Thursday, July 27, 2006

Forbidden Question

A few weeks ago, I spotted the following, reproduced in its entirety at Eyes All Around:
Can a good Muslim be a good American?

I sent that question to a friend who worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years.

The following is his reply:

Theologically - no. Because his allegiance is to Allah, the moon god of Arabia.

Religiously - no. Because no other religion is accepted by his Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256)

Scripturally - no. Because his allegiance is to the five pillars of Islam and the Quran (Koran).

Geographically - no. Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns in prayer five times a day.

Socially - no. Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.

Politically - no. Because he must submit to the mullah (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and Destruction of America, the great Satan.

Domestically - no. Because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34).

Intellectually - no. Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.

Philosophically - no. Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist.

Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.

Spiritually - no. Because when we declare "one nation under God," the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran's 99 excellent names.

Therefore after much study and deliberation.... perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. They obviously cannot be both "good" Muslims and good Americans. Call it what you wish.... it's still the truth.

If you find yourself intellectually in agreement with the above statements, perhaps you will share this with your friends. The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country and our future.

Pass it on Fellow Americans. The religious war is bigger than we know or understand.
From Serge Trifkovic's The Sword of the Prophet (pages 295-296), emphases mine:
"While it is proper for democratic government to refrain from legislating the practice of religion in any way, Islam is a special case because it is, on its own admission, much more than 'just a religion.' It needs to be understood and subjected to the same supervision and legal restrains that apply to other cults prone to violence, and to violent political hate groups whose avowed aim is the destruction of our order of life.

"The collective striving of 'We the People' makes no sense unlesss there is a definable 'people' to support it. Most Muslim immigrants have no kinship with the striving and no connection to that 'people,' except for the unsurprising desire to partake in its wealth. But their deep disdain for the democratic institutions of the host-countries notwithstanding (and just like the members of communist parties before them), Muslim activists in non-Muslim countries invoke those institutions when they clamor for every kind of indulgence for their own beliefs and customs. They demand full democratic privileges to organze and propagate their views, while acknowledging to each other that, given the power to do so, they would impose their own beliefs and customs, and eliminate all others....'[T]rue Islam' does not recognize a priori the right of any other religion or world outlook to exist..."
Being or becoming an American involves a lot more that "partaking in wealth." The essence of being an American means loving freedom and respecting the rights of others as outlined in our Bill of Rights, particularly the first amendment guaranteeing religious freedom.

On July 20, 2006, the United American Committee posed a challenge, reproduced below in its entirety:
The United American Committee is putting out a challenge to all Islamic leaders with congregations in America to issue religious edicts, also known as 'fatwas', against Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri of al Qaeda as apostates to true Islam and calling for their deaths at the hands of all true Muslims.

LOS ANGELES, CA - July 20, 2006 (UACWIRE) - Osama bin Laden has admitted on videotape he was responsible for 9/11 as has Ayman al Zawahiri. Over 3,000 American died on 9/11 in New York and at the Pentagon at the hands of fanatics that the American Muslim community maintains did not represent true Islam due to the murders of innocent civilians. Those who claim to represent the mainstream Muslim community in America, such as CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations, claim they oppose terrorism and violence. Others say these groups quietly work as cheering sections for international terrorism. Now, the United American Committee wishes to give the American Muslim community a chance to disprove such notions, and places an open challenge for American Muslim leaders to issue a fatwa against Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri.

The UAC recognizes that a previous fatwa backed by a large number of American Islamic organizations ambiguously declared; “Islam strictly condemns religious extremism and the use of violence against innocent lives,” this fatwa did not condemn any individuals by name, and did not define who is deemed to be innocent. Further, given that Muslims like Sheik Bakri of London declare, “Yes I condemn killing any innocent people, but not any kuffar,” kuffar referring to any non-Muslims, leaves the fatwa greatly open to interpretation. Therefore, in August of 2005 the United American Committee officially denounced the fatwa and now puts a challenge to American Muslim leaders to issue a true fatwa against the Islamic terrorists Osama bin Laden, Ayman al Zawahiri, and those who support them. The United American Committee believes that most American Muslims do not condone violence or jihad against American soldiers and civilian citizens. In accordance with this, the UAC is offering a true opportunity for all Muslim leaders in the United States to prove their loyalty to America by issuing a fatwa which encourages the Islamic world to hunt down and kill Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri.

In coming months, the UAC will write to the leaders of Muslim congregations in the United States making this request and will share with the public the responses from each on the UAC website at www.UnitedAmericanCommittee.org. UAC welcomes all patriotic American Muslims to show they are a supportive part of the American community as a whole in the War on Terror.

"This gives Muslim-Americans the same opportunity to stand up for our country as those brave volunteers did in the 442nd Regiment during World War II without actually going into combat," said UAC Member Peter James, referring to the all Japanese regiment of the U.S. Army in the Second World War. James continued, "If an imam refuses to issue such an edict, one can only assume he does so out of a desire that Osama Bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri not be stopped, and that Al Qaeda's killing spree is in fact something that Islamic leaders in America tacitly support. For Islamic leaders who consider themselves patriotic Americans, this should be a no-brainer."

The UAC's position is that given the long term nature of the War in Iraq and Afghanistan, and threats to American soldiers over there as well as threats at home, such edicts from American Muslim leaders would also bolster US support abroad in Muslim nations against anti-Americanism by creating a united front with all American Muslims regardless of their views on the war.

The UAC welcomes all Muslim-Americans into its ranks who wish to protect and preserve the United States of America and who do not support the goals of Osama bin Laden, Ayman al Zawahiri or al Qaeda.

####

Contact Information
UNITED AMERICAN COMMITTEE
info@unitedamericancommittee.org
Thus far, no American Muslim leaders have come forward in response to the UAC's challenge. Maybe with more publicity about the above challenge, some American Muslims will come forward as patriotic Americans. If they don't, then the forbidden question "Can a Muslim be a good American?" takes on urgency.

105 Comments:

At 7/27/2006 7:23 AM, Blogger J said...

"because his allegiance is to Allah, the moon god of Arabia."

ROTFLMAO! I think I'm gonna need a new keyboard ;)

 
At 7/27/2006 7:37 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

J,
Maybe I should have posted a spew alert?

 
At 7/27/2006 7:38 AM, Blogger beakerkin said...

I would tend to disagree strongly with this. There are patriotic Muslims like Stephen Schwartz who care about their faith and country.

The bottom line is that we do not want to start our own version of the far left Jews who support Israel are a disloyal cabal. The same people who preach the Jewish cabal stuff readily ignore actual commie front groups and CAIR links to terrorism.

I will get hammered but Schwartz sees Wahabism as a peversion of his faith. He has never approved of terrorism and does not denounce Western culture. I have problems with his views in other areas but he is clearly a patriot. I wish that the Muslim community consisted of more Stephen Schwartz types then CAIR clowns.

 
At 7/27/2006 7:40 AM, Blogger Ogre said...

Oh, the trolls are really going to come out and get you on this post.

Why?

Because it tells the truth and the left absolutely cannot stand it when they are faced with truth.

Beakerkin, did you read the post? If Schwartz disagrees with the Muslim faith, then he's not a Muslim, is he? What the post outlined was that if you agree with the Muslim faith, you are completely incompatible with America and freedom.

 
At 7/27/2006 7:41 AM, Blogger nanc said...

oh, i bet they find a way to dispute this, ogre. it's there nature!

