Reporting from Londonistan;
A Kurdish woman was brutally raped, stamped on and strangled by members of her family and their friends in an “honor killing” carried out at her London home because she had fallen in love with the wrong man.
Banaz Mahmod, 20, was subjected to the 2-1/2 hour ordeal before she was garroted with a bootlace. Her body was stuffed into a suitcase and taken about 100 miles to Birmingham where it was buried in the back garden of a house.
If you say “Timothy McVeigh” three times and throw a handful of ammonium nitrate over your left shoulder, you can make this go away.
*
SDA Flashback: A Sunday Telegraph investigation has established that honour killings are increasing rapidly in Britain. Home Office statistics suggest that there are 12 such murders each year. However, according to research, the true figure is much higher. At a conference in Southampton last week, police chiefs revealed that they are re-examining 2,000 deaths and-murders between 1996 and 2006 to establish whether they involve honour killings. So far, 19 have now been found to be honour killings. A further 20 involved some element of “honour violence”.
“Whoa, whoa, but homophobia is rampant in the US”
“Whoa, whoa, but homophobia is rampant in the US”
I agree Joanne. If “peaceful Muslims” are truly peaceful, why in Canada have they not completely immersed themselves into becoming Canadian and adopting our ways? Why do we have mosques? Why do the women wear burkas and other traditional clothing? Why do they want Sharia Law instituted here?
Instead, it is second-generation Canadian Muslims who are as fanatical, if not moreso, than those living in Muslim countries. No Muslim should be allowed to immigrate to Canada, period!!
A worthwhile article regarding moderate Muslims:
http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2006/02/why-peaceful-majority-is-irrelevant.html
The Masai also practice honour killings, arranged marriages from birth, etc. It is tribal. However, Islam has incubated and promoted these acts for 1400 years, rather than condemning them.
Honour killing may not be found in islam’s doctrine. However, all kinds of other violence is, which, are foundational to Islam – commanded and rewarded in their book and through their prophets life example.
Perhaps, with proper motivation, honour killings can be outlawed through a reformation and a unified doctrine of Islam. The rest of it cannot, without editing out much of the Quran and rejecting Mohammad outright.
ET: wlmr – your Muslim law sounds exactly like a Third Reich Law against Jews and other ‘aliens’.
Actually, it wasn’t wlmr, but some wag who called himself WL Mackenzie King Redux who posted that hypothetic “Muslim law” (8:56 AM, since deleted). In any case, you’re close — it was actually a near-literal reproduction of the Chinese Exclusion Act 1923 (hence WLMK), only with “Muslim” substituted for “Chinese,” and was a tongue-in-cheek response to Lori’s suggestion that we “ban worthless immigrants and refugees…now that WILL make Canada safter [sic].” Frankly, I thought it was rather clever; not sure why Kate deleted it.
Geothermal: Exactly A’dam. All except Howard of course. You might want to keep read some news between your bowl of froot loops and Mommies kiss goodnight.
Ahh, I’m not sure what your point is. I’m saying that almost nobody agrees with your assessment that Islam itself, rather than a small and extremist faction of its followers, is the problem. In other words, you are mostly alone on this (well, you’ve got Honey Pot). Are you saying that because PM Howard kinda, sorta said stuff that aligns with your views that I’m therefore wrong?
Honey Pot: …there is no choice for a muslim female. It isn’t even in their vocabulary. If they get out of line, they get the shit kicked out of them or killed. That wouldn’t be considered their choice, but islam’s choice.
That’s not true. There a growing number of Muslim women who are empowered to assert themselves vis-a-vis the Muslim community. They don’t reject their Muslim faith, but they also don’t date or marry patriarchal hardliners either. Google “Azizah” or “RAWA” for but a tiny sliver of this important, moderate, reform-minded voice.
Belisarius: Rather than calling for immigration bans or world war on Islam we should be doing everything we can to support the moderates in their efforts to reform and modernize their religion.
The Phantom: But don’t give in to the hate. Its evil men and evil deeds we fight, not a whole religion. Seek out the evil and destroy it for sure, but find the good and praise it as well. Otherwise we become what we fight. That’s no multi-culti malarkey either, that’s the real deal.
Wow, Phantom, we actually agree on something! This calls for a celebration. You shoot down and roast that flying pig, while I chill some champers in the ice field that was once Hell.
Yesterday, I wrote in another thread that:
Many Muslim Canadians complain that they’re threatened into silence by the more radical elements within their own communities. It doesn’t help if outsiders demand that “moderate Muslims” speak out against extremism, on the one hand, while also indiscriminately lumping them together with those same extremist factions, on the other.
Even from a pure national security perspective, such “moderates” could serve as key allies by acting as the “eyes and ears” within the Muslim community. But the incentives to cooperate would be greatly lowered if they thought (as many currently do now) that wider Canadian society views them as no different from radical Islamists and terrorists).
For the record…I’m not advocating censorship or the denial of free speech. If you wish to engage in/condon generalizations and careless language about “Muslims,” that’s your prerogative. But you may wish to consider the possibility that, by doing so, you contribute in a small but real way to the problem.
Alas, Kate’s single-line response to this was, “Jesus, A’dam, you’re thick.” Sigh, oh well.
“What I don’t understand is how a father, brother, mother, sister, husband, etc. can condone honor killings and in the same breathe state that they feel any true love for their family members.”
Joanne….a damn fine question.
Yet we allow people raised with this kind of moral structure to immigrate here by the hundreds of thousands.
I say the saturation of political correctness in our country has created a media that thinks it ‘racist’ to even discuss such a topic.Except for the odd editorial where an msm member pops up like a gopher out of it’s hole to say “What’s up with the muslims?”,they are careful to say NOTHING negative about any minority culture.
Like many here,I have struggled with the “Where is the muslim outrage?” question on terrorists committing untold death and suffering worldwide in the name of THEIR god.
(Islam is the religion of peace…anyone saying otherwise will be killed.)
I’ve been told that to only speak out against the hardcore Islamist is too dangerous for a muslim.If this is true….even in Canada….then I consider that a pretty good indicator of how far radicalness has spread beyond the ME itself.
Also,as someone touched upon earlier,I believe this is yet another example of how feminists in this country only seem to care about themselves becoming richer,whiter and more powerful.
