Arab Racism & Bigotry: It's the Law

[ibrodsky]

From a Saudi Arabian government website:

"Jewish Barbie dolls, with their revealing clothes and shameful postures, accessories and tools are a symbol of decadence to the perverted West. Let us beware of her dangers and be careful,"

[ibrodsky]

Shattering Taboos of Radical Islam
By Andrew G. Bostom
FrontPageMagazine.com | September 9, 2003


Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Continues to Threaten America and the West

by Robert B. Spencer, Regnery Books, 352 Pages.

In his 1993 book Islam and the West, Bernard Lewis, the eminent scholar of Islamic civilization, wrote:

“There was a time when scholars and other writers in Communist Eastern Europe relied on writers and publishers in the free West to speak the truth about their history, their culture, and their predicament. Today it is those who told the truth, not those who concealed and denied it who are respected and welcomed in those countries…Historians in free countries have a moral and professional obligation not to shirk the difficult issues and subjects that some people would place under some sort of taboo; not to submit to voluntary censorship, but to deal with these matters fairly, honestly, without apologetics, without polemic, and of course competently. Those who enjoy freedom have a moral obligation to use that freedom for those who do not possess it.”

Robert Spencer fulfills admirably all the requisites of Lewis’ noble appeal in his new book, Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Continues to Threaten America and the West.

The author’s meticulous research and documentation, complemented by a lucid writing style, has yielded a remarkably informative work that transitions seamlessly between classical Islamic theology, jurisprudence, and sociopolitical history, and contemporary events, especially modern manifestations of jihad war ideology.

Moreover, Spencer’s analyses are devoid of politically correct, ahistorical dithering. This is apparent from the opening chapter (in the first of the books three main sections), and the illustrative example of the infamous grenade and small arms attack by American sergeant Hasan Akbar, an African-American convert to Islam, which killed two of his senior officers and wounded 15 others, in northern Kuwait on March 22, 2003. After reviewing statements by designated spokespersons (an Army chaplain and a Pentagon official) dismissing (reflexively) Islamic ideology as a potential motivating factor, and the predictable defense counsel and family attempts to portray religious and/or racial discrimination against Akbar as precipitating the arrest, Spencer cites sacred texts from the Qur’an and hadith (putative deeds and utterances of Muhammad as recorded by his pious followers) prohibiting Muslims from fighting their co-religionists, and observes:

“Did Sergeant Akbar decide that it was his religious responsibility to switch sides? After all, he did reportedly shout out, ‘You guys are coming into our countries [and you’re going to rape our women and kill our children]…’. Who is ‘our’? He is not an Iraqi, and in any case he referred to ‘countries’ in the plural. His family charged that he was a victim of racism, but Iraq isn’t populated by blacks, so he couldn’t have meant ‘countries with a majority (or even significant) black population.’ No, however much…anyone...might want to believe that Akbar’s attack stemmed from his anger at racism or discrimination or his misgivings about the war, certainly Akbar meant ‘our Muslim countries,’ and he was repositioning himself not as a warrior of the United States, but as a well-known and celebrated figure in Islamic history and culture: a mujahid, a warrior of jihad.”

The author’s provocative analysis is supported by a succinct introduction to the unique Islamic institution of jihad (including jihad war), its central obligation to pious Muslims, and how jihad is linked inextricably to the corollary institution of “dhimmitude.” He then makes further disquieting observations germane to contemporary jihad “campaigns” and the basic human rights of all non-Muslims living in societies whose legal codes are inspired either in full or part by the Shari’a (Islamic Holy Law). Subsequently, Spencer returns to the Akbar case, specifically, to review evidence of the funding and related ideological orientation of the mosque attended by Sergeant Akbar.

Jihad was pursued century after century, because jihad, which means “to strive in the path of Allah,” embodied an ideology and a jurisdiction. Both were formally conceived by Muslim jurisconsults and theologians from the 8th and 9th centuries onward, based on their interpretation of Qur’an verses (for e.g., 9:5,6; 9:29; 4:76-79; 2: 214-15; 8:39-42), and long chapters in the hadith (especially those recorded by al-Bukhari [d. 869] and Muslim [d. 874]). As Spenser notes, appropriately, the consensus on the nature of jihad from all four schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence (i.e., Maliki, Hanbali, Hanafi, and Shafi’i) is clear. Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406), jurist (Maliki), renowned philosopher, historian, and sociologist, summarized these consensus opinions from five centuries of prior Muslim jurisprudence with regard to the uniquely Islamic institution of jihad:

“In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the [Muslim] mission and [the obligation to] convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force...The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense... Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.”

