos but something to be shoved up everyone’s ass.. or you shall be stoned for ‘homophobia’!

    Terrorists in the West are the result of the total mess in the Middle East stemming from Cold War against communism in which Muslims proved to be especially useful. And then, after the Cold War, Islamic radicalism that had been encouraged during the Afghan War was made even more rabid by Wars for Israel: Gulf War and Iraq War.
    And it was under Obama that the Jews figured out a way to use this Jihadi terror AGAINST nations hated by Jews. Under Bush II, the plan was for the US to take out Arab tyrants under the cover of fighting terrorists and replace them with democratic puppets(brought to power by US money). But it didn’t turn out that way. US got rid of Hussein but got mobbed with Jihadi problem 100x worse than in Afghanistan. So, Jewish power got bitten by Jihadi madness.

    But under Obama, Jews got clever and figured out a way to direct Jihadi violence against the Arab tyrants hated by Jews. And the opportunity came with Arab Spring. While Arab Spring unleashed genuine populist demand for reforms, things soon spiraled out of control to the point where the Arab world faced one of three options: (1) free elections and rise of Muslim regimes, like for a time in Egypt. But did Jews want Muslim Brotherhood to take over every Arab nation? (2) Existing regimes remaining in power by crushing populist politics. But this would mean regimes hated by Jews would still remain in power (3) total war where Jihadis running amok and setting back modern Arab nations 30 yrs. Jews figured #3 was the best bet, and the result is Libya and Syria.

    Though terror attacks in the West are unpleasant, they are mere ripples of the true horrors that were unleashed in the Middle East by US globalist meddling.
    But this sort of thing happens all over. Consider what happened to the American South when the North upended the old order. Blacks were suddenly freed, and white southerners lived in fear because more muscular and bigger-donged Negroes were acting wild like in D.W. Griffith’s THE BIRTH OF A NATION. The chaos led to the rise of KKK that committed acts of terror and counter-terror. And US and Vietnamese meddling in Cambodia led to fall of Sihanouk and rise of Khmer Rouge. And the Japanese invasion into China gave a huge opening to Mao and his crazies.

    So, how about leaving nations alone?

    Anyway, the West is now being invaded and taken over. If most whites are hapless cucks, Europe will turn into big Morocco and US will turn into Brazil. And Canada and Australia will turn into India-China. But if whites wake up and want to take back their nations, they must become like Viet Cong. There is no other way. So, there is something to learn from the terrorists. Though their ways are crude and ugly, war is cruel and ugly, and a nation in danger can only be saved through war.

    Would the Irish have gained independence without terror?

    Ireland is now under greater threat than ever before. Irish minds are infected with globalist virus that makes Irish want to be demographically taken over by Africans and ruled by a homo hindu.
    In some ways, mental colonization under national freedom is more dangerous than foreign military occupation. When Ireland was ruled by Brits, the potatoheads knew they were under foreign British rule.
    But because Ireland is now independent and free, the Irish are blind to how their minds have been colonized and infected by globalism that tricks them into believing that Ireland is a ‘nation of immigrants’ whose destiny is for Irish women to have black babies under the leadership of a hindu into homo fecal penetration. With their minds infected with PC globalism, they think they are FREELY choosing this radical transformation of their own nation when, in fact, they are acting against national interest under the program of mental virus spread by globalism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonym
    I actually made it through that meandering post. You do make some good points, some excellent insights, indeed a certain genius that fortunately for both you and us springs forth from the crazy at times.

    Maybe you have a point about Islamic terror stemming from US/Israel meddling in MENA. But due to the nature of Islam, it's like the herpes of the religious world. Just when you think it's gone, the violence flares up again. It is its own mind virus that both drags down a people economically and militarizes it in a medieval fashion.

    I think a large part of the effectiveness of the religion is due to the whole thing being written by the one guy - who codified his life work of getting Arabs to work together at something, basically getting themselves plunder and sex at the expense of surrounding people. The New Testament is a lot more this way (i.e. centered around the one narrative) than the Old Testament, but still it was a collection of documents collated by the early Christians and did not have the cohesiveness of the Koran, even if Mo had to retcon a bunch of stuff from time to time driven by necessity.

    Sure, there is a lot of surrounding explanatory stuff such as hadiths and tafsir as a kind of Cliffs Notes I guess, but as an outsider you can easily grasp the salient points with only the knowledge of abrogation, the sura order and the Koran itself, coupled with a bit of the history. Islam did not grow to nearly 2 billion followers and a massive chunk of the globe by the Muslims misinterpreting Sura 9. Nope, when they are talking about idolaters, it's everyone non-Muslim who should be put to the sword unless they get with the program.

    As to the Muslims, perhaps you are right in that they are doing God's work in raising white people our of our stupor, building us up into the sort of rage Americans had after Pearl Harbor that won't necessarily be very discriminating in its targets. The left always said it was wrong to discriminate.

    Pat, if you bother to read the comments (and I suspect you do even if I don't recall you exchanging with the commentariat in direct dialogue fashion), you might read Sura 9 and sura 110, penultimate and ultimate chapters in the Koran. You can find them via google. Sura 110 invalidates nothing in Sura 9, but you might check it just to be sure.

    If it was good enough for Thomas Jefferson to read and attempt to understand the Koran, it's probably good enough for you, no? There is no "strain" of Islam that would not justify the murder committed by the terrorists on the London Bridge. The only possible difference is in the wisdom of the timing. Mohammed himself was peaceful until he had enough military might to be successfully aggressive. Sooner or later such violence is called for, unless those people on the bridge had been obviously Muslims. Of course if Britain spontaneously converted to Islam, the only violence at that point would be between the Shia and the Sunni British communities.
    , @Mark Green
    Thank you, Priss. Interesting. I always enjoy your comments.
    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
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /pbuchanan/the-forever-war-2/#comment-1896652
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. MEexpert says:

    Is there a strain of Islam, the basis of which can be found in the Quran, that would justify what the murderers did at London Bridge?

    There is absolutely no justification for murders of innocent people in Quran. Quran specifically forbids killing of innocent life. The only justification is in self defense.

    If these persecutors and killers of Christians are apostates to Islam, headed to hell for their savageries, why have not all the imams of the world, Shiite and Sunni, risen together to condemn them as heretics?

    Are you serious Pat? The Clerics in Egypt, Iraq and Iran and various shia clerics in the US have condemned these attacks. The mainstream media chooses to ignore those statements. It is more fun to blast the sermons of the Saudi Imams all over the televisions and newspapers to fan the flames of war than to print the voices of condemnation and call for peace.

    Everyone, from the politicians to the intelligence community, knows that Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Turkey, Israel, and the US are supporting ISIS and Al-Qaeda. Yet the president of the United States goes to Saudi Arabia and turns the logic upside down by ignoring the real supporters of terrorism and blamed Iran for all the troubles in the Middle East.

    Pat should be asking the questions; where are all these billions of dollars worth of weapons going? Where is ISIS and Al-Qaeda and the other alphabet terrorists getting brand new American weapons?

    It is a well documented fact that Saudi Arabia has been funding mosques and schools all over the world to promote her brand of Islam. Almost 75% of the mosques and islamic schools in the US are Saudi controlled. Instead of arresting the growth of Wahhabi version of Islam, the US and Israel are helping to promote it.

    There is no hope that this “forever war” will ever end. It is a national tragedy when our leaders (the republicans, the democrats, the progressives, liberals, libertarians, the mainstream media and what not) are slaves to the Wall Street-military-industrial complex and all are screaming for war with nary a voice in opposition. Pat, you want to control this terrorism, then tell the US government to stop selling weapons to Middle East monarchies and Israel and end these wars.

    Read More
    • Troll: TWS
    • Replies: @El Dato
    Agreement factor 99%
    , @MarkinLA
    There is absolutely no justification for murders of innocent people in Quran. Quran specifically forbids killing of innocent life. The only justification is in self defense.

    What is funny about spewing all this drivel about what IS and what ISN'T real Islam is a sentence like this. OK, who are the innocents here? What is self defense?

    Just like collateral damage and other weasel words our government uses, some "Imam" can make any claim he wants about who is not innocent and what self defense is.

    Instead of quoting irrelevant passages from Islam realize that these people KNOW they are following the Koran to the letter.
    , @MEexpert
    Hey TWS.

    Troll? How so?

    Have you been hibernating?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Talha says:

    Is there a strain of Islam, the basis of which can be found in the Quran, that would justify what the murderers did at London Bridge?

    Yes there is; welcome to the Reformation.

    Pleased to meet you
    Hope you guess my name
    But what’s puzzling you
    Is the nature of my game…

    When have the imams of Saudi Arabia, the Middle East, and West ever stood as one to condemn all such acts as against the tenets of Islam?

    Plenty – the fact that people don’t care to listen is a different subject.

    If these persecutors and killers of Christians are apostates to Islam, headed to hell for their savageries, why have not all the imams of the world, Shiite and Sunni, risen together to condemn them as heretics?

    They aren’t apostates – they are heretical extremists though – again, see previous point. Mr. Buchanan, do you not have access to Google? Something like “Muslim scholars condemn ISIS” should be a good start. Here, I’ll make it easy for you:

    https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/muslims-against-isis-part-1-clerics-scholars

    We didn’t need to wait for them to start killing Christians, it was enough that they got their rocks off by killing plenty of Muslims. You’re a betting man, right? Where do you think the next terrorist act will occur; Europe or the Middle East? Who do you think the next victims will be; Christians or Muslims?

    Correct. There is an extremist school of Islam that needs to be purged from the West

    No problems there.

    And the imams of Islam need to answer the question: “Whose side are you on?”

    They already have; neither. Do you really expect the ulema (the inheritors of the prophetic legacy) to pander to US/Israeli/Nato drone-imperialism and lose all credibility and respect in the eyes of the Ummah?

    Imams and scholars in the UK are refusing burial and last prayer rites to these wretched people (evoking a classic form of censuring of acts such as hirabah):

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/05/imams-refuse-funeral-prayers-to-indefensible-london-bridge-attackers

    Again, is anybody listening, or will they again be accused of refusing to take a stance?

    Now, second-generation Muslims within Europe seem to be converting to a violent version of Islam.

    Too many for comfort, yes – big problem, this.

    The new normal.

    You ought to ask the people of the Middle East about the “new normal” ushered in since the beginning of this century – you know, the PNAC vision. An imam that also works for a relief agency working in these areas was recently telling us that some people are breaking their Ramadan fasts on the carcasses of cats and dogs. You know, we can simply just stop what we started and start pulling back our armies. This might just work. It might not, but at least we’d know if these guys were sincere when claiming they do this as revenge against Western destruction and meddling.

    To fight them, we are being forced to circumscribe our sovereignty and empower police and intelligence agencies of which free men were once taught to be wary.

    There is no forcing – this seems to be part of the plan. War, as you said, are the death of republics, but the health of the state.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @neutral
    I will make it very simple I am neither for invade the world or invite the world. I absolutely do not support neocons and their lust for war, but even more importantly I absolutely do not accept the idea of allowing Muslims (or any other third worlders) into Europe. To have someone named Sadiq Khan as mayor of London is a disgrace, oh and I don't even bother with "you are a racist" or some other highbrow snark response, I am a racist and I have no problem with being one. Western civilization is white civilization, non whites taking over the lands is the death of Western civilization.
    , @KenH

    Yes there is; welcome to the Reformation.
     
    Reformation, eh? This must be phase two as the Sunni-Shia split could probably qualify as the first reformation which is still unresolved and could set the Middle East aflame at any time.

    The Christians during the Protestant reformation took it out only on each other and didn't slaughter Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists. Muslims in the West are taking it out only on non-Muslims so I don't see how their actions have a reformative effect on Islam. Are Westerners just supposed to sit back and let thousands of their kinsmen and countrymen die while members of an alien race and religion sort things out in this so called reformation?

    , @Talha

    You’re a betting man, right? Where do you think the next terrorist act will occur; Europe or the Middle East?
     
    Well, that didn't take long did it?

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/07/world/middleeast/iran-parliament-attack-khomeini-mausoleum.html
    , @Johnny Smoggins
    As usual excuses and deflection.......at least on the bright side you didn't trot out your usual tripe about some obscure 17th century Tunisian religious scholar who once spoke out against violence in a sermon.

    That notwithstanding........you have to go back haji.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Did someone teach your parrot to type, Pat, or did you press the keys while the parrot squawked?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    The founder of that “religion” was one of the most appalling figures in all of history. It’s not a secret but is available to anyone who cares to pick up a book or two and actually read up on the subject. One shouldn’t be surprised by what’s done by those professing to be followers. The current rationalization is that this is all an outgrowth of western interference in their countries. The persecution and murder of the Egyptian Copts shows this to be a lie since the Copts have tried vainly to live in peace and security alongside the Muslims. They are Egyptians themselves yet have been at risk of genocide. Americans should know all this from grammar school onwards yet most are rather clueless, preferring to read garbage books and dwell on idiotic social media.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. KenH says:

    Do people who hold such beliefs really belong in the United States or in the West during this long war with Islamist extremism?

    No and the time for collective punishment has come just like Islamists are imposing collective punishment on Westerners they live among.

    Is our commitment to diversity broad enough to embrace people with Islamist beliefs?

    An emphatic no and racial and religious diversity was not a founding principle of the USA. While some individual Muslims may be fine people, Islam is totally incompatible with Western thought and institutions even long before cultural Marxism became ascendant and dominant. And Westerners shouldn’t have to sit around biting their fingernails for when the next Muslim decides to go off the reservation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. I don’t know why people won’t get that civilizations don’t survive when they stop having children, destroy their families and allow every type of sexual and personal perversion to flourish along with killing your own unborn children by the millions.

    It is really simple Pat, societies like that cannot survive, particularly when they demand constant population growth to fuel economic prosperity.

    They don’t survive because such societies are mired in fantasy and selfishness. They no longer live for their children or their family, they live only for themselves and the doppelganger partner they marry.

    We are to blame for the rise of Islam and no one is willing to admit the real cause, particularly in the wealthy middle class because they don’t want the debauchery to end. They would like the party to continue for ever even if the price is an impoverished and brutalised underclass and millions of slaughtered unborn babies.

    We have become one of the most repulsive and evil peoples in history and sackcloth and ashes are the only real cure.

    But no one is willing to say that yet. The wives they married mostly professionals like themselves might have to start having children again.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey PtR,

    Good post.

    One thing - and I know this has little to do with this subject - I never thanked you for opening up my eyes to the trajectory of European scientific progress being partially a result of Christianity reducing slavery in Europe over time and not necessarily the other way around. I don't think most people have been exposed to that.

    Much obliged.

    Peace.

    , @Rurik

    We are to blame for the rise of Islam and no one is willing to admit the real cause, particularly in the wealthy middle class because they don’t want the debauchery to end
     
    the cause is the Federal Reserve Bank- that handed total power over our society to eternally, infinitely hostile Jewish supremacist$, who unleashed the Muslim hoards (and everyone else they could muster) to invade our lands, even as they injected spiritual sewage in the soul-veins of the youth with Hollywood propaganda, Rap "music", homomania, etc...

    just Google ‘Being White is Terrorism’, to see the festering rot that their propaganda (and their seething hatred for our kind) has perpetrated upon the young American soul
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. When have the imams of Saudi Arabia, the Middle East, and West ever stood as one to condemn all such acts as against the tenets of Islam?

    and they won’t, because what they are doing is not against the beliefs of Islam. Erdogan is correct when he said there are no extremists, there are simply Muslims. Pat needs to wake up and see the truth, as does the left in this country.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. Randal says:

    The problem with focussing on islam as the problem is that it leaves the real, broader policy problems (of which the problems with muslims are merely the particularly troublesome aspect at the moment) – mass immigration and military interventionism – unaddressed.

    Halting muslim immigration will be of little benefit if we allow our societies to be destroyed anyway by continued mass immigration of foreigners who are not muslims.

    Likewise, suppressing muslim terrorism will not allow us to live in peace if our foreign policies keep creating future enemies.

    And, of course, the focus on islam plays into the hands of some of those most culpable for the situation in which we find ourselves – the Israel lobby.

    Read More
    • Agree: reiner Tor, Mark Green
    • Replies: @for-the-record
    Randal, I agree completely, with the slight nuance (with which I am sure you agree) that as long as "our" foreign policies keep creating future enemies Muslim terrorism will never be suppressed.

    The great problem of course is that no one of any "importance" is consistently enunciating these four points (and, indeed, I suspect that the large majority of people would not agree with them). In the case of the UK, Corbyn would reduce foreign wars while maintaining immigration, while May conceivably might reduce immigration but would continue enemy-making policies abroad.

    It is very hard to imagine a favorable long-term outcome.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Talha says:
    @Pat the Rat
    I don't know why people won't get that civilizations don't survive when they stop having children, destroy their families and allow every type of sexual and personal perversion to flourish along with killing your own unborn children by the millions.

    It is really simple Pat, societies like that cannot survive, particularly when they demand constant population growth to fuel economic prosperity.

    They don't survive because such societies are mired in fantasy and selfishness. They no longer live for their children or their family, they live only for themselves and the doppelganger partner they marry.

    We are to blame for the rise of Islam and no one is willing to admit the real cause, particularly in the wealthy middle class because they don't want the debauchery to end. They would like the party to continue for ever even if the price is an impoverished and brutalised underclass and millions of slaughtered unborn babies.

    We have become one of the most repulsive and evil peoples in history and sackcloth and ashes are the only real cure.


    But no one is willing to say that yet. The wives they married mostly professionals like themselves might have to start having children again.

    Hey PtR,

    Good post.

    One thing – and I know this has little to do with this subject – I never thanked you for opening up my eyes to the trajectory of European scientific progress being partially a result of Christianity reducing slavery in Europe over time and not necessarily the other way around. I don’t think most people have been exposed to that.

    Much obliged.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pat the Rat
    Thanks Talha.

    Most societies have been slave owning throughout history and on the whole static and resistant to change. Not surprising with all that manpower which can be leased to any task. The rich were rich in slaving societies because of slaves, often many thousands of them. Not surprising then that there was not much enthusiasm for labor saving devices, that seems like a good way to make powerful enemies.
    And one thing about slaving societies like the Islamic empire there must have been immense silent terror among the lowly that they would face the fate that so many slaves faced.

    Having all you genitals amputated, being chained in a galley for the whole of your natural life, eating defecating and dying on some galley seat, being literally worked to death and with others having total power over you.

    Truly a fate worse than death.

    I think that possibly slavery could only be defeated in a society with a Judeo Christian culture.

    I love that section in the Bible where Abraham pleads and bargains with God to save the people of Sodom.
    "Will the lord of all the universe not spare Sodom if 50 righteous people can be found" and so on.
    You could almost imagine God's thoughts" here I am the God of the whole universe, maker and master of everything listening to a speck of dust arguing for other specks of dust.
    And yet God listens, man is treated in some sense as an equal in a moral sense. Eventually the redeemer is God come in the form of a man.
    How could such a society which carries this revelation of man's relation with God, not a slave but an actor and participant, not in the end reject slavery.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. Cassandra says:

    Yes, wars can be the death of Republics. Ours has never really been the same since the Civil War.

    If we want to preserve and hopefully restore our Republic we need to quickly win this one. Stop all Muslim immigration. Expel all who are not already citizens and those who express the slightest hint of support for radical Islam. Adopt policies of energy independence, and a foreign policy that seeks to keep Muslims in their home countries. Stop the nation-building and let the Middle East be.

    Then, perhaps we can live in peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  12. You got to give Muslims credit. They fight for something.

    Sure, we in the West can send great armies to destroy things, but do we really fight anything tangible? Freedom, democracy, etc. Just ideas. And after we destroy things, we go home.

    Muslims are pretty pathetic in many ways, but they are willing to fight day in and day out in neighborhoods to take control of those areas. They are willing to get in a fist fight over a woman wearing a short skirt. They are willing to take on the police. They are willing to threaten government officials. If they go to jail, so be it. Also, they will have other Muslims in that prison to protect them. When they get out of prison, Muslims will give them a job.

    If the press attacks a Muslim or the Muslim community, Muslims either don’t care or, even better, they threaten the press.

    Muslims are a community that sticks together and is willing to fight.

    For all of our superior IQ and organizational skills, we whites have no community and are not willing to fight for our people. Unless we can find those things in ourselves again, we will – and should be – taken over.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "For all of our superior IQ and organizational skills, we whites have no community and are not willing to fight for our people. Unless we can find those things in ourselves again, we will – and should be – taken over."

    We Americans who are white assuredly have a sense of community and the resolve to fight for our people, the American citizen. And speak for yourself for desiring for us to be "taken over". Have you no decency, sir? Haven't you done enough?

    Now, Patrick...

    "If these persecutors and killers of Christians are apostates to Islam, headed to hell for their savageries, why have not all the imams of the world, Shiite and Sunni, risen together to condemn them as heretics?"

    Imams, Islamic groups, and Middle Eastern nations have condemned it. You just don't notice things like Mr. Sailer. Ask him to offer pointers on his power of observation.

    http://stepfeed.com/muslim-leaders-express-solidarity-with-the-uk-after-manchester-attack-4587

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/london-bridge-terrorists-imams-refuse-funeral-prayer-khuram-shazad-butt-rachid-redouane-a7774291.html

    "The murderers were Muslims. The rationale for their crimes lies in the belief that their bloody deeds would inscribe them in a book of martyrs, and Allah would reward them with instant ascension into the paradise that awaits all good Muslims."

    Corrected for accuracy --> The murderers are radical Muslims who pervert their faith.
    , @Rurik

    we whites have no community and are not willing to fight for our people. Unless we can find those things in ourselves again, we will – and should be – taken over.
     
    Brexit and the election of Donald Trump are two signs that whitey is beginning his nascent awakening

    we can thank the Internet for that, and those few voices out there with the nads to tell the truth
    , @Diversity Heretic
    That's a good summary of the message of Michel Houellebec's novel Soumission.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. Corvinus says:
    @Citizen of a Silly Country
    You got to give Muslims credit. They fight for something.

    Sure, we in the West can send great armies to destroy things, but do we really fight anything tangible? Freedom, democracy, etc. Just ideas. And after we destroy things, we go home.

    Muslims are pretty pathetic in many ways, but they are willing to fight day in and day out in neighborhoods to take control of those areas. They are willing to get in a fist fight over a woman wearing a short skirt. They are willing to take on the police. They are willing to threaten government officials. If they go to jail, so be it. Also, they will have other Muslims in that prison to protect them. When they get out of prison, Muslims will give them a job.

    If the press attacks a Muslim or the Muslim community, Muslims either don't care or, even better, they threaten the press.

    Muslims are a community that sticks together and is willing to fight.

    For all of our superior IQ and organizational skills, we whites have no community and are not willing to fight for our people. Unless we can find those things in ourselves again, we will - and should be - taken over.

    “For all of our superior IQ and organizational skills, we whites have no community and are not willing to fight for our people. Unless we can find those things in ourselves again, we will – and should be – taken over.”

    We Americans who are white assuredly have a sense of community and the resolve to fight for our people, the American citizen. And speak for yourself for desiring for us to be “taken over”. Have you no decency, sir? Haven’t you done enough?

    Now, Patrick…

    “If these persecutors and killers of Christians are apostates to Islam, headed to hell for their savageries, why have not all the imams of the world, Shiite and Sunni, risen together to condemn them as heretics?”

    Imams, Islamic groups, and Middle Eastern nations have condemned it. You just don’t notice things like Mr. Sailer. Ask him to offer pointers on his power of observation.

    http://stepfeed.com/muslim-leaders-express-solidarity-with-the-uk-after-manchester-attack-4587

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/london-bridge-terrorists-imams-refuse-funeral-prayer-khuram-shazad-butt-rachid-redouane-a7774291.html

    “The murderers were Muslims. The rationale for their crimes lies in the belief that their bloody deeds would inscribe them in a book of martyrs, and Allah would reward them with instant ascension into the paradise that awaits all good Muslims.”

    Corrected for accuracy –> The murderers are radical Muslims who pervert their faith.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    Corrected for accuracy –> The murderers are radical Muslims who pervert their faith.

    And you know this how? Oh that's right, you are supposed to keep repeating it even though it is BS.
    , @Paul Yarbles

    We Americans who are white assuredly have a sense of community and the resolve to fight for our people, the American citizen. And speak for yourself for desiring for us to be “taken over”. Have you no decency, sir? Haven’t you done enough?
     
    Where are you coming from, Corvinus? Are you happy with the rates of immigration into the U.S. currently or do you think it's too much too soon? Do you want to make the 11, 20, or 30 million illegal immigrants citizens?

    I understand that you believe your role here is to criticize what you consider extremist views and proposals usually by fisking. But what do you actually think would be a good immigration policy for the U.S. at this point?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Rurik says:
    @Pat the Rat
    I don't know why people won't get that civilizations don't survive when they stop having children, destroy their families and allow every type of sexual and personal perversion to flourish along with killing your own unborn children by the millions.

    It is really simple Pat, societies like that cannot survive, particularly when they demand constant population growth to fuel economic prosperity.

    They don't survive because such societies are mired in fantasy and selfishness. They no longer live for their children or their family, they live only for themselves and the doppelganger partner they marry.

    We are to blame for the rise of Islam and no one is willing to admit the real cause, particularly in the wealthy middle class because they don't want the debauchery to end. They would like the party to continue for ever even if the price is an impoverished and brutalised underclass and millions of slaughtered unborn babies.

    We have become one of the most repulsive and evil peoples in history and sackcloth and ashes are the only real cure.


    But no one is willing to say that yet. The wives they married mostly professionals like themselves might have to start having children again.

    We are to blame for the rise of Islam and no one is willing to admit the real cause, particularly in the wealthy middle class because they don’t want the debauchery to end

    the cause is the Federal Reserve Bank- that handed total power over our society to eternally, infinitely hostile Jewish supremacist$, who unleashed the Muslim hoards (and everyone else they could muster) to invade our lands, even as they injected spiritual sewage in the soul-veins of the youth with Hollywood propaganda, Rap “music”, homomania, etc…

    just Google ‘Being White is Terrorism’, to see the festering rot that their propaganda (and their seething hatred for our kind) has perpetrated upon the young American soul

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pat the Rat
    That's totally inaccurate in my opinion Rurik.

    Financial problems are at the heart of the problem true, but they follow the moral degradation.

    The 60's social experiment had predictable results, less children, more crime, more mental health issues, more unwanted children, more unstable broken marriages.

    This kind of social destruction requires two things, immigration to be the babies we never had, and money, big big money to alleviate the massive social destruction of increased crime, drug use, divorce, unwanted children, sexual perversion, etc.

    You name it Rurik, do you really think you can pursue policies that legalize drug and pornography use and promote broken families without there being an enormous monetary bill?

    The monetary bill came due in the 80's when central banks throughout the west realized that only constant growth and stimulus and borrowing could keep their vast network of welfare dependencies intact and keep the social life of society smooth. Without the welfare it was anyone's guess what would happen, certainly the sexual social revolution would fail.

    I don't subscribe to some conspiracy plot, more likely in my view that we sail on a "ship of fools". They just happen to be atheist fools in our age who think they can turn morality upside down in the pursuit of their own pleasures.

    Most of the liberal planners and politician who set us on this course with the consent of many voters genuinely think it was the right thing to do. Now they are defending the choices that were made, these are the "freedoms" that Obama and Hilary talk about.

    They are willing to send the whole state and everyone in it broke in order to defend their revolution. I don't believe it is a conspiracy to enslave us all, although that may very well be the outcome in the long run.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Rurik says:
    @Citizen of a Silly Country
    You got to give Muslims credit. They fight for something.

    Sure, we in the West can send great armies to destroy things, but do we really fight anything tangible? Freedom, democracy, etc. Just ideas. And after we destroy things, we go home.

    Muslims are pretty pathetic in many ways, but they are willing to fight day in and day out in neighborhoods to take control of those areas. They are willing to get in a fist fight over a woman wearing a short skirt. They are willing to take on the police. They are willing to threaten government officials. If they go to jail, so be it. Also, they will have other Muslims in that prison to protect them. When they get out of prison, Muslims will give them a job.

    If the press attacks a Muslim or the Muslim community, Muslims either don't care or, even better, they threaten the press.

    Muslims are a community that sticks together and is willing to fight.

    For all of our superior IQ and organizational skills, we whites have no community and are not willing to fight for our people. Unless we can find those things in ourselves again, we will - and should be - taken over.

    we whites have no community and are not willing to fight for our people. Unless we can find those things in ourselves again, we will – and should be – taken over.

    Brexit and the election of Donald Trump are two signs that whitey is beginning his nascent awakening

    we can thank the Internet for that, and those few voices out there with the nads to tell the truth

    Read More
    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Perhaps, but there will be a serious culling of the herd for NW Europeans and their diaspora.

    Also, look at California, Texas, or, hell, even South Africa. All areas where whites were once the majority or the dominant minority and that are now lost to us. Do you see whites coming together in California or Texas or, again, in South Africa where their lives are literally in danger. No, you don't.

    We seem to have lost our ability to be tribal, and being tribal is the only defense against globalization and the SJW media. Japan is tribal so they take the best of globalization and leave the rest. Jews are tribal and thus protect Israel.

    Sadly, I just don't see any white solidarity. I am quietly working in my own little world to form bonds with people who may in time start to view themselves much like blacks and Hispanics do, which is as a community that deserves to have its place. However, it's a very slow process.
    , @Corvinus
    "Brexit and the election of Donald Trump are two signs that whitey is beginning his nascent awakening."

    Which "whitey", the "good whites" or the "bad whites"? It's hard to keep score here.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. Anonym says:
    @Priss Factor
    See it this way. Terrorists are doing the job white patriots won't do.

    What did it take Vietnamese to kick out the foreigners? Terror against collaborators and invaders.

    What did it take Algerians to kick out the foreigners? Terror against collaborators and invaders.

    UK should be filled with Brit Cong. They should be using 'any means necessary' to deal with collaborators and invaders. But they are addicted to globopium of hedonism, debauchery, and mammon. They are so addicted to fun, homo-decadence, and afro-jive --- the culture went from the Twist to the Twerk --- that they won't come to their senses.

    So, it seems the ONLY EFFECTIVE fight against globalism is coming from the Muslims. This is ironic since it was globalism that made it possible for Muslims to end up in Europe in huge numbers. Still, Muslims are throwing a monkey wrench into the machinery of globalism and messing it up. That's something.

    Just think about it. If Muslims really are globalist and want to take over the West, they should not be doing terror. They should just smile and pretend to be nice. That will have a disarming effect on cucked out Europeans who welcome their own racial and cultural demise. So, No Terrorism is actually better for globalism and non-white takeover of the West.

    But these Muslims carry out acts of terror that is making native people think twice about the globalist project. Europeans are now so cucked and defenseless that they don't mind mass invasion of their own nations by foreigners as long as foreigners take on homomania, slut culture, and jungle fever.
    Indeed, you don't see any objection to black African immigration since white are all into ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs, and white men are totally cool with white wombs hatching mulattoes than white kids.

    As it stands, most Europeans don't mind the browning of Europe. They don't mind ACOWW. They don't mind non-whites becoming majorities. All they want is for non-whites to accept homomania. And blacks and Asians accept homomania. The ONLY people who resist it are certain kinds of Muslims. Also, Muslims are the ONLY ones who resist and denounce Slut Culture and Filth. Yes, yes, I know there are Muslim rape gangs and such, but they aren't acting religiously. They are just horny men of Muslim background who are just overly 'boing'. Islam has nothing to do with it.

    Anyway, White Europe now worships Diversity and wants its nations to become majority non-white. White Europe worships homomania, slut culture, feminism, and hedonism. And black Africans and Asians easily assimilate to that culture, so they are welcomed by whites. Many black Africans fail economically, but they have no problem with current 'Western Values' that are mostly derived from homo celebration, rap music and black sports, slut feminism, and etc. As for Christianity, Catholic Church is led by Poop Francis who's for open borders and is probably a closet-homo. And most European churches are empty or celebrate homos. Many have black Africans as clerics. Pop music and Hollywood movies are uppermost on the menu of European elites when it comes to culture.

    The ONLY effective force that wages any kind of war on this globalism is the Muslims. Now, the Muslim agenda isn't the same as that of white nationalists, BUT both have the common enemy of the decadent globalists.
    This is why it makes no sense for white nationalists to denounce Muslim terror in their defense of homos, cucks, sluts, interracists, and degenerates. Those very people denounce white nationalists and call for more immigration-invasion and replacism. They call for more homomania, even the forcing of churches to bend over to homo degeneracy. They call for raising white girls to jungle fever rap and black sports and submitting to ACOWW.
    These globalists are the worst enemies of white nationalists. So, if white nationalists don't have the will to deal with that scum, they should at least enjoy the spectacle of Muslim terrorists apply the wrecking ball to globalism. I mean, who'd care if terrorists blew up Miley Cyrus, Katy Perry, Corbyn, May, Khan, Cold Play(they did some good songs though), U2(they had some good songs long ago), and etc?

    Just sit back and enjoy the spectacle. At any rate, national liberation comes only through violence. Just look at the American Revolution. And look at Algerian War of Independence. Algerians didn't smile goofily like Nigel Farage.

    Muslims, you're doing great work. Keep it up.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qi8kiFho7DM

    https://youtu.be/f_N2wyq7fCE?t=24m54s

    By the way, this 'war' isn't about religion. After all, Malaysians are not attacking the West. Indonesians aren't doing it either. Even Iranians are not doing it because it hasn't been invaded and messed up.

    This is the result of the chaos created by Wars for Israel directed by the US against the Muslim World. To be sure, it goes back to the Cold War when the West decided to arm Jihadis against communism. One thing that the US realized was that Islam is a powerful force against secular communism. After all, East Asia fell easily to communism in China, North Korea, Vietnam, etc.
    Confucianism was no match. But communism failed in Indonesia, a Muslim nation. Communism also made inroads into Catholic Latin America. It came to power in Cuba and Nicaragua. It had powerful footholds in other Latin American nations even if they failed to take power. Communism also took over some African nations: Ethiopia, Mozambique, and Angola.

    But almost no Islamic nation turned communist even though there were some Marxist-Muslim organizations. Communism was like a new religion, and it seemed to be on the move around the world. It seemed to have messianic fervor. Against it, native reactionary values and American pop culture seemed to offer nothing compelling. After all, the Spartan Marxists in Vietnam won out over Coca Cola US imperialism in Vietnam. Even though capitalism is ultimately the more productive system, it takes time for capitalist economies to grow and come together. In contrast, communism allows for instant totalitarian unity and power. This was why North Vietnam was favored over South Vietnam. If South Vietnam could be protected for several decades, it could develop a capitalist economy that could produce enough wealth and arms to defend itself from the North. But in the short term, the totalitarian north was more united and disciplined than the south. Likewise, North Korea could have whupped South Korea until 1985 even though South had double the population and more wealth. North had greater unity and discipline. Capitalism needs time to produce enough wealth and productivity so that it can afford a military that can defend itself.

    Anyway, there was a time when the US really did fear the messianic power of communism. And they feared nations would fall to communism one by one all over the world. Communism offered a simple idea, something like a modern gospel.
    In contrast, the US offered money, but money was without values or meaning. It was mercenary and even demoralizing.
    US stood for 'democracy', but in third world nations, it caused more problems. Also, democracy allowed leftist subversives to operate. So, democracy became risky, and the US ended up backing right-wing autocracies. But this was bad for US because it got associated with unsavory figures like Pinochet and Somoza.

    But the US realized that Islam was one force that will now cower to communism. Islam was a powerful force. It knocked out US puppet in Iran. This alarmed the US, but it also gave the US an idea, especially as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan happened at the same time. If Islam is powerful enough to topple the Shah, it is powerful enough to mess up Soviet Union in Afghanistan. USSR would have its own Vietnam. And the US proved to be right.
    US couldn't do much with Bay of Pigs because the mercenary Cuban exiles were unpopular in Cuba. Also, Castro's brand of national-marxism had messianic power in Cuba. In contrast, the Mujahadeen, though cruel and barbaric, were also tough and heroic. They were willing to risk all and fight like hell, like Zealots against the Romans. Also, their David-vs-Goliath struggle inspired many Muslims from other nations to join the Jihad. And as USSR was then close to India, it gave Pakistan a chance to play a key role as an Islamic leader against godless communism.

    So, radical Islamism all started there. But why did the Afghan War prove to be far more problematic than the Iranian one? One reason was Iran is Shia, which makes it relatively isolated as Muslim power since most Muslim nations are Sunni. Also, the war with Iraq made Iran focus mostly on its next-door foe than anything else. Also, Iranian Revolution, despite its internationalist outreach, was essentially a domestic affair. It was Islamic Nationalism. After all, the Iranian Revolution was made entirely by Iranians themselves. Also, as Persians are an advanced people, they maintained a modern society despite some of the Islamic fervor and craziness. They were not like Taliban crazies or Wahabi extremists. Also, it had taken a short time for the Muslims in Iran to topple the Shah and take power.

    In contrast, it took a long bitter war in Afghanistan. Also, as Afghanis are a backward people, they have no means to create a modern society like Iran. Also, the Afghani struggle soon became an pan-Islamic struggle and attracted Jihadis from all over, not least from Saudi Arabia, the funder and sponsor of extreme Islamic ideology. So, Afghanistan proved to be the training and breeding ground for the Jihadis that would come to define so much of the Muslim world after the Cold War.

    Now, if the US had not meddled in the Gulf War, there would be no Jihadis messing up Middle East. Sure, there would be some terrorists and extremists, but most of them would be kept under wraps by ruthless regimes of Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and etc. Even though all such regimes, like US and Israel, lent a hand to terrorists, none of them tolerated terrorists within their own borders. So, things were mostly safe.

    But the Gulf War fatally weakened Hussein in Iraq, and then sanctions weakened it further.
    Still, Hussein was in power to keep things in order. So, terrorists couldn't run freely in Iraq.
    But US made a fatal mistake. After Gulf War, it placed US troops in Saudi Arabia, and this pissed off Muslims, especially those who'd been battle-hardened and radicalized in the hellfire of Afghanistan. So, allies turned enemies. US that had aided the Jihadis in Afghanistan found itself at war with them. Now, if Afghanis had defeated the USSR on their own, it wouldn't have mattered. Afghanis didn't much care if US were in Saudi Arabia or not. But because Afghanis won with the aid of foreign Jihadis, they got pulled into the global conflict. As a token of appreciation, Afghanis opened their nation to foreign Jihadis since they'd fought in the Afghan War against the USSR. Afghanis didn't know that Osama and others of his ilk were plotting global war from the hills of Afghanistan.

    9/11 happened, and the US entered Afghanistan. Even at that point, the horror could have been contained. All the US needed to do was flush out terrorists and Jihadis in Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan. Also, Iran and other nations were willing to help. Syria helped too. Not only did they fear the ire of the US but they too had no use for extreme Sunni terrorists. During the Afghan-Soviet War, those Jihadis had their hands full fighting the Russkies.
    But after the war, they still had trigger-finger and were looking to serve a cause. It's like German military men after WWI still looking for a fight. So, when US decided to flush out Jihadis in Afghanistan, most Muslim nations were relieved. Better that than have those Jihadis come to their nations and start trouble.

    But then, the real craziness happened. Zionists figured they could use 9/11 to wage Wars for Israel and reset things in the Middle East. Maybe US could topple existing regimes, prop up puppet 'democratic' regimes, and make the Middle East a vassal of the US. But Iraq went horribly. Absent Hussein and Baath Party networks, the nation spiraled into chaos. The US invasion threw out the baby with the Baath Party. Iraq soon turned into a haven of terrorists. And contrary to US expectations, the new democratic regime in Iraq grew closer to Iran than to the US.
    US intended to take out Iraq as a first step toward taking out Iran, but it only strengthened Iran. And this pissed off Jews almighty. So, Jews had to cook up some new scheme to mess things up. So, Jews kept on creating hysteria about Iran nukes to push sanctions to cripple Iranian economy. And then, under Obama, the US exploited Arab Spring to encourage mass revolts that led to social chaos and civil wars in Libya and Syria.
    And it was then that the US and its allies aided the Jihadis to run wild.
    Unlike Afghan Jihadis who were romanticized as heroes, martyrs, and freedom-fighters by the US Media in the 1980s, the new Jihadis couldn't be openly supported. They were Alqaeda remnants, and despite American amnesia, people still remember 9/11 = Alqaeda. Also, ISIS was worse. As ISIS terror was shown all over the internet, it was impossible to spin them as good guys. So, the US couldn't support them directly. But like the neo-Nazis in Maidan in Ukraine, these crazy Jihadis were useful in messing up Libya and Syria.

    Though ostensibly modern, civilized, and urbane, the Jewish Supremacist elites in the US are no less radical, zealous, ruthless, and vicious in their animus, vendetta, and deviousness. As supporters of Israeli Supremacism in the Middle East and US globalist supremacy(as US power is now synonymous with Jewish power), the Jewish Supremacist elements in the US will do ANYTHING to further their interests. They may be modern but they have ancient tribal blood flowing through their veins. They are like cosmopolitan Zealots. It's like their use of 'gay rights'. It's not just tolerance for homos but something to be shoved up everyone's ass.. or you shall be stoned for 'homophobia'!

    Terrorists in the West are the result of the total mess in the Middle East stemming from Cold War against communism in which Muslims proved to be especially useful. And then, after the Cold War, Islamic radicalism that had been encouraged during the Afghan War was made even more rabid by Wars for Israel: Gulf War and Iraq War.
    And it was under Obama that the Jews figured out a way to use this Jihadi terror AGAINST nations hated by Jews. Under Bush II, the plan was for the US to take out Arab tyrants under the cover of fighting terrorists and replace them with democratic puppets(brought to power by US money). But it didn't turn out that way. US got rid of Hussein but got mobbed with Jihadi problem 100x worse than in Afghanistan. So, Jewish power got bitten by Jihadi madness.

    But under Obama, Jews got clever and figured out a way to direct Jihadi violence against the Arab tyrants hated by Jews. And the opportunity came with Arab Spring. While Arab Spring unleashed genuine populist demand for reforms, things soon spiraled out of control to the point where the Arab world faced one of three options: (1) free elections and rise of Muslim regimes, like for a time in Egypt. But did Jews want Muslim Brotherhood to take over every Arab nation? (2) Existing regimes remaining in power by crushing populist politics. But this would mean regimes hated by Jews would still remain in power (3) total war where Jihadis running amok and setting back modern Arab nations 30 yrs. Jews figured #3 was the best bet, and the result is Libya and Syria.

    Though terror attacks in the West are unpleasant, they are mere ripples of the true horrors that were unleashed in the Middle East by US globalist meddling.
    But this sort of thing happens all over. Consider what happened to the American South when the North upended the old order. Blacks were suddenly freed, and white southerners lived in fear because more muscular and bigger-donged Negroes were acting wild like in D.W. Griffith's THE BIRTH OF A NATION. The chaos led to the rise of KKK that committed acts of terror and counter-terror. And US and Vietnamese meddling in Cambodia led to fall of Sihanouk and rise of Khmer Rouge. And the Japanese invasion into China gave a huge opening to Mao and his crazies.

    So, how about leaving nations alone?

    Anyway, the West is now being invaded and taken over. If most whites are hapless cucks, Europe will turn into big Morocco and US will turn into Brazil. And Canada and Australia will turn into India-China. But if whites wake up and want to take back their nations, they must become like Viet Cong. There is no other way. So, there is something to learn from the terrorists. Though their ways are crude and ugly, war is cruel and ugly, and a nation in danger can only be saved through war.

    Would the Irish have gained independence without terror?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1pkbe29910

    Ireland is now under greater threat than ever before. Irish minds are infected with globalist virus that makes Irish want to be demographically taken over by Africans and ruled by a homo hindu.
    In some ways, mental colonization under national freedom is more dangerous than foreign military occupation. When Ireland was ruled by Brits, the potatoheads knew they were under foreign British rule.
    But because Ireland is now independent and free, the Irish are blind to how their minds have been colonized and infected by globalism that tricks them into believing that Ireland is a 'nation of immigrants' whose destiny is for Irish women to have black babies under the leadership of a hindu into homo fecal penetration. With their minds infected with PC globalism, they think they are FREELY choosing this radical transformation of their own nation when, in fact, they are acting against national interest under the program of mental virus spread by globalism.

    I actually made it through that meandering post. You do make some good points, some excellent insights, indeed a certain genius that fortunately for both you and us springs forth from the crazy at times.

    Maybe you have a point about Islamic terror stemming from US/Israel meddling in MENA. But due to the nature of Islam, it’s like the herpes of the religious world. Just when you think it’s gone, the violence flares up again. It is its own mind virus that both drags down a people economically and militarizes it in a medieval fashion.

    I think a large part of the effectiveness of the religion is due to the whole thing being written by the one guy – who codified his life work of getting Arabs to work together at something, basically getting themselves plunder and sex at the expense of surrounding people. The New Testament is a lot more this way (i.e. centered around the one narrative) than the Old Testament, but still it was a collection of documents collated by the early Christians and did not have the cohesiveness of the Koran, even if Mo had to retcon a bunch of stuff from time to time driven by necessity.

    Sure, there is a lot of surrounding explanatory stuff such as hadiths and tafsir as a kind of Cliffs Notes I guess, but as an outsider you can easily grasp the salient points with only the knowledge of abrogation, the sura order and the Koran itself, coupled with a bit of the history. Islam did not grow to nearly 2 billion followers and a massive chunk of the globe by the Muslims misinterpreting Sura 9. Nope, when they are talking about idolaters, it’s everyone non-Muslim who should be put to the sword unless they get with the program.

    As to the Muslims, perhaps you are right in that they are doing God’s work in raising white people our of our stupor, building us up into the sort of rage Americans had after Pearl Harbor that won’t necessarily be very discriminating in its targets. The left always said it was wrong to discriminate.

    Pat, if you bother to read the comments (and I suspect you do even if I don’t recall you exchanging with the commentariat in direct dialogue fashion), you might read Sura 9 and sura 110, penultimate and ultimate chapters in the Koran. You can find them via google. Sura 110 invalidates nothing in Sura 9, but you might check it just to be sure.

    If it was good enough for Thomas Jefferson to read and attempt to understand the Koran, it’s probably good enough for you, no? There is no “strain” of Islam that would not justify the murder committed by the terrorists on the London Bridge. The only possible difference is in the wisdom of the timing. Mohammed himself was peaceful until he had enough military might to be successfully aggressive. Sooner or later such violence is called for, unless those people on the bridge had been obviously Muslims. Of course if Britain spontaneously converted to Islam, the only violence at that point would be between the Shia and the Sunni British communities.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "I actually made it through that meandering post. You do make some good points..."

    Says the sockpuppets--Anonym, Priss Factor, Anon, War For Blair Mountain.
    , @Talha

    but as an outsider you can easily grasp the salient points with only the knowledge of abrogation,the sura order and the Koran itself
     
    Bravo - brilliant analysis! It actually goes along the lines of something some dude named Abu Baraa Hindi from Daesh said:
    "Open the Qur’an and read the verses on jihad and everything will become clear... all the scholars tell me: 'This is a legal obligation (fard), or that isn’t a legal obligation, and this is not the time for jihad' ... forget everyone and read the Qur’an and you will know what jihad is."

    You ought to exchange notes with him - assuming he's not in jail right now. But I guess you could correspond over snail mail. He's had no formal education in the Islamic sciences - but neither have you - so it's all good!

    I mean, who's got the time to spend 30-40 years of one's life studying the Qur'an, hadith, tafsir (usul ul-fiqh) - heck even the Arabic language like those old muftis - pfffffsshhh - you can't eat that! I mean - we gotta read through all that??!! Screw that - Cliffs Notes please - I gotta play Halo or watch Breaking Bad!

    If one comes to completely different conclusions than the scholars have had a consensus on for centuries - it's only because the scholars totally screwed up! They obviously don't know what the heck they are talking about! Of course, they're the ones that actually formulated ideas like abrogation and determining chronological surah ordering, but what's that good for - eh?


    There is no “strain” of Islam that would not justify the murder committed by the terrorists on the London Bridge.
     
    Except for the consensus of the Orthodox and the Shia - but what do they count for anyway? Numbers...you can't eat that!

    Peace.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. @Rurik

    we whites have no community and are not willing to fight for our people. Unless we can find those things in ourselves again, we will – and should be – taken over.
     
    Brexit and the election of Donald Trump are two signs that whitey is beginning his nascent awakening

    we can thank the Internet for that, and those few voices out there with the nads to tell the truth

    Perhaps, but there will be a serious culling of the herd for NW Europeans and their diaspora.

    Also, look at California, Texas, or, hell, even South Africa. All areas where whites were once the majority or the dominant minority and that are now lost to us. Do you see whites coming together in California or Texas or, again, in South Africa where their lives are literally in danger. No, you don’t.

    We seem to have lost our ability to be tribal, and being tribal is the only defense against globalization and the SJW media. Japan is tribal so they take the best of globalization and leave the rest. Jews are tribal and thus protect Israel.

    Sadly, I just don’t see any white solidarity. I am quietly working in my own little world to form bonds with people who may in time start to view themselves much like blacks and Hispanics do, which is as a community that deserves to have its place. However, it’s a very slow process.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Perhaps, but there will be a serious culling of the herd for NW Europeans and their diaspora."

    What about SE Europeans? Are you excluding your brethren from a call to arms?

    "All areas where whites were once the majority or the dominant minority and that are now lost to us."

    Us, as in who? Please be specific here.

    "Do you see whites coming together in California or Texas or, again, in South Africa where their lives are literally in danger. No, you don’t."

    Excuse you, but whites living in those two states are relatively safe in their neighborhoods. They are not roving vibrant gangs in their midst, or "no-zones".

    "We seem to have lost our ability to be tribal, and being tribal is the only defense against globalization and the SJW media. Japan is tribal so they take the best of globalization and leave the rest. Jews are tribal and thus protect Israel."

    Americans are tribal, as in defenders for our way of life. Whites collectively seek to protect themselves, their families, and their nation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Corvinus says:
    @Rurik

    we whites have no community and are not willing to fight for our people. Unless we can find those things in ourselves again, we will – and should be – taken over.
     
    Brexit and the election of Donald Trump are two signs that whitey is beginning his nascent awakening

    we can thank the Internet for that, and those few voices out there with the nads to tell the truth

    “Brexit and the election of Donald Trump are two signs that whitey is beginning his nascent awakening.”

    Which “whitey”, the “good whites” or the “bad whites”? It’s hard to keep score here.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. Corvinus says:
    @Anonym
    I actually made it through that meandering post. You do make some good points, some excellent insights, indeed a certain genius that fortunately for both you and us springs forth from the crazy at times.

    Maybe you have a point about Islamic terror stemming from US/Israel meddling in MENA. But due to the nature of Islam, it's like the herpes of the religious world. Just when you think it's gone, the violence flares up again. It is its own mind virus that both drags down a people economically and militarizes it in a medieval fashion.

    I think a large part of the effectiveness of the religion is due to the whole thing being written by the one guy - who codified his life work of getting Arabs to work together at something, basically getting themselves plunder and sex at the expense of surrounding people. The New Testament is a lot more this way (i.e. centered around the one narrative) than the Old Testament, but still it was a collection of documents collated by the early Christians and did not have the cohesiveness of the Koran, even if Mo had to retcon a bunch of stuff from time to time driven by necessity.

    Sure, there is a lot of surrounding explanatory stuff such as hadiths and tafsir as a kind of Cliffs Notes I guess, but as an outsider you can easily grasp the salient points with only the knowledge of abrogation, the sura order and the Koran itself, coupled with a bit of the history. Islam did not grow to nearly 2 billion followers and a massive chunk of the globe by the Muslims misinterpreting Sura 9. Nope, when they are talking about idolaters, it's everyone non-Muslim who should be put to the sword unless they get with the program.

    As to the Muslims, perhaps you are right in that they are doing God's work in raising white people our of our stupor, building us up into the sort of rage Americans had after Pearl Harbor that won't necessarily be very discriminating in its targets. The left always said it was wrong to discriminate.

    Pat, if you bother to read the comments (and I suspect you do even if I don't recall you exchanging with the commentariat in direct dialogue fashion), you might read Sura 9 and sura 110, penultimate and ultimate chapters in the Koran. You can find them via google. Sura 110 invalidates nothing in Sura 9, but you might check it just to be sure.