Joanne: We have Muslims in my city who profess to hate Canada, so why are they here?
Yawn. Some folks here absolutely loathe Canada’s Constitution, parliament, civil service, judicial system, health care system, education system, mass media, etc. etc. So why are they here?
Keesha: If “peaceful Muslims” are truly peaceful, why in Canada have they not completely immersed themselves into becoming Canadian and adopting our ways? Why do we have mosques? Why do the women wear burkas and other traditional clothing? Why do they want Sharia Law instituted here?
To be peaceful means to “completely immersed oneself” into “Canadian ways,” which apparently means no mosques and no traditional clothes? I hope you’re being sarcastic. I’d cite the Charter here to remind you of the notion of freedom of religion, but that document is obviously a socialist rag, so I’ll point you instead to the First Amendment in the US. Oh, and the CAIR-CAN and moderate Muslim clerics such as Ahmad Kutty were publicly opposed to instituting Sharia law in Ontario.
Nice to have a resident expert on all matters.
Wonder if everyone stopped the banter with said resident, would he, assuming it’s a he, tangle with himself?
Another thought, he’s got to be either retired or working for the Lieberals to hijack Conservative blogs. If so,he better be careful hid paycheck doesn’t bounce.
Its too bad that england let the liberal wussietards from ANESTY INTERNATIONAL talk them into abolishing the death penalty those responsible should have a one way meeting with the hooded headsman his axe a chopping block and a little wicker basket
A’dam: There is a big difference between the Christian faith and the Muslim faith. First of all, Allah is not the God of the Bible. Secondly, killing unbelievers (infidels) is commanded in the Qu’ran and taught as well as practiced by Muhammed and his followers. You cannot find anything equivalent in the New Testament. The Christian faith is spread by persuasion, Islam is spread by the sword.
I agree with much of what a’dam has said. In my view, Islam can be reformed and it is an error on our part to generalize and conclude that All Muslims are fanatics and that the Koran is not open to hermeneutic interpretation.
There are Islamic scholars doing just that; interpreting the Koran in a non-fundamentalist manner. Google ‘progressive thinking in contemporary Islam’.
Islamic fascism is not equivalent to the Islamic religion, though a number of people on this thread seem to equate the two. The rise of Islamic fascism, as expressed in for example, Al Qaeda, can be found analyzed in a number of places; see Lawrence Wright ‘The Looming Tower’.
There are several aspects of Islam to consider. The first is that it is not merely a religion but above all a social and political mode of life, a tribal sociopolitical mode. This is the ‘root cause’ of the emergence of Islamic fascism. The ME nations have refused to empower and enable a middle class – which must have the economic and political power in the nation. Instead, it’s a dictatorial tribe that has the power. That has led to fascism. The solution is to create a middle class, ie, democracy. Democracy is a political mode that empowers the majority and the majority has to be middle class, ie, entrepreneurial capitalists.
The other aspect of Islam to consider is its social and political ideology – which is, again, tribal, and therefore, completely unsuited to a modern industrial society. This has to be changed; the Islamic people must be able to function within the modern industrial global economy – and tribalism, with its restrictions on control of capital, its definition of women as ‘owned’ by a family, its economy based around the family clan etc…is 700 years behind the times. They’ll have to modernize.
But – restricting them to ‘their countries’, isolating them as ‘all evil’ won’t help either problem. It will just make it worse for they will retreat into a fundamentalist isolation.
Liz J: Wonder if everyone stopped the banter with said resident, would he, assuming it’s a he, tangle with himself?
Liz, if it weren’t for “trolls” like me, 99 times out of a 100, everyone here would just be nodding their heads in agreement with whatever Kate posts. Have you personally ever, even once, commented critically about anything Kate says?
And why does disagreeing with every single opinion you hold (they’re just…so…off!) mean I’m hijacking this blog? Somebody posts something, I post something back, the cylce repeats, and we all pretend it’s debate. Good times!
Herman: Secondly, killing unbelievers (infidels) is commanded in the Qu’ran and taught as well as practiced by Muhammed and his followers.
That may be true in a literal sense, Herman, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that all practitioners of Islam will inexorably obey those passages. Most Christians don’t actually take the Bible literally (not even the New Testament), and most don’t live their lives in full accordance with ever last Biblical value or teaching. Those living in the Western world are, rightly or wrongly, especially selective about what aspects of Christianity they believe in, and even then, they balance those religious beliefs with secular considerations and the mundane routines that constitute day-to-day living.
In other words, the average practicing Christian in the West isn’t a fundamentalist evangelical. Why assume that the average practicing Muslim in the West is any different?
I would never presume to know the true feelings of all practicing Muslims. I do question the silence from the MSM and rights activist in the West. They should be helping moderate Muslims by exposing the fundamentalist for the monsters they are. Headline and condemn the horrific stories of radical Islam’s abuses. They don’t though. Instead they blame everything but the perpetrators. How is that progressive?
A’dam,
Your logic is appalling, your ignorance of the topic is even worse. So please stop with the condescending righteousness:
Packwood’s Law: Sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from evil.
As I and many others have said before, violence is foundational to Islam. This does not mean that all Muslims are evil or violent. It does mean, though, that violence is institutional in the Quran and in Mo’s life example.
As a comparison:
We know how Jesus dealt with the adultress, “Let he without sin cast the first stone.” He saved her life.
Now, how about Mo? 600 years later he was faced with the same thing and here’s how he dealt with it:
“Do not stone the adulteress who is pregnant until she has had her child.” After the birth she was put into a ditch up to her chest and the prophet commanded them to stone her. Khalid came forward with a stone, which he threw at her head, and there spurted blood on the face of Khalid and he cursed her. The gentle prophet prayed over her and she was buried. – Hadith No. Muslim 682
That’s just one case of foundational violence in Islam.
How about how Mohammad treated the Jewish tribe at Medina/Trench? He personally presided over, some say did a lot of the work in chopping off the heads of 600-900 men, all for refusing to join his army of brigands and murderers. He then coached his men on the finer points of rapine. The women and daughters were later sold into slavery, except for the most beautiful one, whom Mo kept for himself. But not before forcing her to watch her husband, father and other male family members butchered. (Hadiths)
The attrocities Mo committed go on and on – Like the contract killing of the two poets in Mecca for insulting him, etc. etc.