Ibn Khaldun’s classical assessment reflects exactly what the respected, contemporary Sunni Muslim scholar, Professor Bassam Tibi, maintains, without apology:

"The Western distinction between just and unjust wars linked to specific grounds for war is unknown in Islam. Any war against unbelievers, whatever its immediate ground, is morally justified. Only in this sense can one distinguish just and unjust wars in Islamic tradition. When Muslims wage war for the dissemination of Islam, it is a just war (futuhat, literally "opening", in the sense of opening the world, through the use of force, to the call of Islam); when non-Muslims attack Muslims, it is an unjust war ('idwan). ..."

Spencer then reviews the historical implications of the Qur’an’s injunction in verse 9:29:

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

For example, in "The Laws of Islamic Governance," al-Mawardi (d. 1058), a seminal Shafi’ite jurist during the Abbasid-Baghdadian Caliphate, elucidated the regulations pertaining to the lands and infidel (i.e., non-Muslim) populations subjugated by jihad. The vanquished non-Muslims were compelled to adhere to this pact (“dhimma”), which acknowledged their submission, or face the threat of having the jihad against them resumed. Al-Mawardi notes, “The enemy makes a payment in return for peace and reconciliation.” Reconciliation and security last as long as the payment is made. If the payment ceases, then the jihad resumes. This is the origin of the system of dhimmitude- a vast, uniquely Islamic institution of religious apartheid, implemented for over a millennium across three continents- Asia, Africa, and Europe- from the Indian subcontinent to Portugal, north through the Balkans, and south to The Sudan. The native infidel populations had to recognize Islamic ownership of their land, submit to Islamic law, and accept payment of the poll tax (jizya). Some of the more salient features of dhimmitude include: the prohibition of arms for the vanquished non-Muslims (dhimmis), and of church bells; restrictions concerning the building and restoration of places of worship; inequality between Muslims and non-Muslims with regard to taxation and penal law; the refusal of dhimmi testimony by Muslim courts; a requirement that Jews and Christians (and other non-Muslims, including Hindus) wear distinctive clothes; and the overall humiliation and abasement of non-Muslims.

[ibrodsky]

Spencer provides this reasoned, sobering assessment of the modern predicament created by the living institutions of jihad and dhimmitude, which is consistently obfuscated by his timid or uninformed peers in modern Western intellectual circles:

“…the simple fact that jihad remains a vital part of Islamic theology is insufficiently appreciated in the West. In stark contrast to apologies for the Crusades issued by the Pope and various Protestant groups, no major Muslim group has ever repudiated the doctrines of jihad. The ideology of jihad, with all its assumptions about unbelievers’ lack of human rights and dignity, is available today as a justification for anyone with the will and the means to bring it to life…The idea that non-Muslims must be fought, and that the ideal state of peaceful coexistence between Muslims and non-Muslims is predicated upon the subjugation of non-Muslims, affects the overall prospects for peaceful coexistence between the Muslim world and non-Muslims. Can non-Muslims ever be full citizens in states that obey Islamic law (the Sharia), either in whole or part? They are not so today in large part and on account of the doctrines of jihad and the Qur’anic injunction to make non-Muslims ‘feel themselves subdued’ (Sura 9:29), and because of the complex of laws and institutions that are founded upon these teachings.”

Spencer concludes his discussion of the Akbar case by asking whether the sergeant, “might have heard that his primary allegiance was to Islam, not the United States, in his mosque…[The Bilal Islamic Center in Los Angeles].” Indeed, Akbar’s mosque was funded by Saudi sources ( i.e., $ 8 million from King Fahd himself, and another $295,000 from the Saudi Islamic Development Bank for the mosques’ school) with an explicit ideological agenda- the promotion of “the principles of Shari’a,” interpreted through the prism of Wahhabism. And this school of Muslim thought expounds, unabashedly, the classical doctrines of jihad war and dhimmitude, which certainly would include, as Spencer, notes, “teaching about the impermissibility of a Muslim fighting another, and the necessity of jihad against non-Muslims….”

The author segues from the Akbar case to a host of other chilling examples which illustrate the pervasive influence of jihad and dhimmitude in both the U.S. and European Muslim communities- primarily mosques expounding these institutions, but also intermediate school textbooks, and college student organizations (for e.g., chapters of the Muslim Student Association).