    If it was good enough for Thomas Jefferson to read and attempt to understand the Koran, it's probably good enough for you, no? There is no "strain" of Islam that would not justify the murder committed by the terrorists on the London Bridge. The only possible difference is in the wisdom of the timing. Mohammed himself was peaceful until he had enough military might to be successfully aggressive. Sooner or later such violence is called for, unless those people on the bridge had been obviously Muslims. Of course if Britain spontaneously converted to Islam, the only violence at that point would be between the Shia and the Sunni British communities.

    “I actually made it through that meandering post. You do make some good points…”

    Says the sockpuppets–Anonym, Priss Factor, Anon, War For Blair Mountain.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonym
    Ah, the D-list Hasbara pipes up. Pro tip. If you want to be taken seriously, you should first establish some credibility with previous posts.

    For the record, I am not Priss Factor, anon, or Pizza with whatever and the myriad other sock puppets that guy has.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Corvinus says:
    @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Perhaps, but there will be a serious culling of the herd for NW Europeans and their diaspora.

    Also, look at California, Texas, or, hell, even South Africa. All areas where whites were once the majority or the dominant minority and that are now lost to us. Do you see whites coming together in California or Texas or, again, in South Africa where their lives are literally in danger. No, you don't.

    We seem to have lost our ability to be tribal, and being tribal is the only defense against globalization and the SJW media. Japan is tribal so they take the best of globalization and leave the rest. Jews are tribal and thus protect Israel.

    Sadly, I just don't see any white solidarity. I am quietly working in my own little world to form bonds with people who may in time start to view themselves much like blacks and Hispanics do, which is as a community that deserves to have its place. However, it's a very slow process.

    “Perhaps, but there will be a serious culling of the herd for NW Europeans and their diaspora.”

    What about SE Europeans? Are you excluding your brethren from a call to arms?

    “All areas where whites were once the majority or the dominant minority and that are now lost to us.”

    Us, as in who? Please be specific here.

    “Do you see whites coming together in California or Texas or, again, in South Africa where their lives are literally in danger. No, you don’t.”

    Excuse you, but whites living in those two states are relatively safe in their neighborhoods. They are not roving vibrant gangs in their midst, or “no-zones”.

    “We seem to have lost our ability to be tribal, and being tribal is the only defense against globalization and the SJW media. Japan is tribal so they take the best of globalization and leave the rest. Jews are tribal and thus protect Israel.”

    Americans are tribal, as in defenders for our way of life. Whites collectively seek to protect themselves, their families, and their nation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. I am starting to suffer from a self-induced Buchanan fatigue.

    To wit, “Our victory in Afghanistan…”. Paddy, do you know that victory necessarily involves having one party to a conflict having being either vanquished or routed and then capitulating?

    I may have been rotating my tires at the time but I seemed to have missed the victory parade or reading about the terms of surrender. Added to which he is actually stating that the victory (over the Taliban) ” is being reversed by the Taliban” How does one make sense out of that? Is that like after the fall of Berlin, the German army captures Moscow?

    Come to think of it, this article is in complete juxtaposition of his previous article whereby he agonized about the consequences of cutting and running.

    Has there ever been a war before in history where a victorious army’s biggest concern is to leave the field of battle without being molested politically and/or physically?

    I know that It may seem like I am picking nits but I am using his own words to hang him so maybe he should consider that the time has arrived where, as the old saw goes, it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than tapping out a sloppy article and removing all doubt. Of course, the good old male ego will Trump (pun) that decision.

    Cheers-

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    To wit, “Our victory in Afghanistan…”.
     
    that was pure, sardonic wry

    the only 'victory' they ever intended for any of these nations was to see them reduced to dystopian catastrophes of corruption and violence

    a failed state is a state that can muster no opposition to Israel's regional rapine

    *that* is the agenda, as I'm sure Mr. Buchanan is well aware

    he just has to use veiled language, because to say the obvious would be too controversial

    Cheers
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. Rurik says:

    Do you see whites coming together in California or Texas or, again, in South Africa where their lives are literally in danger. No, you don’t.

    not enough, to be sure. But there is a roiling, Citizen. An undercurrent that is sweeping some long-standing sacred cows off their pedestals.

    The people of Texas are even talking about secession, they’re so disillusioned. Perhaps it all will be too little too late, but there’s always outposts where our people will be safe. Eastern Europe for the time being. Other hamlets.

    I suspect what’s been going on is that whitey has been so self-assured for so long, as the top dog on the heap, that he’s grown complacent and lazy. But something tells me as it become more and more obvious, that whitey is slated for the waste bin of history, that he just might muster his dormant nads before they’re crushed under a juggernaut of invading armies.

    our biggest problem is that some of our most intractable enemies are from our own ranks

    ‘Being White is Terrorism’

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  23. Talha says:
    @Anonym
    I actually made it through that meandering post. You do make some good points, some excellent insights, indeed a certain genius that fortunately for both you and us springs forth from the crazy at times.

    Maybe you have a point about Islamic terror stemming from US/Israel meddling in MENA. But due to the nature of Islam, it's like the herpes of the religious world. Just when you think it's gone, the violence flares up again. It is its own mind virus that both drags down a people economically and militarizes it in a medieval fashion.

    I think a large part of the effectiveness of the religion is due to the whole thing being written by the one guy - who codified his life work of getting Arabs to work together at something, basically getting themselves plunder and sex at the expense of surrounding people. The New Testament is a lot more this way (i.e. centered around the one narrative) than the Old Testament, but still it was a collection of documents collated by the early Christians and did not have the cohesiveness of the Koran, even if Mo had to retcon a bunch of stuff from time to time driven by necessity.

    Sure, there is a lot of surrounding explanatory stuff such as hadiths and tafsir as a kind of Cliffs Notes I guess, but as an outsider you can easily grasp the salient points with only the knowledge of abrogation, the sura order and the Koran itself, coupled with a bit of the history. Islam did not grow to nearly 2 billion followers and a massive chunk of the globe by the Muslims misinterpreting Sura 9. Nope, when they are talking about idolaters, it's everyone non-Muslim who should be put to the sword unless they get with the program.

    As to the Muslims, perhaps you are right in that they are doing God's work in raising white people our of our stupor, building us up into the sort of rage Americans had after Pearl Harbor that won't necessarily be very discriminating in its targets. The left always said it was wrong to discriminate.

    Pat, if you bother to read the comments (and I suspect you do even if I don't recall you exchanging with the commentariat in direct dialogue fashion), you might read Sura 9 and sura 110, penultimate and ultimate chapters in the Koran. You can find them via google. Sura 110 invalidates nothing in Sura 9, but you might check it just to be sure.

    If it was good enough for Thomas Jefferson to read and attempt to understand the Koran, it's probably good enough for you, no? There is no "strain" of Islam that would not justify the murder committed by the terrorists on the London Bridge. The only possible difference is in the wisdom of the timing. Mohammed himself was peaceful until he had enough military might to be successfully aggressive. Sooner or later such violence is called for, unless those people on the bridge had been obviously Muslims. Of course if Britain spontaneously converted to Islam, the only violence at that point would be between the Shia and the Sunni British communities.

    but as an outsider you can easily grasp the salient points with only the knowledge of abrogation,the sura order and the Koran itself

    Bravo – brilliant analysis! It actually goes along the lines of something some dude named Abu Baraa Hindi from Daesh said:
    “Open the Qur’an and read the verses on jihad and everything will become clear… all the scholars tell me: ‘This is a legal obligation (fard), or that isn’t a legal obligation, and this is not the time for jihad’ … forget everyone and read the Qur’an and you will know what jihad is.”

    You ought to exchange notes with him – assuming he’s not in jail right now. But I guess you could correspond over snail mail. He’s had no formal education in the Islamic sciences – but neither have you – so it’s all good!

    I mean, who’s got the time to spend 30-40 years of one’s life studying the Qur’an, hadith, tafsir (usul ul-fiqh) – heck even the Arabic language like those old muftis – pfffffsshhh – you can’t eat that! I mean – we gotta read through all that??!! Screw that – Cliffs Notes please – I gotta play Halo or watch Breaking Bad!

    If one comes to completely different conclusions than the scholars have had a consensus on for centuries – it’s only because the scholars totally screwed up! They obviously don’t know what the heck they are talking about! Of course, they’re the ones that actually formulated ideas like abrogation and determining chronological surah ordering, but what’s that good for – eh?

    There is no “strain” of Islam that would not justify the murder committed by the terrorists on the London Bridge.

    Except for the consensus of the Orthodox and the Shia – but what do they count for anyway? Numbers…you can’t eat that!

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MEexpert

    but as an outsider you can easily grasp the salient points with only the knowledge of abrogation,the sura order and the Koran itself
     
    Hey Talha:


    May be Anonym can take up the challenge of Qur'an and come up with a surah or two like the ones in Qur'an.
    , @Anonym
    So what you are saying is that the long, mostly successful expansion of Islam through military means was not what Mohammed had in mind? Nice Taqiya there Talha. Who do I believe, you or my lying eyes?

    The other related religious material backs me up. They do say that I need the other content to come to the same conclusion I have already reached. However, with the context of how Muslims behave around the world in different percentages of demographic presence and how they have behaved throughout time and place, the inductive argument holds.

    http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/swordverse.htm

    Of course, I write not for you but anyone else on the thread who is white and non-Muslim.
    , @Anonym
    Btw others may note that ISIS has taken credit for the London attacks.

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3717339/london-bridge-attack-victims-terrorists-isis/

    The leader of ISIS has a doctorate in Islamic Studies from the University of Baghdad.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Bakr_al-Baghdadi

    I guess he was using the Cliff Notes version of Islam. ROTFL

    Btw Pat there is a good article on Thomas Jefferson's use of the Koran.

    http://mobile.wnd.com/2016/02/the-real-reason-jefferson-owned-a-quran/

    In 1786, Thomas Jefferson wrote to William Carmichael regarding Tripoli’s demand for an extortion tribute payment, 1786: “Mr. Adams and I had conferences with a Tripoline ambassador, named Abdrahaman. He asked us thirty thousand guineas for a peace with his court.”
     


    When Jefferson asked the Muslim ambassador what the new country of America had done to offend them, he reported to John Jay, March 28, 1786: “The Ambassador answered us that it was … written in their Qur’an, that all nations who should not have acknowledged Islam’s authority were sinners, that it was their … duty to make war upon them … and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners.”
     


    Jefferson purchased a Qur’an to understand the enemy.
     
    , @Mikel
    Talha,

    Whatever the latest adavances in the "Islamic Sciences" that you mention (I had never heard of such a discipline, at least not seriously), you should probably admit that members of IS, Al-Qaeda et al have a point in their interpretation of the Koran.

    Verses like these (of which the parts of the Koran I have managed to read without falling asleep are a good sample) don't leave that much room for nuanced interpretations:

    (9:5) Once the Sacred Months are past, you may kill the idol worshipers when you encounter them, punish them, and resist every move they make...

    (3:56) As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help.

    And so on.

    If someone claimed to be a faithful follower of the Bible and insisted that the world was created in 7 days by Yaveh or that Jesus Christ resurrected Lazarus bringing him back to life after he was clearly dead, I don't think that I would waste my time explaining that this is not really what those passages of the Bible mean to say.

    Having received a Catholic education, I know that there are plenty of brainy Christian scholars trying to reconcile the nutty claims of the Bible with our modern understanding of the world. But it is *our* fault, and not of those who kept the Bible and the Koran unchanged for so many centuries, that *we* have decided to adopt a completely different, "modern" mindset that clashes with the initial intent of those texts.

    If you don't like what the Koran actually says, just stop hiding behind the obscure ramblings of ancient "scholars"and find a new religion, I say.

    Best regards,
    Mikel
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Rurik says:
    @Timur The Lame
    I am starting to suffer from a self-induced Buchanan fatigue.

    To wit, "Our victory in Afghanistan...". Paddy, do you know that victory necessarily involves having one party to a conflict having being either vanquished or routed and then capitulating?

    I may have been rotating my tires at the time but I seemed to have missed the victory parade or reading about the terms of surrender. Added to which he is actually stating that the victory (over the Taliban) " is being reversed by the Taliban" How does one make sense out of that? Is that like after the fall of Berlin, the German army captures Moscow?

    Come to think of it, this article is in complete juxtaposition of his previous article whereby he agonized about the consequences of cutting and running.

    Has there ever been a war before in history where a victorious army's biggest concern is to leave the field of battle without being molested politically and/or physically?

    I know that It may seem like I am picking nits but I am using his own words to hang him so maybe he should consider that the time has arrived where, as the old saw goes, it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than tapping out a sloppy article and removing all doubt. Of course, the good old male ego will Trump (pun) that decision.

    Cheers-

    To wit, “Our victory in Afghanistan…”.

    that was pure, sardonic wry

    the only ‘victory’ they ever intended for any of these nations was to see them reduced to dystopian catastrophes of corruption and violence

    a failed state is a state that can muster no opposition to Israel’s regional rapine

    *that* is the agenda, as I’m sure Mr. Buchanan is well aware

    he just has to use veiled language, because to say the obvious would be too controversial

    Cheers

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    You got to give Muslims credit. They fight for something.

    Sure, we in the West can send great armies to destroy things, but do we really fight anything tangible? Freedom, democracy, etc. Just ideas. And after we destroy things, we go home.

    Muslims are pretty pathetic in many ways, but they are willing to fight day in and day out in neighborhoods to take control of those areas. They are willing to get in a fist fight over a woman wearing a short skirt. They are willing to take on the police. They are willing to threaten government officials. If they go to jail, so be it. Also, they will have other Muslims in that prison to protect them. When they get out of prison, Muslims will give them a job.

    If the press attacks a Muslim or the Muslim community, Muslims either don't care or, even better, they threaten the press.

    Muslims are a community that sticks together and is willing to fight.

    For all of our superior IQ and organizational skills, we whites have no community and are not willing to fight for our people. Unless we can find those things in ourselves again, we will - and should be - taken over.

    That’s a good summary of the message of Michel Houellebec’s novel Soumission.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Yeah, that book hit a lot of notes that I was thinking about before.

    Whites have lost something spiritual (Christianity specifically but religion/volk in general) and have replaced it with anything and everything but mostly the Cult of Equality (CE). But CE, like the other replacements, is an empty vessel, see the childish ranting of Corvinus for proof. Would anybody get into a fist fight or go to jail for his Coke commercial ideology?

    (Like a child, Corvinus lives in a protected world created by our forefathers exactly because they were hard men who believed in the kinds of things that he abhors. Corvinus is a perfect example of the "trust fund" kid mentality of our country, i.e. hating how his family made their money but more than willing to use that money to avoid reality. But like trust fund kids burning through their inheritance, his fantasy land can't last.)

    Muslims believe in something bigger than themselves. Naturally, it's only a small number that make up the tip of the spear but the entire community supports them in various ways.

    History is replete with more advanced people getting overtaken by less capable, but more violent and cohesive tribes. Whites will be no exception if we don't change.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. @Randal
    The problem with focussing on islam as the problem is that it leaves the real, broader policy problems (of which the problems with muslims are merely the particularly troublesome aspect at the moment) - mass immigration and military interventionism - unaddressed.

    Halting muslim immigration will be of little benefit if we allow our societies to be destroyed anyway by continued mass immigration of foreigners who are not muslims.

    Likewise, suppressing muslim terrorism will not allow us to live in peace if our foreign policies keep creating future enemies.

    And, of course, the focus on islam plays into the hands of some of those most culpable for the situation in which we find ourselves - the Israel lobby.

    Randal, I agree completely, with the slight nuance (with which I am sure you agree) that as long as “our” foreign policies keep creating future enemies Muslim terrorism will never be suppressed.

    The great problem of course is that no one of any “importance” is consistently enunciating these four points (and, indeed, I suspect that the large majority of people would not agree with them). In the case of the UK, Corbyn would reduce foreign wars while maintaining immigration, while May conceivably might reduce immigration but would continue enemy-making policies abroad.

    It is very hard to imagine a favorable long-term outcome.

    Read More
    • Agree: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @Randal

    Randal, I agree completely, with the slight nuance (with which I am sure you agree) that as long as “our” foreign policies keep creating future enemies Muslim terrorism will never be suppressed.
     
    I do agree with that, indeed.

    I also agree with your overall pessimism about the prospects.

    The worst thing is that so many people, even the honest ones, seem determined to focus on the wrong aspects of the problems we face, and advocate "solutions" that only make the real problems worse, or create additional problems.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. MEexpert says:
    @Talha

    but as an outsider you can easily grasp the salient points with only the knowledge of abrogation,the sura order and the Koran itself
     
    Bravo - brilliant analysis! It actually goes along the lines of something some dude named Abu Baraa Hindi from Daesh said:
    "Open the Qur’an and read the verses on jihad and everything will become clear... all the scholars tell me: 'This is a legal obligation (fard), or that isn’t a legal obligation, and this is not the time for jihad' ... forget everyone and read the Qur’an and you will know what jihad is."

    You ought to exchange notes with him - assuming he's not in jail right now. But I guess you could correspond over snail mail. He's had no formal education in the Islamic sciences - but neither have you - so it's all good!

    I mean, who's got the time to spend 30-40 years of one's life studying the Qur'an, hadith, tafsir (usul ul-fiqh) - heck even the Arabic language like those old muftis - pfffffsshhh - you can't eat that! I mean - we gotta read through all that??!! Screw that - Cliffs Notes please - I gotta play Halo or watch Breaking Bad!

    If one comes to completely different conclusions than the scholars have had a consensus on for centuries - it's only because the scholars totally screwed up! They obviously don't know what the heck they are talking about! Of course, they're the ones that actually formulated ideas like abrogation and determining chronological surah ordering, but what's that good for - eh?


    There is no “strain” of Islam that would not justify the murder committed by the terrorists on the London Bridge.
     
    Except for the consensus of the Orthodox and the Shia - but what do they count for anyway? Numbers...you can't eat that!

    Peace.

    but as an outsider you can easily grasp the salient points with only the knowledge of abrogation,the sura order and the Koran itself

    Hey Talha:

    May be Anonym can take up the challenge of Qur’an and come up with a surah or two like the ones in Qur’an.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey MEExpert,

    Yeah - but you gotta learn Arabic for that! People don't got time for that flim-flam - they're too busy giving keyboard fatwas! Maybe in their spare time they are doing knee surgery in their garage after reading "Surgery for Dummies".

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

    Is there a strain of Islam, the basis of which can be found in the Quran, that would justify what the murderers did at London Bridge?
     
    Yes there is; welcome to the Reformation.

    Pleased to meet you
    Hope you guess my name
    But what's puzzling you
    Is the nature of my game...

    When have the imams of Saudi Arabia, the Middle East, and West ever stood as one to condemn all such acts as against the tenets of Islam?
     
    Plenty - the fact that people don't care to listen is a different subject.

    If these persecutors and killers of Christians are apostates to Islam, headed to hell for their savageries, why have not all the imams of the world, Shiite and Sunni, risen together to condemn them as heretics?
     
    They aren't apostates - they are heretical extremists though - again, see previous point. Mr. Buchanan, do you not have access to Google? Something like "Muslim scholars condemn ISIS" should be a good start. Here, I'll make it easy for you:
    https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/muslims-against-isis-part-1-clerics-scholars

    We didn't need to wait for them to start killing Christians, it was enough that they got their rocks off by killing plenty of Muslims. You're a betting man, right? Where do you think the next terrorist act will occur; Europe or the Middle East? Who do you think the next victims will be; Christians or Muslims?

    Correct. There is an extremist school of Islam that needs to be purged from the West
     
    No problems there.

    And the imams of Islam need to answer the question: “Whose side are you on?”
     
    They already have; neither. Do you really expect the ulema (the inheritors of the prophetic legacy) to pander to US/Israeli/Nato drone-imperialism and lose all credibility and respect in the eyes of the Ummah?

    Imams and scholars in the UK are refusing burial and last prayer rites to these wretched people (evoking a classic form of censuring of acts such as hirabah):
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/05/imams-refuse-funeral-prayers-to-indefensible-london-bridge-attackers

    Again, is anybody listening, or will they again be accused of refusing to take a stance?

    Now, second-generation Muslims within Europe seem to be converting to a violent version of Islam.
     
    Too many for comfort, yes - big problem, this.

    The new normal.
     
    You ought to ask the people of the Middle East about the "new normal" ushered in since the beginning of this century - you know, the PNAC vision. An imam that also works for a relief agency working in these areas was recently telling us that some people are breaking their Ramadan fasts on the carcasses of cats and dogs. You know, we can simply just stop what we started and start pulling back our armies. This might just work. It might not, but at least we'd know if these guys were sincere when claiming they do this as revenge against Western destruction and meddling.

    To fight them, we are being forced to circumscribe our sovereignty and empower police and intelligence agencies of which free men were once taught to be wary.
     
    There is no forcing - this seems to be part of the plan. War, as you said, are the death of republics, but the health of the state.

    Peace.

    I will make it very simple I am neither for invade the world or invite the world. I absolutely do not support neocons and their lust for war, but even more importantly I absolutely do not accept the idea of allowing Muslims (or any other third worlders) into Europe. To have someone named Sadiq Khan as mayor of London is a disgrace, oh and I don’t even bother with “you are a racist” or some other highbrow snark response, I am a racist and I have no problem with being one. Western civilization is white civilization, non whites taking over the lands is the death of Western civilization.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey neutral,

    I can respect that. Just keep in mind, plenty of Europeans are also going Muzzie - so there's that to deal with.

    As I've said before - if Western countries decide to boot us all out - I'm OK with that. We might actually deserve that - in a metaphysical sense - if we are (overall) a negative influence in the societies we live in. There are plenty of places I can go to - I wouldn't be begging to stay. Just get me the official federal notice that my citizenship is revoked and my legal right to stay in the US revoked and I'll pack my bags.


    I am a racist and I have no problem with being one.

     

    To each his own.

    Western civilization is white civilization, non whites taking over the lands is the death of Western civilization.
     
    Makes sense - looks to me that Whites have - quite a few of them anyway - abandoned whatever constituted Western civilization. Check out Pat the Rat's post. If you kick out the darkies, Europe may; 1) become a White utopia or 2) possibly go back to their old continental pastime - war. What's the last time there was a serious continent-wide White-on-White pile on - 70 years? That's frickin' ages for Europe - where's Napoleon when you need him? So maybe it's a good thing we clear the field before the opening whistle.

    Peace.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. anon says: • Disclaimer

    This article is so wrong on so many levels . But I guess Pat has given up on his own tribe’s ever reaching any level of sanity and gaining any e moral legal perspective on the continued illegal wars that being waged for over 15 yrs . So what he does? He throws his hands up in despair and writes about the causes of terrorism . His cause his own invention . Real cause hurts him so much that he fails to get out of the perimeter allowed by both the liberal -conservative talk show host’ daily diets of wisdom .

    May be Pat should ask why there is no terrorism in Ireland, Spain , Portugal Finland or Bulgaria or Serbia or in Hungary . May be he should look into Spain why Madrid bombing was not followed by any Madrid knifing or rape ( the invested rapes ).
    But the knowledge will be very toxic to his well being based on moral and religious items of thousands disjointed pieces out of Bible and Papal Bulls.

    Did Pat notice how those Manchester bombers were groomed by M16 over the years to create mayhem in Libya and Syria? Tell me Pat -: was that training holy and pure and was it based on teachings from the Bible?

    I see your Bible doesn’t say much All Bush has to say ” I am sorry” and his God will take him to heaven because he has accepted Jesus though he has killed millions and despite the fact he has ruined million more lives directly and indirectly .

    So you see to your God , these killings even don’t matter . Ask Blair – he still maintains he believes in God and he has clear conscience and he will do it again.

    Read More
    • Replies: @TWS
    So submit or be killed. Cool, at least I know where you're coming from.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Talha says:
    @neutral
    I will make it very simple I am neither for invade the world or invite the world. I absolutely do not support neocons and their lust for war, but even more importantly I absolutely do not accept the idea of allowing Muslims (or any other third worlders) into Europe. To have someone named Sadiq Khan as mayor of London is a disgrace, oh and I don't even bother with "you are a racist" or some other highbrow snark response, I am a racist and I have no problem with being one. Western civilization is white civilization, non whites taking over the lands is the death of Western civilization.

    Hey neutral,

    I can respect that. Just keep in mind, plenty of Europeans are also going Muzzie – so there’s that to deal with.

    As I’ve said before – if Western countries decide to boot us all out – I’m OK with that. We might actually deserve that – in a metaphysical sense – if we are (overall) a negative influence in the societies we live in. There are plenty of places I can go to – I wouldn’t be begging to stay. Just get me the official federal notice that my citizenship is revoked and my legal right to stay in the US revoked and I’ll pack my bags.

    I am a racist and I have no problem with being one.

    To each his own.

    Western civilization is white civilization, non whites taking over the lands is the death of Western civilization.

    Makes sense – looks to me that Whites have – quite a few of them anyway – abandoned whatever constituted Western civilization. Check out Pat the Rat’s post. If you kick out the darkies, Europe may; 1) become a White utopia or 2) possibly go back to their old continental pastime – war. What’s the last time there was a serious continent-wide White-on-White pile on – 70 years? That’s frickin’ ages for Europe – where’s Napoleon when you need him? So maybe it’s a good thing we clear the field before the opening whistle.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Mario64 says:

    Why they do it?

    Mr. Buchanan doesn’t ever comes to your mind that may be the answer is that they do it because the so called Western civilization led by the Americans did and do by far worse to them?

    On May 12, 1996, Madeleine Albright (then U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations) appeared on a 60 Minutes segment in which Lesley Stahl asked her “We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?” and Albright replied “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price, we think the price is worth it.”

    What was the reaction of the American and English people to the Albright interview on CBS’ 60 Minutes, one of the most widely followed TV program since more than 50 years? Just a shrug and it was quickly forgotten. Can they affirm that they haven’t been informed of such unspeakable atrocity committed by their government? Did it change anything?

    How does it come that after G.W. Bush’s carnage in Iraq the American people overwhelmingly elected him to a second term? UK, the US and France are democracies, which means that rulers are chosen by the people, so how does it come that those that chose them are never called to bear responsibility for the crime of the leaders they elect and cheer? No complicity whatsoever?

    And doesn’t ever comes to your mind that, before the unspeakable war crimes committed by genocidal war crimes monsters like Bush father and son, Bill Clinton and his wife, Tony Blair, Barack Obama and the likes of Madeleine Albright, the Christians being now slaughtered in the Middle East have been allowed to live in peace in the cradle provinces in the Holy Land for almost 1300 years since the rise of Islam?

    How can you, being an American, take the high ground on such issues in the name of the so called Western civilization?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    How can you, being an American, take the high ground on such issues in the name of the so called Western civilization?
     
    because Pat Buchanan was always very much against the evil wars?

    no one has been more adamant that America under the thrall of the Zio-fiend is doomed, and that they have turned her into a monster that kills not just innocent Iraqis and others, but grinds up a few American kids in the process too.

    I understand the criticism that some people have for Mr. Buchanan, because he speaks of the US as if it still had any credibility- I suspect out of sentimental habit- but I try to remind people that it was none other than Pat Buchanan that railed against all these war crimes from the very start.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Talha says:
    @MEexpert

    but as an outsider you can easily grasp the salient points with only the knowledge of abrogation,the sura order and the Koran itself
     
    Hey Talha:


    May be Anonym can take up the challenge of Qur'an and come up with a surah or two like the ones in Qur'an.

    Hey MEExpert,

    Yeah – but you gotta learn Arabic for that! People don’t got time for that flim-flam – they’re too busy giving keyboard fatwas! Maybe in their spare time they are doing knee surgery in their garage after reading “Surgery for Dummies”.

    Peace.

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

    On a recent trip to the Middle East, I saw a cartoon.

    An ISIS soldier to his commander, “Sir when are we going to attack Israel?”

    The commander, “when they convert to Shia.”

    There have not been any ISIS attacks on Israel or Saudi Arabia (except in the Shia areas) and the other Sunni monarchies.

    Read More
    • LOL: Talha
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  34. TWS says:
    @anon
    This article is so wrong on so many levels . But I guess Pat has given up on his own tribe's ever reaching any level of sanity and gaining any e moral legal perspective on the continued illegal wars that being waged for over 15 yrs . So what he does? He throws his hands up in despair and writes about the causes of terrorism . His cause his own invention . Real cause hurts him so much that he fails to get out of the perimeter allowed by both the liberal -conservative talk show host' daily diets of wisdom .

    May be Pat should ask why there is no terrorism in Ireland, Spain , Portugal Finland or Bulgaria or Serbia or in Hungary . May be he should look into Spain why Madrid bombing was not followed by any Madrid knifing or rape ( the invested rapes ).
    But the knowledge will be very toxic to his well being based on moral and religious items of thousands disjointed pieces out of Bible and Papal Bulls.

    Did Pat notice how those Manchester bombers were groomed by M16 over the years to create mayhem in Libya and Syria? Tell me Pat -: was that training holy and pure and was it based on teachings from the Bible?

    I see your Bible doesn't say much All Bush has to say " I am sorry" and his God will take him to heaven because he has accepted Jesus though he has killed millions and despite the fact he has ruined million more lives directly and indirectly .

    So you see to your God , these killings even don't matter . Ask Blair - he still maintains he believes in God and he has clear conscience and he will do it again.

    So submit or be killed. Cool, at least I know where you’re coming from.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    So submit to western hegemony or be killed .
    Not only that your relatives also will be killed in subsequent drones when they come to pick up your body

    We will lame sure the phosphorus will glow your soul for everyone around your neighborhood to see
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Anonym says:
    @Talha

    but as an outsider you can easily grasp the salient points with only the knowledge of abrogation,the sura order and the Koran itself
     
    Bravo - brilliant analysis! It actually goes along the lines of something some dude named Abu Baraa Hindi from Daesh said:
    "Open the Qur’an and read the verses on jihad and everything will become clear... all the scholars tell me: 'This is a legal obligation (fard), or that isn’t a legal obligation, and this is not the time for jihad' ... forget everyone and read the Qur’an and you will know what jihad is."

    You ought to exchange notes with him - assuming he's not in jail right now. But I guess you could correspond over snail mail. He's had no formal education in the Islamic sciences - but neither have you - so it's all good!

    I mean, who's got the time to spend 30-40 years of one's life studying the Qur'an, hadith, tafsir (usul ul-fiqh) - heck even the Arabic language like those old muftis - pfffffsshhh - you can't eat that! I mean - we gotta read through all that??!! Screw that - Cliffs Notes please - I gotta play Halo or watch Breaking Bad!

    If one comes to completely different conclusions than the scholars have had a consensus on for centuries - it's only because the scholars totally screwed up! They obviously don't know what the heck they are talking about! Of course, they're the ones that actually formulated ideas like abrogation and determining chronological surah ordering, but what's that good for - eh?


    There is no “strain” of Islam that would not justify the murder committed by the terrorists on the London Bridge.
     
    Except for the consensus of the Orthodox and the Shia - but what do they count for anyway? Numbers...you can't eat that!

    Peace.

    So what you are saying is that the long, mostly successful expansion of Islam through military means was not what Mohammed had in mind? Nice Taqiya there Talha. Who do I believe, you or my lying eyes?

    The other related religious material backs me up. They do say that I need the other content to come to the same conclusion I have already reached. However, with the context of how Muslims behave around the world in different percentages of demographic presence and how they have behaved throughout time and place, the inductive argument holds.

    http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/swordverse.htm

    Of course, I write not for you but anyone else on the thread who is white and non-Muslim.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey Anonym,

    So what you are saying is that the long, mostly successful expansion of Islam through military means was not what Mohammed had in mind?
     
    That part is fine. During the Age of Empires - Muslims rolled pretty hard over Byzantium, Persia, Visigoths or anybody else who posed a potential threat as the Muslim lands were expanding. No argument there - no harm no foul - you want to keep an empire, learn to defend it. If you can't, then pay taxes as the army rolls in - do you know any other pre-modern army that didn't demand taxes and loyalty when they took a land? Muslims fought better than others for the first thousand years or so (minus some exceptions) then the Europeans and others started beating us down pretty hard and we wuz colonized - such is life when you play the empire game. Seems like Europeans stopped playing the game after they exhausted themselves beating the hell out of each other in WW2.

    Now we have an international framework of non-aggression that all of our top scholars and institutes of sacred learning have accepted as valid and binding upon Muslim countries who are signatory members. If you want to present evidence that there are qualified scholars that reject this framework then do so. Non-Muslim voices or interpretations of our religion don't really count because no Muslim cares what they say.


    behaved throughout time and place
     
    Except that Islam spread into West Africa, Nubia, places like Eastern Bengal, Malaysia and Indonesia through preaching - so your argument that it was always military conquest doesn't hold up factually.

    http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/swordverse.htm
     
    LOL! The guy actually brings up Ibn Saad's Tabaqat and Ibn Ishaq's Seerah as evidence. You do know that would get you laughed out in a serious gathering of our scholarship, right? Actually, they'd have more etiquette and be giggling inside.

    And all the tafsirs he sticks to are those by Shafi'i scholars like Imam Suyuti (ra), Ibn Kathir (ra) and references a Shafi'i manual of jurisprudence. Hello! What about what the Malikis and Hanafis say - we don't get a seat at the table - why? Because it goes against your narrative? And I'm not even mentioning our tafsirs like those of Imams Zamakhshari (ra), Razi (ra), Baydawi (ra), etc. who say that verse does not abrogate previously revealed verses.

    Explain to me why none of the Sunni Orthodox schools considered that verse to apply to any but the polytheists/pagans/idolaters. The Hanafi school restricting it to only the Arab polytheists in the Arabian peninsula (effectively they were told, get the hell outta Dodge!) and the Malikis restricted it to only tribe of Quraysh. What authority do you cite to apply this verse to non-pagans?

    On top of that, which school states that you can violate a covenant of citizenship or residency in a non-Muslim land and commit violence upon its people - even when that land is at war with a Muslim land? There is a consensus ruling in all four schools that this is not permitted. The only exception I have read of is an instance where one is allowed - actually obligated if he can - to take up arms (in the Hanafi school); namely, if his country of residence has attacked a Muslim country and is bringing back Muslim women and children as slaves through his area and he has the ability to help free them, then he is allowed to publicly rescind his part of the covenant and fight to free them. You can find this in the writings of the Hanafi scholars Imam Sarakhsi (ra), in his 30 volume al-Mabsut, and Siyar al-Kabir of Imam Muhammad Shaybani (ra).


    I write not for you
     
    Same here - I don't care what their skin color - I'm writing for those that are willing to look at things objectively.

    Peace.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. Rurik says:
    @Mario64
    Why they do it?

    Mr. Buchanan doesn't ever comes to your mind that may be the answer is that they do it because the so called Western civilization led by the Americans did and do by far worse to them?


    On May 12, 1996, Madeleine Albright (then U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations) appeared on a 60 Minutes segment in which Lesley Stahl asked her “We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?” and Albright replied “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price, we think the price is worth it.”
     
    What was the reaction of the American and English people to the Albright interview on CBS' 60 Minutes, one of the most widely followed TV program since more than 50 years? Just a shrug and it was quickly forgotten. Can they affirm that they haven't been informed of such unspeakable atrocity committed by their government? Did it change anything?

    How does it come that after G.W. Bush's carnage in Iraq the American people overwhelmingly elected him to a second term? UK, the US and France are democracies, which means that rulers are chosen by the people, so how does it come that those that chose them are never called to bear responsibility for the crime of the leaders they elect and cheer? No complicity whatsoever?

    And doesn't ever comes to your mind that, before the unspeakable war crimes committed by genocidal war crimes monsters like Bush father and son, Bill Clinton and his wife, Tony Blair, Barack Obama and the likes of Madeleine Albright, the Christians being now slaughtered in the Middle East have been allowed to live in peace in the cradle provinces in the Holy Land for almost 1300 years since the rise of Islam?

    How can you, being an American, take the high ground on such issues in the name of the so called Western civilization?

    How can you, being an American, take the high ground on such issues in the name of the so called Western civilization?

    because Pat Buchanan was always very much against the evil wars?

    no one has been more adamant that America under the thrall of the Zio-fiend is doomed, and that they have turned her into a monster that kills not just innocent Iraqis and others, but grinds up a few American kids in the process too.

    I understand the criticism that some people have for Mr. Buchanan, because he speaks of the US as if it still had any credibility- I suspect out of sentimental habit- but I try to remind people that it was none other than Pat Buchanan that railed against all these war crimes from the very start.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. Anonym says:
    @Corvinus
    "I actually made it through that meandering post. You do make some good points..."

    Says the sockpuppets--Anonym, Priss Factor, Anon, War For Blair Mountain.

    Ah, the D-list Hasbara pipes up. Pro tip. If you want to be taken seriously, you should first establish some credibility with previous posts.

    For the record, I am not Priss Factor, anon, or Pizza with whatever and the myriad other sock puppets that guy has.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    He's confusing you, Anonym, with Anonymny, who might have been 'priss factor'.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. Talha says:
    @Anonym
    So what you are saying is that the long, mostly successful expansion of Islam through military means was not what Mohammed had in mind? Nice Taqiya there Talha. Who do I believe, you or my lying eyes?

    The other related religious material backs me up. They do say that I need the other content to come to the same conclusion I have already reached. However, with the context of how Muslims behave around the world in different percentages of demographic presence and how they have behaved throughout time and place, the inductive argument holds.

    http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/swordverse.htm

    Of course, I write not for you but anyone else on the thread who is white and non-Muslim.

    Hey Anonym,

    So what you are saying is that the long, mostly successful expansion of Islam through military means was not what Mohammed had in mind?

    That part is fine. During the Age of Empires – Muslims rolled pretty hard over Byzantium, Persia, Visigoths or anybody else who posed a potential threat as the Muslim lands were expanding. No argument there – no harm no foul – you want to keep an empire, learn to defend it. If you can’t, then pay taxes as the army rolls in – do you know any other pre-modern army that didn’t demand taxes and loyalty when they took a land? Muslims fought better than others for the first thousand years or so (minus some exceptions) then the Europeans and others started beating us down pretty hard and we wuz colonized – such is life when you play the empire game. Seems like Europeans stopped playing the game after they exhausted themselves beating the hell out of each other in WW2.

    Now we have an international framework of non-aggression that all of our top scholars and institutes of sacred learning have accepted as valid and binding upon Muslim countries who are signatory members. If you want to present evidence that there are qualified scholars that reject this framework then do so. Non-Muslim voices or interpretations of our religion don’t really count because no Muslim cares what they say.

    behaved throughout time and place

    Except that Islam spread into West Africa, Nubia, places like Eastern Bengal, Malaysia and Indonesia through preaching – so your argument that it was always military conquest doesn’t hold up factually.

    http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/swordverse.htm

    LOL! The guy actually brings up Ibn Saad’s Tabaqat and Ibn Ishaq’s Seerah as evidence. You do know that would get you laughed out in a serious gathering of our scholarship, right? Actually, they’d have more etiquette and be giggling inside.

    And all the tafsirs he sticks to are those by Shafi’i scholars like Imam Suyuti (ra), Ibn Kathir (ra) and references a Shafi’i manual of jurisprudence. Hello! What about what the Malikis and Hanafis say – we don’t get a seat at the table – why? Because it goes against your narrative? And I’m not even mentioning our tafsirs like those of Imams Zamakhshari (ra), Razi (ra), Baydawi (ra), etc. who say that verse does not abrogate previously revealed verses.

    Explain to me why none of the Sunni Orthodox schools considered that verse to apply to any but the polytheists/pagans/idolaters. The Hanafi school restricting it to only the Arab polytheists in the Arabian peninsula (effectively they were told, get the hell outta Dodge!) and the Malikis restricted it to only tribe of Quraysh. What authority do you cite to apply this verse to non-pagans?

    On top of that, which school states that you can violate a covenant of citizenship or residency in a non-Muslim land and commit violence upon its people – even when that land is at war with a Muslim land? There is a consensus ruling in all four schools that this is not permitted. The only exception I have read of is an instance where one is allowed – actually obligated if he can – to take up arms (in the Hanafi school); namely, if his country of residence has attacked a Muslim country and is bringing back Muslim women and children as slaves through his area and he has the ability to help free them, then he is allowed to publicly rescind his part of the covenant and fight to free them. You can find this in the writings of the Hanafi scholars Imam Sarakhsi (ra), in his 30 volume al-Mabsut, and Siyar al-Kabir of Imam Muhammad Shaybani (ra).

    I write not for you

    Same here – I don’t care what their skin color – I’m writing for those that are willing to look at things objectively.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    LOL! The guy actually brings up Ibn Saad’s Tabaqat and Ibn Ishaq’s Seerah as evidence. You do know that would get you laughed out in a serious gathering of our scholarship, right? Actually, they’d have more etiquette and be giggling inside.
     
    I apologize for posting up this thread; if I do it any more I'll probably get one of Mr. Unz's patented automated troll-warnings from the comment system.

    Anyway, my two cents: from a (non-Muslim) historical perspective, these sources are extremely valuable for the information they provide about the period and the personalities described. I mean, after all, we don't have your objections to listening to Jews or their descendants, which seems to be one of the principal objections among Muslims.

    Obviously, from a perspective of sharia-legal or theological argument, on the other hand, these things are pretty useless. Actually, as I always saw it, anything we say on these matters is so much white noise to your garden-variety pious Muslim anyway, so it really doesn't much matter, does it?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Anonym
    Ah, the D-list Hasbara pipes up. Pro tip. If you want to be taken seriously, you should first establish some credibility with previous posts.

    For the record, I am not Priss Factor, anon, or Pizza with whatever and the myriad other sock puppets that guy has.

    He’s confusing you, Anonym, with Anonymny, who might have been ‘priss factor’.

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

    but as an outsider you can easily grasp the salient points with only the knowledge of abrogation,the sura order and the Koran itself
     
    Bravo - brilliant analysis! It actually goes along the lines of something some dude named Abu Baraa Hindi from Daesh said:
    "Open the Qur’an and read the verses on jihad and everything will become clear... all the scholars tell me: 'This is a legal obligation (fard), or that isn’t a legal obligation, and this is not the time for jihad' ... forget everyone and read the Qur’an and you will know what jihad is."

    You ought to exchange notes with him - assuming he's not in jail right now. But I guess you could correspond over snail mail. He's had no formal education in the Islamic sciences - but neither have you - so it's all good!

    I mean, who's got the time to spend 30-40 years of one's life studying the Qur'an, hadith, tafsir (usul ul-fiqh) - heck even the Arabic language like those old muftis - pfffffsshhh - you can't eat that! I mean - we gotta read through all that??!! Screw that - Cliffs Notes please - I gotta play Halo or watch Breaking Bad!

    If one comes to completely different conclusions than the scholars have had a consensus on for centuries - it's only because the scholars totally screwed up! They obviously don't know what the heck they are talking about! Of course, they're the ones that actually formulated ideas like abrogation and determining chronological surah ordering, but what's that good for - eh?


    There is no “strain” of Islam that would not justify the murder committed by the terrorists on the London Bridge.
     
    Except for the consensus of the Orthodox and the Shia - but what do they count for anyway? Numbers...you can't eat that!

    Peace.

    Btw others may note that ISIS has taken credit for the London attacks.

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3717339/london-bridge-attack-victims-terrorists-isis/

    The leader of ISIS has a doctorate in Islamic Studies from the University of Baghdad.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Bakr_al-Baghdadi

    I guess he was using the Cliff Notes version of Islam. ROTFL

    Btw Pat there is a good article on Thomas Jefferson’s use of the Koran.

    http://mobile.wnd.com/2016/02/the-real-reason-jefferson-owned-a-quran/

    In 1786, Thomas Jefferson wrote to William Carmichael regarding Tripoli’s demand for an extortion tribute payment, 1786: “Mr. Adams and I had conferences with a Tripoline ambassador, named Abdrahaman. He asked us thirty thousand guineas for a peace with his court.”

    When Jefferson asked the Muslim ambassador what the new country of America had done to offend them, he reported to John Jay, March 28, 1786: “The Ambassador answered us that it was … written in their Qur’an, that all nations who should not have acknowledged Islam’s authority were sinners, that it was their … duty to make war upon them … and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners.”

    Jefferson purchased a Qur’an to understand the enemy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey Anonym,

    Nobody knows if the guy exists or what he has a PhD in:
    Is it in "Quranic Studies (Recitation)"?
    http://csweb.brookings.edu/content/research/essays/2015/thebeliever.html

    In “Islamic culture, history, sharia, and jurisprudence”?
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28560449

    In “Arabic”?
    http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/iraq-turmoil/secret-life-isis-leader-abu-bakr-al-baghdadi-n132311

    None of those, except maybe the second one possibly qualify him to formulate an opinion on juristic matters. That is assuming some qualified scholars conferred on him the authority to pass fatwas.

    But, for the sake of argument, let's say you've got Baghdadi as your go-to guy. OK nice - that's one guy. Are you seriously hanging your hopes on one guy - really? Not only that, the guy is so extreme that Al-Qaeda has denounced him and has fought against him? Are you guys that desperate?

    So the opinion of the ambassador of the Barbary states is your key witness at the stand - nice.

    Peace.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @TWS
    So submit or be killed. Cool, at least I know where you're coming from.

    So submit to western hegemony or be killed .
    Not only that your relatives also will be killed in subsequent drones when they come to pick up your body

    We will lame sure the phosphorus will glow your soul for everyone around your neighborhood to see

    Read More
    • Replies: @TWS
    Keep your politics at home and nobody will have to settle it for you. You're fighting a 4g war because you'll lose anything where you have to wear a uniform and fight like men. Okay, but what happens when you keep attacking us at home without uniforms? We have to assume you're already wearing your uniform.

    How much fun will that be for you?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. KenH says:
    @Talha

    Is there a strain of Islam, the basis of which can be found in the Quran, that would justify what the murderers did at London Bridge?
     
    Yes there is; welcome to the Reformation.

    Pleased to meet you
    Hope you guess my name
    But what's puzzling you
    Is the nature of my game...

    When have the imams of Saudi Arabia, the Middle East, and West ever stood as one to condemn all such acts as against the tenets of Islam?
     
    Plenty - the fact that people don't care to listen is a different subject.

    If these persecutors and killers of Christians are apostates to Islam, headed to hell for their savageries, why have not all the imams of the world, Shiite and Sunni, risen together to condemn them as heretics?
     
    They aren't apostates - they are heretical extremists though - again, see previous point. Mr. Buchanan, do you not have access to Google? Something like "Muslim scholars condemn ISIS" should be a good start. Here, I'll make it easy for you:
    https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/muslims-against-isis-part-1-clerics-scholars

    We didn't need to wait for them to start killing Christians, it was enough that they got their rocks off by killing plenty of Muslims. You're a betting man, right? Where do you think the next terrorist act will occur; Europe or the Middle East? Who do you think the next victims will be; Christians or Muslims?

    Correct. There is an extremist school of Islam that needs to be purged from the West
     
    No problems there.

    And the imams of Islam need to answer the question: “Whose side are you on?”
     
    They already have; neither. Do you really expect the ulema (the inheritors of the prophetic legacy) to pander to US/Israeli/Nato drone-imperialism and lose all credibility and respect in the eyes of the Ummah?

    Imams and scholars in the UK are refusing burial and last prayer rites to these wretched people (evoking a classic form of censuring of acts such as hirabah):
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/05/imams-refuse-funeral-prayers-to-indefensible-london-bridge-attackers

    Again, is anybody listening, or will they again be accused of refusing to take a stance?

    Now, second-generation Muslims within Europe seem to be converting to a violent version of Islam.
     
    Too many for comfort, yes - big problem, this.

    The new normal.
     
    You ought to ask the people of the Middle East about the "new normal" ushered in since the beginning of this century - you know, the PNAC vision. An imam that also works for a relief agency working in these areas was recently telling us that some people are breaking their Ramadan fasts on the carcasses of cats and dogs. You know, we can simply just stop what we started and start pulling back our armies. This might just work. It might not, but at least we'd know if these guys were sincere when claiming they do this as revenge against Western destruction and meddling.

    To fight them, we are being forced to circumscribe our sovereignty and empower police and intelligence agencies of which free men were once taught to be wary.
     
    There is no forcing - this seems to be part of the plan. War, as you said, are the death of republics, but the health of the state.

    Peace.

    Yes there is; welcome to the Reformation.

    Reformation, eh? This must be phase two as the Sunni-Shia split could probably qualify as the first reformation which is still unresolved and could set the Middle East aflame at any time.

    The Christians during the Protestant reformation took it out only on each other and didn’t slaughter Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists. Muslims in the West are taking it out only on non-Muslims so I don’t see how their actions have a reformative effect on Islam. Are Westerners just supposed to sit back and let thousands of their kinsmen and countrymen die while members of an alien race and religion sort things out in this so called reformation?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey KenH,

    This must be phase two as the Sunni-Shia split could probably qualify as the first reformation
     
    Not even close.

    The Christians during the Protestant reformation took it out only on each other and didn’t slaughter Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists.
     
    True - they'd already kicked out the Muslims from Europe. Did they have any Hindus and Buddhists around to test your theory? I mean extremist Muslims haven't slaughtered space aliens - can we get credit for that?

    I don’t see how their actions have a reformative effect on Islam.
     
    They have broken with 1400 of consensus on attacks targeting civilians (and women and children at that). And that Muslims are not allowed to harm non-Muslims in their territories when their is an active covenant of security between them. They are trying to bring out a hermenuetic of total war.

    Are Westerners just supposed to sit back and let thousands of their kinsmen and countrymen die while members of an alien race and religion sort things out in this so called reformation?
     
    Of course not - I'm not asking them to do nothing. Shutting down access to jihadi websites would be a great start. Bringing back the death penalty or other harsh punishments might help. It would also help if they didn't cozy up to people like the Saudis, wouldn't you agree?

    Let's get real though - it's not like Westerners just sit back. 9/11 kicked off what - the US sending Afghanistan and Iraq buckets of ice cream? When the attacks in France happened, France increased bombing raids over Daesh territory. Are you not keeping up with the news?

    Peace.

    , @Anon
    Actually the radical Prots were downright sympathetic to the Muslims: remember the slogan "Rather Turkish than Popish"? And how the Brits helped-- hell, they did much of the work themselves-- the Muslims get the Portuguese out of the footholds they were building on the Arabian peninsula and elsewhere?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Talha says:
    @Anonym
    Btw others may note that ISIS has taken credit for the London attacks.

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3717339/london-bridge-attack-victims-terrorists-isis/

    The leader of ISIS has a doctorate in Islamic Studies from the University of Baghdad.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Bakr_al-Baghdadi

    I guess he was using the Cliff Notes version of Islam. ROTFL

    Btw Pat there is a good article on Thomas Jefferson's use of the Koran.

    http://mobile.wnd.com/2016/02/the-real-reason-jefferson-owned-a-quran/

    In 1786, Thomas Jefferson wrote to William Carmichael regarding Tripoli’s demand for an extortion tribute payment, 1786: “Mr. Adams and I had conferences with a Tripoline ambassador, named Abdrahaman. He asked us thirty thousand guineas for a peace with his court.”
     


    When Jefferson asked the Muslim ambassador what the new country of America had done to offend them, he reported to John Jay, March 28, 1786: “The Ambassador answered us that it was … written in their Qur’an, that all nations who should not have acknowledged Islam’s authority were sinners, that it was their … duty to make war upon them … and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners.”
     


    Jefferson purchased a Qur’an to understand the enemy.
     

    Hey Anonym,

    Nobody knows if the guy exists or what he has a PhD in:
    Is it in “Quranic Studies (Recitation)”?

    http://csweb.brookings.edu/content/research/essays/2015/thebeliever.html

    In “Islamic culture, history, sharia, and jurisprudence”?

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28560449

    In “Arabic”?

    http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/iraq-turmoil/secret-life-isis-leader-abu-bakr-al-baghdadi-n132311

    None of those, except maybe the second one possibly qualify him to formulate an opinion on juristic matters. That is assuming some qualified scholars conferred on him the authority to pass fatwas.

    But, for the sake of argument, let’s say you’ve got Baghdadi as your go-to guy. OK nice – that’s one guy. Are you seriously hanging your hopes on one guy – really? Not only that, the guy is so extreme that Al-Qaeda has denounced him and has fought against him? Are you guys that desperate?