Since all Muslims are commanded to follow Mohammad as the perfect man and final prophet of allah, and given that Mohammad was a violent (evil) man, it stands to reason that violence is modus operandi in Islam.
But here’s how one of their great scholars describes the Islamic Jihad plan:
Thus the jihad may be regarded as Islam’s instrument for carrying out its ultimate objective by turning all people into believers, if not in prophethood of Muhammad (as in the case of the dhimmis), at least in the belief of God…Until that moment is reached the jihad, in one form or another will remain as a permanent obligation upon the entire Muslim community. It follows that the existence of a dar al-harb is ultimately outlawed under the Islamic jural order; that the dar al-Islam permanently under jihad obligation until the dar al-harb is ultimately outlawed under the Islamic jural order…until the dar al-harb is rduced to non-existence…The universality of Islam, in its all embracing creed, is imposed on the believers as a continuous process of warfare, psychological and political if not strictly military. – Professor Majid Khadduri, treatise on jihad, War and Peace in the Law of Islam, 1955
I’m sure this Muslim knows a thing or two more about the ultimate objective of his religion than you, no?
Oh, and more on the perfect man and prophet of allah, who’s life example every Muslim must follow:
Muslim (8:3309) – Muhammad married Aisha at the age of nine.
Bukhari (62:18) – Aisha’s father, Abu Bakr, wasn’t on board at first, but Muhammad explained how the rules of their religion made it possible. This is similar to the way that present-day cult leaders manipulate their followers into similar concessions.
Muslim (8:3311) – The girl took her dolls with her to Muhammad’s house (something to play with when the “prophet” was not having sex with her).
Bukhari (6:298) – Muhammad would take a bath with the little girl and fondle her.
Muslim (8:3460) – “Why didn’t you marry a young girl so that you could sport with her and she could sport with you, or you could amuse with her and she could amuse with you?” Muhammad posed this question to one of his followers who had married an “older woman” instead.
And, allah’s apostle said, “I have been given five things which were not given to any amongst the Prophets before me. These are:
1. Allah made me victorious by awe (Or, through terror by frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month’s journey.
2. The earth has been made for me (and for my followers) a place for praying and a thing to perform Tayammum (purification with dirt when water isn’t available) . Therefore my followers can pray wherever the time of a prayer is due.
3. The booty has been made Halal (lawful) for me (and was not made so for anyone else).
4. Every Prophet used to be sent to his nation exclusively but I have been sent to all mankind.
5. I have been given the right of intercession (on the Day of Resurrection.)
(Source: Bukhari Vol. 1, No. 429)
I don’t think any Islamic scholar would defend that statement in the context of today’s values. Gift #1 is an acknowledgment of the effectiveness of terrorism. Gift #2, that one can purify oneself with dirt, defies common sense. Gift #3 contradicts the Eighth Mosaic Commandment – thou shalt not steal –, and it is expressly prohibited by the Fourth Geneva Convention on Warfare and Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And the final two “gifts” were actually copied from Jesus’ own words – see Acts 1:8, and Matthew 10:33.
Also, keep in mind that the Quran is abrogated. The least offensive, earlier verses give way to the most offensive later verses. This is because, as Mo was writting it, he necessarily needed to be humble in order to build up his following to critical mass. After that, he arrogantly and monsterously did what he had planned to all along – the imperial and bloody, military expansion of Islam for his own vain glory.
Kind of like what Muslims do today in attempting to take over a country. Witness the different stages. In Canada and the US (a ghettoized religion of peace). To Europe (demands for shariah, ongoing violence, worse and worse threats). To Indonesia, Pakistan and the Phillipines (Outright civil war). To Sharia states (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, etc)
So, please, quit with your ridiculous delusions and answer the question that I’ve posted here over and over (ET):
Given that violence is foundational to Islam, how can it be reformed without editing out most of the Quran and rejecting Mohammad?
Here’s a good article:
Fighting Faith
Is Judeo-Christian violence the same thing as Islamic violence?
by Raymond Ibrahim
Since the terrorist strikes of 9/11, Islam has often been accused of being intrinsically violent. In response, a number of apologetics have been offered in defense of the religion. The fundamental premise of almost all of these is that Islam’s purported violence — as found in Islamic scriptures and history — is no different than the violence committed by other religious groups throughout history and as recorded in their scriptures, especially Jews and Christians. The argument, in short, is that it is not Islam per se but rather human nature that is prone to violence.
So whenever the argument is made that the Koran as well as the historical words and deeds of Islam’s prophet Muhammad and his companions evince violence and intolerance, the counter-argument is immediately made: What about the historical atrocities committed by the Hebrews in years gone by and as recorded in their scriptures (i.e. the Old Testament)? What about the brutal cycle of violence Christians have committed in the name of their faith against both fellow Christians and non-Christians?
Thereafter two examples — one biblical, the other historic — are often cited as paradigmatic of the religious violence inherent to both Judaism and Christianity.
The first is the genocide-like conquest of the land of Canaan by the Hebrews (c. 1200 BC).Yahweh told Moses:
But of the cities of these peoples which Yahweh your God gives you as an inheritance, you shall let nothing that breathes remain alive, but you shall utterly destroy them — the Hittite, Amorite, Canaanite, Perizzite, Hivite, and Jebusite — just as Yahweh your God has commanded you, lest they teach you to do according to all their abominations which they have done for their gods, and you sin against Yahweh your God (Deuteronomy 20: 16-18).
So Joshua [Moses’ successor] conquered all the land: the mountain country and the South and the lowland and the wilderness slopes, and all their kings; he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as Yahweh God of Israel had commanded (Joshua 10:40).
The second example revolves around the Crusader wars waged by European Christians between the 11th-13th centuries. To be sure, the Crusades were a “counter-attack” on Islam — not an unprovoked assault as is often depicted by revisionist history. A united Christendom sought to annex the Holy Land of Jerusalem, which, prior to its conquest by Islam in the 7th century, was an integral part of Christendom for some 400 years.