Spencer’s carefully referenced, but concise, thoughtful discussions address a truly impressive array of issues critical to an informed understanding of international jihad conflicts and terrorism. Two key analyses, include:

Describing how seminal 20th century Muslim ideologues- the Shi’ite Ayatollah Khomeini, and four Sunnis - Hasan al Banna, Sayyid Qutb, Sayyid Abul A’la Maududi, and Abdullah Azzam - revitalized and implemented the “forme fruste” of the classical Islamic institutions of jihad and dhimmitude. Since the 1930s, their teachings and actions have had a profound impact on every major jihad campaign across the globe (including, but not limited to Israel, India, Bangladesh, Iran, Sudan, Indonesia, former Yugoslavia, and Algeria). Osama bin Laden, who orchestrated the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center, was influenced deeply and directly by Abdullah Azzam, with whom he studied and fought alongside, in Afghanistan.

Exposing the corrosive hagiography of both (Medieval) Muslim Spain and the 500 years of Islamic rule in the Balkans. Spencer’s succinct review of the actual plight of those indigenous Christians and Jews conquered by jihad campaigns in each region shatters the utopian myth of “enlightened” Muslim rule under Shari’a-imposed dhimmitude. This contextualizes the recent explosion of sectarian violence in the former Yugoslavia, incited in no small measure, by the writings of Bosnian Muslim leader Alija Izetbegovic, who (in his “The Islamic Declaration”) openly declared his desire to reimpose the Shari’a. This was a simply horrifying prospect for Serbs based on their painful 500-year legacy of dhimmitude, including nearly 300 years of being subjected to the cruel devshirme system- a recurrent levy of adolescent Christian males, removed from their homes, forcibly converted to Islam, and raised as Turkish military slaves.

Finally, Spencer also provides an invaluable introduction to the writings of three brilliant contemporary scholars largely ignored by poorly informed, and/or agenda driven “elites” in the media and academia. Despite these currently prevailing, but misguided attitudes, it is worth noting that the work of each of these scholars- Bat Ye’or, Ibn Warraq, and K.S. Lal- has in fact been peer reviewed and extolled by three of the 20th century’s most important authorities on Islamic history: Professor H.Z. Hirschberg (Bat Ye’or); Maxime Rodinson (Ibn Warraq); and Sir Hamilton Gibb (K.S. Lal).

Thirteen years ago (September, 1990) Bat Ye’or made these prescient observations regarding the struggle against what she termed the “Islamist trend,” by its myriad victims:

“…this effort cannot succeed without a complete recasting of mentalities, the desacralization of the historic jihad and an unbiased examination of Islamic imperialism. Without such a process, the past will continue to poison the present and inhibit the establishment of harmonious relationships. When all is said and done, such self-criticism is hardly exceptional. Every scourge, such as religious fanaticism, the crusades, the inquisition, slavery, apartheid, colonialism, Nazism and, today, communism, are analyzed, examined, and exorcized in the West. Even Judaism- harmless in comparison with the power of the Church and the Christian empires- caught, in its turn, in the great modernization movement, has been forced to break away from some traditions. It is inconceivable that Islam, which began in Mecca and swept through three continents, should alone avoid a critical reflection on the mechanisms of its power and expansion. The task of assessing their history must be undertaken by the Muslims themselves…there is room to hope that the ending of the contentious dhimmi past will open the way to harmonization of the whole human family….”

Sadly, more than a decade later, Robert Spencer demonstrates that dhimmitude is still ignored or obfuscated, and most Muslim (and many Western) intellectuals continue to justify the jihad concept as an inoffensive spiritual engagement with one’s own evil instincts, or purely “defensive” combat for “justice.” Let us hope the author’s elegant, uncompromising analyses prompt intellectual and media elites in general, and the Muslim intelligentsia and media, in particular, to begin the long overdue process of a (self-) critical reflection on the uniquely Islamic institutions of jihad and dhimmitude. Only then can meaningful interfaith dialogue begin to facilitate sincere efforts at reconciliation between Muslim and non-Muslim societies and peoples.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew G. Bostom, MD, MS is an Associate Professor of Medicine at Brown University Medical School, and occasional contributor to Frontpage Magazine.

[RichardP]

Originally posted by ibrodsky

Call me pessimistic, but it will never happen in my life time nor my children’s' children. Until we stop validating Islamic fundamentalism and interpreting it with Western moral principles; we will continue to delude ourselves: and the war against terror will new never-ending. I am certain that there are many left-wing Westerners who already have their prayer mat at the ready and have located Mecca so that they may bow in the right direction.