 
At 7/27/2006 7:42 AM, Blogger nanc said...

oops - "their" not "there"!

 
At 7/27/2006 7:49 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Beak,
I was hoping you'd stop by and say something like this: There are patriotic Muslims like Stephen Schwartz who care about their faith and country....Schwartz sees Wahabism as a peversion of his faith. He has never approved of terrorism and does not denounce Western culture....

But the problem is we're not getting Muslim leaders to stand up and say "America first." Schwartz is outside the mainstream, isn't he? The same goes for Nawash, who led that pitifully small march "Muslims Against Terror," which CAIR refused to attend. In fact, no "Muslim civil-rights group" would participate.

Also, notice that the question includes "good Muslim," which I take to mean orthodox and/or devout. Certainly, not every Muslim is a terrorist. Jason has pointed out that many Muslims are secularized or have compartmentalized (my word, I think) the tenets of Islam. The big question is this: Are those secularized, compartmentalized Muslims practicing orthodox Islam?

 
At 7/27/2006 7:51 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Hi, Ogre!

the left absolutely cannot stand it when they are faced with truth

How I've struggled with the realization which is outlined in this blog article! I never wanted to believe it, but the evidence points to the contrary of the rose-colored-glasses version of Islam.

 
At 7/27/2006 7:52 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Nanc,
Yes, but the dispute needs to be based on facts. You know how facts can be--inconvenient.

 
At 7/27/2006 8:07 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Beak,
I won't hammer you. You are my friend. We might disagree from time to time, but no hammering. You love America, and so do I!

 
At 7/27/2006 8:44 AM, Blogger G_in_AL said...

I think that there are more modern Muslims that are ready to lay down and turn away from the radical interpritations of the Koran and are able to be loyal to this nation and live in peace with Christians and Jews.

Just like modern Christians have stopped being so radical, the same now applies for some Muslims. When Jesus said "if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out for...." There was a time when that was taken literally, but now we understand this to be hyberbole and not litoral orders from God. May Muslims in the Arabic world are still taking everyting they read in the Koran at face value. For instance, the "make no friends with Christians and Jews" could be interprited to ask Muslims not to be statisfied with their Spiritual views, and try to convert them... not just to make them all enemies.

But....

To get there, Muslims are going to have to start standing up to the Clerics that teach the radical and literal doctrin of hate and exclusion.

Or they can just be converted to Christianity... but I dont see that happening too much either.

 
At 7/27/2006 9:10 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Granted, this individual may well have had mental problems:

Igbal Asghar reached across the counter at Super Halal Meat market and passed two butchered chickens to the man with the familiar face. Then he ducked into the walk-in freezer to fetch the customer's second order, goat meat.

When the butcher stepped out seconds later, the customer's severed left hand lay on the floor by the meat saw, Asghar said. The customer ran down the Springfield store's center aisle and into the front parking lot, leaving a trail of blood and yelling repeatedly that he was "not a terrorist." Outside, another witness said, the man announced that he had used the meat saw to cut off his hand "for Allah."...


But G's reference to "if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out for...." There was a time when that was taken literally, but now we understand this to be hyberbole and not litoral orders from God....

One problem with Islam is that the Koran and the Hadith are to be taken literally because the words from the Koran are the actual words of Allah (not just inspired words). The recent concern that Superman might actually have flown over Egypt is also revealing with regard to at least some Muslims taking symbolic gestures as literal.

One thing that we should all remember: When any Muslim says, "This is global war. Jihad!" or "Kill the infidels," those words are literal, not just idle threats. Zawahiri, OBL's lieutenant, has just released another videotape, apparently filmed in a studio, and he's deadly serious about his call for all Muslims to rise up.

Also, you'll have a mighty difficult time getting Muslims to discuss "radical Islam." In fact, that differentiation is not in their vocabulary. Listen to CAIR, for example. It's always "Islam" which is spoken of--never "radical Islam." And, IMO, that's why sincere followers of Allah and MTP will not out-and-out condemn terrorists by name. They might say, "We condemn terrorism." But that may well be a word game because Islam doesn't define terrorism in the same way that you and I do. Certain acts of jihad are terrorism in the West's eyes, but militant Muslims see those acts as part and parcel of Dar al-Harb, the state of war which the entire world is in--until Dar al-Islam, Islamic utopia, is established.

 
At 7/27/2006 9:11 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

G,
To get there, Muslims are going to have to start standing up to the Clerics that teach the radical and literal doctrin of hate and exclusion.

Or they can just be converted to Christianity... but I dont see that happening too much either.


Neither is happening. And if UAC's challenge goes unanswered, we should pay attention. I don't see any middle ground there.

 
At 7/27/2006 9:32 AM, Anonymous Seth said...

This issue is a very complex one based on its very nature.

Our American traditions, by their very nature, give everyone the benefit of the doubt. You have to commit a transgression before you can be called on it.

With groups like CAIR and the ACLU being given the "credibility" they enjoy, virtually any enemy of the republic who chooses to immigrate and create havoc can do so with the advantage of being left alone to prep for whatever misdeed he plans to perform, with the protection of the above mentioned organizations.

When he finally "does the deed" and renders himself arrestable, there will be orphans, and parents with dead children to bury. It hardly seems like any consolation at all that the murderer is either dead or facing a prison sentence, your loved ones are still dead or have lost limbs, and nothing will change that.

The fact that the Muslim community refuses to condemn those among them who terrorize should not be our problem, to truly protect Americans here on our own turf, the government needs to realize that profiling in the case of Islamic immigration is not an issue for PC consideration, but a survival matter. Muslims that purportedly harbor infidels no ill will might one day turn out to be suicide bombers or worse, but we won't know until after the damage has been done.

I tend to agree that Islam has no common ground with American citizenship, traditions or beliefs. It is within the power of the government to curtail immigration from Arab Muslim countries, but you can bet that will never happen.

J, I almost spewed as well! AOW, you and your Moon G-d! LOL!

 
At 7/27/2006 9:34 AM, Blogger American Crusader said...

I read an article at MEMRI talking about "Protestant Muslims", in which the author who is a Muslim scholar, talked about how the Koran should not be interpreted as the "Word of God" because before the year 901 there was several versions of the Koran. Granted that this is considered blasphemy by most Muslims...but not all Muslims believe every verse of the Koran. I would hate to write off 7-10 million Muslims in this country, believing that everyone of them is a bad American.

 
At 7/27/2006 9:38 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Seth,
I almost spewed as well! AOW, you and your Moon G-d! LOL!

I got my fatwa when I typed in to another thread: "Allah (the moon god) is not my God, and MTP is not my prophet." I stand by that.

 
At 7/27/2006 9:39 AM, Blogger American Crusader said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 7/27/2006 9:42 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Crusader,
not all Muslims believe every verse of the Koran...

Absolutely! But at the moment, they are not practicing Islam as originally presented.

"Protestant Muslims", in which the author who is a Muslim scholar, talked about how the Koran should not be interpreted as the "Word of God" because before the year 901 there was several versions of the Koran.

I see this as the solution. But it's going to rock and roll, worldwide, if that movement takes off. Most of the mosques built in the West after 1990 were and are Wahhabist funded, and some of the old mosques were taken over by that Wahhabist funding. Those larger mosques are the prestigious ones and represent the Muslim community in those locales.