Nonetheless, these Crusades were violent and bloody and countless atrocities were committed — all in the name of Christianity and under the banner of the cross. Perhaps the most infamous act of villainy perpetrated by these “fighters-for-Christ” is the 1204 sack of Constantinople, wherein Christian slew Christian in a violent bloodbath.
Old Testament Violence
In light of the above — one a prime example of violence from the Bible, the other from Christian history — why should Islam be the one religion always characterized as intrinsically violent, simply because its holy book and its history also contain violence? Why should non-Muslims always point to the Koran and ancient history as evidence of Islam’s violence while never looking to their own scriptures and history?
While such questions are popular, they reveal a great deal of confusion between history and theology, between the temporal actions of men and the immutable words of God. The fundamental error being that Judeo-Christian history — which is violent — is being conflated with Islamic theology — which commands violence. Of course all religions have had their fair share of violence and intolerance towards the “other.” Whether this violence is ordained by God or whether warlike man merely wished it thus is the all-important question.
Old Testament violence is an interesting case in point. Yahweh clearly ordered the Hebrews to annihilate the Canaanites and surrounding peoples. Such violence is therefore an expression of God’s will, for good or ill. Regardless, all the historic violence committed by the Hebrews and recorded in the Old Testament is just that — history. It happened; God commanded it. But it revolved around a specific time and place and was directed against a specific people. At no time did such violence go on to become standardized or codified into Jewish law (i.e. the Halakha).
This is where Islamic violence is unique. Though similar to the violence of the Old Testament — commanded by God and manifested in history — certain aspects of Islamic violence have become standardized in Islamic law (i.e. the Sharia) and apply at all times. Thus while the violence found in the Koran is in fact historical, its ultimate significance is theological. Consider the following Koranic verses:
Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the pagans wherever you find them — take them [captive], besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due [i.e. submit to Islam], then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful (9:5).
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger [i.e. Islamic law], nor acknowledge the religion of Truth [i.e. Islam], from the people of the book [i.e. Jews and Christians], until they pay tribute with willing submission, and feel themselves utterly subdued (9:29).
Sword-Verses
As with Old Testament verses where Yahweh commanded the Hebrews to attack and slay their neighbors, these Koranic verses also have a historical context. Allah (through Muhammad) first issued these commandments after the Arab tribes had finally unified under the banner of Islam and were preparing to invade their Christian and pagan neighbors. But unlike the bellicose verses and anecdotes of the Old Testament, these so-called “sword-verses” subsequently became fundamental to Islam’s relationship to both the “people of the book” (i.e. Christians and Jews) and the “pagans” (i.e. Hindus, Buddhists, animists, etc).
In fact, based on the sword-verses (as well as countless other Koranic verses and oral traditions attributed to Muhammad), Islam’s scholars, sheikhs, muftis, imams, and qadis throughout the ages have all reached the consensus — binding on the entire Muslim community — that Islam is to be at perpetual war with the non-Muslim world, until the former subsumes the latter. (It is widely held that the sword-verses alone have abrogated some 200 of the Koran’s more tolerant verses.) Famous Muslim scholar and “father of modern history” Ibn Khaldun articulates the dichotomy between jihad and defensive warfare thus:
In the Muslim community, the holy war [i.e. jihad] 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… They are merely required to establish their religion among their own people. That is why the Israeilites after Moses and Joshua remained unconcerned with royal authority [e.g. a “caliphate”]. Their only concern was to establish their religion [not to spread it to the nations]… But Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations (The Muqudimmah, vol. 1 pg. 473, emphasis added).
Even when juxtaposed to their Old Testament counterparts, the sword-verses are distinctive for using language that transcends time and space, inciting believers to attack and slay non-believers today no less than yesterday. Yahweh commanded the Hebrews to kill Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites — all specific peoples rooted to a specific time and place. At no time did Yahweh give an open-ended command for the Hebrews, and by extension their descendants the Jews, to fight and kill gentiles.
On the other hand, though Islam’s original enemies were, like Judaism’s, historical (e.g. Christian Byzantines and pagan Persians), the Koran rarely singles them out by their proper names. Instead, Muslims were (and are) commanded to fight the people of the book — “until they pay tribute with willing submission and feel themselves utterly subdued” (9:29) and to “slay the pagans wherever you find them” (9:5). The two conjunctions “until” and “wherever” demonstrate the perpetual nature of these commandments: there are still “people of the book” who have yet to be “utterly subdued” (especially in the Americas, Europe, and Israel) and “pagans” to be slain “wherever” one looks (especially Asia and sub-Saharan Africa).
The Prophet’s Life as Model
Aside from the divine words of the Koran, Muhammad’s pattern of behavior — his “Sunna” or “example” — is an extremely important source of legislation in Islam. Muslims are exhorted to emulate Muhammad in all walks of life: “You have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern [of conduct]” (33:21). And Muhammad’s pattern of conduct vis-à-vis non-Muslims is quite explicit. Sarcastically arguing against the concept of “moderate” Islam, terrorist Osama bin Laden, who enjoys half the Arab-Islamic world’s support per a recent al-Jazeera poll, portrays the prophet’s Sunna thus:
“Moderation” is demonstrated by our prophet who did not remain more than three months in Medina without raiding or sending a raiding party into the lands of the infidels to beat down their strongholds and seize their possessions, their lives, and their women” (from The Al-Qaeda Reader).
In fact, based on both the Koran and Muhammad’s Sunna, pillaging and plundering infidels, enslaving their children, and placing their women in concubinage is well founded (e.g. 4:24, 4:92, 8:69, 24:33, 33:50, etc.).
While law-centric and legalistic, Judaism has no such equivalent to the Sunna; the words and deeds of the patriarchs, though recorded in the Old Testament, never went on to be part of Jewish law. Neither Abraham’s “white-lies,” nor Jacob’s perfidy, nor Moses’ short-fuse, nor David’s adultery, nor Solomon’s philandering ever went on to instruct Jews or Christians. They were merely understood to be historical actions perpetrated by fallible men who were often punished by God for their less than ideal behavior.
As for Christianity, much of the Old Testament law was abrogated by Jesus. “Eye for an eye” gave way to “turn the other cheek.” Totally loving God and one’s neighbor became supreme law (Matt 22:38-40). Furthermore, Jesus’ “Sunna” — as in “What would Jesus do?” — is characterized by passivity and altruism.