[andak01]

Originally posted by ibrodsky

it is worth noting that the work of each of these scholars- Bat Ye’or, Ibn Warraq, and K.S. Lal- has in fact been peer reviewed and extolled by three of the 20th century’s most important authorities on Islamic history: Professor H.Z. Hirschberg (Bat Ye’or); Maxime Rodinson (Ibn Warraq); and Sir Hamilton Gibb (K.S. Lal).

It is worth noting that "Holocaust Denial and the Elders of Zion" is approved by three scholars- Heinrich Himmler, Kurt Waldheim and Rudolph Hess. Such is the extremism of these "experts".

I would get violently ill before recommending that anyone read such hateful things about Christianity or Judaeism.

I will ask you what I have asked Abu a thousand times with no response. Once you have convinced everyone that all Muslims are evil, what then? How do plan to prove your moral superiority?

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by andak01
It is worth noting that "Holocaust Denial and the Elders of Zion" is approved by three scholars- Heinrich Himmler, Kurt Waldheim and Rudolph Hess. Such is the extremism of these "experts".

I would get violently ill before recommending that anyone read such hateful things about Christianity or Judaeism.

I will ask you what I have asked Abu a thousand times with no response. Once you have convinced everyone that all Muslims are evil, what then? How do plan to prove your moral superiority?

Please try not to put words in my mouth.

Not all Muslims are evil. But there are two huge problems that will eventually need to be resolved:

1. The Fifth Column: Islamists living in Western societies posing as moderates to avoid deportation.

2. Large pockets of Islamism and sympathy with Islamism in the Muslim world.

Whether we can avoid a "war of civilizations" is by no means clear.

[andak01]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
Not all Muslims are evil. But there are two huge problems that will eventually need to be resolved:

1. The Fifth Column: Islamists living in Western societies posing as moderates to avoid deportation.

This is also the reasoning used to out Commies during the McCarthy era. In retrospect, it caused more suffering than anything, and the number of real Commies outed was minimal.

Would it be putting words in your mouth to say that no Muslims can be trusted? If you believe that any moderate might be a poseur, how can you justify trusting any of them? If that is the case, then being a moderate is rather a waste of energy. I don't believe it is yet, because you don't yet speak for everyone.

2. Large pockets of Islamism and sympathy with Islamism in the Muslim world.

Nobody is denying that there are. But the largest pockets belong to those who proliferate intolerant thought. And I would include among them, those who sell weapons small and large. Part of this is a question of education. Once someone has been fully endoctrinated to kill, it is very difficult to turn them back.

Whether we can avoid a "war of civilizations" is by no means clear.

That is a war that none of us would survive. I would suggest that we turn our energies towards our common goals and values rather than polarize the world.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by andak01
This is also the reasoning used to out Commies during the McCarthy era. In retrospect, it caused more suffering than anything, and the number of real Commies outed was minimal.

McCarthy caused little harm. His biggest mistake was exposing communists and hangers-on in the entertainment industry. They have used the media ever since to inflate McCarthyism beyond recognition.

Would it be putting words in your mouth to say that no Muslims can be trusted?

Yes.

If you believe that any moderate might be a poseur, how can you justify trusting any of them?

That is a good question.

I think the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the litmus test. Anyone who supports the phony 'Palestinian' side in the conflict is not a moderate. 75 years of Arab mass murder attacks against Jews, Palestinians who only discovered they needed a 'state' after 1967, terrorism targeting women and children, willful deception, and the Arab Middle East's viscious racism--these are not things a 'moderate' would want to be associated with.

If that is the case, then being a moderate is rather a waste of energy. I don't believe it is yet, because you don't yet speak for everyone.

Putting words in my mouth again. I don't claim to speak for anyone but myself. I just happen to think the threat posed by Islamism is far more serious than our leaders yet realize.

Nobody is denying that there are. But the largest pockets belong to those who proliferate intolerant thought.

So? No one should be surprised there is a great deal of intolerance in a religion that, as widely interpreted, is set on conquering the world.

And I would include among them, those who sell weapons small and large. Part of this is a question of education. Once someone has been fully endoctrinated to kill, it is very difficult to turn them back

Nonsense. People buy weapons for self-defense, hunting, or to murder. The real issue is not the seller--but what the buyer does or intends to do with them.

I dare say that most Muslims are taught to hate Israel and Jews. You can deny it, but when Muslim leaders in Malaysia ranting about Israel and the Jews it's because they are evil Islamists. Israel is thousands of miles away and, other than being the victim of Islamist mass murder, has absolutely no relation to anything happening in Malaysia.

That is a war that none of us would survive. I would suggest that we turn our energies towards our common goals and values rather than polarize the world.