 
At 7/27/2006 9:44 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Crusader,
Thanks for that link. I'm off to check it out!

 
At 7/27/2006 9:47 AM, Blogger American Crusader said...

Muslim Intellectual Calls for ‘Protestant Islam’

Dr. Bassam Tahhan, a Syrian-born French professor of Arabic literature, teaches at the prestigious Henri IV secondary school in Paris and is an expert on the Koran. In his numerous lectures and interviews, he advocates "Protestant Islam," which he defines as Islam that allows freedom of thought and permits questioning the Sunna, abrogating hadiths not grounded in the Koran, and reinterpreting the Koran in light of modern values. Tahhan recently attended a UNESCO conference on human rights in Morocco, where he gave the following interview to the independent French-language Moroccan daily Telquel: [1]

"To Be a Rationalist is to Acknowledge That the Orthodox Approach is Fundamentally Wrong"

Telquel: "You characterize yourself as one who interprets the Koran rationally. What do you mean by that?"

Tahhan: "To read the Koran rationally is to accept that the Koran is open [to interpretation] and has many meanings. The tradition regards the Koran as one-dimensional and fixed. This approach is not rationalist. To be a rationalist is to accept that each era, with its [particular] methods and discoveries, presents its own reading of the Koran, and this is the way it will be until the end of days. To be a rationalist is to acknowledge that the orthodox approach is fundamentally wrong since it does not accept the multiplicity of readings."

Telquel: "You are one of a handful of experts around the world on the different versions of the Koran. How did you come to have a passion for this topic?"

Tahhan: "Let me remind you of a historical fact that is accepted by all. In the year 901 - an unfortunate year for Muslims - a Muslim qadi named Ibn Mujahid canonized [one version of] the Koran. Before that, there were many different versions of the Koran, and this did not upset the good Muslims!"

 
At 7/27/2006 9:48 AM, Blogger kev said...

Well, the author tried to qualify the question with the adjective "good" before muslim. So I suppose the whole thing would depend on what "good" is. There was a time in not-so-ancient history when Catholics were thought not to be good prospects as citizens because of their allegiance to the Pope. But, certainly, there is a difference between what the Pope stands behind and the literal translation of the Quran. As a rule you don't hear Christian clerics screaming for death to non-believers and for the eradication of an entire culture. Muslims could certainly help their cause by coming forward and AT LEAST denouncing some of the terrorism committed in the name of Allah. When the terrorist were shown on film butchering their hostages they were chanting praises to Allah, but even then, no condemnation. If they don't care enough to let us know what or whose side they're on, then I would think that, in itself, would be sufficient reason to doubt they could be good citizens.

 
At 7/27/2006 10:20 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Crusader,
Thank you for posting the text of that MEMRI article. You saved me the trouble!

Kev,
If they don't care enough to let us know what or whose side they're on, then I would think that, in itself, would be sufficient reason to doubt they could be good citizens.

And one also has to be aware of taqiyya and double-speak.

The man in the MEMRI article seems sincere.

 
At 7/27/2006 10:22 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Kev,
Islam itself, as it now stands, is not moderate. I think that is a corollary to what I posted. Sure, there are moderate Muslims, but are they really following Islam?

 
At 7/27/2006 10:30 AM, Blogger WomanHonorThyself said...

The essence of being an American means loving freedom and respecting the rights of others as outlined in our Bill of Rights, particularly the first amendment guaranteeing religious freedom....NO doubt!...brave and brilliant post AOW! :)

 
At 7/27/2006 10:43 AM, Blogger Jason_Pappas said...

I don’t see the great majority of Muslims following Schwartz (who will always be a Jew in their minds) or Irhard Manji (who’s openly gay) anymore than Jerry Farwell and Barney Franks will become bosom buddies. I’m skeptical that any of these “new” versions of Islam will take off. Sure, they’ll get a few converts but in the process they’ll encourage others to take another look at the Koran. And they’ll suggest that a Muslim is stuck with his religion when there are other choices.

Those Muslims who are lax, lapsed, or selective in their practice are no problem in and of themselves. And one should always treat individuals for who they are. But are they really Muslims? I know Catholics who don’t go to church or listen to the Pope but I wouldn't say they invented a new form of Catholicism just by being lax. Sure, if a leader comes along, creates a new theology, and forms a new group, then you have something new, which is how Protestantism came about. But I wouldn't be so quick to assume that Muslims can do the same thing. And the clash of Protestants and Catholics led to some bloody wars over two centuries before religious tolerance can into being. It was hard the 1st time with a less political religion, I wouldn’t bet that Islam has what it takes to make this kind of transformation.

 
At 7/27/2006 11:49 AM, Blogger eyesallaround said...

Hi AOW,

I’ve known about 20 muslims very well for 15 years. There’s a “Greek” restaurant near us, which had Lebanese owners. We went there frequently and over the years got to know them quite well. Of the 20, there’s only 1 that I know would not “join the jihad” if it ever came to America in the form of an all-out war. I would encourage everyone to go out and get to know some muslims.

 
At 7/27/2006 2:12 PM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

"They demand full democratic privileges to organze and propagate their views, while acknowledging to each other that, given the power to do so, they would impose their own beliefs and customs, and eliminate all others...."

Dude, you just described evangelicals and the Bush administration.

 
At 7/27/2006 2:20 PM, Blogger Old Soldier said...

"For Islamic leaders who consider themselves patriotic Americans, this should be a no-brainer."

That's pretty much the gist of the problem, isn't it? And the deafening silence is the our answer.

"Dude, you just described evangelicals and the Bush administration."

Ducky, the difference you obviously ignore is that evangelicals and the Bush administration don't behead people for rejecting their message? Context, Ducky, context!

 
At 7/27/2006 2:56 PM, Blogger beakerkin said...

Ducky

That statement sounds more like you Marxist goons. Lets see liberation via starvation. Walls to keep people in but who is to argue with failure.

 
At 7/27/2006 2:59 PM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

old soldier, it's unfortunate that you take such a restricive view. You draw such a wide conclusion from the babarity of a civil war as if we had nothing to do with it. Nasty thing about war, all it wants to do is feed itself. Winning and all else becomes arbitrary.

When I was a student I traveled in Latin America and became accustomed to the accusations of what our government had done and how it made people feel about "gringos". Then I spent some time in France (around 79) and met a lotMuslims from North Africa, and the Middle East as well as Iranians. One Iranian woman did ask me if I realized what we had done to her country (overthrowing democratically elected Mossadegh).

Overall, they have a rich culture that we know virtually nothing about and one friend waxed poetic many times about his university days in Baghdad. It was a center of intellectuals, music, art and culture. So was Cairo. I was surprised at how many held me in high esteem because I was American in stark contrast to the attitude of Latin Americans who know our policies all too well. The French were the colonials, but we were something different. We gave people hope. We were a land of opportunity that promised higher ideals. Not any more. Bush has destroyed our influence and power in the region with the butt of a gun (well this was before the sanctions on Iraq so Bush isn't the only one responsible for turning the tide of opinion).

We could have really helped to stabilize the region so it could develop. Instead we have helped destabilize everything. Our extreme policies based on fear and profit as well as those of Israel have helped the recruitment of terrorists... Like the hydra.. more heads pop out every day. We can see it right on our own TVs as the people who are bombed in Lebanon vow to destroy Israel. Israel will never live in peace if they continue like this and neither will we. It's sad but we are distracted by these oil wars and the agendas of those making money off of it. (Hmm anybody see a connection here?)