    So the opinion of the ambassador of the Barbary states is your key witness at the stand – nice.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    This whole discussion seems rather pointless-- it reminds me of the argument on transubstantiation in the Lunn-Haldane letters, with Haldane insisting that, as a biologist, he (as opposed to every Catholic who ever lived) knew what the doctrine of transubstantiation really meant-- a chemical change!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. Talha says:
    @KenH

    Yes there is; welcome to the Reformation.
     
    Reformation, eh? This must be phase two as the Sunni-Shia split could probably qualify as the first reformation which is still unresolved and could set the Middle East aflame at any time.

    The Christians during the Protestant reformation took it out only on each other and didn't slaughter Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists. Muslims in the West are taking it out only on non-Muslims so I don't see how their actions have a reformative effect on Islam. Are Westerners just supposed to sit back and let thousands of their kinsmen and countrymen die while members of an alien race and religion sort things out in this so called reformation?

    Hey KenH,

    This must be phase two as the Sunni-Shia split could probably qualify as the first reformation

    Not even close.

    The Christians during the Protestant reformation took it out only on each other and didn’t slaughter Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists.

    True – they’d already kicked out the Muslims from Europe. Did they have any Hindus and Buddhists around to test your theory? I mean extremist Muslims haven’t slaughtered space aliens – can we get credit for that?

    I don’t see how their actions have a reformative effect on Islam.

    They have broken with 1400 of consensus on attacks targeting civilians (and women and children at that). And that Muslims are not allowed to harm non-Muslims in their territories when their is an active covenant of security between them. They are trying to bring out a hermenuetic of total war.

    Are Westerners just supposed to sit back and let thousands of their kinsmen and countrymen die while members of an alien race and religion sort things out in this so called reformation?

    Of course not – I’m not asking them to do nothing. Shutting down access to jihadi websites would be a great start. Bringing back the death penalty or other harsh punishments might help. It would also help if they didn’t cozy up to people like the Saudis, wouldn’t you agree?

    Let’s get real though – it’s not like Westerners just sit back. 9/11 kicked off what – the US sending Afghanistan and Iraq buckets of ice cream? When the attacks in France happened, France increased bombing raids over Daesh territory. Are you not keeping up with the news?

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Correction to the last post - the Ottomans were around on the other side of Europe and did provide sanctuary to Christians fleeing violence of the Thirty Years war but there was no way they were going to tolerate nonsense intra-Christian violence in their territory (bad for taxes) and certainly not against Muslims.
    , @Anon

    I mean extremist Muslims haven’t slaughtered space aliens – can we get credit for that?

     

    I don't know about that, these aliens are sure mad at something:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2623330/Is-Inter-Stellar-Assistance-Force-Mysterious-UFO-filmed-blitzing-Taliban-base-Afghanistan.html
    , @KenH

    True – they’d already kicked out the Muslims from Europe. Did they have any Hindus and Buddhists around to test your theory? I mean extremist Muslims haven’t slaughtered space aliens – can we get credit for that?
     
    Muslims were kicked out in Spain because they were invaders and interlopers. It was totally unrelated to the Reformation. It wasn't as if they were indigenous to Spain and the intolerant Christians expelled them.

    No, there were no Hindus and Buddhists in Europe at the time of the Reformation like there are in some Muslims nations, but there were Jews and Christians could have galloped to Turkey to slice and dice some Ottoman Turks. But again, Catholics and Protestants stayed in Europe and slayed each other. Able bodied European men didn't flee the killing fields for Ottoman controlled areas where they preyed on unsuspecting Muslims. And if they did I think you and I both know who the Ottomans would have reacted.


    It would also help if they didn’t cozy up to people like the Saudis, wouldn’t you agree?
     
    100%. It might also help if there's much more push back from Muslim religious leaders on the Saudis and if diaspora imams quit accepting their money which comes with strings attached. But that's not going to happen so Europe and America will now have to adopt more extreme measures.

    When the attacks in France happened, France increased bombing raids over Daesh territory. Are you not keeping up with the news?
     
    No need since it's all become so predictable. For America, it's invade the world, invite the world and with Europe, it's bomb America's enemies then invite the survivors into the U.K. and Europe so they can bomb and kill Europeans. Then hold a candlelight vigil, self flagellate and arrest a few Europeans who hold politically incorrect attitudes towards Muslims. You know the drill.

    But they could shut down all immigration and the enemy is still inside the gates thanks to insane immigration and refugee policies, so the only sensible policy is now internment and deportation.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. MarkinLA says:

    When have the imams of Saudi Arabia, the Middle East, and West ever stood as one to condemn all such acts as against the tenets of Islam?

    And if they did what would it mean when the Koran specifically encourages lying to the infidel in the cause of jihad?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  46. MarkinLA says:
    @Corvinus
    "For all of our superior IQ and organizational skills, we whites have no community and are not willing to fight for our people. Unless we can find those things in ourselves again, we will – and should be – taken over."

    We Americans who are white assuredly have a sense of community and the resolve to fight for our people, the American citizen. And speak for yourself for desiring for us to be "taken over". Have you no decency, sir? Haven't you done enough?

    Now, Patrick...

    "If these persecutors and killers of Christians are apostates to Islam, headed to hell for their savageries, why have not all the imams of the world, Shiite and Sunni, risen together to condemn them as heretics?"

    Imams, Islamic groups, and Middle Eastern nations have condemned it. You just don't notice things like Mr. Sailer. Ask him to offer pointers on his power of observation.

    http://stepfeed.com/muslim-leaders-express-solidarity-with-the-uk-after-manchester-attack-4587

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/london-bridge-terrorists-imams-refuse-funeral-prayer-khuram-shazad-butt-rachid-redouane-a7774291.html

    "The murderers were Muslims. The rationale for their crimes lies in the belief that their bloody deeds would inscribe them in a book of martyrs, and Allah would reward them with instant ascension into the paradise that awaits all good Muslims."

    Corrected for accuracy --> The murderers are radical Muslims who pervert their faith.

    Corrected for accuracy –> The murderers are radical Muslims who pervert their faith.

    And you know this how? Oh that’s right, you are supposed to keep repeating it even though it is BS.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    I don't think it makes any sense to say they pervert their faith. They obviously pervert someone's faith, but surely their own faith is in exactly what they are doing, no?
    , @Corvinus
    "And you know this how?"

    Because as I clearly demonstrated there are important Muslim leaders who oppose radical Islam. Try to pay closer attention next time.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. >Are honor killings of girls and women caught in adultery justified?

    Pretty sure time was that was called justifiable homicide right here in the good old U S of A. It’s a better system than adulterous women get cash and prizes, that’s for sure. Why’d you pick the cuckiest of cuck objections to Islam, Pat?

    Well, I guess there is one worse objection you could have. It could have been “OY VEY, they forbid lending at interest! Those mawnsters!”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  48. Talha says:
    @Talha
    Hey KenH,

    This must be phase two as the Sunni-Shia split could probably qualify as the first reformation
     
    Not even close.

    The Christians during the Protestant reformation took it out only on each other and didn’t slaughter Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists.
     
    True - they'd already kicked out the Muslims from Europe. Did they have any Hindus and Buddhists around to test your theory? I mean extremist Muslims haven't slaughtered space aliens - can we get credit for that?

    I don’t see how their actions have a reformative effect on Islam.
     
    They have broken with 1400 of consensus on attacks targeting civilians (and women and children at that). And that Muslims are not allowed to harm non-Muslims in their territories when their is an active covenant of security between them. They are trying to bring out a hermenuetic of total war.

    Are Westerners just supposed to sit back and let thousands of their kinsmen and countrymen die while members of an alien race and religion sort things out in this so called reformation?
     
    Of course not - I'm not asking them to do nothing. Shutting down access to jihadi websites would be a great start. Bringing back the death penalty or other harsh punishments might help. It would also help if they didn't cozy up to people like the Saudis, wouldn't you agree?

    Let's get real though - it's not like Westerners just sit back. 9/11 kicked off what - the US sending Afghanistan and Iraq buckets of ice cream? When the attacks in France happened, France increased bombing raids over Daesh territory. Are you not keeping up with the news?

    Peace.

    Correction to the last post – the Ottomans were around on the other side of Europe and did provide sanctuary to Christians fleeing violence of the Thirty Years war but there was no way they were going to tolerate nonsense intra-Christian violence in their territory (bad for taxes) and certainly not against Muslims.

    Read More
    • Replies: @KenH
    I missed this follow up post, but I think I touched on it in my response. The Ottomans perhaps allowed thousands/tens of thousands into the empire but not the millions Europe is accepting.

    The Muslim terror attacks are clearly not intra-Muslim quarrel and are directed at non-Muslims. And just as the Ottoman Turks had no moral qualms about imposing collective punishment (see the Armenian genocide) neither should the U.K. and Europe in their dealing with the Muslim communities inside their borders who are harboring an increasing number of malcontents and terrorists.
    , @Avery
    {Ottomans ......did provide sanctuary to Christians fleeing violence of the Thirty Years war}


    Yo, Talha:

    What is the source of this?

    I find it very hard to believe that Ottomans - well actually descendants of Muslim nomad Turks form Uyguristan - would provide sanctuary to Christians.

    Christians (Armenians, Assyrians, Greeks) and Jews were 2nd class _subjects_ in the Ottoman empire. Nomad Turks invaders had been robbing, abusing, massacring, kidnapping, enslaving, forcibly Islamizing Christians for centuries.

    Ottoman Turks fought a long war just before the 30-years' against Christians of Europe, led by Austria. Ottoman Empire got the short end of the stick. So why would Muslim Turks give shelter to European Christians?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Talha
    Hey KenH,

    This must be phase two as the Sunni-Shia split could probably qualify as the first reformation
     
    Not even close.

    The Christians during the Protestant reformation took it out only on each other and didn’t slaughter Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists.
     
    True - they'd already kicked out the Muslims from Europe. Did they have any Hindus and Buddhists around to test your theory? I mean extremist Muslims haven't slaughtered space aliens - can we get credit for that?

    I don’t see how their actions have a reformative effect on Islam.
     
    They have broken with 1400 of consensus on attacks targeting civilians (and women and children at that). And that Muslims are not allowed to harm non-Muslims in their territories when their is an active covenant of security between them. They are trying to bring out a hermenuetic of total war.

    Are Westerners just supposed to sit back and let thousands of their kinsmen and countrymen die while members of an alien race and religion sort things out in this so called reformation?
     
    Of course not - I'm not asking them to do nothing. Shutting down access to jihadi websites would be a great start. Bringing back the death penalty or other harsh punishments might help. It would also help if they didn't cozy up to people like the Saudis, wouldn't you agree?

    Let's get real though - it's not like Westerners just sit back. 9/11 kicked off what - the US sending Afghanistan and Iraq buckets of ice cream? When the attacks in France happened, France increased bombing raids over Daesh territory. Are you not keeping up with the news?

    Peace.

    I mean extremist Muslims haven’t slaughtered space aliens – can we get credit for that?

    I don’t know about that, these aliens are sure mad at something:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2623330/Is-Inter-Stellar-Assistance-Force-Mysterious-UFO-filmed-blitzing-Taliban-base-Afghanistan.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Man...that was pretty nuts...wow!

    Peace - with destructive aliens as well.
    , @El Dato
    It's a Star Destroyer. The Empire is with U.S.! Jyn Erso gb2 Space Aleppo.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @MarkinLA
    Corrected for accuracy –> The murderers are radical Muslims who pervert their faith.

    And you know this how? Oh that's right, you are supposed to keep repeating it even though it is BS.

    I don’t think it makes any sense to say they pervert their faith. They obviously pervert someone’s faith, but surely their own faith is in exactly what they are doing, no?

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    Ding, Ding, Ding - the winner!!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Talha
    Hey Anonym,

    Nobody knows if the guy exists or what he has a PhD in:
    Is it in "Quranic Studies (Recitation)"?
    http://csweb.brookings.edu/content/research/essays/2015/thebeliever.html

    In “Islamic culture, history, sharia, and jurisprudence”?
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28560449

    In “Arabic”?
    http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/iraq-turmoil/secret-life-isis-leader-abu-bakr-al-baghdadi-n132311

    None of those, except maybe the second one possibly qualify him to formulate an opinion on juristic matters. That is assuming some qualified scholars conferred on him the authority to pass fatwas.

    But, for the sake of argument, let's say you've got Baghdadi as your go-to guy. OK nice - that's one guy. Are you seriously hanging your hopes on one guy - really? Not only that, the guy is so extreme that Al-Qaeda has denounced him and has fought against him? Are you guys that desperate?

    So the opinion of the ambassador of the Barbary states is your key witness at the stand - nice.

    Peace.

    This whole discussion seems rather pointless– it reminds me of the argument on transubstantiation in the Lunn-Haldane letters, with Haldane insisting that, as a biologist, he (as opposed to every Catholic who ever lived) knew what the doctrine of transubstantiation really meant– a chemical change!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Talha
    Hey Anonym,

    So what you are saying is that the long, mostly successful expansion of Islam through military means was not what Mohammed had in mind?
     
    That part is fine. During the Age of Empires - Muslims rolled pretty hard over Byzantium, Persia, Visigoths or anybody else who posed a potential threat as the Muslim lands were expanding. No argument there - no harm no foul - you want to keep an empire, learn to defend it. If you can't, then pay taxes as the army rolls in - do you know any other pre-modern army that didn't demand taxes and loyalty when they took a land? Muslims fought better than others for the first thousand years or so (minus some exceptions) then the Europeans and others started beating us down pretty hard and we wuz colonized - such is life when you play the empire game. Seems like Europeans stopped playing the game after they exhausted themselves beating the hell out of each other in WW2.

    Now we have an international framework of non-aggression that all of our top scholars and institutes of sacred learning have accepted as valid and binding upon Muslim countries who are signatory members. If you want to present evidence that there are qualified scholars that reject this framework then do so. Non-Muslim voices or interpretations of our religion don't really count because no Muslim cares what they say.


    behaved throughout time and place
     
    Except that Islam spread into West Africa, Nubia, places like Eastern Bengal, Malaysia and Indonesia through preaching - so your argument that it was always military conquest doesn't hold up factually.

    http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/swordverse.htm
     
    LOL! The guy actually brings up Ibn Saad's Tabaqat and Ibn Ishaq's Seerah as evidence. You do know that would get you laughed out in a serious gathering of our scholarship, right? Actually, they'd have more etiquette and be giggling inside.

    And all the tafsirs he sticks to are those by Shafi'i scholars like Imam Suyuti (ra), Ibn Kathir (ra) and references a Shafi'i manual of jurisprudence. Hello! What about what the Malikis and Hanafis say - we don't get a seat at the table - why? Because it goes against your narrative? And I'm not even mentioning our tafsirs like those of Imams Zamakhshari (ra), Razi (ra), Baydawi (ra), etc. who say that verse does not abrogate previously revealed verses.

    Explain to me why none of the Sunni Orthodox schools considered that verse to apply to any but the polytheists/pagans/idolaters. The Hanafi school restricting it to only the Arab polytheists in the Arabian peninsula (effectively they were told, get the hell outta Dodge!) and the Malikis restricted it to only tribe of Quraysh. What authority do you cite to apply this verse to non-pagans?

    On top of that, which school states that you can violate a covenant of citizenship or residency in a non-Muslim land and commit violence upon its people - even when that land is at war with a Muslim land? There is a consensus ruling in all four schools that this is not permitted. The only exception I have read of is an instance where one is allowed - actually obligated if he can - to take up arms (in the Hanafi school); namely, if his country of residence has attacked a Muslim country and is bringing back Muslim women and children as slaves through his area and he has the ability to help free them, then he is allowed to publicly rescind his part of the covenant and fight to free them. You can find this in the writings of the Hanafi scholars Imam Sarakhsi (ra), in his 30 volume al-Mabsut, and Siyar al-Kabir of Imam Muhammad Shaybani (ra).


    I write not for you
     
    Same here - I don't care what their skin color - I'm writing for those that are willing to look at things objectively.

    Peace.

    LOL! The guy actually brings up Ibn Saad’s Tabaqat and Ibn Ishaq’s Seerah as evidence. You do know that would get you laughed out in a serious gathering of our scholarship, right? Actually, they’d have more etiquette and be giggling inside.

    I apologize for posting up this thread; if I do it any more I’ll probably get one of Mr. Unz’s patented automated troll-warnings from the comment system.

    Anyway, my two cents: from a (non-Muslim) historical perspective, these sources are extremely valuable for the information they provide about the period and the personalities described. I mean, after all, we don’t have your objections to listening to Jews or their descendants, which seems to be one of the principal objections among Muslims.

    Obviously, from a perspective of sharia-legal or theological argument, on the other hand, these things are pretty useless. Actually, as I always saw it, anything we say on these matters is so much white noise to your garden-variety pious Muslim anyway, so it really doesn’t much matter, does it?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hola Senor,

    This whole discussion seems rather pointless
     
    Yeah - like most of the other conversations on this topic, I'm not learning anything new. Links to sites that cite Imam Suyuti's tafsir are redundant - it's sitting on my shelf. Sometimes I think I'm going to hear a new argument. Once in a while it happens, but mostly its people with a completely over-inflated assumption about their knowledge on the subject. That's when the accusations of taqiyyah start flying - like I haven't heard that one before.

    which seems to be one of the principal objections among Muslims
     
    Anyone else can read it for whatever they want - it's a bit like apocrypha*. You can read it and take or reject what you like - it's not canon. The major problem is, we have no names (or rarely any). There is no way to cross reference anything because there aren't citations. We have no idea who is making the claims unlike chains of transmitters in hadith reports that can be evaluated for veracity or consistency. Even in hadith, not every one of them can be used to derive rulings, there is a methodical process. And even in this process there is difference of opinion (sometimes within a single school).

    these things are pretty useless
     
    Yeah - I mean even chronologically. For instance Ibn Saad (ra) isn't even born until after Imam Abu Hanifah (ra) had already passed away. The book I referenced above (Siyar Saghir - I've heard this is a reliable translation: https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/content/islamic-law-nations) was based on conversations with him and his student Imam Muhammad Shaybani (ra). The core structure and rulings of the Hanafi school was already formed - they weren't waiting for Ibn Saad (ra) for anything.

    anything we say on these matters is so much white noise
     
    Yup - it's a completely internal discussion really. I mean it's all well and good to point out if non-Muslims are making mistakes in their understanding or not. But in essence we know what the religion says, because we are the ones interpreting it; our party, others aren't invited. Well, they can convert and learn the sacred law and its ancillary disciplines for 15-20 years and then we'll listen to them. Mufti Musa Furber is a convert and a credentialed Mufti in the Shafi'i school from Azhar - party on!:
    http://musafurber.com/biography/

    I love his "wtfiqh" musings/aphorisms:
    http://musafurber.com/2015/04/06/collected-number-wtfiqh/

    I don't really expect the Greek or other Orthodox to care what Muslims' misunderstandings of their doctrines are.

    Peace.

    *Note: If we look into Christian apocrypha, the Son of Mary (pbuh) is found doing whacky things like cursing little kids until they die and then causing blindness in their parents:
    “And when Jesus saw what was done, he was wroth and said unto him: O evil, ungodly, and foolish one, what hurt did the pools and the waters do thee? behold, now also thou shalt be withered like a tree, and shalt not bear leaves, neither root, nor fruit. 3 And straightway that lad withered up wholly, but Jesus departed and went unto Joseph’s house. But the parents of him that was withered took him up, bewailing his youth, and brought him to Joseph, and accused him ‘for that thou hast such a child which doeth such deeds.’
    IV. 1 After that again he went through the village, and a child ran and dashed against his shoulder. And Jesus was provoked and said unto him: Thou shalt not finish thy course (lit. go all thy way). And immediately he fell down and died. But certain when they saw what was done said: Whence was this young child born, for that every word of his is an accomplished work? And the parents of him that was dead came unto Joseph, and blamed him, saying: Thou that hast such a child canst not dwell with us in the village: or do thou teach him to bless and not to curse: for he slayeth our children.
    V. 1 And Joseph called the young child apart and admonished him, saying: Wherefore doest thou such things, that these suffer and hate us and persecute us? But Jesus said: I know that these thy words are not thine: nevertheless for thy sake I will hold my peace: but they shall bear their punishment. And straightway they that accused him were smitten with blindness”

    http://gnosis.org/library/inftoma.htm

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @KenH

    Yes there is; welcome to the Reformation.
     
    Reformation, eh? This must be phase two as the Sunni-Shia split could probably qualify as the first reformation which is still unresolved and could set the Middle East aflame at any time.

    The Christians during the Protestant reformation took it out only on each other and didn't slaughter Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists. Muslims in the West are taking it out only on non-Muslims so I don't see how their actions have a reformative effect on Islam. Are Westerners just supposed to sit back and let thousands of their kinsmen and countrymen die while members of an alien race and religion sort things out in this so called reformation?

    Actually the radical Prots were downright sympathetic to the Muslims: remember the slogan “Rather Turkish than Popish”? And how the Brits helped– hell, they did much of the work themselves– the Muslims get the Portuguese out of the footholds they were building on the Arabian peninsula and elsewhere?

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

    LOL! The guy actually brings up Ibn Saad’s Tabaqat and Ibn Ishaq’s Seerah as evidence. You do know that would get you laughed out in a serious gathering of our scholarship, right? Actually, they’d have more etiquette and be giggling inside.
     
    I apologize for posting up this thread; if I do it any more I'll probably get one of Mr. Unz's patented automated troll-warnings from the comment system.

    Anyway, my two cents: from a (non-Muslim) historical perspective, these sources are extremely valuable for the information they provide about the period and the personalities described. I mean, after all, we don't have your objections to listening to Jews or their descendants, which seems to be one of the principal objections among Muslims.

    Obviously, from a perspective of sharia-legal or theological argument, on the other hand, these things are pretty useless. Actually, as I always saw it, anything we say on these matters is so much white noise to your garden-variety pious Muslim anyway, so it really doesn't much matter, does it?

    Hola Senor,

    This whole discussion seems rather pointless

    Yeah – like most of the other conversations on this topic, I’m not learning anything new. Links to sites that cite Imam Suyuti’s tafsir are redundant – it’s sitting on my shelf. Sometimes I think I’m going to hear a new argument. Once in a while it happens, but mostly its people with a completely over-inflated assumption about their knowledge on the subject. That’s when the accusations of taqiyyah start flying – like I haven’t heard that one before.

    which seems to be one of the principal objections among Muslims

    Anyone else can read it for whatever they want – it’s a bit like apocrypha*. You can read it and take or reject what you like – it’s not canon. The major problem is, we have no names (or rarely any). There is no way to cross reference anything because there aren’t citations. We have no idea who is making the claims unlike chains of transmitters in hadith reports that can be evaluated for veracity or consistency. Even in hadith, not every one of them can be used to derive rulings, there is a methodical process. And even in this process there is difference of opinion (sometimes within a single school).

    these things are pretty useless

    Yeah – I mean even chronologically. For instance Ibn Saad (ra) isn’t even born until after Imam Abu Hanifah (ra) had already passed away. The book I referenced above (Siyar Saghir – I’ve heard this is a reliable translation: https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/content/islamic-law-nations) was based on conversations with him and his student Imam Muhammad Shaybani (ra). The core structure and rulings of the Hanafi school was already formed – they weren’t waiting for Ibn Saad (ra) for anything.

    anything we say on these matters is so much white noise

    Yup – it’s a completely internal discussion really. I mean it’s all well and good to point out if non-Muslims are making mistakes in their understanding or not. But in essence we know what the religion says, because we are the ones interpreting it; our party, others aren’t invited. Well, they can convert and learn the sacred law and its ancillary disciplines for 15-20 years and then we’ll listen to them. Mufti Musa Furber is a convert and a credentialed Mufti in the Shafi’i school from Azhar – party on!:

    http://musafurber.com/biography/

    I love his “wtfiqh” musings/aphorisms:

    http://musafurber.com/2015/04/06/collected-number-wtfiqh/

    I don’t really expect the Greek or other Orthodox to care what Muslims’ misunderstandings of their doctrines are.

    Peace.

    *Note: If we look into Christian apocrypha, the Son of Mary (pbuh) is found doing whacky things like cursing little kids until they die and then causing blindness in their parents:
    “And when Jesus saw what was done, he was wroth and said unto him: O evil, ungodly, and foolish one, what hurt did the pools and the waters do thee? behold, now also thou shalt be withered like a tree, and shalt not bear leaves, neither root, nor fruit. 3 And straightway that lad withered up wholly, but Jesus departed and went unto Joseph’s house. But the parents of him that was withered took him up, bewailing his youth, and brought him to Joseph, and accused him ‘for that thou hast such a child which doeth such deeds.’
    IV. 1 After that again he went through the village, and a child ran and dashed against his shoulder. And Jesus was provoked and said unto him: Thou shalt not finish thy course (lit. go all thy way). And immediately he fell down and died. But certain when they saw what was done said: Whence was this young child born, for that every word of his is an accomplished work? And the parents of him that was dead came unto Joseph, and blamed him, saying: Thou that hast such a child canst not dwell with us in the village: or do thou teach him to bless and not to curse: for he slayeth our children.
    V. 1 And Joseph called the young child apart and admonished him, saying: Wherefore doest thou such things, that these suffer and hate us and persecute us? But Jesus said: I know that these thy words are not thine: nevertheless for thy sake I will hold my peace: but they shall bear their punishment. And straightway they that accused him were smitten with blindness”

    http://gnosis.org/library/inftoma.htm

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    I'm familiar with the Gnostic "gospels". You do realize Biblical scholars (I'm not one) have to study this stuff, right? Which is the point of the analogy-- you won't ever see the Pope cite the Pistis Sophia in an encyclical (unless he's condemning the Gnostics), but you will have to read it if you are interested in Biblical archaeology, and you can bet the Pope is familiar with its contents.

    I remember reading that ibn Ishaq's gathering of information from Jews and their descendants was a major criticism of him, which this random google result seems to confirm: "his use of hadith transmitted by Jewish converts" was apparently criticized by Malik. I'm sure there are other problems as well, and if he has as you say imitated (anticipated, actually) our modern journalists in relying on anonymous sources it's a pity, but his purely historical importance seems nevertheless considerable.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. Talha says:
    @Anon

    I mean extremist Muslims haven’t slaughtered space aliens – can we get credit for that?

     

    I don't know about that, these aliens are sure mad at something:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2623330/Is-Inter-Stellar-Assistance-Force-Mysterious-UFO-filmed-blitzing-Taliban-base-Afghanistan.html

    Man…that was pretty nuts…wow!

    Peace – with destructive aliens as well.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Talha
    Hola Senor,

    This whole discussion seems rather pointless
     
    Yeah - like most of the other conversations on this topic, I'm not learning anything new. Links to sites that cite Imam Suyuti's tafsir are redundant - it's sitting on my shelf. Sometimes I think I'm going to hear a new argument. Once in a while it happens, but mostly its people with a completely over-inflated assumption about their knowledge on the subject. That's when the accusations of taqiyyah start flying - like I haven't heard that one before.

    which seems to be one of the principal objections among Muslims
     
    Anyone else can read it for whatever they want - it's a bit like apocrypha*. You can read it and take or reject what you like - it's not canon. The major problem is, we have no names (or rarely any). There is no way to cross reference anything because there aren't citations. We have no idea who is making the claims unlike chains of transmitters in hadith reports that can be evaluated for veracity or consistency. Even in hadith, not every one of them can be used to derive rulings, there is a methodical process. And even in this process there is difference of opinion (sometimes within a single school).

    these things are pretty useless
     
    Yeah - I mean even chronologically. For instance Ibn Saad (ra) isn't even born until after Imam Abu Hanifah (ra) had already passed away. The book I referenced above (Siyar Saghir - I've heard this is a reliable translation: https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/content/islamic-law-nations) was based on conversations with him and his student Imam Muhammad Shaybani (ra). The core structure and rulings of the Hanafi school was already formed - they weren't waiting for Ibn Saad (ra) for anything.

    anything we say on these matters is so much white noise
     
    Yup - it's a completely internal discussion really. I mean it's all well and good to point out if non-Muslims are making mistakes in their understanding or not. But in essence we know what the religion says, because we are the ones interpreting it; our party, others aren't invited. Well, they can convert and learn the sacred law and its ancillary disciplines for 15-20 years and then we'll listen to them. Mufti Musa Furber is a convert and a credentialed Mufti in the Shafi'i school from Azhar - party on!:
    http://musafurber.com/biography/

    I love his "wtfiqh" musings/aphorisms:
    http://musafurber.com/2015/04/06/collected-number-wtfiqh/

    I don't really expect the Greek or other Orthodox to care what Muslims' misunderstandings of their doctrines are.

    Peace.

    *Note: If we look into Christian apocrypha, the Son of Mary (pbuh) is found doing whacky things like cursing little kids until they die and then causing blindness in their parents:
    “And when Jesus saw what was done, he was wroth and said unto him: O evil, ungodly, and foolish one, what hurt did the pools and the waters do thee? behold, now also thou shalt be withered like a tree, and shalt not bear leaves, neither root, nor fruit. 3 And straightway that lad withered up wholly, but Jesus departed and went unto Joseph’s house. But the parents of him that was withered took him up, bewailing his youth, and brought him to Joseph, and accused him ‘for that thou hast such a child which doeth such deeds.’
    IV. 1 After that again he went through the village, and a child ran and dashed against his shoulder. And Jesus was provoked and said unto him: Thou shalt not finish thy course (lit. go all thy way). And immediately he fell down and died. But certain when they saw what was done said: Whence was this young child born, for that every word of his is an accomplished work? And the parents of him that was dead came unto Joseph, and blamed him, saying: Thou that hast such a child canst not dwell with us in the village: or do thou teach him to bless and not to curse: for he slayeth our children.
    V. 1 And Joseph called the young child apart and admonished him, saying: Wherefore doest thou such things, that these suffer and hate us and persecute us? But Jesus said: I know that these thy words are not thine: nevertheless for thy sake I will hold my peace: but they shall bear their punishment. And straightway they that accused him were smitten with blindness”

    http://gnosis.org/library/inftoma.htm

    I’m familiar with the Gnostic “gospels”. You do realize Biblical scholars (I’m not one) have to study this stuff, right? Which is the point of the analogy– you won’t ever see the Pope cite the Pistis Sophia in an encyclical (unless he’s condemning the Gnostics), but you will have to read it if you are interested in Biblical archaeology, and you can bet the Pope is familiar with its contents.

    I remember reading that ibn Ishaq’s gathering of information from Jews and their descendants was a major criticism of him, which this random google result seems to confirm: “his use of hadith transmitted by Jewish converts” was apparently criticized by Malik. I’m sure there are other problems as well, and if he has as you say imitated (anticipated, actually) our modern journalists in relying on anonymous sources it’s a pity, but his purely historical importance seems nevertheless considerable.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hola Senor,

    You do realize Biblical scholars (I’m not one) have to study this stuff, right?
     
    Yup - which is why I assume it was classified as apocrypha.

    was apparently criticized by Malik
     
    This is no small thing. Imam Malik (ra) was a hadith scholar of the highest rank. His transmission is considered by many hadith scholars as the soundest and highest standard; the Golden Chain:
    http://www.muwatta.com/the-golden-chain/

    Furthermore, he was a resident of Madinah and built his school around the practice of the people of Madinah - sometimes discarding hadith if it contradicted with their accepted practice. His logic was that the people of the city would not have left sound prophetic guidance within the time of the Taba-Tabi'een (two generations removed from the Companions [ra]). He knew the city and its narrative like the back of his hand. His criticism holds far more weight than say someone like Imam Awza'i (ra) from the Levant.

    his purely historical importance seems nevertheless considerable
     
    His contribution was to try to formulate a genuine and coherent chronological framework for the life of the Prophet (pbuh) and fill in gaps. In this aspect the work is very valuable for the average Muslim. As a basis for deriving law - not even close; but that was never his intention in the first place.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. El Dato says:
    @MEexpert

    Is there a strain of Islam, the basis of which can be found in the Quran, that would justify what the murderers did at London Bridge?
     
    There is absolutely no justification for murders of innocent people in Quran. Quran specifically forbids killing of innocent life. The only justification is in self defense.

    If these persecutors and killers of Christians are apostates to Islam, headed to hell for their savageries, why have not all the imams of the world, Shiite and Sunni, risen together to condemn them as heretics?
     
    Are you serious Pat? The Clerics in Egypt, Iraq and Iran and various shia clerics in the US have condemned these attacks. The mainstream media chooses to ignore those statements. It is more fun to blast the sermons of the Saudi Imams all over the televisions and newspapers to fan the flames of war than to print the voices of condemnation and call for peace.

    Everyone, from the politicians to the intelligence community, knows that Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Turkey, Israel, and the US are supporting ISIS and Al-Qaeda. Yet the president of the United States goes to Saudi Arabia and turns the logic upside down by ignoring the real supporters of terrorism and blamed Iran for all the troubles in the Middle East.

    Pat should be asking the questions; where are all these billions of dollars worth of weapons going? Where is ISIS and Al-Qaeda and the other alphabet terrorists getting brand new American weapons?

    It is a well documented fact that Saudi Arabia has been funding mosques and schools all over the world to promote her brand of Islam. Almost 75% of the mosques and islamic schools in the US are Saudi controlled. Instead of arresting the growth of Wahhabi version of Islam, the US and Israel are helping to promote it.

    There is no hope that this "forever war" will ever end. It is a national tragedy when our leaders (the republicans, the democrats, the progressives, liberals, libertarians, the mainstream media and what not) are slaves to the Wall Street-military-industrial complex and all are screaming for war with nary a voice in opposition. Pat, you want to control this terrorism, then tell the US government to stop selling weapons to Middle East monarchies and Israel and end these wars.

    Agreement factor 99%

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. El Dato says:
    @Anon

    I mean extremist Muslims haven’t slaughtered space aliens – can we get credit for that?

     

    I don't know about that, these aliens are sure mad at something:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2623330/Is-Inter-Stellar-Assistance-Force-Mysterious-UFO-filmed-blitzing-Taliban-base-Afghanistan.html

    It’s a Star Destroyer. The Empire is with U.S.! Jyn Erso gb2 Space Aleppo.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. Randal says:
    @for-the-record
    Randal, I agree completely, with the slight nuance (with which I am sure you agree) that as long as "our" foreign policies keep creating future enemies Muslim terrorism will never be suppressed.

    The great problem of course is that no one of any "importance" is consistently enunciating these four points (and, indeed, I suspect that the large majority of people would not agree with them). In the case of the UK, Corbyn would reduce foreign wars while maintaining immigration, while May conceivably might reduce immigration but would continue enemy-making policies abroad.

    It is very hard to imagine a favorable long-term outcome.

    Randal, I agree completely, with the slight nuance (with which I am sure you agree) that as long as “our” foreign policies keep creating future enemies Muslim terrorism will never be suppressed.

    I do agree with that, indeed.

    I also agree with your overall pessimism about the prospects.

    The worst thing is that so many people, even the honest ones, seem determined to focus on the wrong aspects of the problems we face, and advocate “solutions” that only make the real problems worse, or create additional problems.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. @Rurik

    We are to blame for the rise of Islam and no one is willing to admit the real cause, particularly in the wealthy middle class because they don’t want the debauchery to end
     
    the cause is the Federal Reserve Bank- that handed total power over our society to eternally, infinitely hostile Jewish supremacist$, who unleashed the Muslim hoards (and everyone else they could muster) to invade our lands, even as they injected spiritual sewage in the soul-veins of the youth with Hollywood propaganda, Rap "music", homomania, etc...

    just Google ‘Being White is Terrorism’, to see the festering rot that their propaganda (and their seething hatred for our kind) has perpetrated upon the young American soul

    That’s totally inaccurate in my opinion Rurik.

    Financial problems are at the heart of the problem true, but they follow the moral degradation.

    The 60′s social experiment had predictable results, less children, more crime, more mental health issues, more unwanted children, more unstable broken marriages.

    This kind of social destruction requires two things, immigration to be the babies we never had, and money, big big money to alleviate the massive social destruction of increased crime, drug use, divorce, unwanted children, sexual perversion, etc.

    You name it Rurik, do you really think you can pursue policies that legalize drug and pornography use and promote broken families without there being an enormous monetary bill?

    The monetary bill came due in the 80′s when central banks throughout the west realized that only constant growth and stimulus and borrowing could keep their vast network of welfare dependencies intact and keep the social life of society smooth. Without the welfare it was anyone’s guess what would happen, certainly the sexual social revolution would fail.

    I don’t subscribe to some conspiracy plot, more likely in my view that we sail on a “ship of fools”. They just happen to be atheist fools in our age who think they can turn morality upside down in the pursuit of their own pleasures.

    Most of the liberal planners and politician who set us on this course with the consent of many voters genuinely think it was the right thing to do. Now they are defending the choices that were made, these are the “freedoms” that Obama and Hilary talk about.

    They are willing to send the whole state and everyone in it broke in order to defend their revolution. I don’t believe it is a conspiracy to enslave us all, although that may very well be the outcome in the long run.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    Financial problems are at the heart of the problem true, but they follow the moral degradation.
     
    who is driving the moral degradation?

    who owns and runs Hollywood and Madison Ave?

    who owns and runs the porn industry?

    who are the people most responsible for radial feminism? Who are Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan, Susan Sontag, Christina Hoff Sommers?

    who owns the magazines of filth like Cosmopolitan and the rest?

    who owns the newspapers and publishing houses?

    who owns the cable networks and NBC, CBS, ABC

    just look at CNN or the pedophiles at the BBC

    the whole rotten edifice is infested from A to Z with spiritual enemies who consider, not just your religion and morality as an abomination to their god of hatred, but your very DNA my friend.

    And how did they get so much power over every single institution in the Western world- from the fecal government to the banks to the universities to the courts and media right down to your local law enforcement?

    by having a source of literally unlimited money, that's how

    'follow the money' was never so salient as when decrying the moral and spiritual rot of Western civilization and the US (and England) in particular.

    if you want to effect change, you have to strike at the root. All else is chasing your own tail, IMHO

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. @Diversity Heretic
    That's a good summary of the message of Michel Houellebec's novel Soumission.

    Yeah, that book hit a lot of notes that I was thinking about before.

    Whites have lost something spiritual (Christianity specifically but religion/volk in general) and have replaced it with anything and everything but mostly the Cult of Equality (CE). But CE, like the other replacements, is an empty vessel, see the childish ranting of Corvinus for proof. Would anybody get into a fist fight or go to jail for his Coke commercial ideology?

    (Like a child, Corvinus lives in a protected world created by our forefathers exactly because they were hard men who believed in the kinds of things that he abhors. Corvinus is a perfect example of the “trust fund” kid mentality of our country, i.e. hating how his family made their money but more than willing to use that money to avoid reality. But like trust fund kids burning through their inheritance, his fantasy land can’t last.)

    Muslims believe in something bigger than themselves. Naturally, it’s only a small number that make up the tip of the spear but the entire community supports them in various ways.

    History is replete with more advanced people getting overtaken by less capable, but more violent and cohesive tribes. Whites will be no exception if we don’t change.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. @Talha
    Hey PtR,

    Good post.

    One thing - and I know this has little to do with this subject - I never thanked you for opening up my eyes to the trajectory of European scientific progress being partially a result of Christianity reducing slavery in Europe over time and not necessarily the other way around. I don't think most people have been exposed to that.

    Much obliged.

    Peace.

    Thanks Talha.

    Most societies have been slave owning throughout history and on the whole static and resistant to change. Not surprising with all that manpower which can be leased to any task. The rich were rich in slaving societies because of slaves, often many thousands of them. Not surprising then that there was not much enthusiasm for labor saving devices, that seems like a good way to make powerful enemies.
    And one thing about slaving societies like the Islamic empire there must have been immense silent terror among the lowly that they would face the fate that so many slaves faced.

    Having all you genitals amputated, being chained in a galley for the whole of your natural life, eating defecating and dying on some galley seat, being literally worked to death and with others having total power over you.

    Truly a fate worse than death.

    I think that possibly slavery could only be defeated in a society with a Judeo Christian culture.

    I love that section in the Bible where Abraham pleads and bargains with God to save the people of Sodom.
    “Will the lord of all the universe not spare Sodom if 50 righteous people can be found” and so on.
    You could almost imagine God’s thoughts” here I am the God of the whole universe, maker and master of everything listening to a speck of dust arguing for other specks of dust.
    And yet God listens, man is treated in some sense as an equal in a moral sense. Eventually the redeemer is God come in the form of a man.
    How could such a society which carries this revelation of man’s relation with God, not a slave but an actor and participant, not in the end reject slavery.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey PtR,

    And one thing about slaving societies like the Islamic empire there must have been immense silent terror among the lowly that they would face the fate that so many slaves faced. Having all you genitals amputated, being chained in a galley for the whole of your natural life
     
    The slave experience in Muslim world history spanned an incredible breadth of experience. Yes, if you were a galley slave to a bunch of Barbary pirates, your life was summarized by; "sucks to be you." Now, if you were a Mamluk (the slave kings who ran the Muslim world from Egypt to the Levant to India), well - that was the life. They were slave, samurai and shogun all rolled into one.

    I think that possibly slavery could only be defeated in a society with a Judeo Christian culture.
     
    I would agree here if the word abolition is meant. Though I would not include "Judeo" into the mix. Christianity seems to have had no specific stance on the framework of slavery from the beginning. The Son of Mary (pbuh) seems to be silent on the issue (from what I know) though it was obviously all around him and Paul tells slaves to obey their masters. There is no doubt that Christianity ameliorated conditions for slaves - often the RCC would have to remind slave owners about not mistreating their slaves. And it certainly cut out owning other Christians as slaves. I think most credit probably goes to Anglo-Saxon Protestants (with the weight of the British Empire behind them) in forcing the issue around the world.

    How could such a society which carries this revelation of man’s relation with God, not a slave but an actor and participant, not in the end reject slavery.
     
    All of the moral successes of the historic Christian world lie at the feet of the teachings of the Son of Mary (pbuh) and all of their failures belong to their own selves.

    Peace.
    , @truthtellerAryan
    Jewdeo? Where did all these negroes in the Americas come from? Who brought them here?
    What about all those Europeans sold in the markets of Islamic countries? Who was selling them? Jewdeo Chris(what)? Who put these two together anyway? Jews have always been the eternal enemies of Christianity. When did it become Judeo-Christian?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. KenH says:
    @Talha
    Hey KenH,

    This must be phase two as the Sunni-Shia split could probably qualify as the first reformation
     
    Not even close.

    The Christians during the Protestant reformation took it out only on each other and didn’t slaughter Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists.
     
    True - they'd already kicked out the Muslims from Europe. Did they have any Hindus and Buddhists around to test your theory? I mean extremist Muslims haven't slaughtered space aliens - can we get credit for that?

    I don’t see how their actions have a reformative effect on Islam.
     
    They have broken with 1400 of consensus on attacks targeting civilians (and women and children at that). And that Muslims are not allowed to harm non-Muslims in their territories when their is an active covenant of security between them. They are trying to bring out a hermenuetic of total war.

    Are Westerners just supposed to sit back and let thousands of their kinsmen and countrymen die while members of an alien race and religion sort things out in this so called reformation?
     
    Of course not - I'm not asking them to do nothing. Shutting down access to jihadi websites would be a great start. Bringing back the death penalty or other harsh punishments might help. It would also help if they didn't cozy up to people like the Saudis, wouldn't you agree?

    Let's get real though - it's not like Westerners just sit back. 9/11 kicked off what - the US sending Afghanistan and Iraq buckets of ice cream? When the attacks in France happened, France increased bombing raids over Daesh territory. Are you not keeping up with the news?

    Peace.

    True – they’d already kicked out the Muslims from Europe. Did they have any Hindus and Buddhists around to test your theory? I mean extremist Muslims haven’t slaughtered space aliens – can we get credit for that?

    Muslims were kicked out in Spain because they were invaders and interlopers. It was totally unrelated to the Reformation. It wasn’t as if they were indigenous to Spain and the intolerant Christians expelled them.

    No, there were no Hindus and Buddhists in Europe at the time of the Reformation like there are in some Muslims nations, but there were Jews and Christians could have galloped to Turkey to slice and dice some Ottoman Turks. But again, Catholics and Protestants stayed in Europe and slayed each other. Able bodied European men didn’t flee the killing fields for Ottoman controlled areas where they preyed on unsuspecting Muslims. And if they did I think you and I both know who the Ottomans would have reacted.

    It would also help if they didn’t cozy up to people like the Saudis, wouldn’t you agree?

    100%. It might also help if there’s much more push back from Muslim religious leaders on the Saudis and if diaspora imams quit accepting their money which comes with strings attached. But that’s not going to happen so Europe and America will now have to adopt more extreme measures.

    When the attacks in France happened, France increased bombing raids over Daesh territory. Are you not keeping up with the news?

    No need since it’s all become so predictable. For America, it’s invade the world, invite the world and with Europe, it’s bomb America’s enemies then invite the survivors into the U.K. and Europe so they can bomb and kill Europeans. Then hold a candlelight vigil, self flagellate and arrest a few Europeans who hold politically incorrect attitudes towards Muslims. You know the drill.

    But they could shut down all immigration and the enemy is still inside the gates thanks to insane immigration and refugee policies, so the only sensible policy is now internment and deportation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey KenH,

    Muslims were kicked out in Spain because they were invaders and interlopers.
     
    Yup - just talking facts on the ground.

    Christians could have galloped to Turkey to slice and dice some Ottoman Turks.
     
    Yeah but you're chalking it up to Christian zealots caring for the sanctity of Muslim life. It could have just easily been because they knew any raiding party would have been dealt with extreme prejudice. Ottomans were at their prime. Once half your men are lying bleeding and screaming out your last breaths on some battle plain and the rest are being hauled off in chains as slaves - the thought "bad idea" comes fully into mind.

    Which leads me to something; if Daesh and their ilk have decided to revive slavery unilaterally, maybe they should get a taste of their own medicine and a policy of enslaving (owned by the state) any captured fighters should be put into place.

    The Ottomans also didn't foolishly get involved in the fighting and only played the game of backing one rival or another against each other to maximize benefit to their own empire. We just can't help ourselves getting involved apparently - too much money to lose for the MIC.

    you and I both know who the Ottomans would have reacted
     
    Thugg lyfe! So - take a page from the Ottoman playbook and don't tolerate groups that hold rallies supporting extremists and such nonsense. This isn't rocket science.

    so the only sensible policy is now internment and deportation
     
    Wow - for all Muslims or those on the extremist watch lists?

    but not the millions Europe is accepting
     
    Yeah - there was a reason why they lasted for 600+ years.

    The Muslim terror attacks are clearly not intra-Muslim quarrel
     
    Not so clear. It starts as a trickle, then increase. These extremists are already calling for the deaths of certain Muslim scholars in the West as apostates:
    "The group recently threatened the lives of 11 Muslim imams and scholars in the West, calling them 'apostates' who should be killed. The recent issue of the Islamic State’s online propaganda magazine, Dabiq, called them 'obligatory targets,' and it said that supporters should use any weapons on hand to 'make an example of them.'"
    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/09/us/isis-threatens-muslim-preachers-who-are-waging-theological-battle-online.html?_r=0

    So motivation and intent is certainly there. You remember that article about the UK imam having his head beaten in with a hammer? That had zero to do with any politics, but Daesh extremists killed him in a brutal manner anyway.

    And just as the Ottoman Turks had no moral qualms about imposing collective punishment (see the Armenian genocide)
     
    You do know the Ottoman government sentenced to death the secular-nationalist architects of the genocide don't you? And that the death warrant was signed by the Grand Mufti himself?

    Imam Mawardi (ra) stated in his Ahkam Sultaniyyah that if dhimmis revolt then the ones taking up arms are fought. The rest are treated according to their support or rejection of the revolt. That sounds like a reasonable approach to me.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. Corvinus says:
    @MarkinLA
    Corrected for accuracy –> The murderers are radical Muslims who pervert their faith.

    And you know this how? Oh that's right, you are supposed to keep repeating it even though it is BS.

    “And you know this how?”

    Because as I clearly demonstrated there are important Muslim leaders who oppose radical Islam. Try to pay closer attention next time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    Yeah and those "important" Muslim leaders have about as much influence over Islam as my last turd did.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. KenH says:
    @Talha
    Correction to the last post - the Ottomans were around on the other side of Europe and did provide sanctuary to Christians fleeing violence of the Thirty Years war but there was no way they were going to tolerate nonsense intra-Christian violence in their territory (bad for taxes) and certainly not against Muslims.

    I missed this follow up post, but I think I touched on it in my response. The Ottomans perhaps allowed thousands/tens of thousands into the empire but not the millions Europe is accepting.

    The Muslim terror attacks are clearly not intra-Muslim quarrel and are directed at non-Muslims. And just as the Ottoman Turks had no moral qualms about imposing collective punishment (see the Armenian genocide) neither should the U.K. and Europe in their dealing with the Muslim communities inside their borders who are harboring an increasing number of malcontents and terrorists.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. MarkinLA says:
    @Anon
    I don't think it makes any sense to say they pervert their faith. They obviously pervert someone's faith, but surely their own faith is in exactly what they are doing, no?

    Ding, Ding, Ding – the winner!!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. MarkinLA says:
    @Corvinus
    "And you know this how?"

    Because as I clearly demonstrated there are important Muslim leaders who oppose radical Islam. Try to pay closer attention next time.

    Yeah and those “important” Muslim leaders have about as much influence over Islam as my last turd did.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Yeah and those “important” Muslim leaders have about as much influence over Islam as my last turd did."

    Do you even comprehend how ignorant is your statement?

    If that be the case, then Islamic fundamentalists hell bent on blowing themselves up would either not exist or be in small numbers. They would not be influenced by those clerics who demand that adherents sacrifice for Allah against western interference.

    If that be the case, then hundreds of millions of Muslims would be in essence their "own priests", figuring out for themselves what is the interpretation of the Koran. There would not be influenced by clerics to practice their faith in a particular manner in accordance to the tenets of their holy book.

    Here are two articles, albeit a bit dated, but nonetheless demonstrates the impact of Muslim leaders in relation to faith matters.

    https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/faith-matters/2008/03/13/the-influence-of-a-moderate-muslim-cleric

    http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2012/1224/Muslim-scholars-and-clerics-suicide-bombings-are-un-Islamic

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. MarkinLA says:
    @MEexpert

    Is there a strain of Islam, the basis of which can be found in the Quran, that would justify what the murderers did at London Bridge?
     
    There is absolutely no justification for murders of innocent people in Quran. Quran specifically forbids killing of innocent life. The only justification is in self defense.

    If these persecutors and killers of Christians are apostates to Islam, headed to hell for their savageries, why have not all the imams of the world, Shiite and Sunni, risen together to condemn them as heretics?
     
    Are you serious Pat? The Clerics in Egypt, Iraq and Iran and various shia clerics in the US have condemned these attacks. The mainstream media chooses to ignore those statements. It is more fun to blast the sermons of the Saudi Imams all over the televisions and newspapers to fan the flames of war than to print the voices of condemnation and call for peace.

    Everyone, from the politicians to the intelligence community, knows that Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Turkey, Israel, and the US are supporting ISIS and Al-Qaeda. Yet the president of the United States goes to Saudi Arabia and turns the logic upside down by ignoring the real supporters of terrorism and blamed Iran for all the troubles in the Middle East.

    Pat should be asking the questions; where are all these billions of dollars worth of weapons going? Where is ISIS and Al-Qaeda and the other alphabet terrorists getting brand new American weapons?

    It is a well documented fact that Saudi Arabia has been funding mosques and schools all over the world to promote her brand of Islam. Almost 75% of the mosques and islamic schools in the US are Saudi controlled. Instead of arresting the growth of Wahhabi version of Islam, the US and Israel are helping to promote it.

    There is no hope that this "forever war" will ever end. It is a national tragedy when our leaders (the republicans, the democrats, the progressives, liberals, libertarians, the mainstream media and what not) are slaves to the Wall Street-military-industrial complex and all are screaming for war with nary a voice in opposition. Pat, you want to control this terrorism, then tell the US government to stop selling weapons to Middle East monarchies and Israel and end these wars.