It would be very devastating if we waited until Iran got the bomb and Muslims took over countries such as the UK and France. However, I have no doubt the US would win such a conflict.

I suggest we turn our energies towards crushing Islamo-fascism. Make it clear that we will not tolerate such evil. Put Syria, Iran, and Arafatistan on notice that they are next.

[andak01]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
That is a good question.

I think the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the litmus test. Anyone who supports the phony 'Palestinian' side in the conflict is not a moderate.

So pushing for a state of Palestine or for any sort of roadmap, is that also out of the question? Re the Palestinian question, I think it is the best place for 50,000 or so American troops right now. I'm all for regiem change, are you with me?

Islamism is far more serious than our leaders yet realize.

$150 billion or so isn't serious enough for you!? 150,000 troops in Iraq isn't serious enough? The Department of Homeland Security isn't serious enough? WTF do you want? Total nuclear annihilation?

So? No one should be surprised there is a great deal of intolerance in a religion that, as widely interpreted, is set on conquering the world.

I don't interpret it that way. Muslims who spend their days worrying about the coming of the Mahdi instead of paying attention to their personal morality remind me of Christians holding onto the Book of Revelations. If we live our lives correctly, the Day of Judgement is not something to fear. But past efforts to bring it on sooner have failed miserably at the cost of many lives.

Nonsense. People buy weapons for self-defense, hunting, or to murder. The real issue is not the seller--but what the buyer does or intends to do with them.

So you aren't one of the ones who thinks that France and Germany are hypocritical to sell weapons to Iraq and then refuse to fight?

I dare say that most Muslims are taught to hate Israel and Jews. You can deny it, but when Muslim leaders in Malaysia ranting about Israel and the Jews it's because they are evil Islamists. Israel is thousands of miles away and, other than being the victim of Islamist mass murder, has absolutely no relation to anything happening in Malaysia.

You and I both know that anti-Semitism doesn't begin and end with Muslims. Anti-Semitism isn't a necessary ingredient of Islam and it is one we had better learn to do without.

I suggest we turn our energies towards crushing Islamo-fascism. Make it clear that we will not tolerate such evil. Put Syria, Iran, and Arafatistan on notice that they are next.

Great idea, now who pays for all this? And what do we lose by focusing all of our energies and moneys away from every other issue on earth?

[abu afak]

Originally posted by andak01
It is worth noting that "Holocaust Denial and the Elders of Zion" is approved by three scholars- Heinrich Himmler, Kurt Waldheim and Rudolph Hess. Such is the extremism of these "experts".

I would get violently ill before recommending that anyone read such hateful things about Christianity or Judaeism.

I will ask you what I have asked Abu a thousand times with no response. Once you have convinced everyone that all Muslims are evil, what then? How do plan to prove your moral superiority?

Holocaust Denial may have been 'approved by those three', .. two of whom were Nazis (and one close) of course.. it that's who you want to compare to today's Arabs.
And that German/Austrian culture you're comparing the Arab and Muslim world to ....we Crushed by war.
(hmmmmmmmmmm)

And I have answered you here and on other boards what we should do about the Muslim Bigotry and Persecution of others and it's condonement by their societies.
and it's Dishonest/typical of you to ask as If I haven't.

Most recently just 3 days ago!!
(You really are Disingenuous Trash)

From Charlie Rose board:
http://boards.charlierose.com/board/...p?ti=4139&pg=2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by andak01

The world's biggest problem is intolerance. And you are making a Crusade to increase it by fomenting hatred against ALL Muslims. It is equally as bad as Muslims who spew hatred and lies about the Jews. Both actions lead to violence and death in the end. Which gets us to another point. What would you have us do, once we have all acknowledged your "truth" that Islam is the world's biggest problem? What's the plan?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then Quoting my response

abu afak
1. "The world's biggest problem is intolerance"

You got that right.
That's why I post.
Most of that intolerance and acting out on it is done by Muslims and their Governments, and is cheered, or condoned, or denied, by the most of the rest.

2. "What would you have us do"

We've been through this one many times too.

First.. I can't even get you to acknowledge the problem! Much less the Arab World or the masses of Anti-semitic Indonesian and other Third world Muslims who've never even seen a Jew. .. Holy Islam, Batman!
(to name just a few minor problems)

What to do, is you go post on Muslim message boards and tell them they've got the wrong version-- stop trying to convince us their is no problem...
(at least scott did just that the other day when I pointed to it)

Hint .. your apologism never flies for long .. no one on these message boards buys their isn't a systemic problem.