And yes the terrorists are wrong and must be stopped, but there is no strategy to nip it at the bud so it doesn't increase. That should be the job of established stable governments. We should be the ones showing people the high road... But then in war we all become savages sooner or later.

 
At 7/27/2006 3:39 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Che Sucky Ducky,

Sniff I am all misty over your touching description of your travels. I note they are simply sweeping allegations typical of propaganda.

Would you like to get more specific??

Like the accusation of our overthrowing Mossadegh??

"...Prime minister General Haj-Ali Razmara, elected in June 1950, had opposed the nationalization bill on technical grounds. He was assassinated on March 7, 1951 by Khalil Tahmasebi, a member of the militant fundamentalist group Fadayan-e Islam."

So, Mossadegh as a member of an anti-foreign Nationalist Party was the SAVIOUR of Iran?? I think you are still in love with these homicidal marxists Che Sucky Ducky!!!

I think the Shah actually had the country on the right road to becoming an economically powerful, successful, western style country until more of your IslamoMarxistNazis decided to depose him also!!!

Keep spewing your propaganda, but, reality still exists!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You are an unmitigated MARXIST MORON!!!

 
At 7/27/2006 3:42 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Che Sucky Ducky,

I really liked the part of Che's life where they hunted him down in the Bolivian jungle and executed him while he was crying like a baby begging for his life. This is what should happen to all homicidal Marxists!!!

Oh, and he was there because his great Comrade Castro couldn't trust him to be home in Cuba so kept sending him out!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You MORON!!!

 
At 7/27/2006 3:43 PM, Blogger Brooke said...

I fail to see how Bush singlehandedly destroyed ANY region of the Earth under the butt of a gun.

I think it was instead destroyed by a Koran-sanctioned homicide bomb belt.

 
At 7/27/2006 3:49 PM, Blogger Old Soldier said...

Ducky, I applaud a response absent too much ideological rhetoric. I respect your experiences and the conclusions you have drawn from them.

You wrongly define war when it is waged against evil. Unfortunately, human nature when given the chance will allow barbarity to surface and that is unfortunate. However, barbarity is sometimes what is required to make evil succumb. WWII did not feed itself in perpetuity. It ended; and so can this conflict if unified determination is applied in overwhelming force. The Muslims we fight today do not even closely resemble the people who befriended you. Surely you must recognize that as a truism.

I have experience war twice and combat a third time. I do not advocate war lightly. Anyone who has experienced the hell of a battlefield does not want others to experience it just for the sake of the experience. We have not sought out this war with Muslims, rather a very radical population of Muslims have brought it to our doorstep and intend to defeat us unless we recognize the dangers and respond.

These radical Muslims owe no allegiance to any country or government, so stable governments have no influence over them whether it is ours or an Arab Kingdom. There is no appeasing these thugs and there is no negotiating. I cannot accept a premise that terrorists are borne of our actions against them. The ones who are willing to blow themselves up are predisposed to that action based upon the teachings they have been exposed to – wahabbiism, fatwas, imams, etc.

Although I generalized in my comments concerning Muslims and Islam, do not mistake that for my not recognizing there are people who are not radical and desire us all dead. Yet there are exceedingly few who are willing to speak out against the teachings and fatwas concerning the Great Satan. That I find unacceptable.

 
At 7/27/2006 3:55 PM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

old soldier, I'm willing to tone it down. I doubt that I'll agree with you one many points but I am willing to try to understand your position. Frankly I don't get it but I think that as a rule I keep it in line here even though I am in the middle of completely hostile territory, but territory that I am trying to understand.

 
At 7/27/2006 3:59 PM, Blogger American Crusader said...

Anybody who knows me, knows that I am not in any way a Muslim/Islamic apologist. I have seen a lot of comments about how not enough Muslim leaders speak out against radical Islam. Personally, I think the problem is that those that do speak out do not get the media coverage of those who threaten American lives. Terrorism sells newspapers and helps elect politicians.
Checkout some articles by M. Zuhdi Jasser(an 11 year veteran of the U.S. Navy) at the Arizona Republic.

 
At 7/27/2006 4:08 PM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

anonymous, I find your position puzzling. Why would I listen to you over the experiences of an iranian, in Iran during the Shah's very opressive regime.

Sad part of it is that Iranians like us. They truly like Americans and we could have done something with that rather than just silly rhetoric like adding them to the axis of evil.

They want to establish relations with Americans but even the progressive iranians do not want us meddling in their affairs. It shouldn't have been hard to understand that and take a more productive course.

 
At 7/27/2006 4:15 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Crusader,
Personally, I think the problem is that those that do speak out do not get the media coverage of those who threaten American lives. Terrorism sells newspapers and helps elect politicians.
Checkout some articles by M. Zuhdi Jasser...


I did a quick search. This popped up first:

My Faith As an Instrument of Butchery
Yesterday the Washington Times ran an impassioned column by M. Zuhdi Jasser, chairman of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, calling for a counter-movement within Islam: Cancer in its midst.

During the dark days of our Revolution, Thomas Paine wrote, “That these are the times, that try men’s souls.” As an American Muslim, I feel the sentiment of these words like a red-hot brand on my brain.

I have watched horrified as assassins have read out the words from my Holy Koran before slitting the throats of some poor innocent souls. To my non-comprehending eyes, I have seen mothers proudly support their sons’ accomplishment of blowing up innocent people as they eat or travel. It shatters some part of me, to see my faith as an instrument for butchery.

It makes me hope and pray for some counter-movement within my faith which will push back all this darkness. And I know that it must start with what is most basic — the common truth that binds all religions: “Do unto others, as you would have them do onto you.” The Golden Rule.

But that is not what I am seeing taught in a great deal of the Muslim world today, and, unfortunately, in America it’s just not much better.

Night after night, I see Muslim national organizations like the Council for American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, cry out over and over about anecdotal victimization while saying and doing absolutely nothing about the most vile hate-speak and actions toward Jews and Christians in the Muslim world. It is the most self-serving of outrage.

Today Ibrahim Hooper of radical Islamic front group CAIR launches the inevitable attack:

In his commentary (“Cancer in its midst”, Op-Ed, yesterday), M. Zuhdi Jasser states that he hopes and prays “for some counter-movement within my faith which will push back all this darkness” of terrorism, in apparent blissful ignorance of the fact that American Muslim groups have consistently and repeatedly condemned terrorism in all its forms.


The above citation has internal links.

About the Golden Rule, which Mr. Jasser mentioned....Ali Sina has pointed out the the Golden Rule is not included in the tenets of Islam.

Crusader, you have a point with this: Terrorism sells newspapers and helps elect politicians, especially the latter. Supporters of the House of Saud repeatedly cite the threat of terrorism as a reason to keep the Sauds in power.

Sometimes what sells newspapers is the truth, too.

I'll do some more searching on Mr. Jasser. Thanks for the info.

 
At 7/27/2006 4:20 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Duck,
Thank you for this: old soldier, I'm willing to tone it down. I doubt that I'll agree with you one many points but I am willing to try to understand your position. Frankly I don't get it but I think that as a rule I keep it in line here even though I am in the middle of completely hostile territory, but territory that I am trying to understand.