    There is absolutely no justification for murders of innocent people in Quran. Quran specifically forbids killing of innocent life. The only justification is in self defense.

    What is funny about spewing all this drivel about what IS and what ISN’T real Islam is a sentence like this. OK, who are the innocents here? What is self defense?

    Just like collateral damage and other weasel words our government uses, some “Imam” can make any claim he wants about who is not innocent and what self defense is.

    Instead of quoting irrelevant passages from Islam realize that these people KNOW they are following the Koran to the letter.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MEexpert
    They think they are following Qur'an but they are not. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry is hanging on to one verse that has been taken out of context. The verse has been exploited by people like Daniel pipes and other Jews. Funny thing is that Israel is also using the Bible to hang on to the Palestinian land and killing and torturing Christians and Muslims.

    By the way the passages I referred to are totally relevant.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. Corvinus says:
    @MarkinLA
    Yeah and those "important" Muslim leaders have about as much influence over Islam as my last turd did.

    “Yeah and those “important” Muslim leaders have about as much influence over Islam as my last turd did.”

    Do you even comprehend how ignorant is your statement?

    If that be the case, then Islamic fundamentalists hell bent on blowing themselves up would either not exist or be in small numbers. They would not be influenced by those clerics who demand that adherents sacrifice for Allah against western interference.

    If that be the case, then hundreds of millions of Muslims would be in essence their “own priests”, figuring out for themselves what is the interpretation of the Koran. There would not be influenced by clerics to practice their faith in a particular manner in accordance to the tenets of their holy book.

    Here are two articles, albeit a bit dated, but nonetheless demonstrates the impact of Muslim leaders in relation to faith matters.

    https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/faith-matters/2008/03/13/the-influence-of-a-moderate-muslim-cleric

    http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2012/1224/Muslim-scholars-and-clerics-suicide-bombings-are-un-Islamic

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    If that be the case, then Islamic fundamentalists hell bent on blowing themselves up would either not exist or be in small numbers. They would not be influenced by those clerics who demand that adherents sacrifice for Allah against western interference.

    This doesn't make any sense. But then that is par for the course for you.

    If that be the case, then hundreds of millions of Muslims would be in essence their “own priests”, figuring out for themselves what is the interpretation of the Koran. There would not be influenced by clerics to practice their faith in a particular manner in accordance to the tenets of their holy book.

    Now you are catching on because this seems pretty much to be the case with present day Islam. If not why are there so many Islamic fundamentalists willing to wage jihad? Very few of the captured ones seem to be mentally ill. In fact, those that are mentally ill are usually the western converts and not those from the middle east.

    People like you that don't live in the real world don't understand when faced with statistics showing that 30% of Muslims in Britain are sympathetic to ... what that means. No you pretend that the only thing that matters is the few willing to blow themselves up and ignore that the 30% mentioned would gladly cut the throats of the Christians in Britain for Allah, if they thought they could get away with it.

    Maybe you still don't get it, those articles mean nothing as do the words of those Imams. Everywhere there are Muslims in the world there are jihadis - that says something about the value of those Imams and their words.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. Talha says:
    @Anon
    I'm familiar with the Gnostic "gospels". You do realize Biblical scholars (I'm not one) have to study this stuff, right? Which is the point of the analogy-- you won't ever see the Pope cite the Pistis Sophia in an encyclical (unless he's condemning the Gnostics), but you will have to read it if you are interested in Biblical archaeology, and you can bet the Pope is familiar with its contents.

    I remember reading that ibn Ishaq's gathering of information from Jews and their descendants was a major criticism of him, which this random google result seems to confirm: "his use of hadith transmitted by Jewish converts" was apparently criticized by Malik. I'm sure there are other problems as well, and if he has as you say imitated (anticipated, actually) our modern journalists in relying on anonymous sources it's a pity, but his purely historical importance seems nevertheless considerable.

    Hola Senor,

    You do realize Biblical scholars (I’m not one) have to study this stuff, right?

    Yup – which is why I assume it was classified as apocrypha.

    was apparently criticized by Malik

    This is no small thing. Imam Malik (ra) was a hadith scholar of the highest rank. His transmission is considered by many hadith scholars as the soundest and highest standard; the Golden Chain:

    http://www.muwatta.com/the-golden-chain/

    Furthermore, he was a resident of Madinah and built his school around the practice of the people of Madinah – sometimes discarding hadith if it contradicted with their accepted practice. His logic was that the people of the city would not have left sound prophetic guidance within the time of the Taba-Tabi’een (two generations removed from the Companions [ra]). He knew the city and its narrative like the back of his hand. His criticism holds far more weight than say someone like Imam Awza’i (ra) from the Levant.

    his purely historical importance seems nevertheless considerable

    His contribution was to try to formulate a genuine and coherent chronological framework for the life of the Prophet (pbuh) and fill in gaps. In this aspect the work is very valuable for the average Muslim. As a basis for deriving law – not even close; but that was never his intention in the first place.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. MarkinLA says:
    @Corvinus
    "Yeah and those “important” Muslim leaders have about as much influence over Islam as my last turd did."

    Do you even comprehend how ignorant is your statement?

    If that be the case, then Islamic fundamentalists hell bent on blowing themselves up would either not exist or be in small numbers. They would not be influenced by those clerics who demand that adherents sacrifice for Allah against western interference.

    If that be the case, then hundreds of millions of Muslims would be in essence their "own priests", figuring out for themselves what is the interpretation of the Koran. There would not be influenced by clerics to practice their faith in a particular manner in accordance to the tenets of their holy book.

    Here are two articles, albeit a bit dated, but nonetheless demonstrates the impact of Muslim leaders in relation to faith matters.

    https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/faith-matters/2008/03/13/the-influence-of-a-moderate-muslim-cleric

    http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2012/1224/Muslim-scholars-and-clerics-suicide-bombings-are-un-Islamic

    If that be the case, then Islamic fundamentalists hell bent on blowing themselves up would either not exist or be in small numbers. They would not be influenced by those clerics who demand that adherents sacrifice for Allah against western interference.

    This doesn’t make any sense. But then that is par for the course for you.

    If that be the case, then hundreds of millions of Muslims would be in essence their “own priests”, figuring out for themselves what is the interpretation of the Koran. There would not be influenced by clerics to practice their faith in a particular manner in accordance to the tenets of their holy book.

    Now you are catching on because this seems pretty much to be the case with present day Islam. If not why are there so many Islamic fundamentalists willing to wage jihad? Very few of the captured ones seem to be mentally ill. In fact, those that are mentally ill are usually the western converts and not those from the middle east.

    People like you that don’t live in the real world don’t understand when faced with statistics showing that 30% of Muslims in Britain are sympathetic to … what that means. No you pretend that the only thing that matters is the few willing to blow themselves up and ignore that the 30% mentioned would gladly cut the throats of the Christians in Britain for Allah, if they thought they could get away with it.

    Maybe you still don’t get it, those articles mean nothing as do the words of those Imams. Everywhere there are Muslims in the world there are jihadis – that says something about the value of those Imams and their words.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "This doesn’t make any sense. But then that is par for the course for you."

    This isn't hard to comprehend. The supermajority of Muslims around the world are not radicals. Clearly they have been influenced by their religious leaders who oppose Jihad.

    "If not why are there so many Islamic fundamentalists willing to wage jihad?"

    A host of reasons--opposition to other faiths, opposition to western ideas, belief they will receive salvation.

    "People like you that don’t live in the real world don’t understand when faced with statistics showing that 30% of Muslims in Britain are sympathetic to … what that means. No you pretend that the only thing that matters is the few willing to blow themselves up and ignore that the 30% mentioned would gladly cut the throats of the Christians in Britain for Allah, if they thought they could get away with it."

    A statistic from 2009. 600 Muslim students from various English universities were asked certain questions. Certainly a disconcerting percentage. The key is would they actually follow through with their intention. Listen, why don't you ask posters on Alt Right websites the question "Would you gladly cut the throats of Muslims if you thought you could get away with it"
    and see how many would respond "Yes".

    "Maybe you still don’t get it, those articles mean nothing as do the words of those Imams."

    You sound like a four-year-old girl saying "Nyah, nyah, I can't hear you". Of course what those religious leaders are doing means something substantial--they are using their status as leaders to devise ways to keep radical Islam from spreading.

    "Everywhere there are Muslims in the world there are jihadis – that says something about the value of those Imams and their words."

    And it also says something about the supermajority of Muslims who are NOT jihadis, that they are influenced by their religious leaders to refrain from slitting throats and strapping bombs to their bodies.

    Would that mean if there were no jihadis in the world then the Imams and their words were influential? That
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. Talha says:
    @Pat the Rat
    Thanks Talha.

    Most societies have been slave owning throughout history and on the whole static and resistant to change. Not surprising with all that manpower which can be leased to any task. The rich were rich in slaving societies because of slaves, often many thousands of them. Not surprising then that there was not much enthusiasm for labor saving devices, that seems like a good way to make powerful enemies.
    And one thing about slaving societies like the Islamic empire there must have been immense silent terror among the lowly that they would face the fate that so many slaves faced.

    Having all you genitals amputated, being chained in a galley for the whole of your natural life, eating defecating and dying on some galley seat, being literally worked to death and with others having total power over you.

    Truly a fate worse than death.

    I think that possibly slavery could only be defeated in a society with a Judeo Christian culture.

    I love that section in the Bible where Abraham pleads and bargains with God to save the people of Sodom.
    "Will the lord of all the universe not spare Sodom if 50 righteous people can be found" and so on.
    You could almost imagine God's thoughts" here I am the God of the whole universe, maker and master of everything listening to a speck of dust arguing for other specks of dust.
    And yet God listens, man is treated in some sense as an equal in a moral sense. Eventually the redeemer is God come in the form of a man.
    How could such a society which carries this revelation of man's relation with God, not a slave but an actor and participant, not in the end reject slavery.

    Hey PtR,

    And one thing about slaving societies like the Islamic empire there must have been immense silent terror among the lowly that they would face the fate that so many slaves faced. Having all you genitals amputated, being chained in a galley for the whole of your natural life

    The slave experience in Muslim world history spanned an incredible breadth of experience. Yes, if you were a galley slave to a bunch of Barbary pirates, your life was summarized by; “sucks to be you.” Now, if you were a Mamluk (the slave kings who ran the Muslim world from Egypt to the Levant to India), well – that was the life. They were slave, samurai and shogun all rolled into one.

    I think that possibly slavery could only be defeated in a society with a Judeo Christian culture.

    I would agree here if the word abolition is meant. Though I would not include “Judeo” into the mix. Christianity seems to have had no specific stance on the framework of slavery from the beginning. The Son of Mary (pbuh) seems to be silent on the issue (from what I know) though it was obviously all around him and Paul tells slaves to obey their masters. There is no doubt that Christianity ameliorated conditions for slaves – often the RCC would have to remind slave owners about not mistreating their slaves. And it certainly cut out owning other Christians as slaves. I think most credit probably goes to Anglo-Saxon Protestants (with the weight of the British Empire behind them) in forcing the issue around the world.

    How could such a society which carries this revelation of man’s relation with God, not a slave but an actor and participant, not in the end reject slavery.

    All of the moral successes of the historic Christian world lie at the feet of the teachings of the Son of Mary (pbuh) and all of their failures belong to their own selves.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @TWS
    So slaves should be grateful they were not castrated and beaten daily? Some slaves only had to be beaten or raped when it was their master's whim. Islam is truly enlightened.

    Your glib reply tells us all we need to know. I'm sure you didn't intend to be so informative. Or maybe you did. A cavalier attitude towards brutality is a threat all by itself. Just like Spain.
    , @Anon

    And it certainly cut out owning other Christians as slaves.
     
    What? Pope Callistus I was a slave of a Christian master, who forfeited legal right to him after having sent him to the pistrinum.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. Rurik says:
    @Pat the Rat
    That's totally inaccurate in my opinion Rurik.

    Financial problems are at the heart of the problem true, but they follow the moral degradation.

    The 60's social experiment had predictable results, less children, more crime, more mental health issues, more unwanted children, more unstable broken marriages.

    This kind of social destruction requires two things, immigration to be the babies we never had, and money, big big money to alleviate the massive social destruction of increased crime, drug use, divorce, unwanted children, sexual perversion, etc.

    You name it Rurik, do you really think you can pursue policies that legalize drug and pornography use and promote broken families without there being an enormous monetary bill?

    The monetary bill came due in the 80's when central banks throughout the west realized that only constant growth and stimulus and borrowing could keep their vast network of welfare dependencies intact and keep the social life of society smooth. Without the welfare it was anyone's guess what would happen, certainly the sexual social revolution would fail.

    I don't subscribe to some conspiracy plot, more likely in my view that we sail on a "ship of fools". They just happen to be atheist fools in our age who think they can turn morality upside down in the pursuit of their own pleasures.

    Most of the liberal planners and politician who set us on this course with the consent of many voters genuinely think it was the right thing to do. Now they are defending the choices that were made, these are the "freedoms" that Obama and Hilary talk about.

    They are willing to send the whole state and everyone in it broke in order to defend their revolution. I don't believe it is a conspiracy to enslave us all, although that may very well be the outcome in the long run.

    Financial problems are at the heart of the problem true, but they follow the moral degradation.

    who is driving the moral degradation?

    who owns and runs Hollywood and Madison Ave?

    who owns and runs the porn industry?

    who are the people most responsible for radial feminism? Who are Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan, Susan Sontag, Christina Hoff Sommers?

    who owns the magazines of filth like Cosmopolitan and the rest?

    who owns the newspapers and publishing houses?

    who owns the cable networks and NBC, CBS, ABC

    just look at CNN or the pedophiles at the BBC

    the whole rotten edifice is infested from A to Z with spiritual enemies who consider, not just your religion and morality as an abomination to their god of hatred, but your very DNA my friend.

    And how did they get so much power over every single institution in the Western world- from the fecal government to the banks to the universities to the courts and media right down to your local law enforcement?

    by having a source of literally unlimited money, that’s how

    ‘follow the money’ was never so salient as when decrying the moral and spiritual rot of Western civilization and the US (and England) in particular.

    if you want to effect change, you have to strike at the root. All else is chasing your own tail, IMHO

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    You omitted liquor, Seagrams for instance. Many people dealing with social problems make no bones about alcohol being the most destructive drug in society.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. @Corvinus
    "For all of our superior IQ and organizational skills, we whites have no community and are not willing to fight for our people. Unless we can find those things in ourselves again, we will – and should be – taken over."

    We Americans who are white assuredly have a sense of community and the resolve to fight for our people, the American citizen. And speak for yourself for desiring for us to be "taken over". Have you no decency, sir? Haven't you done enough?

    Now, Patrick...

    "If these persecutors and killers of Christians are apostates to Islam, headed to hell for their savageries, why have not all the imams of the world, Shiite and Sunni, risen together to condemn them as heretics?"

    Imams, Islamic groups, and Middle Eastern nations have condemned it. You just don't notice things like Mr. Sailer. Ask him to offer pointers on his power of observation.

    http://stepfeed.com/muslim-leaders-express-solidarity-with-the-uk-after-manchester-attack-4587

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/london-bridge-terrorists-imams-refuse-funeral-prayer-khuram-shazad-butt-rachid-redouane-a7774291.html

    "The murderers were Muslims. The rationale for their crimes lies in the belief that their bloody deeds would inscribe them in a book of martyrs, and Allah would reward them with instant ascension into the paradise that awaits all good Muslims."

    Corrected for accuracy --> The murderers are radical Muslims who pervert their faith.

    We Americans who are white assuredly have a sense of community and the resolve to fight for our people, the American citizen. And speak for yourself for desiring for us to be “taken over”. Have you no decency, sir? Haven’t you done enough?

    Where are you coming from, Corvinus? Are you happy with the rates of immigration into the U.S. currently or do you think it’s too much too soon? Do you want to make the 11, 20, or 30 million illegal immigrants citizens?

    I understand that you believe your role here is to criticize what you consider extremist views and proposals usually by fisking. But what do you actually think would be a good immigration policy for the U.S. at this point?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Where are you coming from, Corvinus? Are you happy with the rates of immigration into the U.S. currently or do you think it’s too much too soon? Do you want to make the 11, 20, or 30 million illegal immigrants citizens?"

    I have stated numerous times on this fine blog that I favor limiting immigration. If American citizens seek to have Congress pass such a law, so be it. What I oppose are those people who insist that certain groups of people, like Somalis or Kenyans, are utterly incapable of assimilating into our society.

    "But what do you actually think would be a good immigration policy for the U.S. at this point?"

    Great question. Enforce current immigration laws on the books by targeting those companies who employ illegal immigrants. Reform H1B visas. Hard cap (250,000?) on immigration for 10 years--any and all peoples are eligible. Regarding our 11 million+ undocumented workers, now that is a tough one for me. Mass deportations? Good luck. Offer amnesty? That only encourages illegal conduct.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. Talha says:
    @KenH

    True – they’d already kicked out the Muslims from Europe. Did they have any Hindus and Buddhists around to test your theory? I mean extremist Muslims haven’t slaughtered space aliens – can we get credit for that?
     
    Muslims were kicked out in Spain because they were invaders and interlopers. It was totally unrelated to the Reformation. It wasn't as if they were indigenous to Spain and the intolerant Christians expelled them.

    No, there were no Hindus and Buddhists in Europe at the time of the Reformation like there are in some Muslims nations, but there were Jews and Christians could have galloped to Turkey to slice and dice some Ottoman Turks. But again, Catholics and Protestants stayed in Europe and slayed each other. Able bodied European men didn't flee the killing fields for Ottoman controlled areas where they preyed on unsuspecting Muslims. And if they did I think you and I both know who the Ottomans would have reacted.


    It would also help if they didn’t cozy up to people like the Saudis, wouldn’t you agree?
     
    100%. It might also help if there's much more push back from Muslim religious leaders on the Saudis and if diaspora imams quit accepting their money which comes with strings attached. But that's not going to happen so Europe and America will now have to adopt more extreme measures.

    When the attacks in France happened, France increased bombing raids over Daesh territory. Are you not keeping up with the news?
     
    No need since it's all become so predictable. For America, it's invade the world, invite the world and with Europe, it's bomb America's enemies then invite the survivors into the U.K. and Europe so they can bomb and kill Europeans. Then hold a candlelight vigil, self flagellate and arrest a few Europeans who hold politically incorrect attitudes towards Muslims. You know the drill.

    But they could shut down all immigration and the enemy is still inside the gates thanks to insane immigration and refugee policies, so the only sensible policy is now internment and deportation.

    Hey KenH,

    Muslims were kicked out in Spain because they were invaders and interlopers.

    Yup – just talking facts on the ground.

    Christians could have galloped to Turkey to slice and dice some Ottoman Turks.

    Yeah but you’re chalking it up to Christian zealots caring for the sanctity of Muslim life. It could have just easily been because they knew any raiding party would have been dealt with extreme prejudice. Ottomans were at their prime. Once half your men are lying bleeding and screaming out your last breaths on some battle plain and the rest are being hauled off in chains as slaves – the thought “bad idea” comes fully into mind.

    Which leads me to something; if Daesh and their ilk have decided to revive slavery unilaterally, maybe they should get a taste of their own medicine and a policy of enslaving (owned by the state) any captured fighters should be put into place.

    The Ottomans also didn’t foolishly get involved in the fighting and only played the game of backing one rival or another against each other to maximize benefit to their own empire. We just can’t help ourselves getting involved apparently – too much money to lose for the MIC.

    you and I both know who the Ottomans would have reacted

    Thugg lyfe! So – take a page from the Ottoman playbook and don’t tolerate groups that hold rallies supporting extremists and such nonsense. This isn’t rocket science.

    so the only sensible policy is now internment and deportation

    Wow – for all Muslims or those on the extremist watch lists?

    but not the millions Europe is accepting

    Yeah – there was a reason why they lasted for 600+ years.

    The Muslim terror attacks are clearly not intra-Muslim quarrel

    Not so clear. It starts as a trickle, then increase. These extremists are already calling for the deaths of certain Muslim scholars in the West as apostates:
    “The group recently threatened the lives of 11 Muslim imams and scholars in the West, calling them ‘apostates’ who should be killed. The recent issue of the Islamic State’s online propaganda magazine, Dabiq, called them ‘obligatory targets,’ and it said that supporters should use any weapons on hand to ‘make an example of them.’”

    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/09/us/isis-threatens-muslim-preachers-who-are-waging-theological-battle-online.html?_r=0

    So motivation and intent is certainly there. You remember that article about the UK imam having his head beaten in with a hammer? That had zero to do with any politics, but Daesh extremists killed him in a brutal manner anyway.

    And just as the Ottoman Turks had no moral qualms about imposing collective punishment (see the Armenian genocide)

    You do know the Ottoman government sentenced to death the secular-nationalist architects of the genocide don’t you? And that the death warrant was signed by the Grand Mufti himself?

    Imam Mawardi (ra) stated in his Ahkam Sultaniyyah that if dhimmis revolt then the ones taking up arms are fought. The rest are treated according to their support or rejection of the revolt. That sounds like a reasonable approach to me.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon


    Christians could have galloped to Turkey to slice and dice some Ottoman Turks.

     

    Yeah but you’re chalking it up to Christian zealots caring for the sanctity of Muslim life. It could have just easily been because they knew any raiding party would have been dealt with extreme prejudice. Ottomans were at their prime. Once half your men are lying bleeding and screaming out your last breaths on some battle plain and the rest are being hauled off in chains as slaves – the thought “bad idea” comes fully into mind.
     
    The Cossacks actually did this, but not for religious motives as far as I can tell:


    By 1615 and 1625, Cossacks had managed to raze townships on the outskirts of Constantinople, forcing the Ottoman Sultan Murad IV to flee his palace.[4] His nephew, Sultan Mehmed IV, fared little better as the recipient of the legendary Reply of the Zaporozhian Cossacks, a ribald response to Mehmed's insistence that the Cossacks submit to his authority.[citation needed] Consecutive treaties between Ottoman Empire and the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth called for both parties to keep the Cossacks and Tatars in check, but enforcement was almost non-existent on both sides. In internal agreements, forced by the Poles, the Cossacks agreed to burn their boats and stop raiding. However, boats could be rebuilt quickly, and the Cossack lifestyle glorified raids and looting.
     
    (from wiki for brevity but all well attested)

    In some cases, like that of the legendary Chmielnicki, enslaving them was counterproductive as they returned later with full knowledge of the wealth of the area and the lie of the land.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. Talha says:
    @Talha

    Is there a strain of Islam, the basis of which can be found in the Quran, that would justify what the murderers did at London Bridge?
     
    Yes there is; welcome to the Reformation.

    Pleased to meet you
    Hope you guess my name
    But what's puzzling you
    Is the nature of my game...

    When have the imams of Saudi Arabia, the Middle East, and West ever stood as one to condemn all such acts as against the tenets of Islam?
     
    Plenty - the fact that people don't care to listen is a different subject.

    If these persecutors and killers of Christians are apostates to Islam, headed to hell for their savageries, why have not all the imams of the world, Shiite and Sunni, risen together to condemn them as heretics?
     
    They aren't apostates - they are heretical extremists though - again, see previous point. Mr. Buchanan, do you not have access to Google? Something like "Muslim scholars condemn ISIS" should be a good start. Here, I'll make it easy for you:
    https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/muslims-against-isis-part-1-clerics-scholars

    We didn't need to wait for them to start killing Christians, it was enough that they got their rocks off by killing plenty of Muslims. You're a betting man, right? Where do you think the next terrorist act will occur; Europe or the Middle East? Who do you think the next victims will be; Christians or Muslims?

    Correct. There is an extremist school of Islam that needs to be purged from the West
     
    No problems there.

    And the imams of Islam need to answer the question: “Whose side are you on?”
     
    They already have; neither. Do you really expect the ulema (the inheritors of the prophetic legacy) to pander to US/Israeli/Nato drone-imperialism and lose all credibility and respect in the eyes of the Ummah?

    Imams and scholars in the UK are refusing burial and last prayer rites to these wretched people (evoking a classic form of censuring of acts such as hirabah):
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/05/imams-refuse-funeral-prayers-to-indefensible-london-bridge-attackers

    Again, is anybody listening, or will they again be accused of refusing to take a stance?

    Now, second-generation Muslims within Europe seem to be converting to a violent version of Islam.
     
    Too many for comfort, yes - big problem, this.

    The new normal.
     
    You ought to ask the people of the Middle East about the "new normal" ushered in since the beginning of this century - you know, the PNAC vision. An imam that also works for a relief agency working in these areas was recently telling us that some people are breaking their Ramadan fasts on the carcasses of cats and dogs. You know, we can simply just stop what we started and start pulling back our armies. This might just work. It might not, but at least we'd know if these guys were sincere when claiming they do this as revenge against Western destruction and meddling.

    To fight them, we are being forced to circumscribe our sovereignty and empower police and intelligence agencies of which free men were once taught to be wary.
     
    There is no forcing - this seems to be part of the plan. War, as you said, are the death of republics, but the health of the state.

    Peace.

    You’re a betting man, right? Where do you think the next terrorist act will occur; Europe or the Middle East?

    Well, that didn’t take long did it?

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/07/world/middleeast/iran-parliament-attack-khomeini-mausoleum.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    It’s like using poison gas in war. When the wind turns, it blows over to your side. West funds and arms Jihadis to destabilize much of the Middle East, and some of this blows back.

    https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/isis-recruiter-who-radicalised-london-bridge-attackers-was-protected-by-mi5-232998ab6421

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    The dirty little secret of the vaunted intelligence services is how often they get taken for a ride by people they think they are controlling.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. TWS says:
    @anon
    So submit to western hegemony or be killed .
    Not only that your relatives also will be killed in subsequent drones when they come to pick up your body

    We will lame sure the phosphorus will glow your soul for everyone around your neighborhood to see

    Keep your politics at home and nobody will have to settle it for you. You’re fighting a 4g war because you’ll lose anything where you have to wear a uniform and fight like men. Okay, but what happens when you keep attacking us at home without uniforms? We have to assume you’re already wearing your uniform.

    How much fun will that be for you?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. Corvinus says:
    @MarkinLA
    If that be the case, then Islamic fundamentalists hell bent on blowing themselves up would either not exist or be in small numbers. They would not be influenced by those clerics who demand that adherents sacrifice for Allah against western interference.

    This doesn't make any sense. But then that is par for the course for you.

    If that be the case, then hundreds of millions of Muslims would be in essence their “own priests”, figuring out for themselves what is the interpretation of the Koran. There would not be influenced by clerics to practice their faith in a particular manner in accordance to the tenets of their holy book.

    Now you are catching on because this seems pretty much to be the case with present day Islam. If not why are there so many Islamic fundamentalists willing to wage jihad? Very few of the captured ones seem to be mentally ill. In fact, those that are mentally ill are usually the western converts and not those from the middle east.

    People like you that don't live in the real world don't understand when faced with statistics showing that 30% of Muslims in Britain are sympathetic to ... what that means. No you pretend that the only thing that matters is the few willing to blow themselves up and ignore that the 30% mentioned would gladly cut the throats of the Christians in Britain for Allah, if they thought they could get away with it.

    Maybe you still don't get it, those articles mean nothing as do the words of those Imams. Everywhere there are Muslims in the world there are jihadis - that says something about the value of those Imams and their words.

    “This doesn’t make any sense. But then that is par for the course for you.”

    This isn’t hard to comprehend. The supermajority of Muslims around the world are not radicals. Clearly they have been influenced by their religious leaders who oppose Jihad.

    “If not why are there so many Islamic fundamentalists willing to wage jihad?”

    A host of reasons–opposition to other faiths, opposition to western ideas, belief they will receive salvation.

    “People like you that don’t live in the real world don’t understand when faced with statistics showing that 30% of Muslims in Britain are sympathetic to … what that means. No you pretend that the only thing that matters is the few willing to blow themselves up and ignore that the 30% mentioned would gladly cut the throats of the Christians in Britain for Allah, if they thought they could get away with it.”

    A statistic from 2009. 600 Muslim students from various English universities were asked certain questions. Certainly a disconcerting percentage. The key is would they actually follow through with their intention. Listen, why don’t you ask posters on Alt Right websites the question “Would you gladly cut the throats of Muslims if you thought you could get away with it”
    and see how many would respond “Yes”.

    “Maybe you still don’t get it, those articles mean nothing as do the words of those Imams.”

    You sound like a four-year-old girl saying “Nyah, nyah, I can’t hear you”. Of course what those religious leaders are doing means something substantial–they are using their status as leaders to devise ways to keep radical Islam from spreading.

    “Everywhere there are Muslims in the world there are jihadis – that says something about the value of those Imams and their words.”

    And it also says something about the supermajority of Muslims who are NOT jihadis, that they are influenced by their religious leaders to refrain from slitting throats and strapping bombs to their bodies.

    Would that mean if there were no jihadis in the world then the Imams and their words were influential? That

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    Of course what those religious leaders are doing means something substantial–they are using their status as leaders to devise ways to keep radical Islam from spreading.

    You sound like the 4 year old. If they were doing something substantial then they would be making a difference in the world and they are not. They are not "devising" ways to keep radical Islam from spreading. They are mouthing platitudes that they likely don't believe for PR purposes.

    Buchanan wants to know why the Imams in Saudi Arabia don't condemn the killers. Why, because they support them. They just happen to live where they don't need to pretend they are against it. When the Imams live in places where they have to lie about their position, they do.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. Corvinus says:
    @Paul Yarbles

    We Americans who are white assuredly have a sense of community and the resolve to fight for our people, the American citizen. And speak for yourself for desiring for us to be “taken over”. Have you no decency, sir? Haven’t you done enough?
     
    Where are you coming from, Corvinus? Are you happy with the rates of immigration into the U.S. currently or do you think it's too much too soon? Do you want to make the 11, 20, or 30 million illegal immigrants citizens?

    I understand that you believe your role here is to criticize what you consider extremist views and proposals usually by fisking. But what do you actually think would be a good immigration policy for the U.S. at this point?

    “Where are you coming from, Corvinus? Are you happy with the rates of immigration into the U.S. currently or do you think it’s too much too soon? Do you want to make the 11, 20, or 30 million illegal immigrants citizens?”

    I have stated numerous times on this fine blog that I favor limiting immigration. If American citizens seek to have Congress pass such a law, so be it. What I oppose are those people who insist that certain groups of people, like Somalis or Kenyans, are utterly incapable of assimilating into our society.

    “But what do you actually think would be a good immigration policy for the U.S. at this point?”

    Great question. Enforce current immigration laws on the books by targeting those companies who employ illegal immigrants. Reform H1B visas. Hard cap (250,000?) on immigration for 10 years–any and all peoples are eligible. Regarding our 11 million+ undocumented workers, now that is a tough one for me. Mass deportations? Good luck. Offer amnesty? That only encourages illegal conduct.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Paul Yarbles
    I agree with most of what you say. One area of disagreement may be your view that the origin of immigrants does not matter. Granted, if when you say "utterly incapable" you are being literal, then I have to agree. However, if you believe that 100,000 Somali Muslims (for example) put into an American community will adopt American values as quickly or as deeply as 100,000 Englishmen, then I'll have to disagree. The inflow rates and origins are both important. If we want our culture to persist, then choosing a lot of Englishmen over a lot of Somalis is the way to go. Of course, if the numbers are minuscule, it doesn't matter so much either way.

    Also, regarding illegals. Targeting companies who employ them is good. We could also assure these illegal immigrants that they are breaking the law and they will never ever be rewarded for such a thing by granted them amnesty. Furthermore, they should be assured that any criminal infraction will lead to deportation. We must make it clear that they have NO RIGHT TO BE HERE.

    So I take it that you are on-board with our host's Citizenism program?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. MarkinLA says:
    @Anon
    It's like using poison gas in war. When the wind turns, it blows over to your side. West funds and arms Jihadis to destabilize much of the Middle East, and some of this blows back.

    https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/isis-recruiter-who-radicalised-london-bridge-attackers-was-protected-by-mi5-232998ab6421

    The dirty little secret of the vaunted intelligence services is how often they get taken for a ride by people they think they are controlling.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. L.K says:

    What an intellectually dishonest article!
    First of all, Mr. Buchanan, have a sense of proportion already!
    The wars of aggression your country and the British have been conducting in the Islamic world, not to mention the proxy wars like Syria, are TERRORISM with a much bigger budget & cause infinitely more death & destruction, not to mention the fact it radicalizes many people.

    But what about the fact that ZUSA & Britain, to focus on the worst offenders, have long been in bed with the Gulf states which promote the extremist/fundamentalist sects Salafism/Wahhabism, the ideology that feeds the various Al-Ciada-ISIS type groups, and which is spreading even into Europe, where Salafi madrasas funded by Saudi Arabia, Qatar & other emirates can be found in many European countries?

    Not to mention ZUSA, Britain, even France, have all used Salafi militant nutjobs for many decades, as proxy armies, just like they recently did in Lybia and are still doing in Syria.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq

    Now the truth emerges: how the US fuelled the rise of Isis in Syria and Iraq

    A revealing light on how we got here has now been shone by a recently declassified secret US intelligence report, written in August 2012, which uncannily predicts – and effectively welcomes – the prospect of a “Salafist principality” in eastern Syria and an al-Qaida-controlled Islamic state in Syria and Iraq. In stark contrast to western claims at the time, the Defense Intelligence Agency document identifies al-Qaida in Iraq (which became Isis) and fellow Salafists as the “major forces driving the insurgency in Syria” – and states that “western countries, the Gulf states and Turkey” were supporting the opposition’s efforts to take control of eastern Syria.

    Ex-DIA boss Michael Flynn: White House took “willful decision” to fund, train Syria Islamists ISIS – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccdeANvo2bg

    New Evidence US Backed ISIS – Ron Paul

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  83. L.K says:

    Retired German army officer( MoA ), has recently written about the Manchester attack, notice the many msm sources he uses:

    Details Emerge On The Manchester Blowback From Britain’s Terror Support

    There are now a few more details on the Manchester attack and how it relates to British support for Takfirs in its wars on independent countries in the Middle East and elsewhere. The picture has not changed though from the one we painted yesterday. The attack was a blow back from the British use of Takfiris to take down governments it dislikes.

    In 2011 when the British, French and the U.S. waged war on Libya, the British government sent British-Libyan Takfiris to fight against the Libyan government forces:

    http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/sorted-mi5-how-uk-government-sent-british-libyans-fight-gaddafi-1219906488

    Belal Younis, another British citizen who went to Libya, described how he was stopped under ‘Schedule 7′ counter-terrorism powers on his return to the UK after a visit to the country in early 2011. …
    He said he was subsequently asked by an intelligence officer from MI5, the UK’s domestic security agency: “Are you willing to go into battle?”
    “While I took time to find an answer he turned and told me the British government have no problem with people fighting against Gaddafi,” he told MEE.

    Known Libyan radicals were released from control order in Britain, given their passports back and hauled off to Libya. There British special forces were on the ground and British fighter planes in the air to support their fighting against the legitimate Libyan government. MI-5, the domestic British spy service, “sorted” the fighters sent from Britain. The responsible British Home Secretary at that time? One Theresa May, now the British Prime Minister.

    The father of the Manchester assassin fought in Libya in a gang related to the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a known al-Qaeda entity. His son, then 16 years old, joined him:

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/manchester-bomber-fought-in-libya-1495662073

    In 2011, when Abedi was still a teenager, he traveled to Libya and fought alongside his father in a militia known as the Tripoli Brigade to oust Gadhafi as the revolts of the Arab Spring swept North Africa and the Middle East, a family friend said.

    The son returned to Manchester but became a well known danger to society. Members of Libyan exile society in Manchester reported him at least five times as a dangerous Jihadi to the local authorities. There were no reactions. Additionally:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/24/security-services-missed-five-opportunities-stop-manchester/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

    ” Abedi’s own family background might also have been a red flag to authorities. His father was a member of the militant Libyan Islamic Fighting Group.

    France’s interior minister said the 22-year-old had “proven” links with Islamic State and that both British and French intelligence services had information that the attacker had been in Syria.

    According to the Financial Times Salman Abedi came back to Britain a few days before the attack via Turkey and Germany. He had come from Libya to Turkey but probably stayed a few days in Syria to receive his last orders.

    All these attacks by Takfiris, in Paris, in Brussels, Berlin and Manchester as well as in Libya, Syria and Iraq, have their ideological roots in Wahhabism, the extreme version of Salafist Islam promoted in Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The roots of such terrorism are in Riyadh and Doha and will have to be fought there.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/manchester-attack-salman-abedi-salafi-jihadism-wahhabism-isis-al-qaeda-islam-muslim-suicide-bombing-a7754301.html

    But the Saudi and Qatari rulers pay extraordinary amounts of protection money in the form of weapon purchases from British and U.S. companies. As long as they keep doing so they will be kept in place as useful props in the bigger scheme.

    For the ruling classes in Britain and elsewhere the victims in Manchester are just collateral damage in their quest to rule the world with help of the Wahhabi storm troopers. …

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  84. L.K says:

    Secret Affairs: Britain’s Collusion with Radical Islam
    Paperback – June 2, 2015
    by Mark Curtis

    The updated edition of Secret Affairs covers the momentous events of the past year in the Middle East. It reveals the unreported attempts by Britain to cultivate relations with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt after the fall of Mubarak, the military intervention on the side of Libyan rebel forces which include pro-al-Qaeda elements, and the ongoing reliance on the region’s ultimate fundamentalist state, Saudi Arabia, to safeguard its interest in the Middle East.

    In this ground-breaking book, Mark Curtis reveals the covert history of British collusion with radical Islamic and terrorist groups. Secret Affairs shows how governments since the 1940s have connived with militant forces to control oil resources and overthrow governments. The story of how Britain has helped nurture the rise of global terrorism has never been told.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  85. L.K says:

    Independent journalist Daniel Glazebrook, who researched the illegal NATO war on Libya explains the collusion between Libyan Al Qaeda salafi fighters, the British government and the Manchester terror attack.
    Theresa May facilitated the Manchester bomber’s training;

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  86. TWS says:
    @Talha
    Hey PtR,

    And one thing about slaving societies like the Islamic empire there must have been immense silent terror among the lowly that they would face the fate that so many slaves faced. Having all you genitals amputated, being chained in a galley for the whole of your natural life
     
    The slave experience in Muslim world history spanned an incredible breadth of experience. Yes, if you were a galley slave to a bunch of Barbary pirates, your life was summarized by; "sucks to be you." Now, if you were a Mamluk (the slave kings who ran the Muslim world from Egypt to the Levant to India), well - that was the life. They were slave, samurai and shogun all rolled into one.

    I think that possibly slavery could only be defeated in a society with a Judeo Christian culture.
     
    I would agree here if the word abolition is meant. Though I would not include "Judeo" into the mix. Christianity seems to have had no specific stance on the framework of slavery from the beginning. The Son of Mary (pbuh) seems to be silent on the issue (from what I know) though it was obviously all around him and Paul tells slaves to obey their masters. There is no doubt that Christianity ameliorated conditions for slaves - often the RCC would have to remind slave owners about not mistreating their slaves. And it certainly cut out owning other Christians as slaves. I think most credit probably goes to Anglo-Saxon Protestants (with the weight of the British Empire behind them) in forcing the issue around the world.

    How could such a society which carries this revelation of man’s relation with God, not a slave but an actor and participant, not in the end reject slavery.
     
    All of the moral successes of the historic Christian world lie at the feet of the teachings of the Son of Mary (pbuh) and all of their failures belong to their own selves.

    Peace.

    So slaves should be grateful they were not castrated and beaten daily? Some slaves only had to be beaten or raped when it was their master’s whim. Islam is truly enlightened.

    Your glib reply tells us all we need to know. I’m sure you didn’t intend to be so informative. Or maybe you did. A cavalier attitude towards brutality is a threat all by itself. Just like Spain.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey TWS,

    So slaves should be grateful they were not castrated and beaten daily?
     
    Have you ever read about historical slavery? If you had a good master - that was a tremendous blessing. What the Barbary pirates did was hardly sanctioned by Islam - just by the mere fact that the Shariah prohibits castration or mutilation of slaves.

    Islam is truly enlightened.
     
    Free advertising!

    A cavalier attitude towards brutality is a threat all by itself.
     
    Perhaps I should have eased back on the light attitude. Either way, I don't condone their conduct. They will answer for their transgressions against other human beings in the court of God - no one escapes that.

    Just like Spain.
     
    Don't follow...

    Peace.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. Talha says:
    @TWS
    So slaves should be grateful they were not castrated and beaten daily? Some slaves only had to be beaten or raped when it was their master's whim. Islam is truly enlightened.

    Your glib reply tells us all we need to know. I'm sure you didn't intend to be so informative. Or maybe you did. A cavalier attitude towards brutality is a threat all by itself. Just like Spain.

    Hey TWS,

    So slaves should be grateful they were not castrated and beaten daily?

    Have you ever read about historical slavery? If you had a good master – that was a tremendous blessing. What the Barbary pirates did was hardly sanctioned by Islam – just by the mere fact that the Shariah prohibits castration or mutilation of slaves.

    Islam is truly enlightened.

    Free advertising!

    A cavalier attitude towards brutality is a threat all by itself.

    Perhaps I should have eased back on the light attitude. Either way, I don’t condone their conduct. They will answer for their transgressions against other human beings in the court of God – no one escapes that.

    Just like Spain.

    Don’t follow…

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @truthtellerAryan
    But they did! Read real history.
    , @TWS
    Yes I have read about slavery both historical and contemporary. Legally there were slaves in Islamic countries during my lifetime. Not in the past but in my living memory.

    You betrayed your motives when you downplayed the violence, brutality and deceit. Yes, deceit. You know that your system condones, not did condone but condones slavery, oppression, and undermining societies that are not Islamic.

    Like the KSA soccer team not standing for a moment of silence for the London victims of terror. Our MSM colludes with Muslims in that it says, "Their culture is not compatible with a moment of silence." No, the culture sees the terrorists as martyrs and the victims as justified targets.

    What your culture does teaches better than what you say. Actions speak louder than words.

    Deus Vult
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. Avery says:
    @Talha
    Correction to the last post - the Ottomans were around on the other side of Europe and did provide sanctuary to Christians fleeing violence of the Thirty Years war but there was no way they were going to tolerate nonsense intra-Christian violence in their territory (bad for taxes) and certainly not against Muslims.

    {Ottomans ……did provide sanctuary to Christians fleeing violence of the Thirty Years war}

    Yo, Talha:

    What is the source of this?

    I find it very hard to believe that Ottomans – well actually descendants of Muslim nomad Turks form Uyguristan – would provide sanctuary to Christians.

    Christians (Armenians, Assyrians, Greeks) and Jews were 2nd class _subjects_ in the Ottoman empire. Nomad Turks invaders had been robbing, abusing, massacring, kidnapping, enslaving, forcibly Islamizing Christians for centuries.

    Ottoman Turks fought a long war just before the 30-years’ against Christians of Europe, led by Austria. Ottoman Empire got the short end of the stick. So why would Muslim Turks give shelter to European Christians?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    So why would Muslim Turks give shelter to European Christians?
     
    Because they were making common cause against Catholic Europe, and more particularly the Habsburg-dominated areas (including Austria and the HRE as you mentioned).

    There are many celebrated Dutch corsairs, for instance, who operated out of Algeria, and the British and Dutch (mostly the British) worked to evict the Portuguese from the Muslim Near East.
    , @Talha
    Yo Avery,

    Christians (Armenians, Assyrians, Greeks) and Jews were 2nd class _subjects_ in the Ottoman empire.
     
    OK - but if you're going to be massacred for being the wrong denomination or something - second class citizen sounds alright.

    Nomad Turks invaders had been robbing, abusing, massacring, kidnapping, enslaving, forcibly Islamizing Christians for centuries.
     
    Some of that happened, sure - but if you're going to say that's all that was going on...that just doesn't jive.

    "The British admired the Ottoman Empire’s orderly government, educational system, and discipline. During a time of such religious turbulence, the British also admired Ottoman tolerance for other religious groups, which sat well with Anglo-Protestant sensibilities but contrasted with the rest of Europe. An example of Ottoman tolerance was the policy to allow Protestant refugees fleeing Catholic persecution into lands under Ottoman control. In addition, Christians in Turkey were permitted via the millet system to maintain churches and had the freedom to practice Christianity without persecution."
    http://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/04/09/those-crazy-christians/

    "During those troubled decades, the empire also became a haven for the religiously oppressed. In the mid seventeenth century, for example, a cluster of Huguenots, forced into exile from France, resided in Istanbul, and several Anglican clergymen who had fled commonwealth England, Quakers, Anabaptists, and even Catholic Jesuits and Capuchins settled in and wandered through the empire. Such an eclectic mixture of Christians suggests that North America was not the only refuge for western European religious dissenters in the early colonial period. Indeed, it was generally understood that spiritually oppressed Christians as well as Jews could find sanctuary in the Ottoman Empire."
    The Ottoman Empire and Early Modern Europe

    "For a long time the Ottoman empire was a relatively benign regime. In the sixteenth and
    seventeenth century, as the kings of Christian Europe were burning heretics at the stake, the
    sultans saw to it that the various religions in their empire were protected from each other.
    The administration of justice depended also upon the millet....It was a regime of material self-interest, designed to increase the wealth and power of the Ottoman dynasty, but taxes were not very burdensome and some of the empire?s great wealth filtered back to the subject populations. The regional governors were encouraged to follow enlightened policies in dealing with the governed. Although prone to favoritism and corruption, the empire was spared the execution of heretics and witches and the devastation by religious warfare that characterized the Christian kingdoms of western Europe in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. But while western Europe - after the Peace of Westphalia - was moving toward modern civilization, the Ottoman empire was anchored in religion and the past."
    https://my.vanderbilt.edu/robertdrews/files/2014/01/Chapter-Thirty.-The-Ottoman-Empire-Judaism-and-Eastern-Europe-to-1648.pdf

    They didn't go hyper-violent until secular ethnic-nationalism crept in and their empire started falling apart.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Talha
    Hey PtR,

    And one thing about slaving societies like the Islamic empire there must have been immense silent terror among the lowly that they would face the fate that so many slaves faced. Having all you genitals amputated, being chained in a galley for the whole of your natural life
     
    The slave experience in Muslim world history spanned an incredible breadth of experience. Yes, if you were a galley slave to a bunch of Barbary pirates, your life was summarized by; "sucks to be you." Now, if you were a Mamluk (the slave kings who ran the Muslim world from Egypt to the Levant to India), well - that was the life. They were slave, samurai and shogun all rolled into one.

    I think that possibly slavery could only be defeated in a society with a Judeo Christian culture.
     
    I would agree here if the word abolition is meant. Though I would not include "Judeo" into the mix. Christianity seems to have had no specific stance on the framework of slavery from the beginning. The Son of Mary (pbuh) seems to be silent on the issue (from what I know) though it was obviously all around him and Paul tells slaves to obey their masters. There is no doubt that Christianity ameliorated conditions for slaves - often the RCC would have to remind slave owners about not mistreating their slaves. And it certainly cut out owning other Christians as slaves. I think most credit probably goes to Anglo-Saxon Protestants (with the weight of the British Empire behind them) in forcing the issue around the world.

    How could such a society which carries this revelation of man’s relation with God, not a slave but an actor and participant, not in the end reject slavery.
     
    All of the moral successes of the historic Christian world lie at the feet of the teachings of the Son of Mary (pbuh) and all of their failures belong to their own selves.

    Peace.

    And it certainly cut out owning other Christians as slaves.

    What? Pope Callistus I was a slave of a Christian master, who forfeited legal right to him after having sent him to the pistrinum.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    OK - no problem - but are you saying the Catholic church did not eventually start prohibiting enslaving other Christians? This is one of the reasons why Christians used to enslave heathen Slavs and others and sell them to the Muslims. At times the Church complained, but the money was just too good to pass up.

    Peace.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Avery
    {Ottomans ......did provide sanctuary to Christians fleeing violence of the Thirty Years war}


    Yo, Talha:

    What is the source of this?

    I find it very hard to believe that Ottomans - well actually descendants of Muslim nomad Turks form Uyguristan - would provide sanctuary to Christians.

    Christians (Armenians, Assyrians, Greeks) and Jews were 2nd class _subjects_ in the Ottoman empire. Nomad Turks invaders had been robbing, abusing, massacring, kidnapping, enslaving, forcibly Islamizing Christians for centuries.

    Ottoman Turks fought a long war just before the 30-years' against Christians of Europe, led by Austria. Ottoman Empire got the short end of the stick. So why would Muslim Turks give shelter to European Christians?

    So why would Muslim Turks give shelter to European Christians?

    Because they were making common cause against Catholic Europe, and more particularly the Habsburg-dominated areas (including Austria and the HRE as you mentioned).

    There are many celebrated Dutch corsairs, for instance, who operated out of Algeria, and the British and Dutch (mostly the British) worked to evict the Portuguese from the Muslim Near East.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. Talha says:
    @Avery
    {Ottomans ......did provide sanctuary to Christians fleeing violence of the Thirty Years war}


    Yo, Talha:

    What is the source of this?

    I find it very hard to believe that Ottomans - well actually descendants of Muslim nomad Turks form Uyguristan - would provide sanctuary to Christians.

    Christians (Armenians, Assyrians, Greeks) and Jews were 2nd class _subjects_ in the Ottoman empire. Nomad Turks invaders had been robbing, abusing, massacring, kidnapping, enslaving, forcibly Islamizing Christians for centuries.

    Ottoman Turks fought a long war just before the 30-years' against Christians of Europe, led by Austria. Ottoman Empire got the short end of the stick. So why would Muslim Turks give shelter to European Christians?

    Yo Avery,

    Christians (Armenians, Assyrians, Greeks) and Jews were 2nd class _subjects_ in the Ottoman empire.

    OK – but if you’re going to be massacred for being the wrong denomination or something – second class citizen sounds alright.

    Nomad Turks invaders had been robbing, abusing, massacring, kidnapping, enslaving, forcibly Islamizing Christians for centuries.

    Some of that happened, sure – but if you’re going to say that’s all that was going on…that just doesn’t jive.

    “The British admired the Ottoman Empire’s orderly government, educational system, and discipline. During a time of such religious turbulence, the British also admired Ottoman tolerance for other religious groups, which sat well with Anglo-Protestant sensibilities but contrasted with the rest of Europe. An example of Ottoman tolerance was the policy to allow Protestant refugees fleeing Catholic persecution into lands under Ottoman control. In addition, Christians in Turkey were permitted via the millet system to maintain churches and had the freedom to practice Christianity without persecution.”

    http://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/04/09/those-crazy-christians/

    “During those troubled decades, the empire also became a haven for the religiously oppressed. In the mid seventeenth century, for example, a cluster of Huguenots, forced into exile from France, resided in Istanbul, and several Anglican clergymen who had fled commonwealth England, Quakers, Anabaptists, and even Catholic Jesuits and Capuchins settled in and wandered through the empire. Such an eclectic mixture of Christians suggests that North America was not the only refuge for western European religious dissenters in the early colonial period. Indeed, it was generally understood that spiritually oppressed Christians as well as Jews could find sanctuary in the Ottoman Empire.”
    The Ottoman Empire and Early Modern Europe

    “For a long time the Ottoman empire was a relatively benign regime. In the sixteenth and
    seventeenth century, as the kings of Christian Europe were burning heretics at the stake, the
    sultans saw to it that the various religions in their empire were protected from each other.
    The administration of justice depended also upon the millet….It was a regime of material self-interest, designed to increase the wealth and power of the Ottoman dynasty, but taxes were not very burdensome and some of the empire?s great wealth filtered back to the subject populations. The regional governors were encouraged to follow enlightened policies in dealing with the governed. Although prone to favoritism and corruption, the empire was spared the execution of heretics and witches and the devastation by religious warfare that characterized the Christian kingdoms of western Europe in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. But while western Europe – after the Peace of Westphalia – was moving toward modern civilization, the Ottoman empire was anchored in religion and the past.”

    https://my.vanderbilt.edu/robertdrews/files/2014/01/Chapter-Thirty.-The-Ottoman-Empire-Judaism-and-Eastern-Europe-to-1648.pdf

    They didn’t go hyper-violent until secular ethnic-nationalism crept in and their empire started falling apart.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {... In addition, Christians in Turkey were permitted via the millet system to maintain churches and had the freedom to practice Christianity without persecution.”}

    Yo, Talha: that is clearly a lie.