And it is from here that one can best appreciate the Crusades. However one interprets these wars — as offensive or defensive, just or unjust — it is plainly evident that they were not based on the teachings of the New Testament or the example of Jesus who exhorted his followers to “love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you” (Matt 5:44). It would seem that if anyone, it is the Crusaders — not the jihadists — who have contradicted their religion.
In fact, far from suggesting anything intrinsic to Christianity, the Crusades ironically help better explain Islam. For what the Crusades demonstrated once and for all is that irrespective of religious teachings — indeed, in the case of these so-called “Christian” Crusades, despite them — man is in fact predisposed to violence and intolerance. But this begs the question: If this is how Christians behaved — who are commanded to love, bless, and do good to their enemies who hate, curse, and persecute them — how much more can be expected of Muslims who, while sharing the same violent tendencies, are further commanded by the Deity to attack, kill, and plunder non-believers?
Raymond Ibrahim is a research librarian at the Library of Congress. His new book, The Al Qaeda Reader, which translates Osama bin Laden’s communiqués, will be available in April 2007.
irwin daisy – your hatred of Islam guides your reading of the texts.
I’m not going to go into them, point by point, but what you deliberately reject is that, as a text, it was written by man, and can be read by man. That means that it can be interpreted, i.e., understood in an allegorical rather than actual way.
This reading is defined by you as a rejection of the text; others will disagree with you and define it as an interpretation of the text.
If the Christian crusaders can contradict their religion then so can Muslims.
And as I’ve said many times, the Christian religion was an ideology that developed to support an economic mode in the ME of expanding settled agriculturalism – a mode that operated by expanding farming in the region, increasing the population, setting up markets, and one that required trade, interaction, collaboration rather than fighting.
Islam developed as a defensive reaction to this expanding agriculturalism. Islam is an ideology that developed out of a pastoral nomadic economy, which is one that requires large areas of land left fallow for the migrating herds. The expansion of settled agriculture was moving into these seemingly vacant lands – and Islam developed as a warrior tribalism to prevent this encroachment on their land base.
Actually, christianity is a ‘converting religion’, because its agenda is to increase the neighbourliness of people rather than setting people up in isolate adversarial groups. Christianity, unlike judaism, is a religion of choice, not heredity.
The economies are different now – and Islam cannot continue to support tribalism. Therefore, it will ‘reread’ its texts, and define them as allegorical words of god, rather than literal.
The fact that you won’t permit such a transition – well, you can maintain your hatred. I think it’s a dead end tactic.
Irwin: As I and many others have said before, violence is foundational to Islam.
Well, if you’ve said it, then surely it must be true!
Given that violence is foundational to Islam, how can it be reformed without editing out most of the Quran and rejecting Mohammad?
Bit of a loaded question, eh, Irwin? As ET notes, you’re interpreting the Quran through a particular lens (incidentally, the same lens through which the Islamist extremists interpret the Quran) that isn’t necessarily shared by the average Muslim practitioner. Just because you’re a literalist doesn’t mean others are, or care to be.
Honestly, Irwin, you fascinate me. What’s it like to be you? So on edge, so convinced that the barbarians are at the gate. How do you not go to be at night with a bowie knife tucked under your pillow (or do you)?
Muslim atrocities reflect very poorly on the religion of Islam.
Although not all Muslims commit atrocities, an alarmingly large segment remain sympathetic to those who do commit atrocities.
A large complement of torturers and a larger complement of sympathizers make up an unfortunately significant number of Muslims around the world.
Regrettably, Tim McVeigh has inappropriately been dragged into this argument, and apparently it has been forgotten that other Christians tried him, found him guilty, and executed him — with a prison chaplain inviting him to prayer should he wish.
Being a Christian (if by some absurd standard Tim McVeigh could be said to be one) doesn’t stop you from being executed in the United States, in any event.
I would love to have every Muslim who regards committing atrocities as part of their religious duties to be tried in US courst. I have served on a jury in a murder trial, and I can assure you that graphic details of some young woman being abducted, tortured and mutilated to death would grant the perpetrators an execution.
My view is that the emotional backlash that Islam is receiving from the West suggests that part of Western psychology that is still healthy and still has a natural reaction to barbarians perpetrating horrible things. That the reaction is not always measured hardly diminishes the validity of those who would strike out at at group with so many known killers.
I regard people who call for a gentler view of a group that is not leaping to clean up its house as extremely suspect.
Well put, Greg and Irwin. But I think we’re wasting our time with these two though I had expected more intelligence from ET. I think there is a saying: “There is none so blind as he who refuses to see.”
Acting as apologist or worse as cheerleader for thugs is no different than being the thug.
Like the coward who holds the playground bully’s coat so he won’t get his victim’s blood on it and then later Lies about “Who Started It” to curry favour with the thug …… every last one of you who defends the islamists is to blame for the continuation of their attacks and abuses.
Every person who sits back silent about these matters is also guilty of passively condoning the crimes and outrages.
Spineless and worthy of nothing but scorn.
You know who you are.
“Honor” killings with MALE victims, would have a significant impact on these. Let’s call a spade a spade… murders.
How do you protect family honor by committing murder? Is there no shame in murdering your own sister, daughter, or wife? Now that kind of thinking is something to worry about. Now are these perpetrators ‘moderate’ Muslims or Muslim extremists……I think that answer is easy enough.
OMMAG: every last one of you who defends the islamists is to blame for the continuation of their attacks and abuses.
Nobody here is defending the Islamists, but it seems only ET, Belisarius, and I are willing to defend moderate Muslims (including the Afghans and Iraqis whom we currently consider our military and civilian allies) from being lumped into the same category as those Islamists.
OMMAG, Gred in Dallas, Herman, others: What do you think of geothermal’s statement near the top of this thread…“In my view, our society must stop fighting terrorism, and start fighting the Muslim faith. First step would start calling the religion a handbook for violence. Muhammed created this religion to advance his drive for power, inciting his followers to kill everyone who stood between him and his pedophilia. Any muslim who follows the Koran is violent, dormant or otherwise. Excuse me, but all you followers of the Koran can f**k off.”