I wouldn't say that this is "completely hostile territory." Your hostess hasn't banned you nor deleted any of your comments. You and I do not agree on much, but in the past year I think we've learned to have discussions which are more reasoned.

And now I understand why you visit here: territory that I am trying to understand.

My medication has me in a mellow mood today, I guess. LOL.

 
At 7/27/2006 4:59 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Old Soldier,
Ducky, I applaud a response absent too much ideological rhetoric. I respect your experiences and the conclusions you have drawn from them.

Thank you for saying that. All of us draw conclusions based on our own experiences, which can widely diverge.

It's been a long time--almost a year--since I posted in a comment how I got to this counter-jihad. Maybe I should dig out those comments and post them, front and center.

 
At 7/27/2006 5:51 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Jason,
Those Muslims who are lax, lapsed, or selective in their practice are no problem in and of themselves. And one should always treat individuals for who they are. But are they really Muslims?

That's the essence of the problem. And I often wonder if those lax Muslims will "revive." The book Not without My Daughter touches on that matter. Interestingly enough, the Council on Islamic Education absolutely insists that the movie must never be shown to students. Hmmmm...

 
At 7/27/2006 7:10 PM, Blogger Gayle said...

Dang, AOW... I thought you taped Ducky's mouth shut! Some dang liberal must have set him free. ;)

Excellent post, AOW. It's true... the silence of the so-called "moderate Muslims" living in American is deafening. How the heck do we know where they really stand? Unless they get very vocal against radical Muslims and stand with us they are indeed against us. It doesn't take a genious to figure it out!

 
At 7/27/2006 7:36 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Gayle,
Dang, AOW... I thought you taped Ducky's mouth shut! Some dang liberal must have set him free. ;)

Can't stop a Duck from quacking!

How the heck do we know where they really stand? Unless they get very vocal against radical Muslims and stand with us they are indeed against us.

And delay--if delay it really is--doesn't bode well for credibility.

 
At 7/27/2006 7:39 PM, Blogger Old Soldier said...

Ducky, I agree there will probably be little that we may agree upon, and realize that our backgrounds and experiences drive us to see things very differently, but see no reason for us to continue a useless confrontational and insulting discourse.

”Sad part of it is that Iranians like us.”

Perhaps that is known in Washington and that is why we have not done something rash like invading Iran. I’ve read many articles indicating the general populace is not behind Ahmadinejad. Too, we could be waiting for an internal revolt which may not be too far off. I’ve also read that some Iranians are asking the US to free them of Ahmadinejad.

And I know that it must start with what is most basic — the common truth that binds all religions: “Do unto others, as you would have them do onto you.” The Golden Rule.

I find it very strange that a Muslim would quote Mathew 7:12, the verse in the Bible New Testament from which the Golden Rule is taken. I have no idea if the Qur’an or Hadith teach benevolence or alms. The Qur’an and Hadith certainly establish the inferiority (non-entity) of nonbelievers though.

 
At 7/27/2006 8:00 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

More on Hezbollah using human shields:

The words of a Canadian United Nations observer written just days before he was killed in an Israeli bombing of a UN post in Lebanon are evidence Hezbollah was using the post as a "shield" to fire rockets into Israel, says a former UN commander in Bosnia.

Those words, written in an e-mail dated just nine days ago, offer a possible explanation as to why the post -- which according to UN officials was clearly marked and known to Israeli forces -- was hit by Israel on Tuesday night, said retired Maj.-Gen. Lewis MacKenzie yesterday.

The strike hit the UN observation post in the southern Lebanese village of El Khiam, killing Canadian Maj. Paeta Hess-von Kruedener and three others serving as unarmed UN military observers in the area.

Just last week, Maj. Hess-von Kruedener wrote an e-mail about his experiences after nine months in the area, words Maj.-Gen. MacKenzie said are an obvious allusion to Hezbollah tactics....


Read it all!

 
At 7/27/2006 8:33 PM, Blogger Mad Zionist said...

Once again, it comes back to what Newt said last week: We have entered WWIII, and the enemy is Islam.

 
At 7/27/2006 9:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Che Sucky Ducky,

you shouldn't just take my word for it anymore than you should just take HER word for it.

Did you stay with this woman for several years to get to know her in such depth that you would understand WHY she told you what she did??

Do you ever bother to consider that we often NEVER KNOW WHAT IS HAPPENING IN OUR OWN COUNTRY AS IT UNFOLDS AROUND US????

I am NOT trying to tell you she knowingly LIED to you. This woman probably told you what she PERCEIVED! (of course YOU COULD BE LYING TO ME ABOUT HER!!)

I told you what many other people with much better access to what was happening perceived and DOCUMENTED.

The fact is the man she supported was part of a radical faction attempting to take over the county and align it at extremes to the Shah.

While the US was involved at a rather visible level in the politics of Iran, the USSR was involved in helping the radical Islamists and creating the ugly IslamoMarxists who, untimately, succeeded in ousting the Shah.

The ugly joke is that, although they may have some reason to deal with the Russians due to this early alliance, they are now more of a threat to them than they are to US!!!!!

Do you REALLY THINK THE USSR WAS ONLY ACTIVE IN AFGHANISTAN???? They also were involved in promoting the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and a number of other groups throughout the ME, ALL VIOLENT!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

You Che MORON!!!

 
At 7/27/2006 9:26 PM, Blogger beakerkin said...

Ducky

Bottom line the era of cushy life for your kind is over. India has made your last bastion accademia irrelevant. Either the USA tosses your kind out of higher Ed or we go down the toilet.

The end of your kind is approaching
Marx is dead and his accolytes irrelevant and or insane.

 
At 7/27/2006 9:27 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Anonymous,
Do you REALLY THINK THE USSR WAS ONLY ACTIVE IN AFGHANISTAN???? They also were involved in promoting the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and a number of other groups throughout the ME, ALL VIOLENT!!!

I doubt that you'll ever get a leftist to admit that. Or that the founding of the Muslim Brotherhood preceded U.S. involvement in Iraq.

 
At 7/27/2006 9:30 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A couple other points Che Sucky Ducky,

In how many countries that are run by some type of totalitarian regime do the people want out from under?? All of them??

Did this woman you were talking to tell you whether she preferred the Shah or the current regime??

Did she understand that her preferred man would also have ended up with the current people in power?? How much did she know about the organisation backing her man??

Where did you get the idea that the Shah was such a terrible guy, the same sources telling you how much better Castro was than the guy he replaced???

Yes, the majority of the Iranians do not want the current NUTJOBS running their country. Unfortunately, while they sit around, unwilling to endanger themselves personally to get rid of these NUTJOBS, they are creating weapons which will endanger the WORLD!!!

As much as I would like to save these people from themselves, my position is simple, if Iran even LOOKS like they have a NUKE we should make big glass bowls of every area where we even THINK THEY MIGHT have a nuke installation!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

You Che MORON!!!

 
At 7/27/2006 9:30 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Beak,
The end of your kind is approaching

Dead Duck walking? Figuratively, of course.

 
At 7/27/2006 11:15 PM, Blogger nanc said...

if you haven't been to neoconcommand center today - definitely a must see, aow - this is what the left would have us endure - of course they will turn a blind eye to this as they do ALL true human rights issues. warning - not pretty.

 
At 7/28/2006 2:09 AM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

Anonymous,

Do you REALLY THINK THE USSR WAS ONLY ACTIVE IN AFGHANISTAN???? They also were involved in promoting the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and a number of other groups throughout the ME, ALL VIOLENT!!!