    Nothing of the sort: 1,000 of Armenian churches were methodically either destroyed or converted to mosques by the Muslim Turk invaders over their centuries rule. Christians were routinely massacred; their young girls and boys kidnapped and forcibly enslaved and Islamized.
    Apparently there was so much Christian 'freedom to practice' that Muslim Ottoman Turks converted the Hagia Sophia to a mosque.

    ' practice Christianity without persecution': wow.

    Sultan Hamid massacred 300,000 Christian Armenians in 1894-1896 alone. Another massacre of Armenians took place in 1909 in Adana: 30,000.
    Christian Armenians massacred by Ottoman Muslim Turks.
    That's some 'freedom to practice'.

    As to TheAmericanInterest.com: it is an anti-Christian Neocon Zionist disinformation outlet. (lookup who the editors are). Founded by a group from TheNationalInterest.com (Kristol), another anti-Christian Neocon Zionist outlet.

    That article you referenced is obviously anti-Christian propaganda.

    Now: Muslim Persian Shah Abbas indeed was quite tolerant of Christians and Jews, and forbade his Muslim subjects from harming both in any way. He had new churches built for Armenians at his expense.
    And (nominally) Muslim Arab states such as Syria did give shelter to Christian Armenians after the AG. But the notion that Ottoman Turks were tolerant anytime during their reign is bogus. Even their Muslim Arab subjects hated them, and revolted the first chance they got.

    Seljuk Turk invaders were like a plague: they destroyed everything.
    No redeeming quality whatsoever.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. Talha says:
    @Anon

    And it certainly cut out owning other Christians as slaves.
     
    What? Pope Callistus I was a slave of a Christian master, who forfeited legal right to him after having sent him to the pistrinum.

    OK – no problem – but are you saying the Catholic church did not eventually start prohibiting enslaving other Christians? This is one of the reasons why Christians used to enslave heathen Slavs and others and sell them to the Muslims. At times the Church complained, but the money was just too good to pass up.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    There may have been such prohibitions (in Abyssinia for instance Christians were prohibited from engaging in the slave trade at all) but that is, as you say, the kind of thing people ignore. There was a repugnance to selling Christian slaves to non-Christian masters, particularly Jewish, as it would be an undue strain on their consciences. Slavery as such was more or less gone from Christian Europe during the time period when the Muslims were around and the Slavs were still pagan, so there really weren't that many opportunities for Christians to become slaves to each other.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. @Talha
    Hey TWS,

    So slaves should be grateful they were not castrated and beaten daily?
     
    Have you ever read about historical slavery? If you had a good master - that was a tremendous blessing. What the Barbary pirates did was hardly sanctioned by Islam - just by the mere fact that the Shariah prohibits castration or mutilation of slaves.

    Islam is truly enlightened.
     
    Free advertising!

    A cavalier attitude towards brutality is a threat all by itself.
     
    Perhaps I should have eased back on the light attitude. Either way, I don't condone their conduct. They will answer for their transgressions against other human beings in the court of God - no one escapes that.

    Just like Spain.
     
    Don't follow...

    Peace.

    But they did! Read real history.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    But who did what? I'll try to read real history in future, sure...
    , @Talha
    They did what?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. @Corvinus
    "Where are you coming from, Corvinus? Are you happy with the rates of immigration into the U.S. currently or do you think it’s too much too soon? Do you want to make the 11, 20, or 30 million illegal immigrants citizens?"

    I have stated numerous times on this fine blog that I favor limiting immigration. If American citizens seek to have Congress pass such a law, so be it. What I oppose are those people who insist that certain groups of people, like Somalis or Kenyans, are utterly incapable of assimilating into our society.

    "But what do you actually think would be a good immigration policy for the U.S. at this point?"

    Great question. Enforce current immigration laws on the books by targeting those companies who employ illegal immigrants. Reform H1B visas. Hard cap (250,000?) on immigration for 10 years--any and all peoples are eligible. Regarding our 11 million+ undocumented workers, now that is a tough one for me. Mass deportations? Good luck. Offer amnesty? That only encourages illegal conduct.

    I agree with most of what you say. One area of disagreement may be your view that the origin of immigrants does not matter. Granted, if when you say “utterly incapable” you are being literal, then I have to agree. However, if you believe that 100,000 Somali Muslims (for example) put into an American community will adopt American values as quickly or as deeply as 100,000 Englishmen, then I’ll have to disagree. The inflow rates and origins are both important. If we want our culture to persist, then choosing a lot of Englishmen over a lot of Somalis is the way to go. Of course, if the numbers are minuscule, it doesn’t matter so much either way.

    Also, regarding illegals. Targeting companies who employ them is good. We could also assure these illegal immigrants that they are breaking the law and they will never ever be rewarded for such a thing by granted them amnesty. Furthermore, they should be assured that any criminal infraction will lead to deportation. We must make it clear that they have NO RIGHT TO BE HERE.

    So I take it that you are on-board with our host’s Citizenism program?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "However, if you believe that 100,000 Somali Muslims (for example) put into an American community will adopt American values as quickly or as deeply as 100,000 Englishmen, then I’ll have to disagree."

    We will agree to disagree. Nativists believed that the Irish and Germans, the Italians and Slavs, and the Assyrians and Vietnamese were able to adapt to American ways of life in a fastidious, meaningful way. They were proven other than being accurate.

    "The inflow rates and origins are both important. If we want our culture to persist, then choosing a lot of Englishmen over a lot of Somalis is the way to go."

    Our culture has persisted when "foreign influences" have "infiltrated". It is malleable that way.

    "So I take it that you are on-board with our host’s Citizenism program?"

    Not particularly.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. @Pat the Rat
    Thanks Talha.

    Most societies have been slave owning throughout history and on the whole static and resistant to change. Not surprising with all that manpower which can be leased to any task. The rich were rich in slaving societies because of slaves, often many thousands of them. Not surprising then that there was not much enthusiasm for labor saving devices, that seems like a good way to make powerful enemies.
    And one thing about slaving societies like the Islamic empire there must have been immense silent terror among the lowly that they would face the fate that so many slaves faced.

    Having all you genitals amputated, being chained in a galley for the whole of your natural life, eating defecating and dying on some galley seat, being literally worked to death and with others having total power over you.

    Truly a fate worse than death.

    I think that possibly slavery could only be defeated in a society with a Judeo Christian culture.

    I love that section in the Bible where Abraham pleads and bargains with God to save the people of Sodom.
    "Will the lord of all the universe not spare Sodom if 50 righteous people can be found" and so on.
    You could almost imagine God's thoughts" here I am the God of the whole universe, maker and master of everything listening to a speck of dust arguing for other specks of dust.
    And yet God listens, man is treated in some sense as an equal in a moral sense. Eventually the redeemer is God come in the form of a man.
    How could such a society which carries this revelation of man's relation with God, not a slave but an actor and participant, not in the end reject slavery.

    Jewdeo? Where did all these negroes in the Americas come from? Who brought them here?
    What about all those Europeans sold in the markets of Islamic countries? Who was selling them? Jewdeo Chris(what)? Who put these two together anyway? Jews have always been the eternal enemies of Christianity. When did it become Judeo-Christian?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Talha
    OK - no problem - but are you saying the Catholic church did not eventually start prohibiting enslaving other Christians? This is one of the reasons why Christians used to enslave heathen Slavs and others and sell them to the Muslims. At times the Church complained, but the money was just too good to pass up.

    Peace.

    There may have been such prohibitions (in Abyssinia for instance Christians were prohibited from engaging in the slave trade at all) but that is, as you say, the kind of thing people ignore. There was a repugnance to selling Christian slaves to non-Christian masters, particularly Jewish, as it would be an undue strain on their consciences. Slavery as such was more or less gone from Christian Europe during the time period when the Muslims were around and the Slavs were still pagan, so there really weren’t that many opportunities for Christians to become slaves to each other.

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

    Wow – for all Muslims or those on the extremist watch lists?

    Those on extremist watch lists and their sympathizers. And then some. If the attacks continue then the net widens even further and other harsher measures must be considered.

    You remember that article about the UK imam having his head beaten in with a hammer? That had zero to do with any politics, but Daesh extremists killed him in a brutal manner anyway.

    Motive seems to be that the imam was practicing what the ISIS animals deemed a form of “black magic” healing which to them is un-Islamic and ISIS thinks they have a monopoly on religious purity. It seems Muslims are unable to peaceably settle their religious disputes which is ok as long as they don’t make it the West’s problem but their increasing presence is doing just that.

    From the NY Times article:
    In January, Muslim leaders from around the world gathered in Morocco and produced the Marrakesh Declaration, which denounces Muslim oppression of religious minorities. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation, which represents 57 Muslim countries, recently endorsed the declaration.
    Looks like Muslim majority nations admit to having a problem with treatment of non-Muslim religious minorities. We’ll see if they mean it or if this is just optics for Dar Al-Harb nations. Western nations need to know what they are importing despite the soothsaying and intensive PR campaign that papers over these issues.

    You do know the Ottoman government sentenced to death the secular-nationalist architects of the genocide don’t you? And that the death warrant was signed by the Grand Mufti himself?

    Little consolation when 1.5 million Armenians were already murdered. The actions of the post war Turkish government seem not to be entirely of their own volition and partly due to pressure from allied nations. Only lower level minions were charged with “conspiracy and massacre” which is laughable as 10K is a massacre but 1.5 million out of two million is genocide which was clearly the motive of the Young Turks.

    The main culprits were sentenced only in absentia and I’m not aware of any attempts by the Turkish government to have them extradited and executed. Armenian nationalists tracked down several of the main culprits and performed the necessary wet work.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  98. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @truthtellerAryan
    But they did! Read real history.

    But who did what? I’ll try to read real history in future, sure…

    Read More
    • Replies: @truthtellerAryan
    Hi Avery, sorry, this was meant for your comment about Ottomans sheltering Christian
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. Talha says:
    @truthtellerAryan
    But they did! Read real history.

    They did what?

    Read More
    • Replies: @truthtellerAryan
    Hi Talha, sorry I clicked on your comment, but I was responding to Avery's doubt on the Ottomans' taking in Christian refugees...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. Avery says:
    @Talha
    Yo Avery,

    Christians (Armenians, Assyrians, Greeks) and Jews were 2nd class _subjects_ in the Ottoman empire.
     
    OK - but if you're going to be massacred for being the wrong denomination or something - second class citizen sounds alright.

    Nomad Turks invaders had been robbing, abusing, massacring, kidnapping, enslaving, forcibly Islamizing Christians for centuries.
     
    Some of that happened, sure - but if you're going to say that's all that was going on...that just doesn't jive.

    "The British admired the Ottoman Empire’s orderly government, educational system, and discipline. During a time of such religious turbulence, the British also admired Ottoman tolerance for other religious groups, which sat well with Anglo-Protestant sensibilities but contrasted with the rest of Europe. An example of Ottoman tolerance was the policy to allow Protestant refugees fleeing Catholic persecution into lands under Ottoman control. In addition, Christians in Turkey were permitted via the millet system to maintain churches and had the freedom to practice Christianity without persecution."
    http://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/04/09/those-crazy-christians/

    "During those troubled decades, the empire also became a haven for the religiously oppressed. In the mid seventeenth century, for example, a cluster of Huguenots, forced into exile from France, resided in Istanbul, and several Anglican clergymen who had fled commonwealth England, Quakers, Anabaptists, and even Catholic Jesuits and Capuchins settled in and wandered through the empire. Such an eclectic mixture of Christians suggests that North America was not the only refuge for western European religious dissenters in the early colonial period. Indeed, it was generally understood that spiritually oppressed Christians as well as Jews could find sanctuary in the Ottoman Empire."
    The Ottoman Empire and Early Modern Europe

    "For a long time the Ottoman empire was a relatively benign regime. In the sixteenth and
    seventeenth century, as the kings of Christian Europe were burning heretics at the stake, the
    sultans saw to it that the various religions in their empire were protected from each other.
    The administration of justice depended also upon the millet....It was a regime of material self-interest, designed to increase the wealth and power of the Ottoman dynasty, but taxes were not very burdensome and some of the empire?s great wealth filtered back to the subject populations. The regional governors were encouraged to follow enlightened policies in dealing with the governed. Although prone to favoritism and corruption, the empire was spared the execution of heretics and witches and the devastation by religious warfare that characterized the Christian kingdoms of western Europe in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. But while western Europe - after the Peace of Westphalia - was moving toward modern civilization, the Ottoman empire was anchored in religion and the past."
    https://my.vanderbilt.edu/robertdrews/files/2014/01/Chapter-Thirty.-The-Ottoman-Empire-Judaism-and-Eastern-Europe-to-1648.pdf

    They didn't go hyper-violent until secular ethnic-nationalism crept in and their empire started falling apart.

    Peace.

    {… In addition, Christians in Turkey were permitted via the millet system to maintain churches and had the freedom to practice Christianity without persecution.”}

    Yo, Talha: that is clearly a lie.

    Nothing of the sort: 1,000 of Armenian churches were methodically either destroyed or converted to mosques by the Muslim Turk invaders over their centuries rule. Christians were routinely massacred; their young girls and boys kidnapped and forcibly enslaved and Islamized.
    Apparently there was so much Christian ‘freedom to practice’ that Muslim Ottoman Turks converted the Hagia Sophia to a mosque.

    ‘ practice Christianity without persecution’: wow.

    Sultan Hamid massacred 300,000 Christian Armenians in 1894-1896 alone. Another massacre of Armenians took place in 1909 in Adana: 30,000.
    Christian Armenians massacred by Ottoman Muslim Turks.
    That’s some ‘freedom to practice’.

    As to TheAmericanInterest.com: it is an anti-Christian Neocon Zionist disinformation outlet. (lookup who the editors are). Founded by a group from TheNationalInterest.com (Kristol), another anti-Christian Neocon Zionist outlet.

    That article you referenced is obviously anti-Christian propaganda.

    Now: Muslim Persian Shah Abbas indeed was quite tolerant of Christians and Jews, and forbade his Muslim subjects from harming both in any way. He had new churches built for Armenians at his expense.
    And (nominally) Muslim Arab states such as Syria did give shelter to Christian Armenians after the AG. But the notion that Ottoman Turks were tolerant anytime during their reign is bogus. Even their Muslim Arab subjects hated them, and revolted the first chance they got.

    Seljuk Turk invaders were like a plague: they destroyed everything.
    No redeeming quality whatsoever.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    All true though I note the actual genocides were all after the late nineteenth century, in the salad days of genocide worldwide, though the Turks beat the rest of us to the party. Previous times were more easygoing and their brutality less thorough.

    Talha's site is probably suspect but there is really nothing outlandish about there being significant Protestant expat communities in Constantinople; this would have been politically useful to the Turks at the time, and in fact that sort of thing was not uncommon: there was, I remember reading, a Calvinist community in Rome as well.

    I had a good laugh at "Anglo-Protestant sensibilities". Not much of a rush after the Gunpowder Plot to declare Catholicism a "religion of peace", was there?

    , @Avery
    Here we go: highly tolerant Seljuk Turks time traveled to Washington D.C. from ~1,000AD, beating up an elderly man, a peaceful protester against Erdogan, who has fallen. A pack of Turk wolves attacking solitary, defenseless civilians: their UygurTürkoğlu SOP.

    https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2017-05-17/erdogan-guards-might-not-have-immunity-to-beat-protesters-in-us

    Only their clothes have changed: they are the same savage nomads from 1,000 years ago.
    , @truthtellerAryan
    It's very sad and inexcusable to what happened to Armenians. However, these atrocities were done in the "atrocity" season, the breaking up of Empires ( now is Middle East season). The point I'm making is that Ottomans rule of over six centuries were filled with wars, but not genocide. They were after territory and a population that will support their lifestyle. Sound familiar? RR, GHB, GWB, all had proclaimed the same slogan when attacking mineral rich estates. It's ours, it's our lifestyle, and we have the power, but not the brain, to take it, destroy it, and kill for it.
    The Armenian tragedy came at the end of the Ottoman Empire, there was hardly any territory left besides Anatolia, and rebellion in eastern Anatolia by the Armenian population triggered a response that is still familiar to this day. Poisoning of Kurds with US deeply involved with their buddy Saddam, Bosnia and Croatia, Palestine...
    Otherwise both Christian and Jews enjoyed a prosperous life under the Ottomans, as long as they didn't involve themselves with politics. The kind of great support we afford our "allies", Saudi America, United State of Israel, and all the despots that support our lifestyle......
    But why are we fighting these wars now? DJT promised to get us out the mess......
    , @Talha
    Yo Avery,

    First off, we are not talking about when the empire was falling apart in the 19th/20th century - I thought I was clear about that. So the massacres you mention in the latter stage of the empire do not in any way affect the statements about them being relatively benign with respect to minorities in their midst during the earlier centuries. Nobody is comparing Ottoman policy to modern liberal nation-states - we are talking about the meat grinder known as the Thirty Years War and that era when Christians weren't so tolerant to their heretical strains.

    1,000 of Armenian churches were methodically either destroyed or converted to mosques by the Muslim Turk invaders over their centuries rule.
     
    I'd love to see an academic source that this was happening at the time frame in question by the Ottomans (not some other Turks); 15th-17th centuries.

    That article you referenced is obviously anti-Christian propaganda.
     
    Fine, but that was not my only source. Here's another:
    "Because of their religious status, the survival of the Habani depended on religious tolerance and so they found the Holy Roman Empire to be a greater enemy than the Ottomans. These factors may have drawn them closer to the Ottomans and pushed them further away from the Hapsburgs. The Ottoman Empire was one of the more tolerant states in Europe...There was also no distinction between different confessions, so an Anabaptist would have been trated the same as a Catholic. One account demonstrates how Moravia and the Ottoman Empire could appear roughly analogous because of the level of tolerance in both...This suggests that both Moravia and the Ottoman Empire were perceived as options for people seeking religious freedom."
    Islam, Christianity and the Making of Czech Identity, 1453–1683

    Even their Muslim Arab subjects hated them, and revolted the first chance they got.
     
    They revolted quite late in the game when the Turks became secular ethno-nationalists. Before that, they were relatively well received by Arabs and even Kurds.

    Seljuk Turk invaders were like a plague: they destroyed everything. No redeeming quality whatsoever.
     
    Way hyperbolic - though they definitely pulled off nonsense like kicking off the Crusades by stopping Christian pilgrimage and what not. But what do the Seljuks have to do with Ottoman policy in Europe almost 500 years later?

    Of course sometimes the Byzantines pissed off Armenians enough to join sides with Muslims at times against them (even the Seljuks):
    "During this prolonged period of Islamic domination, Armenians had sometimes fought in support of their Muslim overlords, or in support of the Byzantine Empire, or in attempts to regain Armenian independence."
    Manzikert 1071: The breaking of Byzantium
    “The Armenian historian, Vardapet Aristakes Lastivertc’i relates with copious tears, ‘In these days Byzantine armies entered the land of Armenia four times in succession until they had rendered the whole country uninhabited through sword, fire, and captive taking.’[10] In an attempt to destabilise the Armenians, Constantine IX secretly encouraged the Seljuks to attack Ani in 1044AD. Gagik eventually agreed to abdicate and was rewarded with titles, honours and lands in Cappadocia. Unfortunately he would not have long to enjoy them. Although fractious, the Armenian princes provided a secure buffer zone on the Byzantine’s eastern border. Now the Byzantines came into direct contact with the Seljuks, whose fighting style of mobile horse archery they were unfamiliar with. Nor could the Byzantines rely on the Armenians for support. One of Constantine’s first acts after the fall of Ani was to instigate a purge of the Monophysite clergy of Armenian Church. Fleeing war and persecution, a mass exodus began, including the Armenian troops the Byzantines relied on to garrison the border fortresses. Many now sought their fortune elsewhere, ‘some in Persia, some in Greece, some in Georgia.’[11] Some Armenian troops joined the Seljuk bands that now began raiding across the Armenian border.”

    http://deremilitari.org/2013/09/the-battle-of-manzikert-military-disaster-or-political-failure/


    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. MarkinLA says:
    @Corvinus
    "This doesn’t make any sense. But then that is par for the course for you."

    This isn't hard to comprehend. The supermajority of Muslims around the world are not radicals. Clearly they have been influenced by their religious leaders who oppose Jihad.

    "If not why are there so many Islamic fundamentalists willing to wage jihad?"

    A host of reasons--opposition to other faiths, opposition to western ideas, belief they will receive salvation.

    "People like you that don’t live in the real world don’t understand when faced with statistics showing that 30% of Muslims in Britain are sympathetic to … what that means. No you pretend that the only thing that matters is the few willing to blow themselves up and ignore that the 30% mentioned would gladly cut the throats of the Christians in Britain for Allah, if they thought they could get away with it."

    A statistic from 2009. 600 Muslim students from various English universities were asked certain questions. Certainly a disconcerting percentage. The key is would they actually follow through with their intention. Listen, why don't you ask posters on Alt Right websites the question "Would you gladly cut the throats of Muslims if you thought you could get away with it"
    and see how many would respond "Yes".

    "Maybe you still don’t get it, those articles mean nothing as do the words of those Imams."

    You sound like a four-year-old girl saying "Nyah, nyah, I can't hear you". Of course what those religious leaders are doing means something substantial--they are using their status as leaders to devise ways to keep radical Islam from spreading.

    "Everywhere there are Muslims in the world there are jihadis – that says something about the value of those Imams and their words."

    And it also says something about the supermajority of Muslims who are NOT jihadis, that they are influenced by their religious leaders to refrain from slitting throats and strapping bombs to their bodies.

    Would that mean if there were no jihadis in the world then the Imams and their words were influential? That

    Of course what those religious leaders are doing means something substantial–they are using their status as leaders to devise ways to keep radical Islam from spreading.

    You sound like the 4 year old. If they were doing something substantial then they would be making a difference in the world and they are not. They are not “devising” ways to keep radical Islam from spreading. They are mouthing platitudes that they likely don’t believe for PR purposes.

    Buchanan wants to know why the Imams in Saudi Arabia don’t condemn the killers. Why, because they support them. They just happen to live where they don’t need to pretend they are against it. When the Imams live in places where they have to lie about their position, they do.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "You sound like the 4 year old. If they were doing something substantial then they would be making a difference in the world and they are not."

    Hundreds of millions of Muslims are NOT engaging in jihad. Clearly, Muslim religious leaders are making a difference.

    "They are not “devising” ways to keep radical Islam from spreading."

    Clearly the two sources I linked to prove otherwise. You are blinded by your confirmation bias. It pains you to admit that you are dead wrong.

    "They are mouthing platitudes that they likely don’t believe for PR purposes."

    Prove your assertion with evidence or retract your statement. Time to put up or shut up.

    "Buchanan wants to know why the Imams in Saudi Arabia don’t condemn the killers."

    No, Buchanan stated clearly "When have the imams of Saudi Arabia, the Middle East, and West ever stood as one to condemn all such acts as against the tenets of Islam?"

    Clearly, he is not paying attention. And you are living in denial.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/06/06/130-imams-refuse-conduct-funerals-london-attackers/102543282/

    https://aleteia.org/2017/06/07/british-islamic-leaders-excommunicate-perpetrators-of-recent-jihadi-attacks/

    http://www.arabnews.com/node/1103936/saudi-arabia

    Again, it is now incumbent that you prove the political and religious leaders of these nations are merely conducting a public relations campaign. Cite your sources.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Avery
    {... In addition, Christians in Turkey were permitted via the millet system to maintain churches and had the freedom to practice Christianity without persecution.”}

    Yo, Talha: that is clearly a lie.

    Nothing of the sort: 1,000 of Armenian churches were methodically either destroyed or converted to mosques by the Muslim Turk invaders over their centuries rule. Christians were routinely massacred; their young girls and boys kidnapped and forcibly enslaved and Islamized.
    Apparently there was so much Christian 'freedom to practice' that Muslim Ottoman Turks converted the Hagia Sophia to a mosque.

    ' practice Christianity without persecution': wow.

    Sultan Hamid massacred 300,000 Christian Armenians in 1894-1896 alone. Another massacre of Armenians took place in 1909 in Adana: 30,000.
    Christian Armenians massacred by Ottoman Muslim Turks.
    That's some 'freedom to practice'.

    As to TheAmericanInterest.com: it is an anti-Christian Neocon Zionist disinformation outlet. (lookup who the editors are). Founded by a group from TheNationalInterest.com (Kristol), another anti-Christian Neocon Zionist outlet.

    That article you referenced is obviously anti-Christian propaganda.

    Now: Muslim Persian Shah Abbas indeed was quite tolerant of Christians and Jews, and forbade his Muslim subjects from harming both in any way. He had new churches built for Armenians at his expense.
    And (nominally) Muslim Arab states such as Syria did give shelter to Christian Armenians after the AG. But the notion that Ottoman Turks were tolerant anytime during their reign is bogus. Even their Muslim Arab subjects hated them, and revolted the first chance they got.

    Seljuk Turk invaders were like a plague: they destroyed everything.
    No redeeming quality whatsoever.

    All true though I note the actual genocides were all after the late nineteenth century, in the salad days of genocide worldwide, though the Turks beat the rest of us to the party. Previous times were more easygoing and their brutality less thorough.

    Talha’s site is probably suspect but there is really nothing outlandish about there being significant Protestant expat communities in Constantinople; this would have been politically useful to the Turks at the time, and in fact that sort of thing was not uncommon: there was, I remember reading, a Calvinist community in Rome as well.

    I had a good laugh at “Anglo-Protestant sensibilities”. Not much of a rush after the Gunpowder Plot to declare Catholicism a “religion of peace”, was there?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. Avery says:
    @Avery
    {... In addition, Christians in Turkey were permitted via the millet system to maintain churches and had the freedom to practice Christianity without persecution.”}

    Yo, Talha: that is clearly a lie.

    Nothing of the sort: 1,000 of Armenian churches were methodically either destroyed or converted to mosques by the Muslim Turk invaders over their centuries rule. Christians were routinely massacred; their young girls and boys kidnapped and forcibly enslaved and Islamized.
    Apparently there was so much Christian 'freedom to practice' that Muslim Ottoman Turks converted the Hagia Sophia to a mosque.

    ' practice Christianity without persecution': wow.

    Sultan Hamid massacred 300,000 Christian Armenians in 1894-1896 alone. Another massacre of Armenians took place in 1909 in Adana: 30,000.
    Christian Armenians massacred by Ottoman Muslim Turks.
    That's some 'freedom to practice'.

    As to TheAmericanInterest.com: it is an anti-Christian Neocon Zionist disinformation outlet. (lookup who the editors are). Founded by a group from TheNationalInterest.com (Kristol), another anti-Christian Neocon Zionist outlet.

    That article you referenced is obviously anti-Christian propaganda.

    Now: Muslim Persian Shah Abbas indeed was quite tolerant of Christians and Jews, and forbade his Muslim subjects from harming both in any way. He had new churches built for Armenians at his expense.
    And (nominally) Muslim Arab states such as Syria did give shelter to Christian Armenians after the AG. But the notion that Ottoman Turks were tolerant anytime during their reign is bogus. Even their Muslim Arab subjects hated them, and revolted the first chance they got.

    Seljuk Turk invaders were like a plague: they destroyed everything.
    No redeeming quality whatsoever.

    Here we go: highly tolerant Seljuk Turks time traveled to Washington D.C. from ~1,000AD, beating up an elderly man, a peaceful protester against Erdogan, who has fallen. A pack of Turk wolves attacking solitary, defenseless civilians: their UygurTürkoğlu SOP.

    https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2017-05-17/erdogan-guards-might-not-have-immunity-to-beat-protesters-in-us

    Only their clothes have changed: they are the same savage nomads from 1,000 years ago.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. @Anon
    But who did what? I'll try to read real history in future, sure...

    Hi Avery, sorry, this was meant for your comment about Ottomans sheltering Christian

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. @Talha
    They did what?

    Hi Talha, sorry I clicked on your comment, but I was responding to Avery’s doubt on the Ottomans’ taking in Christian refugees…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. @Priss Factor
    See it this way. Terrorists are doing the job white patriots won't do.

    What did it take Vietnamese to kick out the foreigners? Terror against collaborators and invaders.

    What did it take Algerians to kick out the foreigners? Terror against collaborators and invaders.

    UK should be filled with Brit Cong. They should be using 'any means necessary' to deal with collaborators and invaders. But they are addicted to globopium of hedonism, debauchery, and mammon. They are so addicted to fun, homo-decadence, and afro-jive --- the culture went from the Twist to the Twerk --- that they won't come to their senses.

    So, it seems the ONLY EFFECTIVE fight against globalism is coming from the Muslims. This is ironic since it was globalism that made it possible for Muslims to end up in Europe in huge numbers. Still, Muslims are throwing a monkey wrench into the machinery of globalism and messing it up. That's something.

    Just think about it. If Muslims really are globalist and want to take over the West, they should not be doing terror. They should just smile and pretend to be nice. That will have a disarming effect on cucked out Europeans who welcome their own racial and cultural demise. So, No Terrorism is actually better for globalism and non-white takeover of the West.

    But these Muslims carry out acts of terror that is making native people think twice about the globalist project. Europeans are now so cucked and defenseless that they don't mind mass invasion of their own nations by foreigners as long as foreigners take on homomania, slut culture, and jungle fever.
    Indeed, you don't see any objection to black African immigration since white are all into ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs, and white men are totally cool with white wombs hatching mulattoes than white kids.

    As it stands, most Europeans don't mind the browning of Europe. They don't mind ACOWW. They don't mind non-whites becoming majorities. All they want is for non-whites to accept homomania. And blacks and Asians accept homomania. The ONLY people who resist it are certain kinds of Muslims. Also, Muslims are the ONLY ones who resist and denounce Slut Culture and Filth. Yes, yes, I know there are Muslim rape gangs and such, but they aren't acting religiously. They are just horny men of Muslim background who are just overly 'boing'. Islam has nothing to do with it.

    Anyway, White Europe now worships Diversity and wants its nations to become majority non-white. White Europe worships homomania, slut culture, feminism, and hedonism. And black Africans and Asians easily assimilate to that culture, so they are welcomed by whites. Many black Africans fail economically, but they have no problem with current 'Western Values' that are mostly derived from homo celebration, rap music and black sports, slut feminism, and etc. As for Christianity, Catholic Church is led by Poop Francis who's for open borders and is probably a closet-homo. And most European churches are empty or celebrate homos. Many have black Africans as clerics. Pop music and Hollywood movies are uppermost on the menu of European elites when it comes to culture.

    The ONLY effective force that wages any kind of war on this globalism is the Muslims. Now, the Muslim agenda isn't the same as that of white nationalists, BUT both have the common enemy of the decadent globalists.
    This is why it makes no sense for white nationalists to denounce Muslim terror in their defense of homos, cucks, sluts, interracists, and degenerates. Those very people denounce white nationalists and call for more immigration-invasion and replacism. They call for more homomania, even the forcing of churches to bend over to homo degeneracy. They call for raising white girls to jungle fever rap and black sports and submitting to ACOWW.
    These globalists are the worst enemies of white nationalists. So, if white nationalists don't have the will to deal with that scum, they should at least enjoy the spectacle of Muslim terrorists apply the wrecking ball to globalism. I mean, who'd care if terrorists blew up Miley Cyrus, Katy Perry, Corbyn, May, Khan, Cold Play(they did some good songs though), U2(they had some good songs long ago), and etc?

    Just sit back and enjoy the spectacle. At any rate, national liberation comes only through violence. Just look at the American Revolution. And look at Algerian War of Independence. Algerians didn't smile goofily like Nigel Farage.

    Muslims, you're doing great work. Keep it up.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qi8kiFho7DM

    https://youtu.be/f_N2wyq7fCE?t=24m54s

    By the way, this 'war' isn't about religion. After all, Malaysians are not attacking the West. Indonesians aren't doing it either. Even Iranians are not doing it because it hasn't been invaded and messed up.

    This is the result of the chaos created by Wars for Israel directed by the US against the Muslim World. To be sure, it goes back to the Cold War when the West decided to arm Jihadis against communism. One thing that the US realized was that Islam is a powerful force against secular communism. After all, East Asia fell easily to communism in China, North Korea, Vietnam, etc.
    Confucianism was no match. But communism failed in Indonesia, a Muslim nation. Communism also made inroads into Catholic Latin America. It came to power in Cuba and Nicaragua. It had powerful footholds in other Latin American nations even if they failed to take power. Communism also took over some African nations: Ethiopia, Mozambique, and Angola.

    But almost no Islamic nation turned communist even though there were some Marxist-Muslim organizations. Communism was like a new religion, and it seemed to be on the move around the world. It seemed to have messianic fervor. Against it, native reactionary values and American pop culture seemed to offer nothing compelling. After all, the Spartan Marxists in Vietnam won out over Coca Cola US imperialism in Vietnam. Even though capitalism is ultimately the more productive system, it takes time for capitalist economies to grow and come together. In contrast, communism allows for instant totalitarian unity and power. This was why North Vietnam was favored over South Vietnam. If South Vietnam could be protected for several decades, it could develop a capitalist economy that could produce enough wealth and arms to defend itself from the North. But in the short term, the totalitarian north was more united and disciplined than the south. Likewise, North Korea could have whupped South Korea until 1985 even though South had double the population and more wealth. North had greater unity and discipline. Capitalism needs time to produce enough wealth and productivity so that it can afford a military that can defend itself.

    Anyway, there was a time when the US really did fear the messianic power of communism. And they feared nations would fall to communism one by one all over the world. Communism offered a simple idea, something like a modern gospel.
    In contrast, the US offered money, but money was without values or meaning. It was mercenary and even demoralizing.
    US stood for 'democracy', but in third world nations, it caused more problems. Also, democracy allowed leftist subversives to operate. So, democracy became risky, and the US ended up backing right-wing autocracies. But this was bad for US because it got associated with unsavory figures like Pinochet and Somoza.

    But the US realized that Islam was one force that will now cower to communism. Islam was a powerful force. It knocked out US puppet in Iran. This alarmed the US, but it also gave the US an idea, especially as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan happened at the same time. If Islam is powerful enough to topple the Shah, it is powerful enough to mess up Soviet Union in Afghanistan. USSR would have its own Vietnam. And the US proved to be right.
    US couldn't do much with Bay of Pigs because the mercenary Cuban exiles were unpopular in Cuba. Also, Castro's brand of national-marxism had messianic power in Cuba. In contrast, the Mujahadeen, though cruel and barbaric, were also tough and heroic. They were willing to risk all and fight like hell, like Zealots against the Romans. Also, their David-vs-Goliath struggle inspired many Muslims from other nations to join the Jihad. And as USSR was then close to India, it gave Pakistan a chance to play a key role as an Islamic leader against godless communism.

    So, radical Islamism all started there. But why did the Afghan War prove to be far more problematic than the Iranian one? One reason was Iran is Shia, which makes it relatively isolated as Muslim power since most Muslim nations are Sunni. Also, the war with Iraq made Iran focus mostly on its next-door foe than anything else. Also, Iranian Revolution, despite its internationalist outreach, was essentially a domestic affair. It was Islamic Nationalism. After all, the Iranian Revolution was made entirely by Iranians themselves. Also, as Persians are an advanced people, they maintained a modern society despite some of the Islamic fervor and craziness. They were not like Taliban crazies or Wahabi extremists. Also, it had taken a short time for the Muslims in Iran to topple the Shah and take power.

    In contrast, it took a long bitter war in Afghanistan. Also, as Afghanis are a backward people, they have no means to create a modern society like Iran. Also, the Afghani struggle soon became an pan-Islamic struggle and attracted Jihadis from all over, not least from Saudi Arabia, the funder and sponsor of extreme Islamic ideology. So, Afghanistan proved to be the training and breeding ground for the Jihadis that would come to define so much of the Muslim world after the Cold War.

    Now, if the US had not meddled in the Gulf War, there would be no Jihadis messing up Middle East. Sure, there would be some terrorists and extremists, but most of them would be kept under wraps by ruthless regimes of Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and etc. Even though all such regimes, like US and Israel, lent a hand to terrorists, none of them tolerated terrorists within their own borders. So, things were mostly safe.

    But the Gulf War fatally weakened Hussein in Iraq, and then sanctions weakened it further.
    Still, Hussein was in power to keep things in order. So, terrorists couldn't run freely in Iraq.
    But US made a fatal mistake. After Gulf War, it placed US troops in Saudi Arabia, and this pissed off Muslims, especially those who'd been battle-hardened and radicalized in the hellfire of Afghanistan. So, allies turned enemies. US that had aided the Jihadis in Afghanistan found itself at war with them. Now, if Afghanis had defeated the USSR on their own, it wouldn't have mattered. Afghanis didn't much care if US were in Saudi Arabia or not. But because Afghanis won with the aid of foreign Jihadis, they got pulled into the global conflict. As a token of appreciation, Afghanis opened their nation to foreign Jihadis since they'd fought in the Afghan War against the USSR. Afghanis didn't know that Osama and others of his ilk were plotting global war from the hills of Afghanistan.

    9/11 happened, and the US entered Afghanistan. Even at that point, the horror could have been contained. All the US needed to do was flush out terrorists and Jihadis in Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan. Also, Iran and other nations were willing to help. Syria helped too. Not only did they fear the ire of the US but they too had no use for extreme Sunni terrorists. During the Afghan-Soviet War, those Jihadis had their hands full fighting the Russkies.
    But after the war, they still had trigger-finger and were looking to serve a cause. It's like German military men after WWI still looking for a fight. So, when US decided to flush out Jihadis in Afghanistan, most Muslim nations were relieved. Better that than have those Jihadis come to their nations and start trouble.

    But then, the real craziness happened. Zionists figured they could use 9/11 to wage Wars for Israel and reset things in the Middle East. Maybe US could topple existing regimes, prop up puppet 'democratic' regimes, and make the Middle East a vassal of the US. But Iraq went horribly. Absent Hussein and Baath Party networks, the nation spiraled into chaos. The US invasion threw out the baby with the Baath Party. Iraq soon turned into a haven of terrorists. And contrary to US expectations, the new democratic regime in Iraq grew closer to Iran than to the US.
    US intended to take out Iraq as a first step toward taking out Iran, but it only strengthened Iran. And this pissed off Jews almighty. So, Jews had to cook up some new scheme to mess things up. So, Jews kept on creating hysteria about Iran nukes to push sanctions to cripple Iranian economy. And then, under Obama, the US exploited Arab Spring to encourage mass revolts that led to social chaos and civil wars in Libya and Syria.
    And it was then that the US and its allies aided the Jihadis to run wild.
    Unlike Afghan Jihadis who were romanticized as heroes, martyrs, and freedom-fighters by the US Media in the 1980s, the new Jihadis couldn't be openly supported. They were Alqaeda remnants, and despite American amnesia, people still remember 9/11 = Alqaeda. Also, ISIS was worse. As ISIS terror was shown all over the internet, it was impossible to spin them as good guys. So, the US couldn't support them directly. But like the neo-Nazis in Maidan in Ukraine, these crazy Jihadis were useful in messing up Libya and Syria.

    Though ostensibly modern, civilized, and urbane, the Jewish Supremacist elites in the US are no less radical, zealous, ruthless, and vicious in their animus, vendetta, and deviousness. As supporters of Israeli Supremacism in the Middle East and US globalist supremacy(as US power is now synonymous with Jewish power), the Jewish Supremacist elements in the US will do ANYTHING to further their interests. They may be modern but they have ancient tribal blood flowing through their veins. They are like cosmopolitan Zealots. It's like their use of 'gay rights'. It's not just tolerance for homos but something to be shoved up everyone's ass.. or you shall be stoned for 'homophobia'!

    Terrorists in the West are the result of the total mess in the Middle East stemming from Cold War against communism in which Muslims proved to be especially useful. And then, after the Cold War, Islamic radicalism that had been encouraged during the Afghan War was made even more rabid by Wars for Israel: Gulf War and Iraq War.
    And it was under Obama that the Jews figured out a way to use this Jihadi terror AGAINST nations hated by Jews. Under Bush II, the plan was for the US to take out Arab tyrants under the cover of fighting terrorists and replace them with democratic puppets(brought to power by US money). But it didn't turn out that way. US got rid of Hussein but got mobbed with Jihadi problem 100x worse than in Afghanistan. So, Jewish power got bitten by Jihadi madness.

    But under Obama, Jews got clever and figured out a way to direct Jihadi violence against the Arab tyrants hated by Jews. And the opportunity came with Arab Spring. While Arab Spring unleashed genuine populist demand for reforms, things soon spiraled out of control to the point where the Arab world faced one of three options: (1) free elections and rise of Muslim regimes, like for a time in Egypt. But did Jews want Muslim Brotherhood to take over every Arab nation? (2) Existing regimes remaining in power by crushing populist politics. But this would mean regimes hated by Jews would still remain in power (3) total war where Jihadis running amok and setting back modern Arab nations 30 yrs. Jews figured #3 was the best bet, and the result is Libya and Syria.

    Though terror attacks in the West are unpleasant, they are mere ripples of the true horrors that were unleashed in the Middle East by US globalist meddling.
    But this sort of thing happens all over. Consider what happened to the American South when the North upended the old order. Blacks were suddenly freed, and white southerners lived in fear because more muscular and bigger-donged Negroes were acting wild like in D.W. Griffith's THE BIRTH OF A NATION. The chaos led to the rise of KKK that committed acts of terror and counter-terror. And US and Vietnamese meddling in Cambodia led to fall of Sihanouk and rise of Khmer Rouge. And the Japanese invasion into China gave a huge opening to Mao and his crazies.

    So, how about leaving nations alone?

    Anyway, the West is now being invaded and taken over. If most whites are hapless cucks, Europe will turn into big Morocco and US will turn into Brazil. And Canada and Australia will turn into India-China. But if whites wake up and want to take back their nations, they must become like Viet Cong. There is no other way. So, there is something to learn from the terrorists. Though their ways are crude and ugly, war is cruel and ugly, and a nation in danger can only be saved through war.

    Would the Irish have gained independence without terror?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1pkbe29910

    Ireland is now under greater threat than ever before. Irish minds are infected with globalist virus that makes Irish want to be demographically taken over by Africans and ruled by a homo hindu.
    In some ways, mental colonization under national freedom is more dangerous than foreign military occupation. When Ireland was ruled by Brits, the potatoheads knew they were under foreign British rule.
    But because Ireland is now independent and free, the Irish are blind to how their minds have been colonized and infected by globalism that tricks them into believing that Ireland is a 'nation of immigrants' whose destiny is for Irish women to have black babies under the leadership of a hindu into homo fecal penetration. With their minds infected with PC globalism, they think they are FREELY choosing this radical transformation of their own nation when, in fact, they are acting against national interest under the program of mental virus spread by globalism.

    Thank you, Priss. Interesting. I always enjoy your comments.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. Muslim Terrorist Attacks in the West are partly the Continuation of the Clash of Cultures between Arab Islamism and African Savagery.

    There’s long been a violent Clash of Cultures between the Muslim World(especially Arab) and the Afro-pagan World. Arab Muslims considered black Africans to be wild, savage, lascivious, and beastly. So, Arab Muslims not only enslaved black Africans but castrated them to tame their Jungle Nature. It was Jihad Justice against Jungle Junk. This went on over many centuries. Scholars say Arabs enslaved millions of black Africans, seeing them as little more than animals.
    But Arabs also spread Islam among black Africans, and many black Africans became Muslims and waged Culture War on other black Africans who seen as mired in tribal-pagan-savagery.
    As both the West and the Muslim World were dominated by spiritual institutions, the main thrust of their moral-cultural narrative was directed against black African savagery that was regarded in a negative light, not good for much of anything. White Christians and Arab Muslims felt that black Africans had value only as slaves or converts to Christianity or Islam. They didn’t find intrinsic value in black African-ness.

    That was then, this is now. With the ebbing of religion and morality in the West, Pop Culture became the main mode of cultural expression and experience. Also, with the fading of traditional modes of worship, the new religion became Political Correctness or Cult of Social Justice. PC came to be controlled by Jews.

    This gave a huge advantage to blacks. With the rise of electro-amplified Pop Culture, black music or black-inspired music came to dominate the modern world. The most popular music among Western elites is reggae. Among ordinary people, it’s Rap or Hip Hop. Also, sports as the new national culture led to worship of blacks as heroes since blacks are most athletic. Also, the erosion of moral values led to sexual licentiousness, and the cult of black twerking booty and hung black dong became iconic in the Western/Modern mind.

    So, if the religious-moralistic Arab Muslim World and the White Christian World once had in common their low regard of black savagery as just backward, animal-like, crazy, and beastly, those facets of blackness came to be admired, adulated, fetishized, sensationalized, and even revered in the Age of Electronic Mammon.

    White girls now grow up to Rap music and Jungle Fever. White boys now grow up admiring black athletes who routinely beat up white males and colonize white wombs. Cuck-dom is the state of the Modern West, and most white men(except those in the Alt Right) have accepted their cuckdom. Much of Pop Culture in the US and EU are variations of Jungle Fever where white girls imitate black girls and fantasize about having sex with blacks and having mulatto babies. And there is hardly any resistance from white males since they’ve been lobotomized and castrated. (White fathers are more afraid to say, “I wish my white daughter marries a white guy” than “I’d be proud to see my daughter be knocked up by a black guy.” ) Indeed, after these Muslim bombings, these cucked out males condemn Islam in defense of concerts that promote Jungle Fever among white girls and Cuck-wussiness among white males. For most whites, Homomania and Jungle Fever are their main cults or neo-religions.
    But blacks prevail over whites not only with sports, music, and sex. Because of the Slavery Narrative(and milking of ‘white guilt’ by PC) and the bellowing voice of the Negro, whites also see blacks as the Magic Race, the Holy Race, the soulful people of god. Your average white American worships MLK more than God; your average European worships Mandela more than Jesus.

    But if White Christian West surrendered to Black Savagery, the Arab Muslim World is still in a state of Culture War with Black Africa. Arabs never felt sorry or apologetic for their imperialism in Africa or black slave trade. If Christian morality is steeped in the cult of guilt, there is no such in Islam. Muhammad preached to his followers to be warriors, hardy and ruthless. So, Arabs don’t feel sorry or guilty about their historical role in Africa. Also, if Christianity is a spent force and only survives in its secularized form of PC, Islam is still very much alive as a spiritual and moral force. As such, it still continues to see black African culture as savage, backward, beastly, and satanic. If the West gave up its traditional certitudes and now worship Negroes as heroes, studs, angels, and gods, the Arab Muslims still regard themselves as culturally, morally, and spiritually more advanced than black Africans, indeed by light years.

    So, it must be strange when Arab Muslims come to the West and realize that black savage culture is favored over Muslims by the white natives who are into reggae, jungle fever, black sports, and Magic Negro devotion.

    Even though Muslim terrorism is characterized in terms of Islam vs ‘Western Values’, it is really a Culture War between Arab Islamism and Black Africanism(that has culturally colonized the West and is now sexually colonizing the wombs of white women, often to the sheepish delight of pathetic cucked-out white males). It is Jihad vs Jungle, a Clash of Cultures that’s been going on over a thousand years. This battle is being waged on Western Soil since both black Africans and Muslims have been allowed in huge numbers.

    This aspect of the clash might elude our perception because some of the Muslim attackers are black Africans and most of the victims are white Europeans. But black Muslims have made the cultural shift from Jungle Jive to Jihad Justice. They’ve come to reject Afro-pagan-savagery. Also, those white victims are like ‘whiggers’ in the sense that their main modes of entertainment and enjoyment are immersion in black sports, sex, and music. So, the so-called Clash of Civilizations we see today isn’t Islam vs the West but Islam(still a spiritual-moral force) vs Whiggers(whose main objects of worship are electro-amplified Afro-savagery and homomania).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  108. @Avery
    {... In addition, Christians in Turkey were permitted via the millet system to maintain churches and had the freedom to practice Christianity without persecution.”}

    Yo, Talha: that is clearly a lie.

    Nothing of the sort: 1,000 of Armenian churches were methodically either destroyed or converted to mosques by the Muslim Turk invaders over their centuries rule. Christians were routinely massacred; their young girls and boys kidnapped and forcibly enslaved and Islamized.
    Apparently there was so much Christian 'freedom to practice' that Muslim Ottoman Turks converted the Hagia Sophia to a mosque.

    ' practice Christianity without persecution': wow.

    Sultan Hamid massacred 300,000 Christian Armenians in 1894-1896 alone. Another massacre of Armenians took place in 1909 in Adana: 30,000.
    Christian Armenians massacred by Ottoman Muslim Turks.
    That's some 'freedom to practice'.

    As to TheAmericanInterest.com: it is an anti-Christian Neocon Zionist disinformation outlet. (lookup who the editors are). Founded by a group from TheNationalInterest.com (Kristol), another anti-Christian Neocon Zionist outlet.

    That article you referenced is obviously anti-Christian propaganda.

    Now: Muslim Persian Shah Abbas indeed was quite tolerant of Christians and Jews, and forbade his Muslim subjects from harming both in any way. He had new churches built for Armenians at his expense.
    And (nominally) Muslim Arab states such as Syria did give shelter to Christian Armenians after the AG. But the notion that Ottoman Turks were tolerant anytime during their reign is bogus. Even their Muslim Arab subjects hated them, and revolted the first chance they got.

    Seljuk Turk invaders were like a plague: they destroyed everything.
    No redeeming quality whatsoever.

    It’s very sad and inexcusable to what happened to Armenians. However, these atrocities were done in the “atrocity” season, the breaking up of Empires ( now is Middle East season). The point I’m making is that Ottomans rule of over six centuries were filled with wars, but not genocide. They were after territory and a population that will support their lifestyle. Sound familiar? RR, GHB, GWB, all had proclaimed the same slogan when attacking mineral rich estates. It’s ours, it’s our lifestyle, and we have the power, but not the brain, to take it, destroy it, and kill for it.
    The Armenian tragedy came at the end of the Ottoman Empire, there was hardly any territory left besides Anatolia, and rebellion in eastern Anatolia by the Armenian population triggered a response that is still familiar to this day. Poisoning of Kurds with US deeply involved with their buddy Saddam, Bosnia and Croatia, Palestine…
    Otherwise both Christian and Jews enjoyed a prosperous life under the Ottomans, as long as they didn’t involve themselves with politics. The kind of great support we afford our “allies”, Saudi America, United State of Israel, and all the despots that support our lifestyle……
    But why are we fighting these wars now? DJT promised to get us out the mess……

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

    Is there a strain of Islam, the basis of which can be found in the Quran, that would justify what the murderers did at London Bridge?
     
    Yes there is; welcome to the Reformation.

    Pleased to meet you
    Hope you guess my name
    But what's puzzling you
    Is the nature of my game...

    When have the imams of Saudi Arabia, the Middle East, and West ever stood as one to condemn all such acts as against the tenets of Islam?
     
    Plenty - the fact that people don't care to listen is a different subject.

    If these persecutors and killers of Christians are apostates to Islam, headed to hell for their savageries, why have not all the imams of the world, Shiite and Sunni, risen together to condemn them as heretics?
     
    They aren't apostates - they are heretical extremists though - again, see previous point. Mr. Buchanan, do you not have access to Google? Something like "Muslim scholars condemn ISIS" should be a good start. Here, I'll make it easy for you:
    https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/muslims-against-isis-part-1-clerics-scholars

    We didn't need to wait for them to start killing Christians, it was enough that they got their rocks off by killing plenty of Muslims. You're a betting man, right? Where do you think the next terrorist act will occur; Europe or the Middle East? Who do you think the next victims will be; Christians or Muslims?

    Correct. There is an extremist school of Islam that needs to be purged from the West
     
    No problems there.

    And the imams of Islam need to answer the question: “Whose side are you on?”
     
    They already have; neither. Do you really expect the ulema (the inheritors of the prophetic legacy) to pander to US/Israeli/Nato drone-imperialism and lose all credibility and respect in the eyes of the Ummah?

    Imams and scholars in the UK are refusing burial and last prayer rites to these wretched people (evoking a classic form of censuring of acts such as hirabah):
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/05/imams-refuse-funeral-prayers-to-indefensible-london-bridge-attackers

    Again, is anybody listening, or will they again be accused of refusing to take a stance?