3. Use progressive but honest Muslims like Ajami and Taheri to coldly but hopefully assess the situation; the situation at the moment isn't good but is improving thanks to the Iraq invasion. It has sent shock waves through the Arab world especially and will only help.

See one of Taheri's latest which says just that:
http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/558 . ...
...

he's written may good articles not anti-Islamic ones.. look again
You also didn't hate this one when I posted it on Israel Forum 4 months ago:
-
http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?s ...

4. Point to good examples of Muslim Leadership/Government, promote them. .. That's not that easy, I know.. but that's exactly what Taheri is trying to do .. you think he is too critical.. I think too soft... but he IS trying to encourage, perhaps being too optimistic.

5. Change your mind about Iraq-- It's hard to imagine any change for the worse in the Arab Middle East even if there's short term turmoil in many spots.
The Communist East Bloc had to fall... so do most Arab governments;
Let's get on with it. It WILL probably be uglier than Eastern Europe but that's 'tough' and a function of where the Arab world is now.

http://boards.charlierose.com/board/...p?ti=4139&pg=2

Now, pretend to everyone here you never heard it before ....again

and even that was not the first time I answered here Or on that other board.

"So Long Folks"... andak01 8/01/03

[andak01]

abu afak
1. "The world's biggest problem is intolerance"

You got that right.
That's why I post.
Most of that intolerance and acting out on it is done by Muslims and their Governments, and is cheered, or condoned, or denied, by the most of the rest.

So far I don't see any solution.

2. "What would you have us do"

We've been through this one many times too.

First.. I can't even get you to acknowledge the problem! Much less the Arab World or the masses of Anti-semitic Indonesian and other Third world Muslims who've never even seen a Jew. .. Holy Islam, Batman!
(to name just a few minor problems)

Anyone who has read my posts would know that I do acknowledge and condemn Arab anti-Semitism as part and parcel of world anti-Semitism. That condemnation includes condemnation of any policy to keep people out of Arab nations on the basis of their faith. And that includes support of changing any school curriculums that include antiSemitic teachings, including those in madrasas.

What to do, is you go post on Muslim message boards and tell them they've got the wrong version-- stop trying to convince us their is no problem...
(at least scott did just that the other day when I pointed to it)

I have never tried to convince anyone there is no problem. It's just that I feel measures taken against it, when right minded (i.e. with a mind towards education, coalition building and cooperation instead of carpet bombing and arrogant dismissal.) are sufficient.

Hint .. your apologism never flies for long .. no one on these message boards buys their isn't a systemic problem.

Hint. Readers don't need your jilted commentary to digest what I say and my opinions.

3. Use progressive but honest Muslims like Ajami and Taheri to coldly but hopefully assess the situation; the situation at the moment isn't good but is improving thanks to the Iraq invasion. It has sent shock waves through the Arab world especially and will only help.

They are neither progressive nor honest. In fact, they are in the pocket of the neoCons. They profit by starting wars and fueling the military machine.

I see the results of this shock wave in a rising American body count. We are now dependant upon the very allies that we dismissed as irrelevant before the war.

I didn't ask for yet another bunch of Islamophobic links. I asked for a proferred solution. Telling me to shut up and go away is pretty feable. If you want me to go hang out with the Islamists, my response would be for you to spend more time with the Nazis, where you get your news from. I have no use for hateful people of any stripe.

4. Point to good examples of Muslim Leadership/Government, promote them. .. That's not that easy, I know.. but that's exactly what Taheri is trying to do .. you think he is too critical.. I think too soft... but he IS trying to encourage, perhaps being too optimistic.

I did quote the king of Morocco's recent anti-terror speech on one of the boards.

5. Change your mind about Iraq-- It's hard to imagine any change for the worse in the Arab Middle East even if there's short term turmoil in many spots.
The Communist East Bloc had to fall... so do most Arab governments;
Let's get on with it. It WILL probably be uglier than Eastern Europe but that's 'tough' and a function of where the Arab world is now.

The day the Iraqis have a true and fair election, I'll say that we accomplished at least the most important part of what we went in to do.

What gives us the right to make unlimited adjustments to the governments of sovereign nations? And who is going to pay for all these wars? And do you give a rip how many have to die in order to enforce MacGovernment upon all the peoples of the world? I thought not.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by andak01


They are neither progressive nor honest. In fact, they are in the pocket of the neoCons. They profit by starting wars and fueling the military machine.

You almost had me thinking you really are a moderate Muslim...

When you accuse Fouad Ajami of being "in the pocket of the NeoCons" [read: pro-Israel, conservative Jews in government] you show your true colors. Ajami is a respected scholar and commentator and there is no evidence he simply mouths positions dictated to him by others. Your accusation that he "profits" by war is baseless--yet so typical of the way Islamist apologists think and act.