Do you agree, disagree? Basically correct, or basically incorrect? Somewhere in between? If you believe it’s correct, and you’re perfectly entitled to, please describe for me what you think victory in Afghanistan and Iraq would look like, seeing as this statement calls for nothing less than the elimination of an entire faith system. Thanks.
Ah, the air of condescension continues to pervade through this site. Nice to hear someone is “perfectly entitled” to believe what they believe on given subject. Really!
We on the outside of the Muslim faith have no way of knowing or understanding the complexities of that faith. There are many different versions given by those within it. Some of what we do know is what we are dealing with as a result of the teachings of some within it, how pervasive it is is the unknown. We have the scourge of the 21st century, terrorism in the name of Islam, that’s reality.
Calls to Jihad on our Vision TV is getting a little too close for comfort. There will be an apology from the head Honcho of Vision TV when he gets around to it. The person who called for “Global jihad and extermination of Jews on our TV network should apologize, charged under hate law and sent packing.
“Do you agree, disagree? Basically correct, or basically incorrect? Somewhere in between? If you believe it’s correct, and you’re perfectly entitled to, please describe for me what you think victory in Afghanistan and Iraq would look like, seeing as this statement calls for nothing less than the elimination of an entire faith system. Thanks.”
Posted by: A’dam at July 24, 2007 3:01 AM
A’dam,
I’m not sure if I am supposed to thank you for my *belief entitlement*, or is there someone else that bestowed the gift? But, you did make a point with that statement: your superiority complex is hanging out for all of us knuckle-draggers to observe.
Victory in Afghanistan and Iraq will be apparent when the general populations of those countries step up and decide to actually govern themselves in some *civilized* manner.
Now, if you ask me why I believe them to be *uncivilized*, allow me to ask you to note the obvious: ever noticed that when there are no “infidels” handily close in the neighborhood to kill, Muslims resort to killing each other? That includes immediate relatives that have slighted them, or violated some words in a book. Why is that?
A’dam, if you were/are a woman would/do you consider the Muslim faith a civilized faith, based upon today’s standards?
If you are a *infidel*, do you consider the Muslim faith a civilized faith, based upon today’s standards?
No retoric required for the last two questions; a simple yes or no will surfice.
A’dam: I agree with Geothermal’s assessment about the violence inherent in the Qu’ran and hadith. However, I would advocate exposure as a first step. That’s what Hirsi Ali, Daniel Pipes, Robert Spencer etc. are doing. People in the western world need to know what Islam stands for and why so many of the Islamists seem to feel the need to terrorize the rest of us. As Liz J says: “terrorism in the name of Islam, that’s reality.” We ignore reality at our peril. But then, WW2 should have taught us that.
Yoop: Victory in Afghanistan and Iraq will be apparent when the general populations of those countries step up and decide to actually govern themselves in some *civilized* manner.
But that won’t be enough, according to geothermal. Since “any muslim who follows the Koran is violent, dormant or otherwise,” won’t we need to also abolish the Koran among this general (Muslim) population?
You can use rhetoric in your response if you like.
And to answer yours:
(1) If you were/are a woman would/do you consider the Muslim faith a civilized faith, based upon today’s standards? Yes, it can be.
(2) If you are a *infidel*, do you consider the Muslim faith a civilized faith, based upon today’s standards? Yes, it can be.
ET,
As far as the charge, ‘hatred of Islam’ is concerned – Yes, is the correct response. I cannot logically or morally think or feel otherwise about any ideology responsible for such violence over a 1400 year period. There is no way to interpret the historical attrocities, genocides, etc other than as a result of Islam’s justification and reward system presented by Mohammad’s made up play thing – allah.
As far as your ‘interpretation’ comment is concerned, I gave actual events in Mohammad’s life. Should you care to interpret them otherwise, I’d enjoy the entertainment.
Once again, you cannot answer my question. How do you reform a religion with foundational violence at its core without removing the violence? Without removing the perpetual command and reward system for violence? Without removing the evil founder presented as the perfect life example for all Muslims to follow?
And as much as either you, or A’dam attempt to falsely move the facts about an ideology into accusations of racism and bigotry, you’ve failed.
Muslims are people, like anybody else, the difference is that they are beholden to, if not enslaved by a toxic ideology. An ideology that at it’s core is absolutely violent, regardless of sectarian beliefs, ‘scholarly’ interpretations or taqiyya. The same quran and prophet are the heart of all of Islam and all Muslims. This is fact.
There is no question that you do not understand Islam, Irwin Daisy. You have based your argument around quotes from the Quran and Hadith pulled completely out of context. This is the same technique used by Spencer, Ibrahim, Wahhabis and al-Qaeda to justify their own arguments and in the case of the latter two – murderous ideology.
Have a read of Reza Aslan and Irshad Manji for a different perspective.
Your basic argument that Islam is based on violence is completely incorrect. No religious and lifestyle system followed by more than a billion people could possibly survive on such a basis. Witness the rejection of this violent interpretation of Islam now beginning in Iraq.
A’dam’s site reference to justify her position:
Some excerpts:
“I’ve often said that if polygamy didn’t exist, the modern American career woman would have invented it. Because, despite its reputation, polygamy is the one lifestyle that offers an independent woman a real chance to “have it all”.”
“The French government wants to outlaw polygamy to protect the estimated 140,000 people living in polygamous families – but it is tearing apart established families in the process.”
How to Make Your Husband Happy:
The following is part ONE of a summary of the book “How to make your husband happy” by Sheikh Mohammed Abdelhaleem Hamed.
1- Beautiful Reception
After returning from work, school, travel, or whatever has separated you,
begin with a good greeting.
* Meet him with a cheerful face.
* Beautify and perfume yourself.
* Start with good news and delay any bad news until he has rested.
* Receive him with loving and yearning sentences.
* Make hard efforts for excellence of the food & having it ready on time.
2- Beautify and Soften the Voice
* For your husband only, it shouldn’t be used in front of non-mahram men (men who can marry you if you were unmarried).
7- Appreciation
* By the saying of the prophet, the majority of people in hell were women because they were ungrateful and deny the good done to them.
* The result of being grateful is that your husband will love you more and will do his best to please you in more ways.