    Now, second-generation Muslims within Europe seem to be converting to a violent version of Islam.
     
    Too many for comfort, yes - big problem, this.

    The new normal.
     
    You ought to ask the people of the Middle East about the "new normal" ushered in since the beginning of this century - you know, the PNAC vision. An imam that also works for a relief agency working in these areas was recently telling us that some people are breaking their Ramadan fasts on the carcasses of cats and dogs. You know, we can simply just stop what we started and start pulling back our armies. This might just work. It might not, but at least we'd know if these guys were sincere when claiming they do this as revenge against Western destruction and meddling.

    To fight them, we are being forced to circumscribe our sovereignty and empower police and intelligence agencies of which free men were once taught to be wary.
     
    There is no forcing - this seems to be part of the plan. War, as you said, are the death of republics, but the health of the state.

    Peace.

    As usual excuses and deflection…….at least on the bright side you didn’t trot out your usual tripe about some obscure 17th century Tunisian religious scholar who once spoke out against violence in a sermon.

    That notwithstanding……..you have to go back haji.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oY6691BleaI

    you have to go back haji.
     
    Yeah, yeah - get me the federal notice in the mail and I'll pack my bags.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. KenH says:

    Any more terrorist attacks and the U.K. and Europe are quickly going to run out of candles.

    Francis Parker Yockey believed that after Stalin had purged communism of much of its Jewish influence and become anti-Zionist and more Russian in character that it would be better for European survival and identity than the Jewish liberal and capitalist model for Western Europe and the spiritual syphilis that it engenders.

    Wilmot Robertson was of the same opinion in later years but for different reasons. He added that Russians and E. Europeans weren’t propagandized 24/7 by anti-white and race mixing propaganda as white Americans were and are and that Eastern Europe and Russia could wind up as the saviors of European civilization or the torch of Western Civilization could be passed to them while W. Europe sinks into multiculturalism and irrelevancy.

    Well, Eastern Europeans and Russians emerged from communism with their identity, morality and instinct for self preservation relatively intact while the Western Europeans living in the “free” West have largely been transformed into shells of their former selves with little racial and cultural pride and even less desire to survive and procreate. The same applies to the U.S. and U.K.

    So Stalin, who was previously billed as the scourge of Europe, may have saved Eastern Europe and Russia from the moral, spiritual and racial rot that’s afflicting the West.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  111. One of two possible results will occur in relation to Moslems living in the west; either we will eject them forcibly or we will submit. There is no middle path.

    Everybody (including Moslems, who are obviously aiming for the latter) knows this, few are willing to face it.

    Read More
    • Agree: TWS
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  112. KA says:

    https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/07/muslims-are-very-strange-people/

    Muslims are really strange ungrateful people .

    By the way , why Iranians are still not despite all the anti Iranian activities ? What do you make of it !

    But why don’t you gather some co- thinkers and presidential candidates or news anchor and march down DC with signs against any sanctions and against any war that target Iran ?

    Why does nobody from college , churches, labor union , think tank or literary bodies engage in protests ? Why do they vote these guys ? Who do they re elect them ? Why does Trump’s visceral lying provokative exhortation go down as kind of normal sane expected behavior ?

    Or is it the trap set up by Jihadist so attractive that you decided to jump in without worrying about if you were about to lose the cause and effect rationale ?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  113. Mikel says:
    @Talha

    but as an outsider you can easily grasp the salient points with only the knowledge of abrogation,the sura order and the Koran itself
     
    Bravo - brilliant analysis! It actually goes along the lines of something some dude named Abu Baraa Hindi from Daesh said:
    "Open the Qur’an and read the verses on jihad and everything will become clear... all the scholars tell me: 'This is a legal obligation (fard), or that isn’t a legal obligation, and this is not the time for jihad' ... forget everyone and read the Qur’an and you will know what jihad is."

    You ought to exchange notes with him - assuming he's not in jail right now. But I guess you could correspond over snail mail. He's had no formal education in the Islamic sciences - but neither have you - so it's all good!

    I mean, who's got the time to spend 30-40 years of one's life studying the Qur'an, hadith, tafsir (usul ul-fiqh) - heck even the Arabic language like those old muftis - pfffffsshhh - you can't eat that! I mean - we gotta read through all that??!! Screw that - Cliffs Notes please - I gotta play Halo or watch Breaking Bad!

    If one comes to completely different conclusions than the scholars have had a consensus on for centuries - it's only because the scholars totally screwed up! They obviously don't know what the heck they are talking about! Of course, they're the ones that actually formulated ideas like abrogation and determining chronological surah ordering, but what's that good for - eh?


    There is no “strain” of Islam that would not justify the murder committed by the terrorists on the London Bridge.
     
    Except for the consensus of the Orthodox and the Shia - but what do they count for anyway? Numbers...you can't eat that!

    Peace.

    Talha,

    Whatever the latest adavances in the “Islamic Sciences” that you mention (I had never heard of such a discipline, at least not seriously), you should probably admit that members of IS, Al-Qaeda et al have a point in their interpretation of the Koran.

    Verses like these (of which the parts of the Koran I have managed to read without falling asleep are a good sample) don’t leave that much room for nuanced interpretations:

    (9:5) Once the Sacred Months are past, you may kill the idol worshipers when you encounter them, punish them, and resist every move they make…

    (3:56) As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help.

    And so on.

    If someone claimed to be a faithful follower of the Bible and insisted that the world was created in 7 days by Yaveh or that Jesus Christ resurrected Lazarus bringing him back to life after he was clearly dead, I don’t think that I would waste my time explaining that this is not really what those passages of the Bible mean to say.

    Having received a Catholic education, I know that there are plenty of brainy Christian scholars trying to reconcile the nutty claims of the Bible with our modern understanding of the world. But it is *our* fault, and not of those who kept the Bible and the Koran unchanged for so many centuries, that *we* have decided to adopt a completely different, “modern” mindset that clashes with the initial intent of those texts.

    If you don’t like what the Koran actually says, just stop hiding behind the obscure ramblings of ancient “scholars”and find a new religion, I say.

    Best regards,
    Mikel

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    I'm not Talha, so please forgive my interruption...

    The Koran says quite a lot of things and contradicts itself in any number of places. Have you ever actually tried to read it (I mean, not just specific verses)?

    Try this a couple of times: http://ayatalquran.com/random .

    It also says this: 44:10 But watch thou (O Muhammad) for the day when the sky will produce visible smoke 44:11 That will envelop the people. This will be a painful torment.

    Do you see many Muslims with their eyes out for it?

    I wish I had received as sound a Catholic education as you, but I think I would credit the intelligence of Muslims of past ages enough to assume at least the educated were aware that considerable interpretation is necessary before Koranic imperatives are announced.

    As a relict of your sound Catholic education, can you deliver (mentally, not necessarily in the comment section) a one-paragraph answer to the topic: Why the Church is not sola scriptura?
    , @KA
    I agree with you . What I don't agree is this assertion that the IS is motivated by Koran . If so why do they cut deals ,make deals , and sometimes decide to get revitalized and refreshed by the Christian masters? It is internally inconsistent . Since IS was touted by Gen Patreus as kind of Salvodorian solution in 2011 and was welcomed by US intelligence in 2012 and was asked for the creation of a western friendly Jihadi entity by RAND corporation in 2006 , I Can't escape thinking that the Koran was inserted for use as rallying cry by Bible thumping racist American psychopath to divert attention from its own malfeasance plus hatred based animosity against common Muslims .

    Remember Gen Eisenhower told his pal to insist on ' religious aspect ' and ' religion' while supporting and arming the foreign rebel body against Syrian legal government in 60s .

    So the question - who shall be blamed -- a religion that behaves nonviolently and pretty normally like other religions when left alone or the democracy+ progressivism that use religion to create instability,, genocidal violence, atomization of society because of money , power , and hatred .
    , @Talha
    Hi Mikel,

    you should probably admit that members of IS, Al-Qaeda et al have a point in their interpretation of the Koran.
     
    Why - when even the scholars that were working with them abandoned them when they switched over to targeting civilians:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzUafFkd-EM

    Shaykh Azzam was actually a traditionally trained scholar - all he wanted to do was things like kick out Soviets from Afghanistan and fight the Israelis support Bosnians in the civil war - Bin Laden went rogue:
    "Bin Laden founded al Qaeda and was intent on creating a worldwide jihad. Abdullah Azzam thought his former protege had come under the influence of a group of extremist Egyptian militants -- who were taking jihad in the wrong direction, resorting to terrorism and killing innocent civilians...But the jihad in Iraq hasn't gone according to the Azzam plan. Huthaifa points to his father's will and says that kidnapping journalists, beheading contractors and killing civilians is not what his father envisioned."
    http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/03/23/schuster.column/index.html

    Me saying they have a valid interpretation is like me saying; yeah well the Khawarij take on the Qur'an was equivalent to that of Ibn Abbas (ra) and Ali bin Abi Talib (ra).


    don’t leave that much room for nuanced interpretations
     
    Then why did the earliest scholars and the Companions (ra) themselves not interpret these as black and white - even extending dhimmi status to Zoroastrians and others? Did you know in Arabic rhetoric, it is completely valid to use a phrase like "the people" to mean; 1) all people, 2) some people and 3) one person? What are the hadith that pertain to the matter? What was the consensus action taken by the Companions (ra) on the matter? All of these count - this is not a boy scout religion especially when it comes to jurisprudence. If you want to read a good exchange to see how ridiculous those who think they can just dive into these source texts and interpret rules without having learned the requisite disciplines, then I suggest this:
    http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/buti.htm

    As far as 3:56 - look, God owns the world - if He wants to punish people for not believing in Him in the next life, that's His prerogative. If one doesn't like the "power dynamic" in this relationship, they can take it up with Him when they see Him.


    “modern” mindset
     
    Nothing about what I am bringing is "modern". All the books I am referencing go back to the 11th and even as far back as the 8th centuries. The extremists are the (post)modernists - one can say they have made a massive "Protestant" error. With their assumptions that any joe-shmoe-abdullah can pick up these books and start giving fatwa. The pre-modern Muslim world had a better sense of the sacred and more humility when approaching it.

    Listen to Prof. David (an expert on extremist Muslim movements - http://report.rice.edu/sir/faculty.detail?p=87249205481D6D72) for about 5 minutes:
    “So, you have within you a strong tendency – this strong ahistorical tendency to pretend that history just simply didn’t exist, if you’re a Salafi, if you’re a radical. Because you have to…because then you can begin to ignore the huge mass of Shariah that you have to deal with…Who has the authority? For the traditional Muslim, it has to be the ulema – it has to be the religious hierarchy. But, uniformally, this group is hostile to radicalism. As a matter of fact, to me – to my eyes, the most obvious way to innocculate a Muslim from radicalism is actually just to put them in a religious school and make them learn the traditional way. Because, in actuality, that forces you into a world – a conceptual world – that is quite, quite distant from radicalism and doesn’t allow you to actually go into it very well.”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VQ9AvJB_k4&t=38m40s

    Peace.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Mikel
    Talha,

    Whatever the latest adavances in the "Islamic Sciences" that you mention (I had never heard of such a discipline, at least not seriously), you should probably admit that members of IS, Al-Qaeda et al have a point in their interpretation of the Koran.

    Verses like these (of which the parts of the Koran I have managed to read without falling asleep are a good sample) don't leave that much room for nuanced interpretations:

    (9:5) Once the Sacred Months are past, you may kill the idol worshipers when you encounter them, punish them, and resist every move they make...

    (3:56) As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help.

    And so on.

    If someone claimed to be a faithful follower of the Bible and insisted that the world was created in 7 days by Yaveh or that Jesus Christ resurrected Lazarus bringing him back to life after he was clearly dead, I don't think that I would waste my time explaining that this is not really what those passages of the Bible mean to say.

    Having received a Catholic education, I know that there are plenty of brainy Christian scholars trying to reconcile the nutty claims of the Bible with our modern understanding of the world. But it is *our* fault, and not of those who kept the Bible and the Koran unchanged for so many centuries, that *we* have decided to adopt a completely different, "modern" mindset that clashes with the initial intent of those texts.

    If you don't like what the Koran actually says, just stop hiding behind the obscure ramblings of ancient "scholars"and find a new religion, I say.

    Best regards,
    Mikel

    I’m not Talha, so please forgive my interruption…

    The Koran says quite a lot of things and contradicts itself in any number of places. Have you ever actually tried to read it (I mean, not just specific verses)?

    Try this a couple of times: http://ayatalquran.com/random .

    It also says this: 44:10 But watch thou (O Muhammad) for the day when the sky will produce visible smoke 44:11 That will envelop the people. This will be a painful torment.

    Do you see many Muslims with their eyes out for it?

    I wish I had received as sound a Catholic education as you, but I think I would credit the intelligence of Muslims of past ages enough to assume at least the educated were aware that considerable interpretation is necessary before Koranic imperatives are announced.

    As a relict of your sound Catholic education, can you deliver (mentally, not necessarily in the comment section) a one-paragraph answer to the topic: Why the Church is not sola scriptura?

    Read More
    • Replies: @MEexpert

    The Koran says quite a lot of things and contradicts itself in any number of places. Have you ever actually tried to read it (I mean, not just specific verses)?
     
    Can you give some examples of contradictions? Every verse of Qur'an is to be taken in context. Some scholars have tried to find contradictions but ended up throwing there writings because they couldn't prove it. Unless you are well versed in Arabic language, and I mean all aspects of it, you should not make such comments. Arabic language is a very rich language. Same word could mean various things in different context.

    When you read translations in different languages, sometimes the actual meanings are lost. Unless the translator knows the thoughts of the original author (in this case God), he cannot properly Convey the meaning of the verses. As an example, each year Saudi Arabia hands out Qur'ans translated in different languages and you will find different translations for the same verse.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. KA says:
    @Mikel
    Talha,

    Whatever the latest adavances in the "Islamic Sciences" that you mention (I had never heard of such a discipline, at least not seriously), you should probably admit that members of IS, Al-Qaeda et al have a point in their interpretation of the Koran.

    Verses like these (of which the parts of the Koran I have managed to read without falling asleep are a good sample) don't leave that much room for nuanced interpretations:

    (9:5) Once the Sacred Months are past, you may kill the idol worshipers when you encounter them, punish them, and resist every move they make...

    (3:56) As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help.

    And so on.

    If someone claimed to be a faithful follower of the Bible and insisted that the world was created in 7 days by Yaveh or that Jesus Christ resurrected Lazarus bringing him back to life after he was clearly dead, I don't think that I would waste my time explaining that this is not really what those passages of the Bible mean to say.

    Having received a Catholic education, I know that there are plenty of brainy Christian scholars trying to reconcile the nutty claims of the Bible with our modern understanding of the world. But it is *our* fault, and not of those who kept the Bible and the Koran unchanged for so many centuries, that *we* have decided to adopt a completely different, "modern" mindset that clashes with the initial intent of those texts.

    If you don't like what the Koran actually says, just stop hiding behind the obscure ramblings of ancient "scholars"and find a new religion, I say.

    Best regards,
    Mikel

    I agree with you . What I don’t agree is this assertion that the IS is motivated by Koran . If so why do they cut deals ,make deals , and sometimes decide to get revitalized and refreshed by the Christian masters? It is internally inconsistent . Since IS was touted by Gen Patreus as kind of Salvodorian solution in 2011 and was welcomed by US intelligence in 2012 and was asked for the creation of a western friendly Jihadi entity by RAND corporation in 2006 , I Can’t escape thinking that the Koran was inserted for use as rallying cry by Bible thumping racist American psychopath to divert attention from its own malfeasance plus hatred based animosity against common Muslims .

    Remember Gen Eisenhower told his pal to insist on ‘ religious aspect ‘ and ‘ religion’ while supporting and arming the foreign rebel body against Syrian legal government in 60s .

    So the question – who shall be blamed — a religion that behaves nonviolently and pretty normally like other religions when left alone or the democracy+ progressivism that use religion to create instability,, genocidal violence, atomization of society because of money , power , and hatred .

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    If so why do they cut deals ,make deals , and sometimes decide to get revitalized and refreshed by the Christian masters?

    Why did Washington avoid major decisive battles with the British? He knew the correct war strategy was to keep the army alive until the British got tired of the place.

    The jihadis are fighting the long war and are using whatever they can to keep the struggle going. Lies, deceit, secret sources of money from the Muslim elite, help from stupid Americans, take help anywhere you can get it.

    The US didn't invent the jihadis, they were always there. We just gave them the ability to grow. We were fighting the jihadis long before this in the Philippines.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. MEexpert says:
    @MEexpert

    Is there a strain of Islam, the basis of which can be found in the Quran, that would justify what the murderers did at London Bridge?
     
    There is absolutely no justification for murders of innocent people in Quran. Quran specifically forbids killing of innocent life. The only justification is in self defense.

    If these persecutors and killers of Christians are apostates to Islam, headed to hell for their savageries, why have not all the imams of the world, Shiite and Sunni, risen together to condemn them as heretics?
     
    Are you serious Pat? The Clerics in Egypt, Iraq and Iran and various shia clerics in the US have condemned these attacks. The mainstream media chooses to ignore those statements. It is more fun to blast the sermons of the Saudi Imams all over the televisions and newspapers to fan the flames of war than to print the voices of condemnation and call for peace.

    Everyone, from the politicians to the intelligence community, knows that Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Turkey, Israel, and the US are supporting ISIS and Al-Qaeda. Yet the president of the United States goes to Saudi Arabia and turns the logic upside down by ignoring the real supporters of terrorism and blamed Iran for all the troubles in the Middle East.

    Pat should be asking the questions; where are all these billions of dollars worth of weapons going? Where is ISIS and Al-Qaeda and the other alphabet terrorists getting brand new American weapons?

    It is a well documented fact that Saudi Arabia has been funding mosques and schools all over the world to promote her brand of Islam. Almost 75% of the mosques and islamic schools in the US are Saudi controlled. Instead of arresting the growth of Wahhabi version of Islam, the US and Israel are helping to promote it.

    There is no hope that this "forever war" will ever end. It is a national tragedy when our leaders (the republicans, the democrats, the progressives, liberals, libertarians, the mainstream media and what not) are slaves to the Wall Street-military-industrial complex and all are screaming for war with nary a voice in opposition. Pat, you want to control this terrorism, then tell the US government to stop selling weapons to Middle East monarchies and Israel and end these wars.

    Hey TWS.

    Troll? How so?

    Have you been hibernating?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. MEexpert says:
    @MarkinLA
    There is absolutely no justification for murders of innocent people in Quran. Quran specifically forbids killing of innocent life. The only justification is in self defense.

    What is funny about spewing all this drivel about what IS and what ISN'T real Islam is a sentence like this. OK, who are the innocents here? What is self defense?

    Just like collateral damage and other weasel words our government uses, some "Imam" can make any claim he wants about who is not innocent and what self defense is.

    Instead of quoting irrelevant passages from Islam realize that these people KNOW they are following the Koran to the letter.

    They think they are following Qur’an but they are not. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry is hanging on to one verse that has been taken out of context. The verse has been exploited by people like Daniel pipes and other Jews. Funny thing is that Israel is also using the Bible to hang on to the Palestinian land and killing and torturing Christians and Muslims.

    By the way the passages I referred to are totally relevant.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    Well until Mohammed comes back and schools them, they have the history of the expansion of Islam on their side and all you have are the words of "scholars".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. MEexpert says:
    @Anon
    I'm not Talha, so please forgive my interruption...

    The Koran says quite a lot of things and contradicts itself in any number of places. Have you ever actually tried to read it (I mean, not just specific verses)?

    Try this a couple of times: http://ayatalquran.com/random .

    It also says this: 44:10 But watch thou (O Muhammad) for the day when the sky will produce visible smoke 44:11 That will envelop the people. This will be a painful torment.

    Do you see many Muslims with their eyes out for it?

    I wish I had received as sound a Catholic education as you, but I think I would credit the intelligence of Muslims of past ages enough to assume at least the educated were aware that considerable interpretation is necessary before Koranic imperatives are announced.

    As a relict of your sound Catholic education, can you deliver (mentally, not necessarily in the comment section) a one-paragraph answer to the topic: Why the Church is not sola scriptura?

    The Koran says quite a lot of things and contradicts itself in any number of places. Have you ever actually tried to read it (I mean, not just specific verses)?

    Can you give some examples of contradictions? Every verse of Qur’an is to be taken in context. Some scholars have tried to find contradictions but ended up throwing there writings because they couldn’t prove it. Unless you are well versed in Arabic language, and I mean all aspects of it, you should not make such comments. Arabic language is a very rich language. Same word could mean various things in different context.

    When you read translations in different languages, sometimes the actual meanings are lost. Unless the translator knows the thoughts of the original author (in this case God), he cannot properly Convey the meaning of the verses. As an example, each year Saudi Arabia hands out Qur’ans translated in different languages and you will find different translations for the same verse.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. Talha says:
    @Johnny Smoggins
    As usual excuses and deflection.......at least on the bright side you didn't trot out your usual tripe about some obscure 17th century Tunisian religious scholar who once spoke out against violence in a sermon.

    That notwithstanding........you have to go back haji.

    you have to go back haji.

    Yeah, yeah – get me the federal notice in the mail and I’ll pack my bags.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. Talha says:
    @Avery
    {... In addition, Christians in Turkey were permitted via the millet system to maintain churches and had the freedom to practice Christianity without persecution.”}

    Yo, Talha: that is clearly a lie.

    Nothing of the sort: 1,000 of Armenian churches were methodically either destroyed or converted to mosques by the Muslim Turk invaders over their centuries rule. Christians were routinely massacred; their young girls and boys kidnapped and forcibly enslaved and Islamized.
    Apparently there was so much Christian 'freedom to practice' that Muslim Ottoman Turks converted the Hagia Sophia to a mosque.

    ' practice Christianity without persecution': wow.

    Sultan Hamid massacred 300,000 Christian Armenians in 1894-1896 alone. Another massacre of Armenians took place in 1909 in Adana: 30,000.
    Christian Armenians massacred by Ottoman Muslim Turks.
    That's some 'freedom to practice'.

    As to TheAmericanInterest.com: it is an anti-Christian Neocon Zionist disinformation outlet. (lookup who the editors are). Founded by a group from TheNationalInterest.com (Kristol), another anti-Christian Neocon Zionist outlet.

    That article you referenced is obviously anti-Christian propaganda.

    Now: Muslim Persian Shah Abbas indeed was quite tolerant of Christians and Jews, and forbade his Muslim subjects from harming both in any way. He had new churches built for Armenians at his expense.
    And (nominally) Muslim Arab states such as Syria did give shelter to Christian Armenians after the AG. But the notion that Ottoman Turks were tolerant anytime during their reign is bogus. Even their Muslim Arab subjects hated them, and revolted the first chance they got.

    Seljuk Turk invaders were like a plague: they destroyed everything.
    No redeeming quality whatsoever.

    Yo Avery,

    First off, we are not talking about when the empire was falling apart in the 19th/20th century – I thought I was clear about that. So the massacres you mention in the latter stage of the empire do not in any way affect the statements about them being relatively benign with respect to minorities in their midst during the earlier centuries. Nobody is comparing Ottoman policy to modern liberal nation-states – we are talking about the meat grinder known as the Thirty Years War and that era when Christians weren’t so tolerant to their heretical strains.

    1,000 of Armenian churches were methodically either destroyed or converted to mosques by the Muslim Turk invaders over their centuries rule.

    I’d love to see an academic source that this was happening at the time frame in question by the Ottomans (not some other Turks); 15th-17th centuries.

    That article you referenced is obviously anti-Christian propaganda.

    Fine, but that was not my only source. Here’s another:
    “Because of their religious status, the survival of the Habani depended on religious tolerance and so they found the Holy Roman Empire to be a greater enemy than the Ottomans. These factors may have drawn them closer to the Ottomans and pushed them further away from the Hapsburgs. The Ottoman Empire was one of the more tolerant states in Europe…There was also no distinction between different confessions, so an Anabaptist would have been trated the same as a Catholic. One account demonstrates how Moravia and the Ottoman Empire could appear roughly analogous because of the level of tolerance in both…This suggests that both Moravia and the Ottoman Empire were perceived as options for people seeking religious freedom.”
    Islam, Christianity and the Making of Czech Identity, 1453–1683

    Even their Muslim Arab subjects hated them, and revolted the first chance they got.

    They revolted quite late in the game when the Turks became secular ethno-nationalists. Before that, they were relatively well received by Arabs and even Kurds.

    Seljuk Turk invaders were like a plague: they destroyed everything. No redeeming quality whatsoever.

    Way hyperbolic – though they definitely pulled off nonsense like kicking off the Crusades by stopping Christian pilgrimage and what not. But what do the Seljuks have to do with Ottoman policy in Europe almost 500 years later?

    Of course sometimes the Byzantines pissed off Armenians enough to join sides with Muslims at times against them (even the Seljuks):
    “During this prolonged period of Islamic domination, Armenians had sometimes fought in support of their Muslim overlords, or in support of the Byzantine Empire, or in attempts to regain Armenian independence.”
    Manzikert 1071: The breaking of Byzantium
    “The Armenian historian, Vardapet Aristakes Lastivertc’i relates with copious tears, ‘In these days Byzantine armies entered the land of Armenia four times in succession until they had rendered the whole country uninhabited through sword, fire, and captive taking.’[10] In an attempt to destabilise the Armenians, Constantine IX secretly encouraged the Seljuks to attack Ani in 1044AD. Gagik eventually agreed to abdicate and was rewarded with titles, honours and lands in Cappadocia. Unfortunately he would not have long to enjoy them. Although fractious, the Armenian princes provided a secure buffer zone on the Byzantine’s eastern border. Now the Byzantines came into direct contact with the Seljuks, whose fighting style of mobile horse archery they were unfamiliar with. Nor could the Byzantines rely on the Armenians for support. One of Constantine’s first acts after the fall of Ani was to instigate a purge of the Monophysite clergy of Armenian Church. Fleeing war and persecution, a mass exodus began, including the Armenian troops the Byzantines relied on to garrison the border fortresses. Many now sought their fortune elsewhere, ‘some in Persia, some in Greece, some in Georgia.’[11] Some Armenian troops joined the Seljuk bands that now began raiding across the Armenian border.”

    http://deremilitari.org/2013/09/the-battle-of-manzikert-military-disaster-or-political-failure/

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    an Anabaptist would have been [treated] the same as a Catholic.
     
    OK. Good luck with that.

    https://www.thelocal.de/20140328/16th-century-mayhem-in-muenster-with-jan-van-leiden-expat-dispatches-the-local-germany

    ;)

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. KA says:

    Democracy , freedom , and war for peace are the epitome of the current cultural philosophy that has shaped the formation of the mental construct underlying our attitudes, reasoning , and the default position of an otherwise competent mind . They come handy in hiding ulterior motives.

    We prepare and then force ourselves to understand the enemy through an angle that is purposefully meant to make sure that peace and resolutions are not achieved .

    We see plenty of would be ISIS who spend good amount of time in jail , get wasted in bar, end up with broken jaws after street brawl , carry tattoos all over the body and believe in Jesus , beating their girlfriend and cultural superiority of the race he belongs to . Suppose Saudis use them to go and kill fellow white secular guys , migrants , Blacks , Latinos , I am sure we will blame the tattoos and Jesus based faith . Even the Saudis will blame the same set of factors !

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  122. Corvinus says:
    @MarkinLA
    Of course what those religious leaders are doing means something substantial–they are using their status as leaders to devise ways to keep radical Islam from spreading.

    You sound like the 4 year old. If they were doing something substantial then they would be making a difference in the world and they are not. They are not "devising" ways to keep radical Islam from spreading. They are mouthing platitudes that they likely don't believe for PR purposes.

    Buchanan wants to know why the Imams in Saudi Arabia don't condemn the killers. Why, because they support them. They just happen to live where they don't need to pretend they are against it. When the Imams live in places where they have to lie about their position, they do.

    “You sound like the 4 year old. If they were doing something substantial then they would be making a difference in the world and they are not.”

    Hundreds of millions of Muslims are NOT engaging in jihad. Clearly, Muslim religious leaders are making a difference.

    “They are not “devising” ways to keep radical Islam from spreading.”

    Clearly the two sources I linked to prove otherwise. You are blinded by your confirmation bias. It pains you to admit that you are dead wrong.

    “They are mouthing platitudes that they likely don’t believe for PR purposes.”

    Prove your assertion with evidence or retract your statement. Time to put up or shut up.

    “Buchanan wants to know why the Imams in Saudi Arabia don’t condemn the killers.”

    No, Buchanan stated clearly “When have the imams of Saudi Arabia, the Middle East, and West ever stood as one to condemn all such acts as against the tenets of Islam?”

    Clearly, he is not paying attention. And you are living in denial.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/06/06/130-imams-refuse-conduct-funerals-london-attackers/102543282/

    https://aleteia.org/2017/06/07/british-islamic-leaders-excommunicate-perpetrators-of-recent-jihadi-attacks/

    http://www.arabnews.com/node/1103936/saudi-arabia

    Again, it is now incumbent that you prove the political and religious leaders of these nations are merely conducting a public relations campaign. Cite your sources.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    Worthless words that they don't mean. Worthless words that nobody listens to. I bet that after they give one of their speeches they retire to their inner circle in the mosque and say: "That should hold the fucking kafirs long enough for our soon to be martyr Achmed here to complete his bomb".

    Genghis Khan, Attila, Hitler the history of world is full of people who said they only wanted peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. MarkinLA says:
    @KA
    I agree with you . What I don't agree is this assertion that the IS is motivated by Koran . If so why do they cut deals ,make deals , and sometimes decide to get revitalized and refreshed by the Christian masters? It is internally inconsistent . Since IS was touted by Gen Patreus as kind of Salvodorian solution in 2011 and was welcomed by US intelligence in 2012 and was asked for the creation of a western friendly Jihadi entity by RAND corporation in 2006 , I Can't escape thinking that the Koran was inserted for use as rallying cry by Bible thumping racist American psychopath to divert attention from its own malfeasance plus hatred based animosity against common Muslims .

    Remember Gen Eisenhower told his pal to insist on ' religious aspect ' and ' religion' while supporting and arming the foreign rebel body against Syrian legal government in 60s .

    So the question - who shall be blamed -- a religion that behaves nonviolently and pretty normally like other religions when left alone or the democracy+ progressivism that use religion to create instability,, genocidal violence, atomization of society because of money , power , and hatred .

    If so why do they cut deals ,make deals , and sometimes decide to get revitalized and refreshed by the Christian masters?

    Why did Washington avoid major decisive battles with the British? He knew the correct war strategy was to keep the army alive until the British got tired of the place.

    The jihadis are fighting the long war and are using whatever they can to keep the struggle going. Lies, deceit, secret sources of money from the Muslim elite, help from stupid Americans, take help anywhere you can get it.

    The US didn’t invent the jihadis, they were always there. We just gave them the ability to grow. We were fighting the jihadis long before this in the Philippines.

    Read More
    • Replies: @KA
    All I know about Phillipines that I need to know about American provocation to Jihadism is this- Muslims have been there in the south Phillinonescfor few generations and America is few thousands miles away ( how about some Jihafi coming and trying to open up some kind of market in southern America and then claim suzerainty )
    .
    America asked Turkey not to proclaim any support to Muslim resistance in Phillines against America on the promise of delivering to Moslem of philipnes AKA jihadist independence and a better deal than being offered by Spain
    .America also promised diplomatic support to Turkish endeavor
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. MarkinLA says:
    @MEexpert
    They think they are following Qur'an but they are not. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry is hanging on to one verse that has been taken out of context. The verse has been exploited by people like Daniel pipes and other Jews. Funny thing is that Israel is also using the Bible to hang on to the Palestinian land and killing and torturing Christians and Muslims.

    By the way the passages I referred to are totally relevant.

    Well until Mohammed comes back and schools them, they have the history of the expansion of Islam on their side and all you have are the words of “scholars”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MEexpert
    You don't even make any sense.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. KA says:

    U.S. air strikes Near Aleppo Was Lea
    Gal, Study Finds 6/7/17 NYT – A14
    Defense Departnent said that its investigation of the air strike on a mosque , found that it was legal and Appropriate. ( The
    New York Times)

    There are a lot to unpack and reload here .
    American legal and moral value laden system is based on ideologically on Judeo Christian values.
    Bible being cloudy leaves room of different interpretation even by the uninitiated.
    This finding is not new, periodically America over last 16 years claimed this moral and legal prerogatives and sought to impose its values on rest of the world on the basis of this claim ( in different wording – sometimes it is to stop tyranny , sometimes to secure safety, sometimes to spread goodwill and democracy or liberate ) Periodically God has been invoked by presidents and its acolytes .

    Where the Anericans have been hiding ! Did they stop this shit ? Did they question this. conflation of religiosity and jingoism ? Did they come out and say ‘ not in our name, not in my religion’s name )

    Now I know what typical response will be against the above . It will be – it is politics, it is not religion, we don’t seek to convert , we don’t impose our Bible . Bible doesn’t guide us .

    But these answers are false , misguiding , and loaded with misunderstanding of the roles of the religion and the socio-politics .

    Politics has replaced religion in western countries in imposing collective majoritarian views on the population . Politics shape lives now as religion shaped before .
    Politics and social rules hold nation . Religion used to do that and still does . Politics defines what constitute threat and punish the miscreants and worship or reward the ones who fight against the possible threat . Religion has identified threat in past –, threat to the society- and has imposed punishment and reward .
    Politics doesn’t develop every morning as something disconnected and new but follows a narrative
    So does religion and its verses . Religion doesn’t wake people up one morning asking its disciples to go out and look for some non believers , call them heretic or pagan or non religious and kill them .

    Politics might claim we don’t convert but it still does . It just doesn’t impose religion because religion is now not an issue of importance for safety and sucirty ,progress and peace . Now it is language , support for American values , now it is dress , identification card , personal data and information, surveillance . At one stage religion performed those works .

    - coming back to the NYT article – 1 who the hell America is to impose its legal system on a country that is 10,000 miles away from it .
    2 what kind of legal system is this where the perpetrator is the investigative team and the judge ?
    3 who pays for this system to stay viable, prosper , and carry on
    4 what sorts of people are they in term of their religious beliefs ?
    5 What kind of God they believe in ? Because if they believed , they know they are going to heaven and that particular God doesn’t mind them doing it repeatedly .

    - what about non believer ? non Godly people ? Do they get mental satisfaction from other sources ? Do those who don’t profess faith ? Yes , they do . Do they get involved ? Sure they do . They just happen to have non religious tattoos and dress .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  126. MarkinLA says:
    @Corvinus
    "You sound like the 4 year old. If they were doing something substantial then they would be making a difference in the world and they are not."

    Hundreds of millions of Muslims are NOT engaging in jihad. Clearly, Muslim religious leaders are making a difference.

    "They are not “devising” ways to keep radical Islam from spreading."

    Clearly the two sources I linked to prove otherwise. You are blinded by your confirmation bias. It pains you to admit that you are dead wrong.

    "They are mouthing platitudes that they likely don’t believe for PR purposes."

    Prove your assertion with evidence or retract your statement. Time to put up or shut up.

    "Buchanan wants to know why the Imams in Saudi Arabia don’t condemn the killers."

    No, Buchanan stated clearly "When have the imams of Saudi Arabia, the Middle East, and West ever stood as one to condemn all such acts as against the tenets of Islam?"

    Clearly, he is not paying attention. And you are living in denial.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/06/06/130-imams-refuse-conduct-funerals-london-attackers/102543282/

    https://aleteia.org/2017/06/07/british-islamic-leaders-excommunicate-perpetrators-of-recent-jihadi-attacks/

    http://www.arabnews.com/node/1103936/saudi-arabia

    Again, it is now incumbent that you prove the political and religious leaders of these nations are merely conducting a public relations campaign. Cite your sources.

    Worthless words that they don’t mean. Worthless words that nobody listens to. I bet that after they give one of their speeches they retire to their inner circle in the mosque and say: “That should hold the fucking kafirs long enough for our soon to be martyr Achmed here to complete his bomb”.

    Genghis Khan, Attila, Hitler the history of world is full of people who said they only wanted peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Worthless words that they don’t mean. Worthless words that nobody listens to. I bet that after they give one of their speeches they retire to their inner circle in the mosque and say: “That should hold the fucking kafirs long enough for our soon to be martyr Achmed here to complete his bomb”.

    The LA sun has apparently baked your brain. Put up or shut up. "They are mouthing platitudes that they likely don’t believe for PR purposes." Prove your assertion with evidence or retract your statement.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. MEexpert says:
    @MarkinLA
    Well until Mohammed comes back and schools them, they have the history of the expansion of Islam on their side and all you have are the words of "scholars".

    You don’t even make any sense.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    Sure I do, but like all the apologists for Islam, you pretend to live in the fairy-tale world that you have invented about Islam and I live in the real world.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. It’s pretty pathetic to see Mr. Buchanan yielding to the pressures of fashion and PC and yapping about the enemy du jour, i.e., Muslims. What would the state do without enemies? It’s a fraud as old as the state and you’d think an historian of B’s status could appreciate that.

    If these persecutors and killers of Christians are apostates to Islam, headed to hell for their savageries, why have not all the imams of the world, Shiite and Sunni, risen together to condemn them as heretics?

    That has to be one of the most brain dead charges of all time, especially since same could be said about the representatives of ALL the monotheistic religions, (governments too), and the charge would be equally fatuous in all cases.

    Since when are any of them monolithic? When does any large group speak with one voice?

    Read More
    • Agree: L.K
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  129. MarkinLA says:
    @MEexpert
    You don't even make any sense.

    Sure I do, but like all the apologists for Islam, you pretend to live in the fairy-tale world that you have invented about Islam and I live in the real world.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. TWS says:
    @Talha
    Hey TWS,

    So slaves should be grateful they were not castrated and beaten daily?
     
    Have you ever read about historical slavery? If you had a good master - that was a tremendous blessing. What the Barbary pirates did was hardly sanctioned by Islam - just by the mere fact that the Shariah prohibits castration or mutilation of slaves.

    Islam is truly enlightened.
     
    Free advertising!

    A cavalier attitude towards brutality is a threat all by itself.
     
    Perhaps I should have eased back on the light attitude. Either way, I don't condone their conduct. They will answer for their transgressions against other human beings in the court of God - no one escapes that.

    Just like Spain.
     
    Don't follow...

    Peace.

    Yes I have read about slavery both historical and contemporary. Legally there were slaves in Islamic countries during my lifetime. Not in the past but in my living memory.

    You betrayed your motives when you downplayed the violence, brutality and deceit. Yes, deceit. You know that your system condones, not did condone but condones slavery, oppression, and undermining societies that are not Islamic.

    Like the KSA soccer team not standing for a moment of silence for the London victims of terror. Our MSM colludes with Muslims in that it says, “Their culture is not compatible with a moment of silence.” No, the culture sees the terrorists as martyrs and the victims as justified targets.

    What your culture does teaches better than what you say. Actions speak louder than words.

    Deus Vult

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey TWS,

    Actually there are slaves out in remote areas of Saudi and Mauritania to this day. It's illegal in those countries, but out in the boondocks they are managing to evade the authorities. It's a bit like sexual slavery that goes on in Europe and Asia - it's not legal, but some people do it anyway.

    You betrayed your motives when you downplayed the violence, brutality and deceit.
     
    If you say so.

    You know that your system condones, not did condone but condones slavery, oppression, and undermining societies that are not Islamic.
     
    No - I know all of our top scholars and institutions have agreed that slavery is prohibited. And all Muslim nations are signatories to international protocols prohibiting slavery; those are facts. However, I have definitely read that some scholars have stated that Muslims are bound by these agreements as long as the other side also holds to them. If non-Muslims break with those and go back to enslaving Muslims, Muslims have a right to go back to enslaving them - this seems like a very reasonable position. I suggest we keep these protocols in place and working.

    Our system doesn't condone oppression - unless you consider that non-Muslims in Muslim countries aren't allowed to preach to Muslims or blaspheme or marry Muslim women, etc. Then you can consider that oppression, we don't.

    And all traditional scholars agree that we aren't allowed to harm non-Muslims in their lands when residing here under a covenant of protection (which is what residence status or citizenship is). We cannot steal, kill, etc. If you want to know the legal underpinnings, you can read this:
    http://www.warda.info/fatwa.pdf

    If some Muslims are behaving badly (stealing, raping, killing, etc.), the solution is simple; punish harshly, rinse, repeat...

    If you consider spreading Islam peacefully to be undermining society, then advocate the formulation and passing of laws prohibiting preaching Islam in Western countries. It would be hypocritical of Muslims to complain because we bar that in Muslim lands. But, until then - we gonna do our thang!

    No, the culture sees the terrorists as martyrs and the victims as justified targets.
     
    Your opinion based on what? The Saudi soccer team, really? OK, that's fine, our scholars will continue to denounce these vile crimes. We're not interested in begging people like you to believe us.

    Actions speak louder than words.
     
    Indeed - which is why thousands of Muslims have died fighting people like Daesh. You know those boots on the ground trying to take Mosul and Raqqa from the Salafi-Wahhabi extremists? They turn to the qiblah when the prayer time comes.
    https://www.google.com/search?q=peshmerga+praying&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjKxoqc4q7UAhVJwGMKHfsZD80Q_AUICigB&biw=1344&bih=774

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Talha
    Yo Avery,

    First off, we are not talking about when the empire was falling apart in the 19th/20th century - I thought I was clear about that. So the massacres you mention in the latter stage of the empire do not in any way affect the statements about them being relatively benign with respect to minorities in their midst during the earlier centuries. Nobody is comparing Ottoman policy to modern liberal nation-states - we are talking about the meat grinder known as the Thirty Years War and that era when Christians weren't so tolerant to their heretical strains.

    1,000 of Armenian churches were methodically either destroyed or converted to mosques by the Muslim Turk invaders over their centuries rule.
     
    I'd love to see an academic source that this was happening at the time frame in question by the Ottomans (not some other Turks); 15th-17th centuries.

    That article you referenced is obviously anti-Christian propaganda.
     
    Fine, but that was not my only source. Here's another:
    "Because of their religious status, the survival of the Habani depended on religious tolerance and so they found the Holy Roman Empire to be a greater enemy than the Ottomans. These factors may have drawn them closer to the Ottomans and pushed them further away from the Hapsburgs. The Ottoman Empire was one of the more tolerant states in Europe...There was also no distinction between different confessions, so an Anabaptist would have been trated the same as a Catholic. One account demonstrates how Moravia and the Ottoman Empire could appear roughly analogous because of the level of tolerance in both...This suggests that both Moravia and the Ottoman Empire were perceived as options for people seeking religious freedom."
    Islam, Christianity and the Making of Czech Identity, 1453–1683

    Even their Muslim Arab subjects hated them, and revolted the first chance they got.
     
    They revolted quite late in the game when the Turks became secular ethno-nationalists. Before that, they were relatively well received by Arabs and even Kurds.

    Seljuk Turk invaders were like a plague: they destroyed everything. No redeeming quality whatsoever.
     
    Way hyperbolic - though they definitely pulled off nonsense like kicking off the Crusades by stopping Christian pilgrimage and what not. But what do the Seljuks have to do with Ottoman policy in Europe almost 500 years later?

    Of course sometimes the Byzantines pissed off Armenians enough to join sides with Muslims at times against them (even the Seljuks):
    "During this prolonged period of Islamic domination, Armenians had sometimes fought in support of their Muslim overlords, or in support of the Byzantine Empire, or in attempts to regain Armenian independence."
    Manzikert 1071: The breaking of Byzantium
    “The Armenian historian, Vardapet Aristakes Lastivertc’i relates with copious tears, ‘In these days Byzantine armies entered the land of Armenia four times in succession until they had rendered the whole country uninhabited through sword, fire, and captive taking.’[10] In an attempt to destabilise the Armenians, Constantine IX secretly encouraged the Seljuks to attack Ani in 1044AD. Gagik eventually agreed to abdicate and was rewarded with titles, honours and lands in Cappadocia. Unfortunately he would not have long to enjoy them. Although fractious, the Armenian princes provided a secure buffer zone on the Byzantine’s eastern border. Now the Byzantines came into direct contact with the Seljuks, whose fighting style of mobile horse archery they were unfamiliar with. Nor could the Byzantines rely on the Armenians for support. One of Constantine’s first acts after the fall of Ani was to instigate a purge of the Monophysite clergy of Armenian Church. Fleeing war and persecution, a mass exodus began, including the Armenian troops the Byzantines relied on to garrison the border fortresses. Many now sought their fortune elsewhere, ‘some in Persia, some in Greece, some in Georgia.’[11] Some Armenian troops joined the Seljuk bands that now began raiding across the Armenian border.”

    http://deremilitari.org/2013/09/the-battle-of-manzikert-military-disaster-or-political-failure/


    Peace.

    an Anabaptist would have been [treated] the same as a Catholic.

    OK. Good luck with that.

    https://www.thelocal.de/20140328/16th-century-mayhem-in-muenster-with-jan-van-leiden-expat-dispatches-the-local-germany
    ;)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Yech! Death by tongs! Is it a wonder they were open to fleeing into Ottoman territory - even if it meant they were going to be living as second class citizens?

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. Talha says:
    @TWS
    Yes I have read about slavery both historical and contemporary. Legally there were slaves in Islamic countries during my lifetime. Not in the past but in my living memory.

    You betrayed your motives when you downplayed the violence, brutality and deceit. Yes, deceit. You know that your system condones, not did condone but condones slavery, oppression, and undermining societies that are not Islamic.

    Like the KSA soccer team not standing for a moment of silence for the London victims of terror. Our MSM colludes with Muslims in that it says, "Their culture is not compatible with a moment of silence." No, the culture sees the terrorists as martyrs and the victims as justified targets.

    What your culture does teaches better than what you say. Actions speak louder than words.

    Deus Vult

    Hey TWS,

    Actually there are slaves out in remote areas of Saudi and Mauritania to this day. It’s illegal in those countries, but out in the boondocks they are managing to evade the authorities. It’s a bit like sexual slavery that goes on in Europe and Asia – it’s not legal, but some people do it anyway.

    You betrayed your motives when you downplayed the violence, brutality and deceit.

    If you say so.

    You know that your system condones, not did condone but condones slavery, oppression, and undermining societies that are not Islamic.

    No – I know all of our top scholars and institutions have agreed that slavery is prohibited. And all Muslim nations are signatories to international protocols prohibiting slavery; those are facts. However, I have definitely read that some scholars have stated that Muslims are bound by these agreements as long as the other side also holds to them. If non-Muslims break with those and go back to enslaving Muslims, Muslims have a right to go back to enslaving them – this seems like a very reasonable position. I suggest we keep these protocols in place and working.

    Our system doesn’t condone oppression – unless you consider that non-Muslims in Muslim countries aren’t allowed to preach to Muslims or blaspheme or marry Muslim women, etc. Then you can consider that oppression, we don’t.

    And all traditional scholars agree that we aren’t allowed to harm non-Muslims in their lands when residing here under a covenant of protection (which is what residence status or citizenship is). We cannot steal, kill, etc. If you want to know the legal underpinnings, you can read this:

    http://www.warda.info/fatwa.pdf

    If some Muslims are behaving badly (stealing, raping, killing, etc.), the solution is simple; punish harshly, rinse, repeat…

    If you consider spreading Islam peacefully to be undermining society, then advocate the formulation and passing of laws prohibiting preaching Islam in Western countries. It would be hypocritical of Muslims to complain because we bar that in Muslim lands. But, until then – we gonna do our thang!

    No, the culture sees the terrorists as martyrs and the victims as justified targets.

    Your opinion based on what? The Saudi soccer team, really? OK, that’s fine, our scholars will continue to denounce these vile crimes. We’re not interested in begging people like you to believe us.

    Actions speak louder than words.

    Indeed – which is why thousands of Muslims have died fighting people like Daesh. You know those boots on the ground trying to take Mosul and Raqqa from the Salafi-Wahhabi extremists? They turn to the qiblah when the prayer time comes.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=peshmerga+praying&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjKxoqc4q7UAhVJwGMKHfsZD80Q_AUICigB&biw=1344&bih=774

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @TWS
    Your lies are smooth. Like arsenic in amaretto they have a bitter aftertaste. You'd have a point if I, me, this person sitting here didn't remember the slavery in the Islamic world. If it wasn't legal and only stopped after international pressure.

    But it wasn't and you don't all you have are your smooth bitter almond lies.

    You don't consider it oppression when you do not allow people who have lived in the area hundreds of years before your death cult are murdered for worshiping God.

    Fine, you have your customs and we have ours. Pray we continue to allow you to follow yours in your own land and the West doesn't find the stomach to send your kind back to wherever they came from.

    Because when you say 'peace' I know what you mean. The peace of submission or the peace of the grave. That's all your kind knows towards non-Muslims.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. Talha says:
    @Anon

    an Anabaptist would have been [treated] the same as a Catholic.
     
    OK. Good luck with that.

    https://www.thelocal.de/20140328/16th-century-mayhem-in-muenster-with-jan-van-leiden-expat-dispatches-the-local-germany

    ;)

    Yech! Death by tongs! Is it a wonder they were open to fleeing into Ottoman territory – even if it meant they were going to be living as second class citizens?

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. Talha says:
    @Mikel
    Talha,

    Whatever the latest adavances in the "Islamic Sciences" that you mention (I had never heard of such a discipline, at least not seriously), you should probably admit that members of IS, Al-Qaeda et al have a point in their interpretation of the Koran.

    Verses like these (of which the parts of the Koran I have managed to read without falling asleep are a good sample) don't leave that much room for nuanced interpretations:

    (9:5) Once the Sacred Months are past, you may kill the idol worshipers when you encounter them, punish them, and resist every move they make...

    (3:56) As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help.

    And so on.

    If someone claimed to be a faithful follower of the Bible and insisted that the world was created in 7 days by Yaveh or that Jesus Christ resurrected Lazarus bringing him back to life after he was clearly dead, I don't think that I would waste my time explaining that this is not really what those passages of the Bible mean to say.

    Having received a Catholic education, I know that there are plenty of brainy Christian scholars trying to reconcile the nutty claims of the Bible with our modern understanding of the world. But it is *our* fault, and not of those who kept the Bible and the Koran unchanged for so many centuries, that *we* have decided to adopt a completely different, "modern" mindset that clashes with the initial intent of those texts.

    If you don't like what the Koran actually says, just stop hiding behind the obscure ramblings of ancient "scholars"and find a new religion, I say.

    Best regards,
    Mikel

    Hi Mikel,

    you should probably admit that members of IS, Al-Qaeda et al have a point in their interpretation of the Koran.

    Why – when even the scholars that were working with them abandoned them when they switched over to targeting civilians:

    Shaykh Azzam was actually a traditionally trained scholar – all he wanted to do was things like kick out Soviets from Afghanistan and fight the Israelis support Bosnians in the civil war – Bin Laden went rogue:
    “Bin Laden founded al Qaeda and was intent on creating a worldwide jihad. Abdullah Azzam thought his former protege had come under the influence of a group of extremist Egyptian militants — who were taking jihad in the wrong direction, resorting to terrorism and killing innocent civilians…But the jihad in Iraq hasn’t gone according to the Azzam plan. Huthaifa points to his father’s will and says that kidnapping journalists, beheading contractors and killing civilians is not what his father envisioned.”

    http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/03/23/schuster.column/index.html

    Me saying they have a valid interpretation is like me saying; yeah well the Khawarij take on the Qur’an was equivalent to that of Ibn Abbas (ra) and Ali bin Abi Talib (ra).

    don’t leave that much room for nuanced interpretations

    Then why did the earliest scholars and the Companions (ra) themselves not interpret these as black and white – even extending dhimmi status to Zoroastrians and others? Did you know in Arabic rhetoric, it is completely valid to use a phrase like “the people” to mean; 1) all people, 2) some people and 3) one person? What are the hadith that pertain to the matter? What was the consensus action taken by the Companions (ra) on the matter? All of these count – this is not a boy scout religion especially when it comes to jurisprudence. If you want to read a good exchange to see how ridiculous those who think they can just dive into these source texts and interpret rules without having learned the requisite disciplines, then I suggest this:

    http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/buti.htm

    As far as 3:56 – look, God owns the world – if He wants to punish people for not believing in Him in the next life, that’s His prerogative. If one doesn’t like the “power dynamic” in this relationship, they can take it up with Him when they see Him.