I see the results of this shock wave in a rising American body count.

Yes, the number of Americans killed by jihad-genocide is rising, but that is no reason to stop fighting this scourge. Quite the opposite.

I didn't ask for yet another bunch of Islamophobic links. I asked for a proferred solution. Telling me to shut up and go away is pretty feable. If you want me to go hang out with the Islamists, my response would be for you to spend more time with the Nazis, where you get your news from. I have no use for hateful people of any stripe.

Out trot the "Islamophobe!" complaints.

Actually, your complaints match those of the jihad-genocide Islamists much better than you are willing to admit.

The day the Iraqis have a true and fair election, I'll say that we accomplished at least the most important part of what we went in to do.

Meanwhile, you are for preventing that from ever happening.

What gives us the right to make unlimited adjustments to the governments of sovereign nations? And who is going to pay for all these wars? And do you give a rip how many have to die in order to enforce MacGovernment upon all the peoples of the world? I thought not.

When other governments attack and threaten their neighbors, use WMD against their own citizens, support terrorism, and pursue WMD to blackmail the Free World, then we have the right to intervene.

Your concern about "who is going to pay for all these wars" is phony to the core. If your professed leftwing views are genuine, then you would be all for massive deficit spending on social programs.

The real questions are "Who is going to pay for all of the damage wrought by Islamists?" and "Can we ever hope to pay the cost of another major terrorist attack on the US?"

In your eyes, the Islamists attack us, our assets and people abroad, and our allies because we made them do it. Then when we depose terrorist-supporting regimes, you oppose that.

Your claim that you oppose Islamists and jihad-genocide rings hollow.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by andak01
So pushing for a state of Palestine or for any sort of roadmap, is that also out of the question?

Yep. There was no one demanding a Palestinian state prior to 1967. I provided evidence elsewhere that a high ranking PA official said in an interview with an Egyptian newspaper that the PA subscribes to the "Stages" strategy: get whatever concessions they can from Israel through negotiations. But the end goal, the destruction of Israel, remains unchanged.

Until Palestinian terrorist groups and infrastructure supporting terrorism is crushed there can be no question of a negotiated settlement.

Re the Palestinian question, I think it is the best place for 50,000 or so American troops right now. I'm all for regiem change, are you with me?

You would think that. The purpose of this demand is to inhibit Israel from going after the genocide bombers and their masters. Actually, Israel is doing a fine job dismantling the terrorist groups itself, which is why the PA is now clamoring for a "truce." With Hamas members afraid to crawl out of their hiding places, suddenly the PA is for the "cease-fire" they opposed a year ago.

$150 billion or so isn't serious enough for you!? 150,000 troops in Iraq isn't serious enough? The Department of Homeland Security isn't serious enough? WTF do you want? Total nuclear annihilation?

If Islamists continue to practice genocide bombing, and Arab/Muslim governments continue to support them with a wink and a nod, then I think a few well-placed nukes are in order.

I tend to believe increasingly that the West will need to use nukes before it's all over. The only thing that will stop 100 million Islamists and Islamist sympathizers in the Arab/Muslim world is the threat of total annihilation.

I don't interpret it that way. Muslims who spend their days worrying about the coming of the Mahdi instead of paying attention to their personal morality remind me of Christians holding onto the Book of Revelations. If we live our lives correctly, the Day of Judgement is not something to fear. But past efforts to bring it on sooner have failed miserably at the cost of many lives.

Here it is: the "You [they] do it, too" argument. I don't see any serious effort by the predominantly Christian West trying to conquer the Muslim world. I do see a serious effort by Muslims to destroy Western society by a variety of means.

So you aren't one of the ones who thinks that France and Germany are hypocritical to sell weapons to Iraq and then refuse to fight?

No, its perfectly consistent for them.

You and I both know that anti-Semitism doesn't begin and end with Muslims. Anti-Semitism isn't a necessary ingredient of Islam and it is one we had better learn to do without.

I never said it did. But I can say with confidence that the Number One bastion of anti-semitism today is the Arab Middle East.

Great idea, now who pays for all this? And what do we lose by focusing all of our energies and moneys away from every other issue on earth?

Clearly you are an apologist and not the moderate you pretend to be.

According to your logic, Britain should have surrendered to Nazi Germany because fighting was just too damn expensive.

Of course, that outcome would have suited most of the Arab world just fine, as then they could have extended the Final Solution to Palestine as the Mufti of Jerusalem so dearly wanted.