So, according to the evil prophet, “the majority of people in hell are women.” Hmmm. Care to comment A’dam?
“There is no question that you do not understand Islam, Irwin Daisy. You have based your argument around quotes from the Quran and Hadith pulled completely out of context.”
Then Balisarius, prove it:
“As far as your ‘interpretation’ comment is concerned, I gave actual events in Mohammad’s life. Should you care to interpret them otherwise, I’d enjoy the entertainment.”
A’dam, you can love the person and not the sin. I hope all the best for the people in Iraq and Afghanistan because I love the people, but not their sins. Christ’s blood was shed to save the sinner.
Followers and believers of the Koran and their prophet Mohammed support and practice what Christians and many other westerners would consider sin. Jesus taught love, forgiveness and salvation and was completely sinless, while Mohammed taught the complete opposite and was a grave sinner. Why does a people – Muslims – chose to follow the teachings of such a man? Do Muslims actually believe his actions – sins – were good and justified? It is one thing to love your enemy, and another to condone and support their beliefs and actions.
“And to answer yours:
(1) If you were/are a woman would/do you consider the Muslim faith a civilized faith, based upon today’s standards? Yes, it can be.”
Posted by: A’dam at July 24, 2007 11:19 AM
So A’dam posts a link to a site called: “Women in Islam” as an answer to the question.
(http://www.islamfortoday.com/women.htm)
That page regarding “Women in Islam” is part of this main page: Islam For Today
(http://www.islamfortoday.com/)
Then, if one vets this page far enough they discover this:
http://www.islamfortoday.com/burning_US_flag.jpg
Civilized behavior at it’s finest hour.
I am now ROTFLMFAO.
Agreed Yoop,
When confronted with facts. When challenged with the obvious. When tired taqiyya cliches, such as ‘out of context’ are proven for what they are – wrong. When ridiculous conclusions are made from selectively reading, ridiculous, misogynistic, if not Islamofascist websites – ET, Belasarius and A’dam run away.
Again.
When ridiculous conclusions are made from selectively reading, ridiculous, misogynistic, if not Islamofascist websites – ET, Belasarius [sic] and A’dam run away.
Actually, some of us have to work and can only check in from time to time.
I should be clear that I do have a big problem with Islam today. Thanks to massive funding from radical Saudi Wahhabis (paying 80% of the mortgage of U.S. mosques, importing radical religious leaders) the religion has become more and more radicalized. That makes it incredibly dangerous.
But I’ve also read the works of moderate Muslims who explain the context of much of their religion, and argue persuasively that it can and must be reformed. Check out w3.secularislam.org for some of them.
Pulling a handful of selective quotes from among the massive volumes of Islamic religious texts proves absolutely nothing. I can do the same thing with Christian and Jewish texts. Frankly, this method has been used by despots and crackpots throughout history to support their nefarious goals.
Christianity has been reformed, enlightened and modernized and so can Islam. Any argument that the foundation of Islam is violence is based on ignorance and an irresponsible and carefully chosen selection of out-of-context passages that ignore the broader picture of what the religion is about.
There is no question that Muslims must look at much of their religious tradition with a critical eye and be willing to modify it. That will make them apostates in the eyes of fundamentalists. But it is the only way for them to modernize and co-exist with other religions peacefully.
When ridiculous conclusions are made from selectively reading, ridiculous, misogynistic, if not Islamofascist websites – ET, Belasarius [sic] and A’dam run away.
Actually, some of us have to work and can only check in from time to time.
I should be clear that I do have a big problem with Islam today. Thanks to massive funding from radical Saudi Wahhabis (paying 80% of the mortgage of U.S. mosques, importing radical religious leaders) the religion has become more and more radicalized. That makes it incredibly dangerous.
But I’ve also read the works of moderate Muslims who explain the context of much of their religion, and argue persuasively that it can and must be reformed.
Pulling a handful of selective quotes from among the massive volumes of Islamic religious texts proves absolutely nothing. I can do the same thing with Christian and Jewish texts. Frankly, this method has been used by despots and crackpots throughout history to support their nefarious goals.
Christianity has been reformed, enlightened and modernized and so can Islam. Any argument that the foundation of Islam is violence is based on ignorance and an irresponsible and carefully chosen selection of out-of-context passages that ignore the broader picture of what the religion is about.
There is no question that Muslims must look at much of their religious tradition with a critical eye and be willing to modify it. That will make them apostates in the eyes of fundamentalists. But it is the only way for them to modernize and co-exist with other religions peacefully.
Some of us have to work for a living.
Yoop: Civilized behavior at it’s finest hour.
Go here, Yoop, and then in light of your comment, above, reflect a bit on just how committed you actually are to the right to free speech.
Oh, and you also still haven’t answer my 11:19 AM question.
Irwin: Are you calling polygamous relationships offensive? What kind of self-respecting conservative/civil libertarian are you? Personally, as long as all parties involved have freely entered into the relationship (and can freely leave at any time they want), and no third parties are harmed in the process, then hey, I say everyone’s free to do whatever they like — a rather civilized approach, wouldn’t you say? It’s against the law, you counter? Easy fix: cohabit, but not marry. Say, isn’t that what your whole “War on Islam” is all about — “their totalitarianism” vs. “our freedom”?
Re: that How to Make Your Husband Happy book? Meh. You’ll find much the same in any fundamentalist Christian household’s literal interpretation of the Bible.
And the Hell is filled with women thing? Whatever. Some guy’s view. Somebody else will think that hell’s mostly populated with GLBTQs, or atheists, or pedophiles, or Palestinians, or…
You really should stop believing that other people believe everything they read.
I should be clear that I do have a big problem with Islam today. Thanks to massive funding from radical Saudi Wahhabis (paying 80% of the mortgage of U.S. mosques, exporting their radical ideology around the world) the religion has become more and more radicalized. That makes it incredibly dangerous.
But I’ve also read the works of moderate Muslims who explain the context of much of their religion, and argue persuasively that it can and must be reformed.
Pulling a handful of selective quotes from among the massive volumes of Islamic religious texts proves absolutely nothing. I can do the same thing with Christian and Jewish texts. Frankly, this method has been used by despots and crackpots throughout history to support their arguments.