    “modern” mindset

    Nothing about what I am bringing is “modern”. All the books I am referencing go back to the 11th and even as far back as the 8th centuries. The extremists are the (post)modernists – one can say they have made a massive “Protestant” error. With their assumptions that any joe-shmoe-abdullah can pick up these books and start giving fatwa. The pre-modern Muslim world had a better sense of the sacred and more humility when approaching it.

    Listen to Prof. David (an expert on extremist Muslim movements – http://report.rice.edu/sir/faculty.detail?p=87249205481D6D72) for about 5 minutes:
    “So, you have within you a strong tendency – this strong ahistorical tendency to pretend that history just simply didn’t exist, if you’re a Salafi, if you’re a radical. Because you have to…because then you can begin to ignore the huge mass of Shariah that you have to deal with…Who has the authority? For the traditional Muslim, it has to be the ulema – it has to be the religious hierarchy. But, uniformally, this group is hostile to radicalism. As a matter of fact, to me – to my eyes, the most obvious way to innocculate a Muslim from radicalism is actually just to put them in a religious school and make them learn the traditional way. Because, in actuality, that forces you into a world – a conceptual world – that is quite, quite distant from radicalism and doesn’t allow you to actually go into it very well.”

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz
    Well, I'm very busy with my own work and almost never involve myself in comment-threads, but I happened to notice this very lengthy one. I'm absolutely no expert on Islam, but Tahla seems quite knowledgeable and his arguments very persuasive, certainly compared with the ignorant propaganda endlessly spewed forth at NR or FoxNews.

    Traditional Islam does seem a religion heavily specified and controlled by its leading clerical scholars, so if groups completely violate their rulings, it may be reasonable to casually label them "Muslim extremists" as a short-hand, but only in the cultural/ethnic rather than in the religious sense of that term.

    Here's what might be a rough analogy. As everyone knows, there were decades of fighting and terrorism in Northern Ireland between the Catholics and the Protestants, though the struggle was really more ethnic-nationalist than religious, and as far as I know, the militants on both sides were substantially secular or even agnostic. Indeed, I think the IRA was mostly run by atheistic leftists.

    Now traditional Catholicism is a highly hierarchical religion, and Catholics are supposed to do exactly what the Pope tells them. But I'm pretty sure that even if the Pope had told the IRA to immediately halt all its activities, the militants wouldn't have paid the slightest attention to his words and probably would have ridiculed him, at least in private.

    So while it's perfectly reasonable as a short-hand to characterize the IRA as an "Irish Catholic terrorist organization" it's not reasonable to claim that their actions had any real connection to the Catholic religion.
    , @Mikel
    I appreciate your lengthy reply but essentially, what you are telling me is that someone reading the Bible should not hasten to conclude that Abraham actually killed his son on God's orders or that Jesus did not really walk over the waters of a lake... it's only up to "scholars" to decide on the "real" meaning of what's written in the sacred texts.

    Sorry, not very convincing.

    Best regards,
    Mikel

    PS- Yes, the Koran does get terrifying when it comes to the horrors of the afterlife awaiting the non-believers. Do you have any non-believing relative? If so, how do you feel about their cruel fate? Perhaps they'd like to believe but are simply unable to do so.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Talha
    Hey KenH,

    Muslims were kicked out in Spain because they were invaders and interlopers.
     
    Yup - just talking facts on the ground.

    Christians could have galloped to Turkey to slice and dice some Ottoman Turks.
     
    Yeah but you're chalking it up to Christian zealots caring for the sanctity of Muslim life. It could have just easily been because they knew any raiding party would have been dealt with extreme prejudice. Ottomans were at their prime. Once half your men are lying bleeding and screaming out your last breaths on some battle plain and the rest are being hauled off in chains as slaves - the thought "bad idea" comes fully into mind.

    Which leads me to something; if Daesh and their ilk have decided to revive slavery unilaterally, maybe they should get a taste of their own medicine and a policy of enslaving (owned by the state) any captured fighters should be put into place.

    The Ottomans also didn't foolishly get involved in the fighting and only played the game of backing one rival or another against each other to maximize benefit to their own empire. We just can't help ourselves getting involved apparently - too much money to lose for the MIC.

    you and I both know who the Ottomans would have reacted
     
    Thugg lyfe! So - take a page from the Ottoman playbook and don't tolerate groups that hold rallies supporting extremists and such nonsense. This isn't rocket science.

    so the only sensible policy is now internment and deportation
     
    Wow - for all Muslims or those on the extremist watch lists?

    but not the millions Europe is accepting
     
    Yeah - there was a reason why they lasted for 600+ years.

    The Muslim terror attacks are clearly not intra-Muslim quarrel
     
    Not so clear. It starts as a trickle, then increase. These extremists are already calling for the deaths of certain Muslim scholars in the West as apostates:
    "The group recently threatened the lives of 11 Muslim imams and scholars in the West, calling them 'apostates' who should be killed. The recent issue of the Islamic State’s online propaganda magazine, Dabiq, called them 'obligatory targets,' and it said that supporters should use any weapons on hand to 'make an example of them.'"
    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/09/us/isis-threatens-muslim-preachers-who-are-waging-theological-battle-online.html?_r=0

    So motivation and intent is certainly there. You remember that article about the UK imam having his head beaten in with a hammer? That had zero to do with any politics, but Daesh extremists killed him in a brutal manner anyway.

    And just as the Ottoman Turks had no moral qualms about imposing collective punishment (see the Armenian genocide)
     
    You do know the Ottoman government sentenced to death the secular-nationalist architects of the genocide don't you? And that the death warrant was signed by the Grand Mufti himself?

    Imam Mawardi (ra) stated in his Ahkam Sultaniyyah that if dhimmis revolt then the ones taking up arms are fought. The rest are treated according to their support or rejection of the revolt. That sounds like a reasonable approach to me.

    Peace.

    Christians could have galloped to Turkey to slice and dice some Ottoman Turks.

    Yeah but you’re chalking it up to Christian zealots caring for the sanctity of Muslim life. It could have just easily been because they knew any raiding party would have been dealt with extreme prejudice. Ottomans were at their prime. Once half your men are lying bleeding and screaming out your last breaths on some battle plain and the rest are being hauled off in chains as slaves – the thought “bad idea” comes fully into mind.

    The Cossacks actually did this, but not for religious motives as far as I can tell:

    By 1615 and 1625, Cossacks had managed to raze townships on the outskirts of Constantinople, forcing the Ottoman Sultan Murad IV to flee his palace.[4] His nephew, Sultan Mehmed IV, fared little better as the recipient of the legendary Reply of the Zaporozhian Cossacks, a ribald response to Mehmed’s insistence that the Cossacks submit to his authority.[citation needed] Consecutive treaties between Ottoman Empire and the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth called for both parties to keep the Cossacks and Tatars in check, but enforcement was almost non-existent on both sides. In internal agreements, forced by the Poles, the Cossacks agreed to burn their boats and stop raiding. However, boats could be rebuilt quickly, and the Cossack lifestyle glorified raids and looting.

    (from wiki for brevity but all well attested)

    In some cases, like that of the legendary Chmielnicki, enslaving them was counterproductive as they returned later with full knowledge of the wealth of the area and the lie of the land.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    This is true - I was mostly talking about Western Europe where much of the Thirty Years War conflict took place. The Cossacks were the Christian answer to the Crimean Tatars - both being extraordinarily gifted and audacious raiders. They were used as mercenary shock troops by various Christian powers during the Thirty Years War:
    https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/slavic-review/article/div-classtitlethe-cossacks-in-the-thirty-years-war-volume-i-1619-1624-by-gajecky-george-and-baran-alexander-series-ii-analecta-osbm-section-i-vol-24-rome-basiliani-1969-140-pp-maps-300-paper-the-cossacks-in-the-thirty-years-war-volume-ii-1625-1648-by-gajecky-george-and-baran-alexander-series-ii-analecta-osbm-section-i-vol-24-rome-basiliana-1983-124-pp-maps-500-2-vols-paperdiv/6DAD744AB43678983767C44D25CDB2AC

    Peace.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. Ron Unz says:
    @Talha
    Hi Mikel,

    you should probably admit that members of IS, Al-Qaeda et al have a point in their interpretation of the Koran.
     
    Why - when even the scholars that were working with them abandoned them when they switched over to targeting civilians:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzUafFkd-EM

    Shaykh Azzam was actually a traditionally trained scholar - all he wanted to do was things like kick out Soviets from Afghanistan and fight the Israelis support Bosnians in the civil war - Bin Laden went rogue:
    "Bin Laden founded al Qaeda and was intent on creating a worldwide jihad. Abdullah Azzam thought his former protege had come under the influence of a group of extremist Egyptian militants -- who were taking jihad in the wrong direction, resorting to terrorism and killing innocent civilians...But the jihad in Iraq hasn't gone according to the Azzam plan. Huthaifa points to his father's will and says that kidnapping journalists, beheading contractors and killing civilians is not what his father envisioned."
    http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/03/23/schuster.column/index.html

    Me saying they have a valid interpretation is like me saying; yeah well the Khawarij take on the Qur'an was equivalent to that of Ibn Abbas (ra) and Ali bin Abi Talib (ra).


    don’t leave that much room for nuanced interpretations
     
    Then why did the earliest scholars and the Companions (ra) themselves not interpret these as black and white - even extending dhimmi status to Zoroastrians and others? Did you know in Arabic rhetoric, it is completely valid to use a phrase like "the people" to mean; 1) all people, 2) some people and 3) one person? What are the hadith that pertain to the matter? What was the consensus action taken by the Companions (ra) on the matter? All of these count - this is not a boy scout religion especially when it comes to jurisprudence. If you want to read a good exchange to see how ridiculous those who think they can just dive into these source texts and interpret rules without having learned the requisite disciplines, then I suggest this:
    http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/buti.htm

    As far as 3:56 - look, God owns the world - if He wants to punish people for not believing in Him in the next life, that's His prerogative. If one doesn't like the "power dynamic" in this relationship, they can take it up with Him when they see Him.


    “modern” mindset
     
    Nothing about what I am bringing is "modern". All the books I am referencing go back to the 11th and even as far back as the 8th centuries. The extremists are the (post)modernists - one can say they have made a massive "Protestant" error. With their assumptions that any joe-shmoe-abdullah can pick up these books and start giving fatwa. The pre-modern Muslim world had a better sense of the sacred and more humility when approaching it.

    Listen to Prof. David (an expert on extremist Muslim movements - http://report.rice.edu/sir/faculty.detail?p=87249205481D6D72) for about 5 minutes:
    “So, you have within you a strong tendency – this strong ahistorical tendency to pretend that history just simply didn’t exist, if you’re a Salafi, if you’re a radical. Because you have to…because then you can begin to ignore the huge mass of Shariah that you have to deal with…Who has the authority? For the traditional Muslim, it has to be the ulema – it has to be the religious hierarchy. But, uniformally, this group is hostile to radicalism. As a matter of fact, to me – to my eyes, the most obvious way to innocculate a Muslim from radicalism is actually just to put them in a religious school and make them learn the traditional way. Because, in actuality, that forces you into a world – a conceptual world – that is quite, quite distant from radicalism and doesn’t allow you to actually go into it very well.”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VQ9AvJB_k4&t=38m40s

    Peace.

    Well, I’m very busy with my own work and almost never involve myself in comment-threads, but I happened to notice this very lengthy one. I’m absolutely no expert on Islam, but Tahla seems quite knowledgeable and his arguments very persuasive, certainly compared with the ignorant propaganda endlessly spewed forth at NR or FoxNews.

    Traditional Islam does seem a religion heavily specified and controlled by its leading clerical scholars, so if groups completely violate their rulings, it may be reasonable to casually label them “Muslim extremists” as a short-hand, but only in the cultural/ethnic rather than in the religious sense of that term.

    Here’s what might be a rough analogy. As everyone knows, there were decades of fighting and terrorism in Northern Ireland between the Catholics and the Protestants, though the struggle was really more ethnic-nationalist than religious, and as far as I know, the militants on both sides were substantially secular or even agnostic. Indeed, I think the IRA was mostly run by atheistic leftists.

    Now traditional Catholicism is a highly hierarchical religion, and Catholics are supposed to do exactly what the Pope tells them. But I’m pretty sure that even if the Pope had told the IRA to immediately halt all its activities, the militants wouldn’t have paid the slightest attention to his words and probably would have ridiculed him, at least in private.

    So while it’s perfectly reasonable as a short-hand to characterize the IRA as an “Irish Catholic terrorist organization” it’s not reasonable to claim that their actions had any real connection to the Catholic religion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    The juxtaposition of topics reminds me of an old joke:

    A man is walking through Belfast late one night when he is pulled into an alleyway.

    A gun is held to his head and he is asked: "Are you Protestant or Catholic?"

    Thinking quickly, he says "Jewish!"

    The other man chuckles and says: "Well, would you believe it? And aren't I the luckiest Palestinian in the IRA ..."

    , @Talha
    Mr. Unz,

    Thanks for the kind words and for hosting an excellent (and unique) website!

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. KA says:
    @MarkinLA
    If so why do they cut deals ,make deals , and sometimes decide to get revitalized and refreshed by the Christian masters?

    Why did Washington avoid major decisive battles with the British? He knew the correct war strategy was to keep the army alive until the British got tired of the place.

    The jihadis are fighting the long war and are using whatever they can to keep the struggle going. Lies, deceit, secret sources of money from the Muslim elite, help from stupid Americans, take help anywhere you can get it.

    The US didn't invent the jihadis, they were always there. We just gave them the ability to grow. We were fighting the jihadis long before this in the Philippines.

    All I know about Phillipines that I need to know about American provocation to Jihadism is this- Muslims have been there in the south Phillinonescfor few generations and America is few thousands miles away ( how about some Jihafi coming and trying to open up some kind of market in southern America and then claim suzerainty )
    .
    America asked Turkey not to proclaim any support to Muslim resistance in Phillines against America on the promise of delivering to Moslem of philipnes AKA jihadist independence and a better deal than being offered by Spain
    .America also promised diplomatic support to Turkish endeavor

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    I am not saying that Muslim don't have some legitimate reason for what they are doing. All I am saying is that Islam is not compatible with western civilization and should not be allowed in western countries. I also agree that we should stay out of Muslim lands. I don't buy the "religion of peace" crap. All this garbage about what is and what isn't Islam is irrelevant compared to the fact that there are million of Muslims all over the world who support in some way the idea of jihad. Many of those people have also read the Koran and have come to their own conclusions about what it means and this is the most important thing. Religious texts are not scientific documents subject to falsification by experimentation to determine the truth. They are exactly the same as any other political statement - where up is down if you come up with the right argument.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. Mikel says:
    @Talha
    Hi Mikel,

    you should probably admit that members of IS, Al-Qaeda et al have a point in their interpretation of the Koran.
     
    Why - when even the scholars that were working with them abandoned them when they switched over to targeting civilians:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzUafFkd-EM

    Shaykh Azzam was actually a traditionally trained scholar - all he wanted to do was things like kick out Soviets from Afghanistan and fight the Israelis support Bosnians in the civil war - Bin Laden went rogue:
    "Bin Laden founded al Qaeda and was intent on creating a worldwide jihad. Abdullah Azzam thought his former protege had come under the influence of a group of extremist Egyptian militants -- who were taking jihad in the wrong direction, resorting to terrorism and killing innocent civilians...But the jihad in Iraq hasn't gone according to the Azzam plan. Huthaifa points to his father's will and says that kidnapping journalists, beheading contractors and killing civilians is not what his father envisioned."
    http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/03/23/schuster.column/index.html

    Me saying they have a valid interpretation is like me saying; yeah well the Khawarij take on the Qur'an was equivalent to that of Ibn Abbas (ra) and Ali bin Abi Talib (ra).


    don’t leave that much room for nuanced interpretations
     
    Then why did the earliest scholars and the Companions (ra) themselves not interpret these as black and white - even extending dhimmi status to Zoroastrians and others? Did you know in Arabic rhetoric, it is completely valid to use a phrase like "the people" to mean; 1) all people, 2) some people and 3) one person? What are the hadith that pertain to the matter? What was the consensus action taken by the Companions (ra) on the matter? All of these count - this is not a boy scout religion especially when it comes to jurisprudence. If you want to read a good exchange to see how ridiculous those who think they can just dive into these source texts and interpret rules without having learned the requisite disciplines, then I suggest this:
    http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/buti.htm

    As far as 3:56 - look, God owns the world - if He wants to punish people for not believing in Him in the next life, that's His prerogative. If one doesn't like the "power dynamic" in this relationship, they can take it up with Him when they see Him.


    “modern” mindset
     
    Nothing about what I am bringing is "modern". All the books I am referencing go back to the 11th and even as far back as the 8th centuries. The extremists are the (post)modernists - one can say they have made a massive "Protestant" error. With their assumptions that any joe-shmoe-abdullah can pick up these books and start giving fatwa. The pre-modern Muslim world had a better sense of the sacred and more humility when approaching it.

    Listen to Prof. David (an expert on extremist Muslim movements - http://report.rice.edu/sir/faculty.detail?p=87249205481D6D72) for about 5 minutes:
    “So, you have within you a strong tendency – this strong ahistorical tendency to pretend that history just simply didn’t exist, if you’re a Salafi, if you’re a radical. Because you have to…because then you can begin to ignore the huge mass of Shariah that you have to deal with…Who has the authority? For the traditional Muslim, it has to be the ulema – it has to be the religious hierarchy. But, uniformally, this group is hostile to radicalism. As a matter of fact, to me – to my eyes, the most obvious way to innocculate a Muslim from radicalism is actually just to put them in a religious school and make them learn the traditional way. Because, in actuality, that forces you into a world – a conceptual world – that is quite, quite distant from radicalism and doesn’t allow you to actually go into it very well.”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VQ9AvJB_k4&t=38m40s

    Peace.

    I appreciate your lengthy reply but essentially, what you are telling me is that someone reading the Bible should not hasten to conclude that Abraham actually killed his son on God’s orders or that Jesus did not really walk over the waters of a lake… it’s only up to “scholars” to decide on the “real” meaning of what’s written in the sacred texts.

    Sorry, not very convincing.

    Best regards,
    Mikel

    PS- Yes, the Koran does get terrifying when it comes to the horrors of the afterlife awaiting the non-believers. Do you have any non-believing relative? If so, how do you feel about their cruel fate? Perhaps they’d like to believe but are simply unable to do so.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey Mikel,

    what you are telling me is that someone reading the Bible
     
    I take no responsibility for explaining how other people should deal with their religious texts - that's up to them. I'm talking about my tradition from the perspective of someone having studied it (part-time) for over 10 years under three qualified muftis from the Hanafi school.

    it’s only up to “scholars” to decide on the “real” meaning of what’s written in the sacred texts
     
    Correct - the opposite of that is that any ignoramus can decide on the real meaning of what's written in the sacred texts - and take action on it. Do you understand how dangerous that is?

    Let me ask you this...

    Would any other ethical or legal framework that takes itself seriously accept this? Would any society accept that a truck driver or a wrestler that bought “Constitution for Dummies” should have a say in how the Constitution is interpreted? Can anyone peruse through a few books of judicial cases and start running a court out of his garage? If others want this kind of Wild-West system running their religion and societies, that's fine - we will stick to our tradition. We can already see the awesomeness of letting twenty year olds with guns running around declaring what is halal and haram and who is Muslim and who is not.

    In essence, what we are seeing is encpsulated in this hadith:
    "Allah does not take away the knowledge, by taking it away from the people, but takes it away by the death of the religious learned men till when none of them remains, people will take as their leaders ignorant persons who when consulted will give their verdict without knowledge. So they will go astray and will lead the people astray." - reported in Bukhari

    The question that Muslims (especially the extremists) need to ask themselves is - have we had enough? Are enough of our cities destroyed and children killed that we recognize we have to return back to the guidance of the scholars in these matters? Or do our egos want to keep going until this madness has consumed all of us?


    Do you have any non-believing relative?
     
    My in-laws, yes.

    If so, how do you feel about their cruel fate?
     
    I hope and pray it doesn't happen, but it's their life and their choice after all - I can't believe on behalf of somebody. Their fate is in the choices they make.

    "'If You punish them - indeed they are Your servants; but if You forgive them - indeed it is You Who is the Exalted in Might, the Wise.'" (5:118)


    Perhaps they’d like to believe but are simply unable to do so.
     
    If they are truly unable to do so - then they have no choice in the matter and thus won't be judged on it. Which is why an insane person or a child that dies is not held to account for what they did in life.

    But if you do not believe this; what does it matter to you that a fictitious god burns a fictitious soul in a fictitious hell? I don't get bothered if I come across some native islander that says; bro, you better sacrifice your kid into that volcano otherwise when you die demonic midgets will force feed you moldy cheese forever. Just laugh it off and move on. If it is real though, then...well, it's all Pascal's wager...do you feel lucky?

    Peace.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. Talha says:
    @Anon


    Christians could have galloped to Turkey to slice and dice some Ottoman Turks.

     

    Yeah but you’re chalking it up to Christian zealots caring for the sanctity of Muslim life. It could have just easily been because they knew any raiding party would have been dealt with extreme prejudice. Ottomans were at their prime. Once half your men are lying bleeding and screaming out your last breaths on some battle plain and the rest are being hauled off in chains as slaves – the thought “bad idea” comes fully into mind.
     
    The Cossacks actually did this, but not for religious motives as far as I can tell:


    By 1615 and 1625, Cossacks had managed to raze townships on the outskirts of Constantinople, forcing the Ottoman Sultan Murad IV to flee his palace.[4] His nephew, Sultan Mehmed IV, fared little better as the recipient of the legendary Reply of the Zaporozhian Cossacks, a ribald response to Mehmed's insistence that the Cossacks submit to his authority.[citation needed] Consecutive treaties between Ottoman Empire and the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth called for both parties to keep the Cossacks and Tatars in check, but enforcement was almost non-existent on both sides. In internal agreements, forced by the Poles, the Cossacks agreed to burn their boats and stop raiding. However, boats could be rebuilt quickly, and the Cossack lifestyle glorified raids and looting.
     
    (from wiki for brevity but all well attested)

    In some cases, like that of the legendary Chmielnicki, enslaving them was counterproductive as they returned later with full knowledge of the wealth of the area and the lie of the land.

    This is true – I was mostly talking about Western Europe where much of the Thirty Years War conflict took place. The Cossacks were the Christian answer to the Crimean Tatars – both being extraordinarily gifted and audacious raiders. They were used as mercenary shock troops by various Christian powers during the Thirty Years War:

    https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/slavic-review/article/div-classtitlethe-cossacks-in-the-thirty-years-war-volume-i-1619-1624-by-gajecky-george-and-baran-alexander-series-ii-analecta-osbm-section-i-vol-24-rome-basiliani-1969-140-pp-maps-300-paper-the-cossacks-in-the-thirty-years-war-volume-ii-1625-1648-by-gajecky-george-and-baran-alexander-series-ii-analecta-osbm-section-i-vol-24-rome-basiliana-1983-124-pp-maps-500-2-vols-paperdiv/6DAD744AB43678983767C44D25CDB2AC

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Ron Unz
    Well, I'm very busy with my own work and almost never involve myself in comment-threads, but I happened to notice this very lengthy one. I'm absolutely no expert on Islam, but Tahla seems quite knowledgeable and his arguments very persuasive, certainly compared with the ignorant propaganda endlessly spewed forth at NR or FoxNews.

    Traditional Islam does seem a religion heavily specified and controlled by its leading clerical scholars, so if groups completely violate their rulings, it may be reasonable to casually label them "Muslim extremists" as a short-hand, but only in the cultural/ethnic rather than in the religious sense of that term.

    Here's what might be a rough analogy. As everyone knows, there were decades of fighting and terrorism in Northern Ireland between the Catholics and the Protestants, though the struggle was really more ethnic-nationalist than religious, and as far as I know, the militants on both sides were substantially secular or even agnostic. Indeed, I think the IRA was mostly run by atheistic leftists.

    Now traditional Catholicism is a highly hierarchical religion, and Catholics are supposed to do exactly what the Pope tells them. But I'm pretty sure that even if the Pope had told the IRA to immediately halt all its activities, the militants wouldn't have paid the slightest attention to his words and probably would have ridiculed him, at least in private.

    So while it's perfectly reasonable as a short-hand to characterize the IRA as an "Irish Catholic terrorist organization" it's not reasonable to claim that their actions had any real connection to the Catholic religion.

    The juxtaposition of topics reminds me of an old joke:

    A man is walking through Belfast late one night when he is pulled into an alleyway.

    A gun is held to his head and he is asked: “Are you Protestant or Catholic?”

    Thinking quickly, he says “Jewish!”

    The other man chuckles and says: “Well, would you believe it? And aren’t I the luckiest Palestinian in the IRA …”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz

    A man is walking through Belfast late one night when he is pulled into an alleyway.

    A gun is held to his head and he is asked: “Are you Protestant or Catholic?”

    Thinking quickly, he says “Jewish!”
     
    Actually, the version I'd heard had a slightly different punch-line:

    "Okay. But are you a "Protestant Jew" or a "Catholic Jew"?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. Ron Unz says:
    @Anon
    The juxtaposition of topics reminds me of an old joke:

    A man is walking through Belfast late one night when he is pulled into an alleyway.

    A gun is held to his head and he is asked: "Are you Protestant or Catholic?"

    Thinking quickly, he says "Jewish!"

    The other man chuckles and says: "Well, would you believe it? And aren't I the luckiest Palestinian in the IRA ..."

    A man is walking through Belfast late one night when he is pulled into an alleyway.

    A gun is held to his head and he is asked: “Are you Protestant or Catholic?”

    Thinking quickly, he says “Jewish!”

    Actually, the version I’d heard had a slightly different punch-line:

    “Okay. But are you a “Protestant Jew” or a “Catholic Jew”?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. TWS says:
    @Talha
    Hey TWS,

    Actually there are slaves out in remote areas of Saudi and Mauritania to this day. It's illegal in those countries, but out in the boondocks they are managing to evade the authorities. It's a bit like sexual slavery that goes on in Europe and Asia - it's not legal, but some people do it anyway.

    You betrayed your motives when you downplayed the violence, brutality and deceit.
     
    If you say so.

    You know that your system condones, not did condone but condones slavery, oppression, and undermining societies that are not Islamic.
     
    No - I know all of our top scholars and institutions have agreed that slavery is prohibited. And all Muslim nations are signatories to international protocols prohibiting slavery; those are facts. However, I have definitely read that some scholars have stated that Muslims are bound by these agreements as long as the other side also holds to them. If non-Muslims break with those and go back to enslaving Muslims, Muslims have a right to go back to enslaving them - this seems like a very reasonable position. I suggest we keep these protocols in place and working.

    Our system doesn't condone oppression - unless you consider that non-Muslims in Muslim countries aren't allowed to preach to Muslims or blaspheme or marry Muslim women, etc. Then you can consider that oppression, we don't.

    And all traditional scholars agree that we aren't allowed to harm non-Muslims in their lands when residing here under a covenant of protection (which is what residence status or citizenship is). We cannot steal, kill, etc. If you want to know the legal underpinnings, you can read this:
    http://www.warda.info/fatwa.pdf

    If some Muslims are behaving badly (stealing, raping, killing, etc.), the solution is simple; punish harshly, rinse, repeat...

    If you consider spreading Islam peacefully to be undermining society, then advocate the formulation and passing of laws prohibiting preaching Islam in Western countries. It would be hypocritical of Muslims to complain because we bar that in Muslim lands. But, until then - we gonna do our thang!

    No, the culture sees the terrorists as martyrs and the victims as justified targets.
     
    Your opinion based on what? The Saudi soccer team, really? OK, that's fine, our scholars will continue to denounce these vile crimes. We're not interested in begging people like you to believe us.

    Actions speak louder than words.
     
    Indeed - which is why thousands of Muslims have died fighting people like Daesh. You know those boots on the ground trying to take Mosul and Raqqa from the Salafi-Wahhabi extremists? They turn to the qiblah when the prayer time comes.
    https://www.google.com/search?q=peshmerga+praying&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjKxoqc4q7UAhVJwGMKHfsZD80Q_AUICigB&biw=1344&bih=774

    Peace.

    Your lies are smooth. Like arsenic in amaretto they have a bitter aftertaste. You’d have a point if I, me, this person sitting here didn’t remember the slavery in the Islamic world. If it wasn’t legal and only stopped after international pressure.

    But it wasn’t and you don’t all you have are your smooth bitter almond lies.

    You don’t consider it oppression when you do not allow people who have lived in the area hundreds of years before your death cult are murdered for worshiping God.

    Fine, you have your customs and we have ours. Pray we continue to allow you to follow yours in your own land and the West doesn’t find the stomach to send your kind back to wherever they came from.

    Because when you say ‘peace’ I know what you mean. The peace of submission or the peace of the grave. That’s all your kind knows towards non-Muslims.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey TWS,

    Your lies are smooth.
     
    Yeah - we taqiyyah hard around here bro! Or am I lying about that? Hmmm...

    If it wasn’t legal and only stopped after international pressure.
     
    Nonsense - if you don't know about the native movements within the Muslim world to get rid of slavery - that's not my problem. There was international pressure from Britain for sure in India and even on the Ottomans, but Tunisia got rid of it first and wasn't even under direct Ottoman control. You don't know about the Futa Toro Sultanate - that's fine.

    If you want to read more, see this:
    http://www.unz.com/pgottfried/real-islam-and-democracy/?highlight=tunisia#comment-1716632

    And because you're so gung-ho anti-slavery - straight-up John Brown - I suppose you are out in those rallies in the South getting rid of the statues of those nasty old slave-owners like General Lee and stuff too. And Harriet Tubman's going to replace Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill - I'm sure you can't wait to get those bad boys into your wallet:
    https://modernmoney.treasury.gov/new-notes

    are murdered for worshiping God.
     
    Actually, that is oppression - Muslims have no right to willy-nilly off people for worshiping a different god(s).

    to send your kind back to wherever they came from.
     
    Bro - I know you think the Muslim world is an outhouse, but it isn't. I'm fine with leaving - I'm not begging; please massa' don't send dis po' house nigga' away!!

    If the people of the US decide as a whole, they want Muslims gone - no problem, send me the official federal notice in the mail that my citizenship has been revoked and I have to leave. But I wonder what kind of government you'd be living under then; one that can strip non-criminal citizens of their basic rights and boot them out. Something tells me the Muslims might be the lucky ones in that situation.

    That’s all your kind knows towards non-Muslims.
     
    I get along great with my non-Muslim neighbors and co-workers (we shovel each others' driveways during winter). You gotta ease up on whatever you got boiling in you man - that ain't good for you bro.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sONfxPCTU0

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. Talha says:
    @Mikel
    I appreciate your lengthy reply but essentially, what you are telling me is that someone reading the Bible should not hasten to conclude that Abraham actually killed his son on God's orders or that Jesus did not really walk over the waters of a lake... it's only up to "scholars" to decide on the "real" meaning of what's written in the sacred texts.

    Sorry, not very convincing.

    Best regards,
    Mikel

    PS- Yes, the Koran does get terrifying when it comes to the horrors of the afterlife awaiting the non-believers. Do you have any non-believing relative? If so, how do you feel about their cruel fate? Perhaps they'd like to believe but are simply unable to do so.

    Hey Mikel,

    what you are telling me is that someone reading the Bible

    I take no responsibility for explaining how other people should deal with their religious texts – that’s up to them. I’m talking about my tradition from the perspective of someone having studied it (part-time) for over 10 years under three qualified muftis from the Hanafi school.

    it’s only up to “scholars” to decide on the “real” meaning of what’s written in the sacred texts

    Correct – the opposite of that is that any ignoramus can decide on the real meaning of what’s written in the sacred texts – and take action on it. Do you understand how dangerous that is?

    Let me ask you this…

    Would any other ethical or legal framework that takes itself seriously accept this? Would any society accept that a truck driver or a wrestler that bought “Constitution for Dummies” should have a say in how the Constitution is interpreted? Can anyone peruse through a few books of judicial cases and start running a court out of his garage? If others want this kind of Wild-West system running their religion and societies, that’s fine – we will stick to our tradition. We can already see the awesomeness of letting twenty year olds with guns running around declaring what is halal and haram and who is Muslim and who is not.

    In essence, what we are seeing is encpsulated in this hadith:
    “Allah does not take away the knowledge, by taking it away from the people, but takes it away by the death of the religious learned men till when none of them remains, people will take as their leaders ignorant persons who when consulted will give their verdict without knowledge. So they will go astray and will lead the people astray.” – reported in Bukhari

    The question that Muslims (especially the extremists) need to ask themselves is – have we had enough? Are enough of our cities destroyed and children killed that we recognize we have to return back to the guidance of the scholars in these matters? Or do our egos want to keep going until this madness has consumed all of us?

    Do you have any non-believing relative?

    My in-laws, yes.

    If so, how do you feel about their cruel fate?

    I hope and pray it doesn’t happen, but it’s their life and their choice after all – I can’t believe on behalf of somebody. Their fate is in the choices they make.

    “‘If You punish them – indeed they are Your servants; but if You forgive them – indeed it is You Who is the Exalted in Might, the Wise.’” (5:118)

    Perhaps they’d like to believe but are simply unable to do so.

    If they are truly unable to do so – then they have no choice in the matter and thus won’t be judged on it. Which is why an insane person or a child that dies is not held to account for what they did in life.

    But if you do not believe this; what does it matter to you that a fictitious god burns a fictitious soul in a fictitious hell? I don’t get bothered if I come across some native islander that says; bro, you better sacrifice your kid into that volcano otherwise when you die demonic midgets will force feed you moldy cheese forever. Just laugh it off and move on. If it is real though, then…well, it’s all Pascal’s wager…do you feel lucky?

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mikel
    So, if it weren't for the scholars that you trust, you would not dare to have a firm opinion on the matter of Allah being the only God, clear as it seems to be written in the Koran, right?

    BTW, I wasn't saying that the extremists' interpretation of some verses of the Koran is the only possible one. I just suggested that you concede that they have a point if we choose to take them literally.

    As for your example of the islander believing in a religion that demands human sacrifices, I actually find it isomorphic to the case of those who follow a 6th century cult that condemns the non-believers to an endless afterlife of painful torment. It's not their religions that I worry about. It's them. How can they believe in Gods that promote such cruel things for fellow human beings and how does that affect their ability to empathize?

    IOW, if you believe that your God will make a pagan like me suffer an endless agony after I die and are OK with that, I'm not sure if I should trust your wishing me well right now.

    Best regards,
    Mikel
    , @MarkinLA
    Would any society accept that a truck driver or a wrestler that bought “Constitution for Dummies” should have a say in how the Constitution is interpreted?

    We sort of do, they get a vote. Besides it might be an improvement over our Appeals and Supreme Court judges. One of the best Byron White was considered pretty good and he didn't have a law degree.


    Can anyone peruse through a few books of judicial cases and start running a court out of his garage?


    Does anybody think this wouldn't be an improvement?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. Talha says:
    @Ron Unz
    Well, I'm very busy with my own work and almost never involve myself in comment-threads, but I happened to notice this very lengthy one. I'm absolutely no expert on Islam, but Tahla seems quite knowledgeable and his arguments very persuasive, certainly compared with the ignorant propaganda endlessly spewed forth at NR or FoxNews.

    Traditional Islam does seem a religion heavily specified and controlled by its leading clerical scholars, so if groups completely violate their rulings, it may be reasonable to casually label them "Muslim extremists" as a short-hand, but only in the cultural/ethnic rather than in the religious sense of that term.

    Here's what might be a rough analogy. As everyone knows, there were decades of fighting and terrorism in Northern Ireland between the Catholics and the Protestants, though the struggle was really more ethnic-nationalist than religious, and as far as I know, the militants on both sides were substantially secular or even agnostic. Indeed, I think the IRA was mostly run by atheistic leftists.

    Now traditional Catholicism is a highly hierarchical religion, and Catholics are supposed to do exactly what the Pope tells them. But I'm pretty sure that even if the Pope had told the IRA to immediately halt all its activities, the militants wouldn't have paid the slightest attention to his words and probably would have ridiculed him, at least in private.

    So while it's perfectly reasonable as a short-hand to characterize the IRA as an "Irish Catholic terrorist organization" it's not reasonable to claim that their actions had any real connection to the Catholic religion.

    Mr. Unz,

    Thanks for the kind words and for hosting an excellent (and unique) website!

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. Talha says:
    @TWS
    Your lies are smooth. Like arsenic in amaretto they have a bitter aftertaste. You'd have a point if I, me, this person sitting here didn't remember the slavery in the Islamic world. If it wasn't legal and only stopped after international pressure.

    But it wasn't and you don't all you have are your smooth bitter almond lies.

    You don't consider it oppression when you do not allow people who have lived in the area hundreds of years before your death cult are murdered for worshiping God.

    Fine, you have your customs and we have ours. Pray we continue to allow you to follow yours in your own land and the West doesn't find the stomach to send your kind back to wherever they came from.

    Because when you say 'peace' I know what you mean. The peace of submission or the peace of the grave. That's all your kind knows towards non-Muslims.

    Hey TWS,

    Your lies are smooth.

    Yeah – we taqiyyah hard around here bro! Or am I lying about that? Hmmm…

    If it wasn’t legal and only stopped after international pressure.

    Nonsense – if you don’t know about the native movements within the Muslim world to get rid of slavery – that’s not my problem. There was international pressure from Britain for sure in India and even on the Ottomans, but Tunisia got rid of it first and wasn’t even under direct Ottoman control. You don’t know about the Futa Toro Sultanate – that’s fine.

    If you want to read more, see this:

    http://www.unz.com/pgottfried/real-islam-and-democracy/?highlight=tunisia#comment-1716632

    And because you’re so gung-ho anti-slavery – straight-up John Brown – I suppose you are out in those rallies in the South getting rid of the statues of those nasty old slave-owners like General Lee and stuff too. And Harriet Tubman’s going to replace Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill – I’m sure you can’t wait to get those bad boys into your wallet:

    https://modernmoney.treasury.gov/new-notes

    are murdered for worshiping God.

    Actually, that is oppression – Muslims have no right to willy-nilly off people for worshiping a different god(s).

    to send your kind back to wherever they came from.

    Bro – I know you think the Muslim world is an outhouse, but it isn’t. I’m fine with leaving – I’m not begging; please massa’ don’t send dis po’ house nigga’ away!!

    If the people of the US decide as a whole, they want Muslims gone – no problem, send me the official federal notice in the mail that my citizenship has been revoked and I have to leave. But I wonder what kind of government you’d be living under then; one that can strip non-criminal citizens of their basic rights and boot them out. Something tells me the Muslims might be the lucky ones in that situation.

    That’s all your kind knows towards non-Muslims.

    I get along great with my non-Muslim neighbors and co-workers (we shovel each others’ driveways during winter). You gotta ease up on whatever you got boiling in you man – that ain’t good for you bro.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    Tunisia got rid of it first
     
    One may wonder why there were practically no white slaves in the Regency, which had previously been been a hotspot of piracy. In fact this was because Christian slavery had been stopped by the British under Lord Exmouth (and see 2, 3, and my favorite and most informative, 4). It is not at least beyond the realm of possibility that the local Muslims would be somewhat annoyed that Muslims but not Christians could be kept as slaves. I feel bound to include a little more information on the topic for those who may be unfamiliar with the region, for I was your interlocutor in the original instance.

    Ahmed Bey's action (taken in consultation with Thomas Reade of the Anti-Slavery Society-- thank God they didn't do acronyms then) was nevertheless praiseworthy, of course. Wiki says that he himself was the child of a slave mother, which shines some light on his motivations if true.

    I don't object to your phrasing in the other comment, but thought some clarification might be necessary coming from a different thread.

    My point about the Anabaptists --not going to copy/paste-- somewhere above was that they were pretty much the Christian IS of their day (unlike their plain Baptist descendants who are decent people). Tolerating them, like Muenster originally did, was not going to end well. But yes, tongs are going a little too far.

    EDIT


    6th century
     
    7th century, Mikel!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. Mikel says:
    @Talha
    Hey Mikel,

    what you are telling me is that someone reading the Bible
     
    I take no responsibility for explaining how other people should deal with their religious texts - that's up to them. I'm talking about my tradition from the perspective of someone having studied it (part-time) for over 10 years under three qualified muftis from the Hanafi school.

    it’s only up to “scholars” to decide on the “real” meaning of what’s written in the sacred texts
     
    Correct - the opposite of that is that any ignoramus can decide on the real meaning of what's written in the sacred texts - and take action on it. Do you understand how dangerous that is?

    Let me ask you this...

    Would any other ethical or legal framework that takes itself seriously accept this? Would any society accept that a truck driver or a wrestler that bought “Constitution for Dummies” should have a say in how the Constitution is interpreted? Can anyone peruse through a few books of judicial cases and start running a court out of his garage? If others want this kind of Wild-West system running their religion and societies, that's fine - we will stick to our tradition. We can already see the awesomeness of letting twenty year olds with guns running around declaring what is halal and haram and who is Muslim and who is not.

    In essence, what we are seeing is encpsulated in this hadith:
    "Allah does not take away the knowledge, by taking it away from the people, but takes it away by the death of the religious learned men till when none of them remains, people will take as their leaders ignorant persons who when consulted will give their verdict without knowledge. So they will go astray and will lead the people astray." - reported in Bukhari

    The question that Muslims (especially the extremists) need to ask themselves is - have we had enough? Are enough of our cities destroyed and children killed that we recognize we have to return back to the guidance of the scholars in these matters? Or do our egos want to keep going until this madness has consumed all of us?


    Do you have any non-believing relative?
     
    My in-laws, yes.

    If so, how do you feel about their cruel fate?
     
    I hope and pray it doesn't happen, but it's their life and their choice after all - I can't believe on behalf of somebody. Their fate is in the choices they make.

    "'If You punish them - indeed they are Your servants; but if You forgive them - indeed it is You Who is the Exalted in Might, the Wise.'" (5:118)


    Perhaps they’d like to believe but are simply unable to do so.
     
    If they are truly unable to do so - then they have no choice in the matter and thus won't be judged on it. Which is why an insane person or a child that dies is not held to account for what they did in life.

    But if you do not believe this; what does it matter to you that a fictitious god burns a fictitious soul in a fictitious hell? I don't get bothered if I come across some native islander that says; bro, you better sacrifice your kid into that volcano otherwise when you die demonic midgets will force feed you moldy cheese forever. Just laugh it off and move on. If it is real though, then...well, it's all Pascal's wager...do you feel lucky?

    Peace.

    So, if it weren’t for the scholars that you trust, you would not dare to have a firm opinion on the matter of Allah being the only God, clear as it seems to be written in the Koran, right?

    BTW, I wasn’t saying that the extremists’ interpretation of some verses of the Koran is the only possible one. I just suggested that you concede that they have a point if we choose to take them literally.

    As for your example of the islander believing in a religion that demands human sacrifices, I actually find it isomorphic to the case of those who follow a 6th century cult that condemns the non-believers to an endless afterlife of painful torment. It’s not their religions that I worry about. It’s them. How can they believe in Gods that promote such cruel things for fellow human beings and how does that affect their ability to empathize?

    IOW, if you believe that your God will make a pagan like me suffer an endless agony after I die and are OK with that, I’m not sure if I should trust your wishing me well right now.

    Best regards,
    Mikel

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hi Mikel,

    So, if it weren’t for the scholars that you trust, you would not dare to have a firm opinion on the matter of Allah being the only God, clear as it seems to be written in the Koran, right?
     
    Incorrect. There is no following (taqlid) in the matters of belief/creed (aqeedah) according to the vast majority of the scholarship. You can't say; I believe this because shaykh so-and-so or my parents believe it. You have to actually rationally believe it yourself - you must have belief in God, Day of Judgement, revealed books, prophets and messengers, etc.
    https://youtu.be/9N_C_cPC7jM?t=24s (excuse the random music in the background)

    Following (taqlid) is fine in praxis (fiqh/ahkam) because if everybody became a Muslim scholar to the necessary degree required to derive rulings - we would all starve.


    I actually find it isomorphic to the case of those who follow a 6th century cult that condemns the non-believers to an endless afterlife of painful torment.
     
    Incorrect - we don't condemn anybody to hell - we don't have that ability. God runs the universe - He condemns or saves as He pleases. We just tell you what has been revealed and handed down by us - it is a warning to those who reject and glad tidings to those who accept. If it makes you laugh, fine. If it makes you upset, fine. If it makes you scared, do something about it. This isn't about feelz bro - we can't change the nature of metaphysical reality to make people feel good - we don't have that right either. It is treacherous to not warn people about what lies after the grave in order to fit in or make them happy.

    IOW, if you believe that your God will make a pagan like me suffer an endless agony after I die and are OK with that, I’m not sure if I should trust your wishing me well right now.
     
    Irrelevant. Has nothing with me being OK with it or not - it's His world, not mine - He sets the rules. If He expects humans to fall in line will His expectations of behavior, that's His prerogative. Like I said, if you don't like the "power dynamic" in this relationship, take it up with Him when you meet Him - maybe He'll accept your line of reasoning. The same God Who says He reserves the right to punish pagans in Hell is the same One Who reserves the right to punish Muslims in Hell for oppressing them.
    "Beware of the supplication of the oppressed, even if he is an unbeliever, for there is no barrier between it and Allah." - reported in Musnad Ahmad

    Now that whole paradigm shifts if you believe in Him under His terms - He is very loving and forgiving of His servants:
    "Allah, Blessed and Exalted is He, says, ‘O son of Adam, as long as you call on Me, I shall forgive you of what you have done, and I will not mind. O son of Adam, even if your sins were to reach up to the clouds in the sky, and then you were to ask for My forgiveness, I would forgive you and I will not mind. O son of Adam, even if you were to come to Me with sins nearly as great as the earth, and then you were to meet Me after death, not worshipping anything besides Me, I would bring you forgiveness nearly as great as the earth.’” -reported in Tirmidhi

    My spiritual teachers have taught me to treat everyone with the dignity that is due to the children of Adam (pbuh) no matter who they are. But I can't do anything for them - their fate is up to them to decide. You get one chance at this - figure out what makes coherent sense to oneself and roll with it.

    Peace.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. MarkinLA says:
    @KA
    All I know about Phillipines that I need to know about American provocation to Jihadism is this- Muslims have been there in the south Phillinonescfor few generations and America is few thousands miles away ( how about some Jihafi coming and trying to open up some kind of market in southern America and then claim suzerainty )
    .
    America asked Turkey not to proclaim any support to Muslim resistance in Phillines against America on the promise of delivering to Moslem of philipnes AKA jihadist independence and a better deal than being offered by Spain
    .America also promised diplomatic support to Turkish endeavor

    I am not saying that Muslim don’t have some legitimate reason for what they are doing. All I am saying is that Islam is not compatible with western civilization and should not be allowed in western countries. I also agree that we should stay out of Muslim lands. I don’t buy the “religion of peace” crap. All this garbage about what is and what isn’t Islam is irrelevant compared to the fact that there are million of Muslims all over the world who support in some way the idea of jihad. Many of those people have also read the Koran and have come to their own conclusions about what it means and this is the most important thing. Religious texts are not scientific documents subject to falsification by experimentation to determine the truth. They are exactly the same as any other political statement – where up is down if you come up with the right argument.

    Read More
    • Replies: @KA
    And I am not ready to accept the crap that Islam is not compatible or Muslim can't be allowed here in western countries .
    Again that crap has to get out of your mind .Dont care what you think about Islam or Muslim
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. MarkinLA says:
    @Talha
    Hey Mikel,

    what you are telling me is that someone reading the Bible
     
    I take no responsibility for explaining how other people should deal with their religious texts - that's up to them. I'm talking about my tradition from the perspective of someone having studied it (part-time) for over 10 years under three qualified muftis from the Hanafi school.

    it’s only up to “scholars” to decide on the “real” meaning of what’s written in the sacred texts
     
    Correct - the opposite of that is that any ignoramus can decide on the real meaning of what's written in the sacred texts - and take action on it. Do you understand how dangerous that is?

    Let me ask you this...

    Would any other ethical or legal framework that takes itself seriously accept this? Would any society accept that a truck driver or a wrestler that bought “Constitution for Dummies” should have a say in how the Constitution is interpreted? Can anyone peruse through a few books of judicial cases and start running a court out of his garage? If others want this kind of Wild-West system running their religion and societies, that's fine - we will stick to our tradition. We can already see the awesomeness of letting twenty year olds with guns running around declaring what is halal and haram and who is Muslim and who is not.

    In essence, what we are seeing is encpsulated in this hadith:
    "Allah does not take away the knowledge, by taking it away from the people, but takes it away by the death of the religious learned men till when none of them remains, people will take as their leaders ignorant persons who when consulted will give their verdict without knowledge. So they will go astray and will lead the people astray." - reported in Bukhari

    The question that Muslims (especially the extremists) need to ask themselves is - have we had enough? Are enough of our cities destroyed and children killed that we recognize we have to return back to the guidance of the scholars in these matters? Or do our egos want to keep going until this madness has consumed all of us?


    Do you have any non-believing relative?
     
    My in-laws, yes.

    If so, how do you feel about their cruel fate?
     
    I hope and pray it doesn't happen, but it's their life and their choice after all - I can't believe on behalf of somebody. Their fate is in the choices they make.

    "'If You punish them - indeed they are Your servants; but if You forgive them - indeed it is You Who is the Exalted in Might, the Wise.'" (5:118)


    Perhaps they’d like to believe but are simply unable to do so.
     
    If they are truly unable to do so - then they have no choice in the matter and thus won't be judged on it. Which is why an insane person or a child that dies is not held to account for what they did in life.

    But if you do not believe this; what does it matter to you that a fictitious god burns a fictitious soul in a fictitious hell? I don't get bothered if I come across some native islander that says; bro, you better sacrifice your kid into that volcano otherwise when you die demonic midgets will force feed you moldy cheese forever. Just laugh it off and move on. If it is real though, then...well, it's all Pascal's wager...do you feel lucky?

    Peace.

    Would any society accept that a truck driver or a wrestler that bought “Constitution for Dummies” should have a say in how the Constitution is interpreted?

    We sort of do, they get a vote. Besides it might be an improvement over our Appeals and Supreme Court judges. One of the best Byron White was considered pretty good and he didn’t have a law degree.


    Can anyone peruse through a few books of judicial cases and start running a court out of his garage?

    Does anybody think this wouldn’t be an improvement?

    Read More
    • Replies: @MEexpert

    One of the best Byron White was considered pretty good and he didn’t have a law degree.
     
    Get your facts right. Justice Byron White received his law degree from the Yale University and practiced law for 15 years in Colorado.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. KA says:
    @MarkinLA
    I am not saying that Muslim don't have some legitimate reason for what they are doing. All I am saying is that Islam is not compatible with western civilization and should not be allowed in western countries. I also agree that we should stay out of Muslim lands. I don't buy the "religion of peace" crap. All this garbage about what is and what isn't Islam is irrelevant compared to the fact that there are million of Muslims all over the world who support in some way the idea of jihad. Many of those people have also read the Koran and have come to their own conclusions about what it means and this is the most important thing. Religious texts are not scientific documents subject to falsification by experimentation to determine the truth. They are exactly the same as any other political statement - where up is down if you come up with the right argument.

    And I am not ready to accept the crap that Islam is not compatible or Muslim can’t be allowed here in western countries .
    Again that crap has to get out of your mind .Dont care what you think about Islam or Muslim

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. Talha says:
    @Mikel
    So, if it weren't for the scholars that you trust, you would not dare to have a firm opinion on the matter of Allah being the only God, clear as it seems to be written in the Koran, right?

    BTW, I wasn't saying that the extremists' interpretation of some verses of the Koran is the only possible one. I just suggested that you concede that they have a point if we choose to take them literally.

    As for your example of the islander believing in a religion that demands human sacrifices, I actually find it isomorphic to the case of those who follow a 6th century cult that condemns the non-believers to an endless afterlife of painful torment. It's not their religions that I worry about. It's them. How can they believe in Gods that promote such cruel things for fellow human beings and how does that affect their ability to empathize?