Yep. The history of leftism is punctuated by violence. It is its most defining quality. From Robespierre's guillotines to dynamite-tossing "labor" activists to gas chambers at Auschwitz to killing fields in Cambodia to hijacked planes to Cuba (or into office buildings), leftism has done nothing, NOTHING, but advocate and engage in genocide.

Leftist ideas are nothing but pedantic diarrhea espoused by philosophical amateurs.

 
At 7/28/2006 6:16 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Nanc,
I just got back from Brooke's site.

That poor girl! The story turns my stomach. How can human beings do such a thing to another human being? But I think I know how--women are chattel to them, not quite human. And these savages find the basis in the Koran and the Hadith.

 
At 7/28/2006 8:08 AM, Blogger The Merry Widow said...

Doctrine of demons, AoW, kill, steal and destroy! My heart goes out to all the women and girls that are cursed to live under mohammahdism! I remember, back when the Shah was still in power, a parade in Tehran commemorating his reign. There were women in uniforms(teachers) marching, it was a special unit of teachers who went to poor, backward villages to teach children how to read, write, taught them history, geography, math and other "modern" subjects. I remember them being showcased with the Shah's special blessing! How far have the mighty fallen!

tmw

 
At 7/28/2006 9:00 AM, Anonymous And Another Thing said...

For your Forbidden Question I'll try a Forbidden Answer. When JFK was campaigning for the presidency in 1960, he gave a speech in Dallas that addressed his Catholicism. He stated clearly that if he were president, his oath of office took precedence over his religious faith. If his oath to the constitution conflicted with the Pope, then he would have to disagree with the Pope.

46 years later, I dare say that a Muslim candidate for the presidency making similiar remarks would have a good chance of being murdered before the election, not to mention the entire length of his/her administration.

If one agrees with that scenario (considering the furor over some cartoons I cannot imagine a benign one) then it would indicate to me that no, one cannot be a good American and good Muslim at the same time.

In the years I spent in Ireland, everyone I knew condemned the IRA, the UVF, and any other faction using terror. However, to publicly condemn them was to condemn yourself and your family. Brutal, but that's the way it was. Perhaps that might shed light on why there is such silence amongst Muslims here.

Ducky I do not agree with but understand how he could reach his conclusions, and respect that. I'm more in agreement with Old Soldier in his points to Ducky.

 
At 7/28/2006 9:07 AM, Blogger nanc said...

aow - this at fpm this morning regarding dearbornistan:

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23587

 
At 7/28/2006 9:49 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

And Another Thing,
I truly appreciate that Duck gave some background info as to how he's arrived at his conclusions. That may well be the longest comment he's ever posted here.

I was quite young when JFK was campaigning, but I do recall hearing my parents' and other adults' discussion of JFK's loyalties. One of our best friends was Roman Catholic, but she always put America first (over the Pope).

to publicly condemn them was to condemn yourself and your family. Brutal, but that's the way it was. Perhaps that might shed light on why there is such silence amongst Muslims here.

All the more reason to quit saying "Islam is a religion of peace."

I've been accused of painting all Muslims with the same brush, but the above mantra does the same thing. So, how could any moderate Muslims possibly come forward? We've, in essence, denied the fact of militant Islam. Like it or not, that militancy is inherent in both the Koran and the Hadith.

And that rioting over a bunch of cartoons--what does that say about those Muslims who wouldn't condemn the rioters?

 
At 7/28/2006 9:50 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

TMW,
Where is the outcry from certain groups--women's rights and human rights?

Nanc,
On my way over to FPM.

 
At 7/28/2006 10:02 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Nanc,
I posted the link to Dearbornistan, front and center.

 
At 7/28/2006 10:58 AM, Blogger The Merry Widow said...

AoW- chirp chirp

tmw

 
At 7/28/2006 12:46 PM, Blogger American Crusader said...

Then answer this question...if a Catholic puts America first...even before the Pope, then is he/she a good Catholic?

I know the answer my priest has for this question.

 
At 7/28/2006 1:04 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The questions about whether your religion or your country comes first gets to the root of the problem with leftism and their problem with Judaic/Christian teachings.

As founded, this country could have Christian and Jewish Presidents, Judges, Senators... who did not HAVE to check their religion at the door. In fact, to do their job the best way possible they needed to listen to the teachings of their religion!!!!!

Many founding fathers believed that Freedom and the Country would die if we tried to govern ourselves without our religious teachings. They are being proven right.

The LEFT needs to destoy this link to turn us into animals like themselves.

 
At 7/28/2006 1:35 PM, Anonymous And Another Thing said...

American Crusader: to answer your question as posed I would have to say that would place JFK as a 'bad' Catholic. But, if as president one chooses being a 'good' (fill in the blank) over their duties in office, then we would be no different than Iran is currently.

That is the question AOW poses. Can you be a good Muslim and also a good American? I think not. At this point in time one can be Christian (of whatever denomination) Jew, or most anything else. What makes Islam unique is the elimination of all religious influence other than its own.

Our nation is not under threat of attack by Jews, Mennonites, Jehovah's Witnesses, Baptists, or B'ahais. It has been the tradition of America that one can be of whatever faith they choose while at the same time faithful to American traditions of government.

Islam, by its own definition, is incompatible with such tradtion.

 
At 7/28/2006 1:36 PM, Blogger Brooke said...

My churches view:

1: God
2:America
3:Church

 
At 7/28/2006 1:36 PM, Blogger Brooke said...

Ugh. "Church's."

 
At 7/28/2006 2:29 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Anonymous,
Many founding fathers believed that Freedom and the Country would die if we tried to govern ourselves without our religious teachings. They are being proven right.

Yes, and I believe that our Founders saw the national ethos directly tied to the same values system (to use a current phrase). What our Founders were deadset against was an established religion, aka a state church. One can subscribe to a particular system of values espoused by a particular religion without actually following that religion per se. A common culture, if you will.

Crusader,
That problem lies with Islam's teachings about Allah. The ethos of Islam is too dissimlar to the Western/Christian ethos. Furthermore, Islam doesn't allow for freedom of religion, particularly under shari'a law. Remember Abdul Rahman? Look at Saudi? Those are just two examples.

I guess the question might come down to something like this: If the Pope espoused some of the same tenets of Islam (I'm thinking particularly of calling for a doing away with the First Constitutional Amendment), would following that edict allow for you to be a good American? Of course, I can't imagine the present Pope doing such a thing. But in a corrupt world, might that happen?

I am a Protestant. Therefore, I do not follow a man, but God. (No offense, Crusader)

As an aside, I'd be interested in learning of your views about the Protestant Reformation and about the infallibility of the Pope.

 
At 7/28/2006 2:51 PM, Blogger nanc said...

warren may be the one to talk to about that, aow. he's quite learned in catholicism. i grew up in a catholic family and when i was nine discovered the bible on my own, which at the time was a no-no in catholicland. although there were grand lulls in my quest for truth, i do rely on the Word solely. i am a protestant also.

 
At 7/28/2006 2:54 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

AOW,

the FF believed in not allowing a Federal or National Church. They also did not believe in allowing Religion to be FORCED. They had NO PROBLEM WITH STATE SPONSORED RELIGION!!!!!

I believe 6 of the original states had State Churches when they became States in the US. These State Churches did not go away for decades!!