Christianity has been reformed, enlightened and modernized and so can Islam. Any argument that the foundation of Islam is violence is based on ignorance and an irresponsible and carefully chosen selection of out-of-context passages that ignore the broader picture of what the religion is about.
There is no question that Muslims must look at much of their religious tradition with a critical eye and be willing to modify it. That will make them apostates in the eyes of fundamentalists. But it is the only way for them to modernize and co-exist with other religions peacefully.
Belasarius,
Some of us have to think for a living.
A’dam,
Thanks. Your comments are rich for dissection.
“it’s against the law, you counter? Easy fix: cohabit, but not marry. Say, isn’t that what your whole “War on Islam” is all about — “their totalitarianism” vs. “our freedom”?”
You defeat your own argument, all before i countered? Check Britain’s welfare problem with such law breakers. Break the law and you’re a criminal. If you don’t like western law, I’m sure you’ll find a country that supports it Saudi Arabia.
“You’ll find much the same in any fundamentalist Christian household’s literal interpretation of the Bible.”
Really? Including burkas and religiously mandated beatings?
“And the Hell is filled with women thing? Whatever. Some guy’s view.”
Interesting point-of-view. I wonder how a Muslim might respond to that, given that they are commanded to emulate ‘some guy’s’ (PBUH) life example.
You’re fun.
Further,
“And the Hell is filled with women thing? Whatever. Some guy’s view.”
You mean to say I didn’t take Mo’s words out-of-context?
Some of us have to think for a living.
Blind hatred isn’t thinking. Maybe if you opened your eyes and your mind beyond your narrow belief system you might learn something.
Belsarius,
Interesting choice of words.
Agreed, blind hatred isn’t thinking. Thinking upon observable and proven fact is thinking.
The rest is a really bad rebuttal.
Say uncle.
“Are you calling polygamous relationships offensive?” by Adam to Irwin
Polygamy is the practice of having more than one spouse at a time, not one girlfriend at a time. It may not be offensive to the man who gets his cake and eats it too, but it is certainly offensive to the woman. Polygamy is all about the man and his perverse desires. Men who practice polygamy would find it objectionable for a wife to take another husband, so that renders the practice null and void….what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Irwin Daisy,
I honestly don’t think you’ve understood what those critical of your position have posted here. We’ve all acknowledged that Islam has serious problems and is in need of reform to bring it into the modern world. But to continue to argue that it is inherently evil and incapable of reform is to ignore the basis of all religion – human belief.
Any religion can be reformed. Texts or passages can be thrown out. In fact, many moderate Islamic scholars argue for doing just exactly that. Much of the Hadith, Sunnah and even Shariah law were compiled well (in some cases centuries) after the death of Mohammed. They have been modified repeatedly. In many cases religious scholars are quite certain that some are completely fabricated in order to support existing tribal customs or political positions. Serious religious reform would address this.
The life of Mohammed you seem to believe is markedly different from my understanding. In many instances, he instituted radical reforms that outraged tribal leaders and threw their traditional practices on their head. This was the cause of many of the wars he was forced to fight. After his death, many of the older desert Arab practices crept back in via the Hadith, et al.
Selectively plucking individual lines from the Hadith does not prove anything. So Mohammed married an underage girl. This does not automatically make him a pedophile, as you claim. This had been practiced in many societies in history, including Christian ones. It is usually done as a means of cementing familial or tribal bonds. That is what I mean by context. The passage sounds bad to the modern ear, until you understand the context.
Seriously, read Reza Aslan’s book “No God But God” for a different outlook than those you’ve previously been exposed to.
“But to continue to argue that it is inherently evil and incapable of reform is to ignore the basis of all religion – human belief.”
That’s lame. Belief in what? Evil? Unlike all other religions, there is no ‘golden rule’ in Islam. Mohammad is inherently evil by any civilized standards. He is also foundational to Islam , as Christ is to Christianity.
“So Mohammed married an underage girl. This does not automatically make him a pedophile, as you claim.”
She was 6 when he married her and 9 when he consumated the marriage. So what does this fact make him? You are starting to sound like you support pedophilia. A dangerous conclusion.
“It is usually done as a means of cementing familial or tribal bonds. That is what I mean by context. The passage sounds bad to the modern ear, until you understand the context.”
And this is?
Bukhari (6:298) – Muhammad would take a bath with the little girl (Aisha) and fondle her.
Muslim (8:3460) – “Why didn’t you marry a young girl so that you could sport with her and she could sport with you, or you could amuse with her and she could amuse with you?” Muhammad posed this question to one of his followers who had married an “older woman” instead.
Look Belisarius, I don’t know you, yet I don’t think you’re a bad person. Just deluded. Open your own eyes, read and understand.
Otherwise, as suggested, say uncle. You are doing yourself in.
Otherwise, as suggested, say uncle. You are doing yourself in.
Mohammed wasn’t inherently evil, nor by the standards of his day and society was he a pedophile.
Understand that I’m not saying that as practiced today Islam is the “religion of peace” nor a paragon of virtue and tolerance. I am saying that it can be reformed. One of the best ways to do that will be to defeat the Jihadis, which will strip radicals of their argument that God will lead them to victory.
“Yoop: Civilized behavior at it’s finest hour.
\Go here, Yoop, and then in light of your comment, above, reflect a bit on just how committed you actually are to the right to free speech.
Oh, and you also still haven’t answer my 11:19 AM question.”
Posted by: A’dam at July 24, 2007 7:55 PM
Don’t intend to, either. It has finally dawned on me (sometimes I can be a little slow) that you will just keep throwing up links to pages that you have googled without bothering to vet their pedigree, much less their real intent or real sources. I have been wasting my time and Kate’s electrons. There really isn’t any purpose served in attempting to change your views.
Your condensending tone earlier should have been a clue, but I let it slide by too quickly.
“nor by the standards of his day and society was he a pedophile.”
Well, I guess not, given that the word hadn’t been realized yet.
That aside, did you know that Mohammad recommended to one of his original companions that he marry Aisha’s niece, who he married, although she was 4 years old?
“by the standards of his day…”
Well, that certainly requires knowing whose standards these are – Mohammad and his Muslims, or a decent, civilized culture?
Which is the same question that is being asked today.