    IOW, if you believe that your God will make a pagan like me suffer an endless agony after I die and are OK with that, I'm not sure if I should trust your wishing me well right now.

    Best regards,
    Mikel

    Hi Mikel,

    So, if it weren’t for the scholars that you trust, you would not dare to have a firm opinion on the matter of Allah being the only God, clear as it seems to be written in the Koran, right?

    Incorrect. There is no following (taqlid) in the matters of belief/creed (aqeedah) according to the vast majority of the scholarship. You can’t say; I believe this because shaykh so-and-so or my parents believe it. You have to actually rationally believe it yourself – you must have belief in God, Day of Judgement, revealed books, prophets and messengers, etc.
    (excuse the random music in the background)

    Following (taqlid) is fine in praxis (fiqh/ahkam) because if everybody became a Muslim scholar to the necessary degree required to derive rulings – we would all starve.

    I actually find it isomorphic to the case of those who follow a 6th century cult that condemns the non-believers to an endless afterlife of painful torment.

    Incorrect – we don’t condemn anybody to hell – we don’t have that ability. God runs the universe – He condemns or saves as He pleases. We just tell you what has been revealed and handed down by us – it is a warning to those who reject and glad tidings to those who accept. If it makes you laugh, fine. If it makes you upset, fine. If it makes you scared, do something about it. This isn’t about feelz bro – we can’t change the nature of metaphysical reality to make people feel good – we don’t have that right either. It is treacherous to not warn people about what lies after the grave in order to fit in or make them happy.

    IOW, if you believe that your God will make a pagan like me suffer an endless agony after I die and are OK with that, I’m not sure if I should trust your wishing me well right now.

    Irrelevant. Has nothing with me being OK with it or not – it’s His world, not mine – He sets the rules. If He expects humans to fall in line will His expectations of behavior, that’s His prerogative. Like I said, if you don’t like the “power dynamic” in this relationship, take it up with Him when you meet Him – maybe He’ll accept your line of reasoning. The same God Who says He reserves the right to punish pagans in Hell is the same One Who reserves the right to punish Muslims in Hell for oppressing them.
    “Beware of the supplication of the oppressed, even if he is an unbeliever, for there is no barrier between it and Allah.” – reported in Musnad Ahmad

    Now that whole paradigm shifts if you believe in Him under His terms – He is very loving and forgiving of His servants:
    “Allah, Blessed and Exalted is He, says, ‘O son of Adam, as long as you call on Me, I shall forgive you of what you have done, and I will not mind. O son of Adam, even if your sins were to reach up to the clouds in the sky, and then you were to ask for My forgiveness, I would forgive you and I will not mind. O son of Adam, even if you were to come to Me with sins nearly as great as the earth, and then you were to meet Me after death, not worshipping anything besides Me, I would bring you forgiveness nearly as great as the earth.’” -reported in Tirmidhi

    My spiritual teachers have taught me to treat everyone with the dignity that is due to the children of Adam (pbuh) no matter who they are. But I can’t do anything for them – their fate is up to them to decide. You get one chance at this – figure out what makes coherent sense to oneself and roll with it.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mikel
    Irrelevant. Has nothing with me being OK with it or not – it’s His world, not mine – He sets the rules.

    You see? That's scary. We are talking about someone who did nothing wrong to you (perhaps even a close relative) being punished with eternal torture and you don't consider it to be your issue. If your God so wishes, so be it, you'll support Him.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. Corvinus says:
    @Paul Yarbles
    I agree with most of what you say. One area of disagreement may be your view that the origin of immigrants does not matter. Granted, if when you say "utterly incapable" you are being literal, then I have to agree. However, if you believe that 100,000 Somali Muslims (for example) put into an American community will adopt American values as quickly or as deeply as 100,000 Englishmen, then I'll have to disagree. The inflow rates and origins are both important. If we want our culture to persist, then choosing a lot of Englishmen over a lot of Somalis is the way to go. Of course, if the numbers are minuscule, it doesn't matter so much either way.

    Also, regarding illegals. Targeting companies who employ them is good. We could also assure these illegal immigrants that they are breaking the law and they will never ever be rewarded for such a thing by granted them amnesty. Furthermore, they should be assured that any criminal infraction will lead to deportation. We must make it clear that they have NO RIGHT TO BE HERE.

    So I take it that you are on-board with our host's Citizenism program?

    “However, if you believe that 100,000 Somali Muslims (for example) put into an American community will adopt American values as quickly or as deeply as 100,000 Englishmen, then I’ll have to disagree.”

    We will agree to disagree. Nativists believed that the Irish and Germans, the Italians and Slavs, and the Assyrians and Vietnamese were able to adapt to American ways of life in a fastidious, meaningful way. They were proven other than being accurate.

    “The inflow rates and origins are both important. If we want our culture to persist, then choosing a lot of Englishmen over a lot of Somalis is the way to go.”

    Our culture has persisted when “foreign influences” have “infiltrated”. It is malleable that way.

    “So I take it that you are on-board with our host’s Citizenism program?”

    Not particularly.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. Mikel says:
    @Talha
    Hi Mikel,

    So, if it weren’t for the scholars that you trust, you would not dare to have a firm opinion on the matter of Allah being the only God, clear as it seems to be written in the Koran, right?
     
    Incorrect. There is no following (taqlid) in the matters of belief/creed (aqeedah) according to the vast majority of the scholarship. You can't say; I believe this because shaykh so-and-so or my parents believe it. You have to actually rationally believe it yourself - you must have belief in God, Day of Judgement, revealed books, prophets and messengers, etc.
    https://youtu.be/9N_C_cPC7jM?t=24s (excuse the random music in the background)

    Following (taqlid) is fine in praxis (fiqh/ahkam) because if everybody became a Muslim scholar to the necessary degree required to derive rulings - we would all starve.


    I actually find it isomorphic to the case of those who follow a 6th century cult that condemns the non-believers to an endless afterlife of painful torment.
     
    Incorrect - we don't condemn anybody to hell - we don't have that ability. God runs the universe - He condemns or saves as He pleases. We just tell you what has been revealed and handed down by us - it is a warning to those who reject and glad tidings to those who accept. If it makes you laugh, fine. If it makes you upset, fine. If it makes you scared, do something about it. This isn't about feelz bro - we can't change the nature of metaphysical reality to make people feel good - we don't have that right either. It is treacherous to not warn people about what lies after the grave in order to fit in or make them happy.

    IOW, if you believe that your God will make a pagan like me suffer an endless agony after I die and are OK with that, I’m not sure if I should trust your wishing me well right now.
     
    Irrelevant. Has nothing with me being OK with it or not - it's His world, not mine - He sets the rules. If He expects humans to fall in line will His expectations of behavior, that's His prerogative. Like I said, if you don't like the "power dynamic" in this relationship, take it up with Him when you meet Him - maybe He'll accept your line of reasoning. The same God Who says He reserves the right to punish pagans in Hell is the same One Who reserves the right to punish Muslims in Hell for oppressing them.
    "Beware of the supplication of the oppressed, even if he is an unbeliever, for there is no barrier between it and Allah." - reported in Musnad Ahmad

    Now that whole paradigm shifts if you believe in Him under His terms - He is very loving and forgiving of His servants:
    "Allah, Blessed and Exalted is He, says, ‘O son of Adam, as long as you call on Me, I shall forgive you of what you have done, and I will not mind. O son of Adam, even if your sins were to reach up to the clouds in the sky, and then you were to ask for My forgiveness, I would forgive you and I will not mind. O son of Adam, even if you were to come to Me with sins nearly as great as the earth, and then you were to meet Me after death, not worshipping anything besides Me, I would bring you forgiveness nearly as great as the earth.’” -reported in Tirmidhi

    My spiritual teachers have taught me to treat everyone with the dignity that is due to the children of Adam (pbuh) no matter who they are. But I can't do anything for them - their fate is up to them to decide. You get one chance at this - figure out what makes coherent sense to oneself and roll with it.

    Peace.

    Irrelevant. Has nothing with me being OK with it or not – it’s His world, not mine – He sets the rules.

    You see? That’s scary. We are talking about someone who did nothing wrong to you (perhaps even a close relative) being punished with eternal torture and you don’t consider it to be your issue. If your God so wishes, so be it, you’ll support Him.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ANon
    There are very many people in American prisons who have done absolutely nothing wrong to me. If one of them escapes, you can bet I'll call the cops, though...

    I don't really agree with Talha's position but I find this objection odd. Also, as a piece of pedantry, it should be "torment" not "torture".
    , @MEexpert
    Mikel: If you don't believe in God then this whole discussion is meaningless. Do you believe the Christian doctrine that Jesus died for our sins and that all Christians are forgiven? This gives them carte blanche to kill and rob anybody.
    , @Talha
    Hey Mikel,

    being punished with eternal torture and you don’t consider it to be your issue
     
    Of course I do, that's why I invite you and everybody else to Islam. My wife's younger sister also converted and her older sister is close. Why do you think I am not concerned for these people.

    But if a man has a chain-smoking friend who doesn't care to quit. The man can warn his friend. But if the friend just gets annoyed because he thinks he'll be fine, that's not going to change things if he ends up with lung cancer. And it would be silly for the friend to claim that the man had actually wanted him to get lung-cancer because he brought it up.


    If your God so wishes, so be it, you’ll support Him.
     
    If my God so wishes, I'll...submit.

    "And to Allah belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. He forgives whom He wills, and punishes whom He wills. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." (3:129)

    I (assuming I don't end up in Hell myself) can ask and even plead on your behalf - but it's His call.

    "On that day no intercession shall avail, except the one for whom the Most Beneficent (Allah) has given permission and whose word is acceptable to Him." (20:109)

    Get in His good graces - it doesn't take much honestly since He forgives sins and lapses very easily. I can't think of why the deal isn't overwhelmingly in one's favor; believe in Him and act according to His desire for 70-80 years >>>> eternal bliss.

    Look, I don't want anyone to suffer in the next life; it doesn't bother me if people like Hitler, Mao and Chengis Khan are allowed in Paradise - it's a big place - room enough for everyone. I just can't do anything about it - not my call.

    So, where does this go anyway? Are you asking me to change our religious doctrine in order to make you feel comfortable about the life choices you have decided to make? Why, what do I gain other than the displeasure of God for changing His message?

    If it doesn't appeal to you, just laugh it off and walk away. If you think I'm being "mean" - OK, that's not my intention, but I can't help how you feel. If the thought of a bad afterlife makes you uncomfortable - good - it's supposed to be a catalyst for reflecting on your life and what direction you want to take it.

    Peace.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Talha
    Hey TWS,

    Your lies are smooth.
     
    Yeah - we taqiyyah hard around here bro! Or am I lying about that? Hmmm...

    If it wasn’t legal and only stopped after international pressure.
     
    Nonsense - if you don't know about the native movements within the Muslim world to get rid of slavery - that's not my problem. There was international pressure from Britain for sure in India and even on the Ottomans, but Tunisia got rid of it first and wasn't even under direct Ottoman control. You don't know about the Futa Toro Sultanate - that's fine.

    If you want to read more, see this:
    http://www.unz.com/pgottfried/real-islam-and-democracy/?highlight=tunisia#comment-1716632

    And because you're so gung-ho anti-slavery - straight-up John Brown - I suppose you are out in those rallies in the South getting rid of the statues of those nasty old slave-owners like General Lee and stuff too. And Harriet Tubman's going to replace Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill - I'm sure you can't wait to get those bad boys into your wallet:
    https://modernmoney.treasury.gov/new-notes

    are murdered for worshiping God.
     
    Actually, that is oppression - Muslims have no right to willy-nilly off people for worshiping a different god(s).

    to send your kind back to wherever they came from.
     
    Bro - I know you think the Muslim world is an outhouse, but it isn't. I'm fine with leaving - I'm not begging; please massa' don't send dis po' house nigga' away!!

    If the people of the US decide as a whole, they want Muslims gone - no problem, send me the official federal notice in the mail that my citizenship has been revoked and I have to leave. But I wonder what kind of government you'd be living under then; one that can strip non-criminal citizens of their basic rights and boot them out. Something tells me the Muslims might be the lucky ones in that situation.

    That’s all your kind knows towards non-Muslims.
     
    I get along great with my non-Muslim neighbors and co-workers (we shovel each others' driveways during winter). You gotta ease up on whatever you got boiling in you man - that ain't good for you bro.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sONfxPCTU0

    Peace.

    Tunisia got rid of it first

    One may wonder why there were practically no white slaves in the Regency, which had previously been been a hotspot of piracy. In fact this was because Christian slavery had been stopped by the British under Lord Exmouth (and see 2, 3, and my favorite and most informative, 4). It is not at least beyond the realm of possibility that the local Muslims would be somewhat annoyed that Muslims but not Christians could be kept as slaves. I feel bound to include a little more information on the topic for those who may be unfamiliar with the region, for I was your interlocutor in the original instance.

    Ahmed Bey’s action (taken in consultation with Thomas Reade of the Anti-Slavery Society– thank God they didn’t do acronyms then) was nevertheless praiseworthy, of course. Wiki says that he himself was the child of a slave mother, which shines some light on his motivations if true.

    I don’t object to your phrasing in the other comment, but thought some clarification might be necessary coming from a different thread.

    My point about the Anabaptists –not going to copy/paste– somewhere above was that they were pretty much the Christian IS of their day (unlike their plain Baptist descendants who are decent people). Tolerating them, like Muenster originally did, was not going to end well. But yes, tongs are going a little too far.

    EDIT

    6th century

    7th century, Mikel!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    As I mentioned before - Anglo-Saxon Protestants get the lion's share of the credit for the end of slavery. As always - your citations are much appreciated!

    I did not know that detail about Tunis.

    Peace.

    , @Talha
    Yeah - agreed - splinter groups tend to splinter further. From what I gather from that article - that was one strain of Anabaptist localized in a particular locale. Were all Anabaptists like that though?

    It reminds me of how a good number of Salafis and Wahhabis are actually not interested in politics but their split from the majority on certain fundamental issues - the "Protestant" factor - was bound to unloose a virulent militant strain. Just following our previous experiences with divergent groups like Khawarij, Qarmatis, Almohads, etc.

    Shaykh Hamza Yusuf described the best of the Wahhabis (the politically quiet ones) as "grumpy Amish":
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sMVHq9lgSmQ

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. ANon says: • Disclaimer
    @Mikel
    Irrelevant. Has nothing with me being OK with it or not – it’s His world, not mine – He sets the rules.

    You see? That's scary. We are talking about someone who did nothing wrong to you (perhaps even a close relative) being punished with eternal torture and you don't consider it to be your issue. If your God so wishes, so be it, you'll support Him.

    There are very many people in American prisons who have done absolutely nothing wrong to me. If one of them escapes, you can bet I’ll call the cops, though…

    I don’t really agree with Talha’s position but I find this objection odd. Also, as a piece of pedantry, it should be “torment” not “torture”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mikel
    I fail to see any similarity between calling the cops if your learn that a convicted criminal has escaped prison and feeling that it is not your business if someone you revere (in this case God) punishes with extreme cruelty someone who has done nothing but fail to believe in your religion.

    7th century indeed. Little time for proof-reading today.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. Talha says:
    @Anon

    Tunisia got rid of it first
     
    One may wonder why there were practically no white slaves in the Regency, which had previously been been a hotspot of piracy. In fact this was because Christian slavery had been stopped by the British under Lord Exmouth (and see 2, 3, and my favorite and most informative, 4). It is not at least beyond the realm of possibility that the local Muslims would be somewhat annoyed that Muslims but not Christians could be kept as slaves. I feel bound to include a little more information on the topic for those who may be unfamiliar with the region, for I was your interlocutor in the original instance.

    Ahmed Bey's action (taken in consultation with Thomas Reade of the Anti-Slavery Society-- thank God they didn't do acronyms then) was nevertheless praiseworthy, of course. Wiki says that he himself was the child of a slave mother, which shines some light on his motivations if true.

    I don't object to your phrasing in the other comment, but thought some clarification might be necessary coming from a different thread.

    My point about the Anabaptists --not going to copy/paste-- somewhere above was that they were pretty much the Christian IS of their day (unlike their plain Baptist descendants who are decent people). Tolerating them, like Muenster originally did, was not going to end well. But yes, tongs are going a little too far.

    EDIT


    6th century
     
    7th century, Mikel!

    As I mentioned before – Anglo-Saxon Protestants get the lion’s share of the credit for the end of slavery. As always – your citations are much appreciated!

    I did not know that detail about Tunis.

    Peace.

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

    Tunisia got rid of it first
     
    One may wonder why there were practically no white slaves in the Regency, which had previously been been a hotspot of piracy. In fact this was because Christian slavery had been stopped by the British under Lord Exmouth (and see 2, 3, and my favorite and most informative, 4). It is not at least beyond the realm of possibility that the local Muslims would be somewhat annoyed that Muslims but not Christians could be kept as slaves. I feel bound to include a little more information on the topic for those who may be unfamiliar with the region, for I was your interlocutor in the original instance.

    Ahmed Bey's action (taken in consultation with Thomas Reade of the Anti-Slavery Society-- thank God they didn't do acronyms then) was nevertheless praiseworthy, of course. Wiki says that he himself was the child of a slave mother, which shines some light on his motivations if true.

    I don't object to your phrasing in the other comment, but thought some clarification might be necessary coming from a different thread.

    My point about the Anabaptists --not going to copy/paste-- somewhere above was that they were pretty much the Christian IS of their day (unlike their plain Baptist descendants who are decent people). Tolerating them, like Muenster originally did, was not going to end well. But yes, tongs are going a little too far.

    EDIT


    6th century
     
    7th century, Mikel!

    Yeah – agreed – splinter groups tend to splinter further. From what I gather from that article – that was one strain of Anabaptist localized in a particular locale. Were all Anabaptists like that though?

    It reminds me of how a good number of Salafis and Wahhabis are actually not interested in politics but their split from the majority on certain fundamental issues – the “Protestant” factor – was bound to unloose a virulent militant strain. Just following our previous experiences with divergent groups like Khawarij, Qarmatis, Almohads, etc.

    Shaykh Hamza Yusuf described the best of the Wahhabis (the politically quiet ones) as “grumpy Amish”:

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sMVHq9lgSmQ

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. Mikel says:
    @ANon
    There are very many people in American prisons who have done absolutely nothing wrong to me. If one of them escapes, you can bet I'll call the cops, though...

    I don't really agree with Talha's position but I find this objection odd. Also, as a piece of pedantry, it should be "torment" not "torture".

    I fail to see any similarity between calling the cops if your learn that a convicted criminal has escaped prison and feeling that it is not your business if someone you revere (in this case God) punishes with extreme cruelty someone who has done nothing but fail to believe in your religion.

    7th century indeed. Little time for proof-reading today.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. @Rurik

    Financial problems are at the heart of the problem true, but they follow the moral degradation.
     
    who is driving the moral degradation?

    who owns and runs Hollywood and Madison Ave?

    who owns and runs the porn industry?

    who are the people most responsible for radial feminism? Who are Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan, Susan Sontag, Christina Hoff Sommers?

    who owns the magazines of filth like Cosmopolitan and the rest?

    who owns the newspapers and publishing houses?

    who owns the cable networks and NBC, CBS, ABC

    just look at CNN or the pedophiles at the BBC

    the whole rotten edifice is infested from A to Z with spiritual enemies who consider, not just your religion and morality as an abomination to their god of hatred, but your very DNA my friend.

    And how did they get so much power over every single institution in the Western world- from the fecal government to the banks to the universities to the courts and media right down to your local law enforcement?

    by having a source of literally unlimited money, that's how

    'follow the money' was never so salient as when decrying the moral and spiritual rot of Western civilization and the US (and England) in particular.

    if you want to effect change, you have to strike at the root. All else is chasing your own tail, IMHO

    You omitted liquor, Seagrams for instance. Many people dealing with social problems make no bones about alcohol being the most destructive drug in society.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. MEexpert says:
    @MarkinLA
    Would any society accept that a truck driver or a wrestler that bought “Constitution for Dummies” should have a say in how the Constitution is interpreted?

    We sort of do, they get a vote. Besides it might be an improvement over our Appeals and Supreme Court judges. One of the best Byron White was considered pretty good and he didn't have a law degree.


    Can anyone peruse through a few books of judicial cases and start running a court out of his garage?


    Does anybody think this wouldn't be an improvement?

    One of the best Byron White was considered pretty good and he didn’t have a law degree.

    Get your facts right. Justice Byron White received his law degree from the Yale University and practiced law for 15 years in Colorado.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. MEexpert says:
    @Mikel
    Irrelevant. Has nothing with me being OK with it or not – it’s His world, not mine – He sets the rules.

    You see? That's scary. We are talking about someone who did nothing wrong to you (perhaps even a close relative) being punished with eternal torture and you don't consider it to be your issue. If your God so wishes, so be it, you'll support Him.

    Mikel: If you don’t believe in God then this whole discussion is meaningless. Do you believe the Christian doctrine that Jesus died for our sins and that all Christians are forgiven? This gives them carte blanche to kill and rob anybody.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mikel
    If you don’t believe in God then this whole discussion is meaningless.


    There we go again. Leave us alone you non-believers. You haven't spent decades studying the Koran, you can't understand the real meaning of its words. And if we believe that our god will make you suffer eternal torment, that doesn't mean that we're not very nice people. Don't be distasteful and stop mentioning that irrelevant detail.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. Mikel says:
    @MEexpert
    Mikel: If you don't believe in God then this whole discussion is meaningless. Do you believe the Christian doctrine that Jesus died for our sins and that all Christians are forgiven? This gives them carte blanche to kill and rob anybody.

    If you don’t believe in God then this whole discussion is meaningless.

    There we go again. Leave us alone you non-believers. You haven’t spent decades studying the Koran, you can’t understand the real meaning of its words. And if we believe that our god will make you suffer eternal torment, that doesn’t mean that we’re not very nice people. Don’t be distasteful and stop mentioning that irrelevant detail.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. Talha says:
    @Mikel
    Irrelevant. Has nothing with me being OK with it or not – it’s His world, not mine – He sets the rules.

    You see? That's scary. We are talking about someone who did nothing wrong to you (perhaps even a close relative) being punished with eternal torture and you don't consider it to be your issue. If your God so wishes, so be it, you'll support Him.

    Hey Mikel,

    being punished with eternal torture and you don’t consider it to be your issue

    Of course I do, that’s why I invite you and everybody else to Islam. My wife’s younger sister also converted and her older sister is close. Why do you think I am not concerned for these people.

    But if a man has a chain-smoking friend who doesn’t care to quit. The man can warn his friend. But if the friend just gets annoyed because he thinks he’ll be fine, that’s not going to change things if he ends up with lung cancer. And it would be silly for the friend to claim that the man had actually wanted him to get lung-cancer because he brought it up.

    If your God so wishes, so be it, you’ll support Him.

    If my God so wishes, I’ll…submit.

    “And to Allah belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. He forgives whom He wills, and punishes whom He wills. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (3:129)

    I (assuming I don’t end up in Hell myself) can ask and even plead on your behalf – but it’s His call.

    “On that day no intercession shall avail, except the one for whom the Most Beneficent (Allah) has given permission and whose word is acceptable to Him.” (20:109)

    Get in His good graces – it doesn’t take much honestly since He forgives sins and lapses very easily. I can’t think of why the deal isn’t overwhelmingly in one’s favor; believe in Him and act according to His desire for 70-80 years >>>> eternal bliss.

    Look, I don’t want anyone to suffer in the next life; it doesn’t bother me if people like Hitler, Mao and Chengis Khan are allowed in Paradise – it’s a big place – room enough for everyone. I just can’t do anything about it – not my call.

    So, where does this go anyway? Are you asking me to change our religious doctrine in order to make you feel comfortable about the life choices you have decided to make? Why, what do I gain other than the displeasure of God for changing His message?

    If it doesn’t appeal to you, just laugh it off and walk away. If you think I’m being “mean” – OK, that’s not my intention, but I can’t help how you feel. If the thought of a bad afterlife makes you uncomfortable – good – it’s supposed to be a catalyst for reflecting on your life and what direction you want to take it.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mikel
    Of course, it is not surprising that I'm not getting my message across to someone deeply invested in his religious belief. But the fact remains that you believe in a very cruel God that threatens with "painful agony" those who don't find his self-appointed messenger convincing at all.

    It must be upsetting for a believer to think about the profound meaning of their faith but if I were to become a Muslim like you, I would have to believe in an afterlife where I would be enjoying the pleasures of Paradise while most everyone I love and know would most likely be suffering an eternal torment. How could I possibly enjoy such a situation?

    May I suggest that you try to see how a rational, skeptic person educated in the West regards your beliefs?

    Also, as I tried to explain above, I can't help wondering if there is any connection between those cruel beliefs about the afterlife and the cruelty that we see displayed by some believers in this life.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. Mikel says:
    @Talha
    Hey Mikel,

    being punished with eternal torture and you don’t consider it to be your issue
     
    Of course I do, that's why I invite you and everybody else to Islam. My wife's younger sister also converted and her older sister is close. Why do you think I am not concerned for these people.

    But if a man has a chain-smoking friend who doesn't care to quit. The man can warn his friend. But if the friend just gets annoyed because he thinks he'll be fine, that's not going to change things if he ends up with lung cancer. And it would be silly for the friend to claim that the man had actually wanted him to get lung-cancer because he brought it up.


    If your God so wishes, so be it, you’ll support Him.
     
    If my God so wishes, I'll...submit.

    "And to Allah belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. He forgives whom He wills, and punishes whom He wills. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." (3:129)

    I (assuming I don't end up in Hell myself) can ask and even plead on your behalf - but it's His call.

    "On that day no intercession shall avail, except the one for whom the Most Beneficent (Allah) has given permission and whose word is acceptable to Him." (20:109)

    Get in His good graces - it doesn't take much honestly since He forgives sins and lapses very easily. I can't think of why the deal isn't overwhelmingly in one's favor; believe in Him and act according to His desire for 70-80 years >>>> eternal bliss.

    Look, I don't want anyone to suffer in the next life; it doesn't bother me if people like Hitler, Mao and Chengis Khan are allowed in Paradise - it's a big place - room enough for everyone. I just can't do anything about it - not my call.

    So, where does this go anyway? Are you asking me to change our religious doctrine in order to make you feel comfortable about the life choices you have decided to make? Why, what do I gain other than the displeasure of God for changing His message?

    If it doesn't appeal to you, just laugh it off and walk away. If you think I'm being "mean" - OK, that's not my intention, but I can't help how you feel. If the thought of a bad afterlife makes you uncomfortable - good - it's supposed to be a catalyst for reflecting on your life and what direction you want to take it.

    Peace.

    Of course, it is not surprising that I’m not getting my message across to someone deeply invested in his religious belief. But the fact remains that you believe in a very cruel God that threatens with “painful agony” those who don’t find his self-appointed messenger convincing at all.

    It must be upsetting for a believer to think about the profound meaning of their faith but if I were to become a Muslim like you, I would have to believe in an afterlife where I would be enjoying the pleasures of Paradise while most everyone I love and know would most likely be suffering an eternal torment. How could I possibly enjoy such a situation?

    May I suggest that you try to see how a rational, skeptic person educated in the West regards your beliefs?

    Also, as I tried to explain above, I can’t help wondering if there is any connection between those cruel beliefs about the afterlife and the cruelty that we see displayed by some believers in this life.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hi Mikel,

    cruel God
     
    Which implies oppression - which is not really applicable for the One Who created and owns the universe. Your existence is not independent of His willing you into being. He owns you - He can do whatever He likes. Now - the warning has been delivered. Sure you can scoff at it and say it isn't convincing. All well and good. You can take the issue up with Him when you meet Him and clearly explain why you thought the message to be wanting. Maybe He'll accept your reasoning. On the other hand, He may not take kindly to you challenging His authority. Your life, your choice.

    I would be enjoying the pleasures of Paradise while most everyone I love and know would most likely be suffering an eternal torment.
     
    You are making assumptions. Imam Ghazali (ra) stated, everyone is graded on a curve; if you never heard the message, or never heard the correct message (imagine how many people know the message only by soundbites about Daesh), you won’t be judged by that. If you heard the message correctly and you rejected it out of arrogance or it doesn't jive with your lifestyle, or you like to follow whatever beliefs your parents had, etc.– well...again, I’m not God, so one can plead their case to Him when they see Him.

    May I suggest that you try to see how a rational, skeptic person educated in the West regards your beliefs?
     
    Trust me - it's not my first rodeo with atheists or skeptics.

    It seems to me also that many suffer from the special-snowflake-syndrome or the want-to-have-my-cake-and-eat-it-too attitude. People want to live their lives as they please - and a belief contrary to their lifestyle is not welcome. They don't want anybody else telling them what to do - and well, a religion that translates into "submission to the will of God" just won't do. That's all fine and dandy - that's one's choice. But if there is a metaphysical reality and It has a will and has willed humans into being and It provided for humans from their cradle to their grave and all the joys of life that come with existence and It expects humans to behave in a certain way in order to show gratitude and It has communicated that. Then you can't really expect to be treated the same while being a slave in rebellion to a slave in submission - can you? Why? What's special about you? Why do you get to ignore everything and step into Paradise - demanding such, at that - forever?

    I can’t help wondering if there is any connection between those cruel beliefs about the afterlife and the cruelty that we see displayed by some believers in this life.
     
    Oh, I'll agree whole-heartedly that some Muslims think just because God can do whatever He wants to those who reject His message, so can they. They seem to think somehow non-Muslims are not human or something. This is not how it works - they (Muslims) are slaves, they have no right to treat other slaves except in accordance with what the Master dictated. Those who think it is their right to make it Hell on earth for others may well find themselves in Hell for arrogating that which is strictly in the purview of their Creator.

    But atheism is not a bar to reveling in cruelty; anyone who has done a cursory study on the unique tortures Communist groups like the Khmer Rouge and others devised has quickly shed that delusion.

    But, if we're just chemical machines - there is no soul - so what does it all matter anyway?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bK2a-1K0Sdg

    Peace.
    , @KA
    "May I suggest that you try to see how a rational ...."

    LOL !! Thats why Bush got elected second times ? Thats why Blair got elected again after 2003 . ? Those bastards wear their religions on their sleeves . The same belief is shared by millions Evangelicals who wanted Iraq turned into a little Souther Baptist stronghold .

    You don't need education in west ( the same western education that teaches one to revere, worship and then join military so that he not only could have job in this world but also can go out and kill people who have done no harms to them .They readily and excitedly do so .Koran does not tell them to do so but the ambience they grow up with asks them to inhale smell of the burned corpses and imbibe the killing psyche to the DNA because of the good tidings waiting for them in this world - adulation ,respect ,admiration ,job opportunity and chances of finding a mate and escape from dull meaningless drug infested empty social nest . Even forgiveness in case he or she were a criminal ) ,plenty of skeptics live in non western countries .

    One has to seek Koran and read to get excited about murdering some infidels. But in the west, it is the secular school and corrupted media,academics,politicians who do the job .

    FOX news and other outlet provide that opportunity to millions who can safely watch and learn how to hate those who don't agree with the clowns who blather at FOX/CNN/MSNBC regarding religion, social values, economic polices, trade policies , political set up , scientific development

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. Talha says:
    @Mikel
    Of course, it is not surprising that I'm not getting my message across to someone deeply invested in his religious belief. But the fact remains that you believe in a very cruel God that threatens with "painful agony" those who don't find his self-appointed messenger convincing at all.

    It must be upsetting for a believer to think about the profound meaning of their faith but if I were to become a Muslim like you, I would have to believe in an afterlife where I would be enjoying the pleasures of Paradise while most everyone I love and know would most likely be suffering an eternal torment. How could I possibly enjoy such a situation?

    May I suggest that you try to see how a rational, skeptic person educated in the West regards your beliefs?

    Also, as I tried to explain above, I can't help wondering if there is any connection between those cruel beliefs about the afterlife and the cruelty that we see displayed by some believers in this life.

    Hi Mikel,

    cruel God

    Which implies oppression – which is not really applicable for the One Who created and owns the universe. Your existence is not independent of His willing you into being. He owns you – He can do whatever He likes. Now – the warning has been delivered. Sure you can scoff at it and say it isn’t convincing. All well and good. You can take the issue up with Him when you meet Him and clearly explain why you thought the message to be wanting. Maybe He’ll accept your reasoning. On the other hand, He may not take kindly to you challenging His authority. Your life, your choice.

    I would be enjoying the pleasures of Paradise while most everyone I love and know would most likely be suffering an eternal torment.

    You are making assumptions. Imam Ghazali (ra) stated, everyone is graded on a curve; if you never heard the message, or never heard the correct message (imagine how many people know the message only by soundbites about Daesh), you won’t be judged by that. If you heard the message correctly and you rejected it out of arrogance or it doesn’t jive with your lifestyle, or you like to follow whatever beliefs your parents had, etc.– well…again, I’m not God, so one can plead their case to Him when they see Him.

    May I suggest that you try to see how a rational, skeptic person educated in the West regards your beliefs?

    Trust me – it’s not my first rodeo with atheists or skeptics.

    It seems to me also that many suffer from the special-snowflake-syndrome or the want-to-have-my-cake-and-eat-it-too attitude. People want to live their lives as they please – and a belief contrary to their lifestyle is not welcome. They don’t want anybody else telling them what to do – and well, a religion that translates into “submission to the will of God” just won’t do. That’s all fine and dandy – that’s one’s choice. But if there is a metaphysical reality and It has a will and has willed humans into being and It provided for humans from their cradle to their grave and all the joys of life that come with existence and It expects humans to behave in a certain way in order to show gratitude and It has communicated that. Then you can’t really expect to be treated the same while being a slave in rebellion to a slave in submission – can you? Why? What’s special about you? Why do you get to ignore everything and step into Paradise – demanding such, at that – forever?

    I can’t help wondering if there is any connection between those cruel beliefs about the afterlife and the cruelty that we see displayed by some believers in this life.

    Oh, I’ll agree whole-heartedly that some Muslims think just because God can do whatever He wants to those who reject His message, so can they. They seem to think somehow non-Muslims are not human or something. This is not how it works – they (Muslims) are slaves, they have no right to treat other slaves except in accordance with what the Master dictated. Those who think it is their right to make it Hell on earth for others may well find themselves in Hell for arrogating that which is strictly in the purview of their Creator.

    But atheism is not a bar to reveling in cruelty; anyone who has done a cursory study on the unique tortures Communist groups like the Khmer Rouge and others devised has quickly shed that delusion.

    But, if we’re just chemical machines – there is no soul – so what does it all matter anyway?

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mikel
    But, if we’re just chemical machines – there is no soul – so what does it all matter anyway?

    Well, the empirical evidence for the existence of such a thing as a soul is tremendously lacking, I'm afraid. But, intellectual curiosity apart, other peoples' religious beliefs do matter.

    They mattered a lot for the natives of the New World when they faced conversion or being put to the sword by the conquerors. They matter now for the victims of Manchester or London and their families. They matter for those of us who work and share public spaces with Muslims.

    If one of the many conflicts in the Middle East or some other Muslim region develops into a confrontation between the superpowers, most everybody could get engaged in what perhaps started as a simple religious quarrel.

    So I do realize that I'm speaking to a moderate, peaceful Muslim but please excuse my interest in trying to find out how you reason on certain subjects.

    cruel God

    Yes. No offense intended, seriously, but, as Gods go, yours appears to be distinctly cruel. In fact, I tried to emulate Jefferson and satisfy my own curiosity by reading the best translation of the Koran that I found but I gave up. There didn't seem to be much more to the story than an overwhelming repetition of ferocious threats for the unbelievers.

    Even if I happened to be, as you suggest, a creature of Allah, it's difficult to understand why he chose to create me so susceptible to cruelty. That's nothing but an additional burden on the already difficult task of believing in his message. But well, I guess that if he wanted to make things simple for us and for himself, he wouldn't have chosen to create us so imperfect that he keeps getting mad at us in the first place.

    Best regards,
    Mikel
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. KA says:
    @Mikel
    Of course, it is not surprising that I'm not getting my message across to someone deeply invested in his religious belief. But the fact remains that you believe in a very cruel God that threatens with "painful agony" those who don't find his self-appointed messenger convincing at all.

    It must be upsetting for a believer to think about the profound meaning of their faith but if I were to become a Muslim like you, I would have to believe in an afterlife where I would be enjoying the pleasures of Paradise while most everyone I love and know would most likely be suffering an eternal torment. How could I possibly enjoy such a situation?

    May I suggest that you try to see how a rational, skeptic person educated in the West regards your beliefs?

    Also, as I tried to explain above, I can't help wondering if there is any connection between those cruel beliefs about the afterlife and the cruelty that we see displayed by some believers in this life.

    “May I suggest that you try to see how a rational ….”

    LOL !! Thats why Bush got elected second times ? Thats why Blair got elected again after 2003 . ? Those bastards wear their religions on their sleeves . The same belief is shared by millions Evangelicals who wanted Iraq turned into a little Souther Baptist stronghold .

    You don’t need education in west ( the same western education that teaches one to revere, worship and then join military so that he not only could have job in this world but also can go out and kill people who have done no harms to them .They readily and excitedly do so .Koran does not tell them to do so but the ambience they grow up with asks them to inhale smell of the burned corpses and imbibe the killing psyche to the DNA because of the good tidings waiting for them in this world – adulation ,respect ,admiration ,job opportunity and chances of finding a mate and escape from dull meaningless drug infested empty social nest . Even forgiveness in case he or she were a criminal ) ,plenty of skeptics live in non western countries .

    One has to seek Koran and read to get excited about murdering some infidels. But in the west, it is the secular school and corrupted media,academics,politicians who do the job .

    FOX news and other outlet provide that opportunity to millions who can safely watch and learn how to hate those who don’t agree with the clowns who blather at FOX/CNN/MSNBC regarding religion, social values, economic polices, trade policies , political set up , scientific development

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. Corvinus says:
    @MarkinLA
    Worthless words that they don't mean. Worthless words that nobody listens to. I bet that after they give one of their speeches they retire to their inner circle in the mosque and say: "That should hold the fucking kafirs long enough for our soon to be martyr Achmed here to complete his bomb".

    Genghis Khan, Attila, Hitler the history of world is full of people who said they only wanted peace.

    “Worthless words that they don’t mean. Worthless words that nobody listens to. I bet that after they give one of their speeches they retire to their inner circle in the mosque and say: “That should hold the fucking kafirs long enough for our soon to be martyr Achmed here to complete his bomb”.

    The LA sun has apparently baked your brain. Put up or shut up. “They are mouthing platitudes that they likely don’t believe for PR purposes.” Prove your assertion with evidence or retract your statement.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. Mikel says:
    @Talha
    Hi Mikel,

    cruel God
     
    Which implies oppression - which is not really applicable for the One Who created and owns the universe. Your existence is not independent of His willing you into being. He owns you - He can do whatever He likes. Now - the warning has been delivered. Sure you can scoff at it and say it isn't convincing. All well and good. You can take the issue up with Him when you meet Him and clearly explain why you thought the message to be wanting. Maybe He'll accept your reasoning. On the other hand, He may not take kindly to you challenging His authority. Your life, your choice.

    I would be enjoying the pleasures of Paradise while most everyone I love and know would most likely be suffering an eternal torment.
     
    You are making assumptions. Imam Ghazali (ra) stated, everyone is graded on a curve; if you never heard the message, or never heard the correct message (imagine how many people know the message only by soundbites about Daesh), you won’t be judged by that. If you heard the message correctly and you rejected it out of arrogance or it doesn't jive with your lifestyle, or you like to follow whatever beliefs your parents had, etc.– well...again, I’m not God, so one can plead their case to Him when they see Him.

    May I suggest that you try to see how a rational, skeptic person educated in the West regards your beliefs?
     
    Trust me - it's not my first rodeo with atheists or skeptics.

    It seems to me also that many suffer from the special-snowflake-syndrome or the want-to-have-my-cake-and-eat-it-too attitude. People want to live their lives as they please - and a belief contrary to their lifestyle is not welcome. They don't want anybody else telling them what to do - and well, a religion that translates into "submission to the will of God" just won't do. That's all fine and dandy - that's one's choice. But if there is a metaphysical reality and It has a will and has willed humans into being and It provided for humans from their cradle to their grave and all the joys of life that come with existence and It expects humans to behave in a certain way in order to show gratitude and It has communicated that. Then you can't really expect to be treated the same while being a slave in rebellion to a slave in submission - can you? Why? What's special about you? Why do you get to ignore everything and step into Paradise - demanding such, at that - forever?

    I can’t help wondering if there is any connection between those cruel beliefs about the afterlife and the cruelty that we see displayed by some believers in this life.
     
    Oh, I'll agree whole-heartedly that some Muslims think just because God can do whatever He wants to those who reject His message, so can they. They seem to think somehow non-Muslims are not human or something. This is not how it works - they (Muslims) are slaves, they have no right to treat other slaves except in accordance with what the Master dictated. Those who think it is their right to make it Hell on earth for others may well find themselves in Hell for arrogating that which is strictly in the purview of their Creator.

    But atheism is not a bar to reveling in cruelty; anyone who has done a cursory study on the unique tortures Communist groups like the Khmer Rouge and others devised has quickly shed that delusion.

    But, if we're just chemical machines - there is no soul - so what does it all matter anyway?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bK2a-1K0Sdg

    Peace.

    But, if we’re just chemical machines – there is no soul – so what does it all matter anyway?

    Well, the empirical evidence for the existence of such a thing as a soul is tremendously lacking, I’m afraid. But, intellectual curiosity apart, other peoples’ religious beliefs do matter.

    They mattered a lot for the natives of the New World when they faced conversion or being put to the sword by the conquerors. They matter now for the victims of Manchester or London and their families. They matter for those of us who work and share public spaces with Muslims.

    If one of the many conflicts in the Middle East or some other Muslim region develops into a confrontation between the superpowers, most everybody could get engaged in what perhaps started as a simple religious quarrel.

    So I do realize that I’m speaking to a moderate, peaceful Muslim but please excuse my interest in trying to find out how you reason on certain subjects.

    cruel God

    Yes. No offense intended, seriously, but, as Gods go, yours appears to be distinctly cruel. In fact, I tried to emulate Jefferson and satisfy my own curiosity by reading the best translation of the Koran that I found but I gave up. There didn’t seem to be much more to the story than an overwhelming repetition of ferocious threats for the unbelievers.

    Even if I happened to be, as you suggest, a creature of Allah, it’s difficult to understand why he chose to create me so susceptible to cruelty. That’s nothing but an additional burden on the already difficult task of believing in his message. But well, I guess that if he wanted to make things simple for us and for himself, he wouldn’t have chosen to create us so imperfect that he keeps getting mad at us in the first place.

    Best regards,
    Mikel

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hi Mikel,

    Well, the empirical evidence
     
    There will never be empirical evidence for a soul, God, etc. If there was, words like "faith" and "belief" would lack any lexical significance. "Believing" in God and an afterlife would be as reflexive as "believing" that the Eiffel Tower is in Paris.

    The Qur'an makes it clear at the beginning, there is a requisite to someone gaining benefit from the book:
    "A. L. M. This is the Book about which there is no doubt, a guidance for those conscious of Allah. Who believe in the unseen, establish prayer, and spend out of what We have provided for them. And who believe in what has been revealed to you, [O Muhammad], and what was revealed before you, and of the Hereafter they are certain. Those are upon [right] guidance from their Lord, and it is those who are the successful." (2:1-6)

    The message is really geared to those who believe in it and those who are curious or on the fence - why would it be concerned too much about those who reject the message? Is it even rational for the message to be overly concerned with how it is perceived by those who reject it? You have to remember, the way this works is that you need God, He doesn't need you - there is no obligation He has to you:
    "They consider it a favor to you that they have accepted Islam. Say, 'Do not consider your Islam a favor to me. Rather, Allah has conferred favor upon you that He has guided you to the faith, if you should be truthful." (49:17)

    other peoples’ religious beliefs do matter
     
    Agreed.

    a confrontation between the superpowers
     
    Please note - that if 2/3 of the world's population is eliminated in a nuclear storm, it will be due to the complete failure of the policies of two secular-ish Christian-ish countries. Muslims hardly have a say in that matter. In fact, much of what we are seeing traces itself to the completely unjustified 2003 invasion of Iraq.

    please excuse my interest in trying to find out how you reason on certain subjects.
     
    Bro - no problem - I'm actually enjoying the exchange and you have been quite cordial. May God increase you in good character.

    No offense intended, seriously, but, as Gods go, yours appears to be distinctly cruel.
     
    None taken. But I don't see any reason to believe the situation is unique to Islam. Many religious traditions (even pagan ones) have a concept of Hell or an underworld where iniquitous or damned souls are punished by one or other deity in various ways. The Hindus have Naraka and one can read Dante's Inferno to get a Christian take on the subject - it's been a while, but I remember it being pretty stabby and boily. Many religious traditions find it par for the course that a deity has a right to make known their sovereignty over their subjects - even by punishing them. Sure the warnings in the Qur'an come often, but that just means the warnings come more often - the punishment doesn't change - it's just driving home the point so there is no ambiguity.

    And as I mentioned before - He has warned and made clear what can happen. If He decides to forgive everyone - who is going to demand that He punish those who disbelieved in Him?
    "He is not questioned about what He does, but they will be questioned." (21:23)

    There didn’t seem to be much more to the story
     
    This is a subjective statement. Of course, we Muslims find quite a bit other than that in play in the Qur'an. For us the message is obviously much more pleasant; believe in God, try to abide by His rules and be good as best as you can, ask His forgiveness when you falter and it'll be OK, He will take care of you in the next life and reward you abundantly - pretty good deal!

    We are of course imperfect - He doesn't expect perfection, He is very, very forgiving to those who ask it of Him:
    "Say: 'O my Servants who have transgressed against their own souls! Despair not of the Mercy of Allah: for Allah forgives all sins: for He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.'" (39:53)

    Ask of His mercy and forgiveness and it's yours, Paradise and everything - but, have you asked? Then why should you receive?

    Paradise is the abode that has been created with God imbuing it with His Divine attribute of Mercy. Hell - on the opposite spectrum - is that ultimate example of what something looks like when created without that aspect. Those who hope and ask for His Mercy will - if He wills - be allowed to abide in the realm that reflects it. Those who thought it beneath them to ask of such, well...they may just see what it is that they missed out on.

    “I am as my slave expects Me to be…” – Bukhari

    You will find no perfection in this world - it was never meant to be. It is the testing ground. Soon we will exit the room to receive our marks and the next set of test takers will enter.

    I have heard some materialists forward the idea that it's not a rational prospect to believe in such, but very sane and rational men like Newton, Leibniz, Faraday and others had no problem believing in a Divine Being.

    Peace and may God preserve you and your family with honor in this life and the next.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. Talha says:
    @Mikel
    But, if we’re just chemical machines – there is no soul – so what does it all matter anyway?

    Well, the empirical evidence for the existence of such a thing as a soul is tremendously lacking, I'm afraid. But, intellectual curiosity apart, other peoples' religious beliefs do matter.

    They mattered a lot for the natives of the New World when they faced conversion or being put to the sword by the conquerors. They matter now for the victims of Manchester or London and their families. They matter for those of us who work and share public spaces with Muslims.

    If one of the many conflicts in the Middle East or some other Muslim region develops into a confrontation between the superpowers, most everybody could get engaged in what perhaps started as a simple religious quarrel.

    So I do realize that I'm speaking to a moderate, peaceful Muslim but please excuse my interest in trying to find out how you reason on certain subjects.

    cruel God

    Yes. No offense intended, seriously, but, as Gods go, yours appears to be distinctly cruel. In fact, I tried to emulate Jefferson and satisfy my own curiosity by reading the best translation of the Koran that I found but I gave up. There didn't seem to be much more to the story than an overwhelming repetition of ferocious threats for the unbelievers.

    Even if I happened to be, as you suggest, a creature of Allah, it's difficult to understand why he chose to create me so susceptible to cruelty. That's nothing but an additional burden on the already difficult task of believing in his message. But well, I guess that if he wanted to make things simple for us and for himself, he wouldn't have chosen to create us so imperfect that he keeps getting mad at us in the first place.

    Best regards,
    Mikel

    Hi Mikel,

    Well, the empirical evidence

    There will never be empirical evidence for a soul, God, etc. If there was, words like “faith” and “belief” would lack any lexical significance. “Believing” in God and an afterlife would be as reflexive as “believing” that the Eiffel Tower is in Paris.

    The Qur’an makes it clear at the beginning, there is a requisite to someone gaining benefit from the book:
    “A. L. M. This is the Book about which there is no doubt, a guidance for those conscious of Allah. Who believe in the unseen, establish prayer, and spend out of what We have provided for them. And who believe in what has been revealed to you, [O Muhammad], and what was revealed before you, and of the Hereafter they are certain. Those are upon [right] guidance from their Lord, and it is those who are the successful.” (2:1-6)

    The message is really geared to those who believe in it and those who are curious or on the fence – why would it be concerned too much about those who reject the message? Is it even rational for the message to be overly concerned with how it is perceived by those who reject it? You have to remember, the way this works is that you need God, He doesn’t need you – there is no obligation He has to you:
    “They consider it a favor to you that they have accepted Islam. Say, ‘Do not consider your Islam a favor to me. Rather, Allah has conferred favor upon you that He has guided you to the faith, if you should be truthful.” (49:17)

    other peoples’ religious beliefs do matter

    Agreed.

    a confrontation between the superpowers

    Please note – that if 2/3 of the world’s population is eliminated in a nuclear storm, it will be due to the complete failure of the policies of two secular-ish Christian-ish countries. Muslims hardly have a say in that matter. In fact, much of what we are seeing traces itself to the completely unjustified 2003 invasion of Iraq.

    please excuse my interest in trying to find out how you reason on certain subjects.

    Bro – no problem – I’m actually enjoying the exchange and you have been quite cordial. May God increase you in good character.

    No offense intended, seriously, but, as Gods go, yours appears to be distinctly cruel.

    None taken. But I don’t see any reason to believe the situation is unique to Islam. Many religious traditions (even pagan ones) have a concept of Hell or an underworld where iniquitous or damned souls are punished by one or other deity in various ways. The Hindus have Naraka and one can read Dante’s Inferno to get a Christian take on the subject – it’s been a while, but I remember it being pretty stabby and boily. Many religious traditions find it par for the course that a deity has a right to make known their sovereignty over their subjects – even by punishing them. Sure the warnings in the Qur’an come often, but that just means the warnings come more often – the punishment doesn’t change – it’s just driving home the point so there is no ambiguity.

    And as I mentioned before – He has warned and made clear what can happen. If He decides to forgive everyone – who is going to demand that He punish those who disbelieved in Him?
    “He is not questioned about what He does, but they will be questioned.” (21:23)

    There didn’t seem to be much more to the story

    This is a subjective statement. Of course, we Muslims find quite a bit other than that in play in the Qur’an. For us the message is obviously much more pleasant; believe in God, try to abide by His rules and be good as best as you can, ask His forgiveness when you falter and it’ll be OK, He will take care of you in the next life and reward you abundantly – pretty good deal!

    We are of course imperfect – He doesn’t expect perfection, He is very, very forgiving to those who ask it of Him:
    “Say: ‘O my Servants who have transgressed against their own souls! Despair not of the Mercy of Allah: for Allah forgives all sins: for He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.’” (39:53)

    Ask of His mercy and forgiveness and it’s yours, Paradise and everything – but, have you asked? Then why should you receive?

    Paradise is the abode that has been created with God imbuing it with His Divine attribute of Mercy. Hell – on the opposite spectrum – is that ultimate example of what something looks like when created without that aspect. Those who hope and ask for His Mercy will – if He wills – be allowed to abide in the realm that reflects it. Those who thought it beneath them to ask of such, well…they may just see what it is that they missed out on.

    “I am as my slave expects Me to be…” – Bukhari

    You will find no perfection in this world – it was never meant to be. It is the testing ground. Soon we will exit the room to receive our marks and the next set of test takers will enter.

    I have heard some materialists forward the idea that it’s not a rational prospect to believe in such, but very sane and rational men like Newton, Leibniz, Faraday and others had no problem believing in a Divine Being.

    Peace and may God preserve you and your family with honor in this life and the next.

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

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Pat Buchanan Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?