The difference in this reality and the perception and what the LEFTIES promote are extremely important to the dialogue about the mythical WALL!!!

The Wall was all one way. The FEDERAL Gubmint was not to be allowed to mess with religion and churches. You could bring your religion to EVERYTHING you wanted!!!


This has been twisted to mean, in effect, the FEDERAL GUBMINT IS ALLOWED TO SUPPRESS RELIGION in Public Space and some private spaces!!!!!

 
At 7/28/2006 2:56 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Just a quick quote which popped into my inbox:

The Patriot Post
Founders' Quote Daily

"[T]he great Searcher of human hearts is my witness, that I have
no wish, which aspires beyond the humble and happy lot of living
and dying a private citizen on my own farm."

-- George Washington (letter to Charles Pettit, 16 August 1788)

Reference: Washington's Maxims, 131.

 
At 7/28/2006 3:00 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Anonymous,
I guess that I was not being clear. By "state-sponsored religion," I meant a particular church receiving federal tax-dollars. I was using "state" in the federal sense--probably not clear, as you pointed out.

Indeed, several states had what you pointed out.

The FEDERAL Gubmint was not to be allowed to mess with religion and churches. You could bring your religion to EVERYTHING you wanted!!!

This has been twisted to mean, in effect, the FEDERAL GUBMINT IS ALLOWED TO SUPPRESS RELIGION in Public Space and some private spaces!!!!!


I'll be right back to post the exact wording from the First Amendment. Will take me a minute.

BTW, have you ever read The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History?

 
At 7/28/2006 3:03 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Here's the exact wording:

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...


We agree, Anonymous. And thanks for not calling me "You MORON!!!!" LOL.

 
At 7/28/2006 3:33 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Nanc,
I'd love to have Warren comment on what we've been discussing. Let him know?

 
At 7/28/2006 3:44 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

And Another Thing,
I've been having a few "computer issues" [ARRRGGGGHHH!], and I just found your comment. Excerpt:

At this point in time one can be Christian (of whatever denomination) Jew, or most anything else. What makes Islam unique is the elimination of all religious influence other than its own.

Our nation is not under threat of attack by Jews, Mennonites, Jehovah's Witnesses, Baptists, or B'ahais. It has been the tradition of America that one can be of whatever faith they choose while at the same time faithful to American traditions of government.

Islam, by its own definition, is incompatible with such tradtion.


Those portions I bolded are well stated! Thank you. You've stated what I was trying to say in an earlier comment.

 
At 7/28/2006 3:47 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

AOW,

I have it, but, haven't read it yet.

I only call people MORONS who consistently represent themsleves as one.

I am a little hurt that it isn't that apparent. Where have I gone wrong???

SNIF!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

The really important part is the decision as to WHAT IS A RELIGION!!! We should have been arguing and beating this question up all these years!!

My thought would be that a religion would have to be recognised as such at the state level. Since Congress is restricted from saying anything about it and nothing said in the founding papers, how can they even get tax exempt status???

Of course, the validity of the tax structure is another whole POSCD (pile of steaming camel dung).

 
At 7/28/2006 3:58 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Anonymous,
This new medication for my back is making me quirky. I hope these side-effects settle down. Otherwise, my students will have an unusual year--er, more unusual than usual. Hehehe.

I used that book last year when I taught American History. That PIG Guide is an excellent resource! I wish we'd get one for world history.

The really important part is the decision as to WHAT IS A RELIGION!!! We should have been arguing and beating this question up all these years!!

For a few years now, I've been saying that Islam is an ideology. Then, last year, I came across Jason's term: "geopolitical ideology." Jason (and some others) maintain that Islam is first and foremost a geopolitical ideology. The similarities between the Koran and Mein Kampf substantiate what I just said.

But how to get any state to see that?

POSCD? Great acronym for summing up our tax system. My father used to say, "How do you straighten out a pretzel?" sometimes in reference to the tax system.

 
At 7/28/2006 4:07 PM, Blogger The Merry Widow said...

Exactlly! It is very much a political movement based on arabic supremacy! Laura Mansfield is right!

tmw

 
At 7/28/2006 4:43 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

TMW,
Islam minus Allah = communism

 
At 7/28/2006 5:10 PM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

Argh. Catholics...

You should first ask if you can put America before St. Brigit, and work your way up the pantheon.

 
At 7/28/2006 5:16 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Mr. Beamish,
You should first ask if you can put America before St. Brigit...

Who? Irish, maybe?

 
At 7/28/2006 8:27 PM, Blogger nanc said...

you must first get the pretzel very, very wet...you practically have to drown the dayamed thing...

 
At 7/28/2006 9:37 PM, Blogger The Merry Widow said...

Nanc- Drowning is good! Works for me, need help?

tmw

 
At 7/29/2006 5:55 AM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

AOW,

St. Brigit is but one of several hundred "saints" in the Catholic Church that while never actually actually having been a human being that walked the Earth were instead pagan deities incorporated and canonized into Catholicism to inflate the numbers of folk deemed "Christian" by folk who don't know otherwise. Brigit was a Celtic goddess.

 
At 7/29/2006 5:57 AM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

strike one "actually" - sorry for the double-type...

 
At 7/29/2006 9:31 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Mr. Beamish,
I'm certainly no authority on Roman Catholicism. I've heard of a few of the saints, of course: St. Christopher, St. Patrick, etc.--the really famous ones.

 
At 7/29/2006 7:18 PM, Blogger benning said...

The UAC will wait until they are old and gray before the US Islamists issue any such fatwa. Not a chance. I'd bet the only response they get will be an attack against them for their racism and hate-speech. 'Cause that's the way American Muslims seem to think.

Great Post!

 
At 7/29/2006 7:22 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Benning,
The UAC will wait until they are old and gray before the US Islamists issue any such fatwa.

I think so, too. UAC has made several attempts to get "moderate Muslims" involved. As far as I know, no success.

To my mind, any Muslim group, be it mosque or otherwise, which doesn't answer this challenge in a positive way should be outta here. We can start with CAIR and MAS--and go from there.

 
At 7/30/2006 2:05 AM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

AOW,

I'm not all that fond of Catholicism. I understand and accept that there are some Christians within the RCC, but they've never met each other.

 
At 7/30/2006 6:35 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Mr. Beamish,
I know several Catholics who are strong Christians. Of course, I differ with their theology in that I don't pray to Mary nor the saints--just to mention one aspect. And I'm mindful that the RCC was the only version of Christianity for centuries and that the RCC preserved Christianity during the Dark Ages.

 
At 7/30/2006 8:53 AM, Blogger benning said...

Still, at the end of the day, Christians have the words of Christ, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, render unto GOD that which is GOD's." Beyond the immediate explanation of a Christian's responsibility to pay taxes, this also speaks to our obligations to our own country.

For a Christian American that means we work within the confines of our Constitutional Rights. Following the Law or working to change it legally. Outside the Constitutional we are enjoined from going. By Christ Himself. I'm not conversant with the Koran, but I have never heard any statement cited, from Allah or Muhammed, saying that the government is owed a certain amount of obediance or allegiance by a Muslim. A big difference to me!

 
At 7/30/2006 7:20 PM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

And I'm mindful that the RCC was the only version of Christianity for centuries...

Which centuries? Christianity is nearly 300 years older than Catholicism.