[andak01]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
You almost had me thinking you really are a moderate Muslim...

When you accuse Fouad Ajami of being "in the pocket of the NeoCons" [read: pro-Israel, conservative Jews in government] you show your true colors.

Bush isn't a Jew, but he supports the NeoCons. I never made any secret of the fact that I am liberal. I guess that would make me an Islamist even if I was a Christian or a Jew.

Yes, the number of Americans killed by jihad-genocide is rising, but that is no reason to stop fighting this scourge. Quite the opposite.

Saying that occupying American soldiers killed by local resistance is jihad-genocide is quite a stretch. But I agree with you that attacks are no reason to stop fighting. We have made our bed and now we must sleep in it.

Out trot the "Islamophobe!" complaints.

You, who accuse me of being an Islamist because I would criticize the NeoCons, dare to throw this up? Don't make me laugh!

When other governments attack and threaten their neighbors, use WMD against their own citizens, support terrorism, and pursue WMD to blackmail the Free World, then we have the right to intervene.

Then let's intervene in Palestine! If I were of age, I'd volunteer for that one. And how about North Korea?

Your concern about "who is going to pay for all these wars" is phony to the core. If your professed leftwing views are genuine, then you would be all for massive deficit spending on social programs.

I'm just stating the obvious. If we "solve" all the problems of the middle east and elsewhere at the cost of our economy and our freedom and all of our allies save Britain, what does it gain us?

The real questions are "Who is going to pay for all of the damage wrought by Islamists?" and "Can we ever hope to pay the cost of another major terrorist attack on the US?"

The jury is still out over whether our invasion of Iraq has saved us from another terrorist attack or placed the as yet undiscovered WMDs in the hands of the very people we were trying to keep them from. If there are WMDs, Saddam knows where they are. And he still walks free.

In your eyes, the Islamists attack us, our assets and people abroad, and our allies because we made them do it. Then when we depose terrorist-supporting regimes, you oppose that.

We didn't make them do it, but they didn't operate in a vacuum either. Their evil acts were a reaction, not an invention. We cannot understand a solution until we recognize our own part of the problem. I say that as an American and again as a Muslim.

Muslims in Arab countries are acting on a very false set of premises.

(to wit)
- The West is at war with Islam
- Jews rule the West
- Israel is driving the policy of the US
- Bin Laden and Saddam and Arafat are innocent. But Western media slanders them.

And Americans are reacting to them based on another set of false premises.

- The Jihad movement is everywhere
- Bin Laden, Saddam and Arafat rule the minds of Arabs everywhere
- They are all miserable, and if only they could be like us, they would be happy.

[abu afak]

Originally posted by andak01
So far I don't see any solution.

I just reiterated the problem and you still don't acknowledge it ... but say .. emptily.. you "see no solution yet"
another Disingenuos and non-response

Anyone who has read my posts would know that I do acknowledge and condemn Arab anti-Semitism as part and parcel of world anti-Semitism. That condemnation includes condemnation of any policy to keep people out of Arab nations on the basis of their faith. And that includes support of changing any school curriculums that include antiSemitic teachings, including those in madrasas.

And anyone who has Read my posts, including the last, knows "Anti-Semitism" is just a Tiny part of the Problem of Islamic/Muslim Persecution, War, and Cleansing of others by Islamic Peoples and their Governments.

You STILL haven't acknowledged the problem, and, as usual, Disingenuosly, seek to narrow it to 'anti-semitism'

I have never tried to convince anyone there is no problem. It's just that I feel measures taken against it, when right minded (i.e. with a mind towards education, coalition building and cooperation instead of carpet bombing and arrogant dismissal.) are sufficient.

"Convincing us there is no Problem" or minimizing it to a few thousand Radicals of miniscule proportion to Islam, is not only what you do, its, what you Mainly do, and it's why most people here know you're a liar.. and why I reiterate .. You Are.
(some think being a polite one is acceptable... me?
I prefer an honest basher to a Lying apologist)
You've put up scores of posts on Sudan alone trying to prove there was no Genocide.

I did quote the king of Morocco's recent anti-terror speech on one of the boards.

Yeah I saw that .. you actually told us about Muslim-on-Muslim Violence that's going on in Morocco to show Muslims can demonstrate against Violence! (on each other though)..
No ambiguity in the Koran on that I bet.
Congrats!
Now that we know they can demonstrate when they feel anything...
Any Muslim Demos that big against 9/11, or the Sudan, or Bali, or Coptic persecution, etc etc etc etc etc etc ?