 
At 7/30/2006 7:26 PM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

Benning,

That is the glory of faith in the real God over the fake Islamic god. The real God needs no help from his followers, and leaves the choice of eternal hell in each individual's human hands. Was even nice enough to tell us about it.

 
At 7/31/2006 9:15 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Mr. Beamish,
That is the glory of faith in the real God over the fake Islamic god. The real God needs no help from his followers, and leaves the choice of eternal hell in each individual's human hands. Was even nice enough to tell us about it.

Hear, hear!

Allah is one powerless god. Just like Baal.

 
At 7/31/2006 9:24 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Mr. Beamish,
Approximately 300 A.D. (Edict of Milan) up till the time of the Reformation. Of course, there was also the 11th Century Great Schism.

In Spain, 711-1492, the monasteries preserved manuscripts of the Bible. Otherwise, the Moors would have burned them all!

The Catholics whom I personally know credit the Protestant Reformation with needed changes in the RCC. After the Reformation, the RCC became more evangelistic, too.

 
At 7/31/2006 9:28 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Benning,
Still, at the end of the day, Christians have the words of Christ, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, render unto GOD that which is GOD's." Beyond the immediate explanation of a Christian's responsibility to pay taxes, this also speaks to our obligations to our own country.

Also, "submit to the civil authorities," from Paul.

 
At 7/31/2006 10:09 AM, Blogger The Merry Widow said...

AoW- There were the Anabaptists, the Hugaenots(sic, fwench), and several other Christian groups that were persecuted and martyred by the RC! There were even those who worked within the RC to preserve the Words of G*D not the traditions of men. My Mother was RC but became a Christian 12 yrs. before she died, so I am somewhat acquainted with the policies and inquisitions(yes, plural) perpetrated by them! The Anabaptists were killed in northeastern France and Switzerland, the Heugonots were either driven out or killed in Orleans. So, I wouldn't say that the RC carried Christianity, but rather Christianity survived in spite of the RC!

tmw

 
At 7/31/2006 10:56 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

TMW,
I am aware of the facts you've mentioned. I studied church history when I was in a Christian school (not Catholic). Those events were an outgrowth (not exactly the right word) of the Protestant Reformation.

Portions of the history of the RCC serve as proof of the danger of the the ties of government and church. And, of course, we can point to some examples of persecution of the part of Protestants as well.

For me, it comes down to this....Follow man, and there lies the way to destruction. But follow God and the way leads to eternal life.

Man loves ritual and too many times that ritual becomes an end unto itself and, thus, can become meaningless as far as true communion with the Lord is concerned.

But I stress that I DO know several Catholics who follow the Lord, and I say that as one who is not RC.

Christianity survived in spite of the RC!

My position is not that strong. And in spite of other Christian denominations as well, Christianity thrives. The Lord works His wonders and can use any tool.

 
At 7/31/2006 2:59 PM, Blogger The Merry Widow said...

True enough! As I said my Mother was RC! Even went to RC school for 3 yrs. Loved most of the nuns too! Some real sweeties. And Martin Luther got mad because the Jews didn't come running to the Protestant fold, ah well, as you said, follow man==disaster, follow G*D=trouble in this world, but peace with G*D! That's why I don't follow a denomination, but G*D!

tmw

 
At 7/31/2006 3:48 PM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

As I've said before, Catholicism borrows a few things from Christianity, but adds a ton of dreck atop of that. Enough to handily stress the differences between Christians and Queen of Heaven worshippers.

 
At 8/02/2006 9:42 AM, Blogger Pim's Ghost said...

Sorry, as Roman Catholic that I kind of resent many of those statements. I have a Baptist neighbor who has had many questions about Catholicism which I've been able to answer for her, including the lesser emphasis these days on the Saints, and the rituals which are rooted in the early church and designed to always draw attention back to the meaning behind them. Another neighbor told me when I moved here that she had "met some Catholics who were Christians". I felt like a black person in the 50s being told that I did possibly have a decent character. Now is NOT the time for Christian denominations to be fighting amongst themselves, even the Pope keeps emphasizing this. Sorry I had to pound that one, but I am Catholic, and made the decision to become so more recently in life, so as a recent conscious choice I can't help but be offended.

You know those calls you get on the phone from weird numbers and then there's no one there? We used to call it "Mr. Nobody". Now I call it "Allah". Allah calling, only Mo can hear! The Arabian moon god as imaginary friend. I love it. The ummah needs a sense of humor.

I've interviewed many Muslims who, scary as it seems, like living here but admit that their allegiance if it came down to it would be with the "ummah", not the US. But I also have met many who've fled to the US (even from Iran, DUCKY!!) to escape THEOCRACY, who hate it and DO NOT want it. On YouTube I've even managed to drag out a Muslim or two who have now responded that they certainly don't want a theocracy or to live in one, and that they don't take from the koran those beliefs we hate. Maybe I can drag out enough of these people to stand up. I just don't think they can hold up against the mafioso muslims who'd threaten them, but maybe with enough.

I do know muslim immigrants who are much more relaxed about everything and more liberal than I am. They love it here, and don't practice Islam much at all. Especially people I know from Pakistan and Iran, but also a Jordanian man. My fear is the converts, the children of immigrants who are "returning" to their heritage, etc. They are more zealous (not unusual to anyone new or returning to a faith) and therefore more of a threat due to the backing of the numerous more radical elements.

 
At 8/02/2006 10:35 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Pim's Ghost,
As a rule, Protestants are less accepting of Roman Catholicism than Roman Catholics are of Protestantism. Now, I'm not one of those people who say "Why can't we all get along?" I realize the Christianity is less unified that most other religions.

've interviewed many Muslims who, scary as it seems, like living here but admit that their allegiance if it came down to it would be with the "ummah", not the US.

Therein lies the gravity. And defining the "ummah" is problematic as well.

My fear is the converts, the children of immigrants who are "returning" to their heritage, etc. They are more zealous (not unusual to anyone new or returning to a faith) and therefore more of a threat due to the backing of the numerous more radical elements.

Ever seen the movie Not Without My Daughter?

 
At 8/03/2006 10:44 AM, Blogger Pim's Ghost said...

AOW--I feel the same way. Now is not the time for divisions amongst Christians. Heck, it's not the time for divisions regarding our civilization, as exemplified by folks like the Duck. But being from Georgia, I am used to it. My Grandmother rather shocked her Southern Baptist family by converting to Catholicism, but she finds her own path and doesn't much care what others think of her....looks like I get if from both sides of the family! HA!

Yes on "Not Without My Daughter", but even more wrenching were some documentaries and news shows about getting children back through kidnapping, mercenaries, etc. as the US government does NOTHING to anger especially the Saudis to get children with US Citizenship back. I remember one teenager who was able to plot on the phone a few times only because she and her mother also spoke Spanish, which her Saudi relatives couldn't understand.

 
At 8/03/2006 2:17 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Pim's Ghost,
One reason I mentioned Not Without My Daughter is that the Council on Islamic Education emphasizes that the movie should never be shown in school.

I'm sick of the tip-toeing with Saudi!

Now is not the time for divisions amongst Christians. Heck, it's not the time for divisions regarding our civilization...

I've emphasized that point many times.

 
At 8/05/2006 1:22 PM, Blogger Elmer's Brother said...

powerful AoW.

 
At 8/07/2006 3:33 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

EB,
And how often can one say, "I found a real gem at Daily Kos"?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home