The Shotgun Blog
« Lebanese witnesses silenced by opposition | Main | Let us not ignore East Asia »
Thursday, August 03, 2006
The problem with Islam
nan·o·sec·ond: The exact measurement of time it would take for every media outlet in the country to issue a front page report on a prominent Muslim spokesman getting death threats from gap-toothed, white-bread rednecks.
Take Tarek Fatah, who has recently resigned as communications director of the Muslim Canadian Congress.
His statement cites stress and safety concerns as his reason for leaving -- Apparently Mr. Fatah has been getting death threats, but they haven't been from the intolerant bigots of the right wing, or the ignorant rubes of the redneck west, or even from Right Girl ;)
Oh no...the threats have been coming from the infinitely tolerant members of the Toronto chapter of the "Religion of Peace" -- and that is the reason you haven't been hearing much about it.
Members of his very own Muslim community have issued threats towards him and his family, he has found his name included on a list of progressive Muslims who need to be "silenced" and he is roundly criticized as being a traitor to the Islamic community for promoting integration and tolerance.
I happened to hear Mr. Fatah being interviewed on the radio today, and in explaining what he believes to be the core conflict within the Muslim community, he accidentally hit on what I would consider to be the primary "root cause" of the modern world's current impasse with the worldwide intifada.
He explained that there was a battle being waged within the Muslim community, between fundamentalist extremists and progressives, for the heart of Islam. As an analogy, he likened it to Europe's bloody reformation of Christianity in the 13th and 14th ***16th century -- and that is the part of his statement which caught my attention.
In a globally sophisticated society, with the experience of hundreds of years of parliamentary and democratic foundation, and the trials of Christianity as its foremost comparable example, the nation of Islam still remains 7 ***4 centuries behind the civilized world in the exercise of working out its growing pains.***Thank you to Barry in the comments, for correcting my historical error. Mr. Fatah's own comments in his interview were that the reformation occurred during the 13th and 14th century, thus highlighting the importance of checking facts before posting.
So the question remains...
Is there anyone who still believes that Islam will ever be able to peacefully integrate into society as we know it? Or will society be transformed to accommodate the new barbarism of the old world?
Posted by Wonder Woman on August 3, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d83462306669e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The problem with Islam:
» The Madness of Appeasement from EclectEcon
From noted historian, Victor Davis Hanson:
[I]t is still surreal to reread the fantasies of Chamberlain, Daladier, and Pope Pius, or the s... [Read More]
Tracked on 2006-08-08 9:35:39 AM
Comments
"So the question remains...
Is there anyone who still believes that Islam will ever be able to peacefully integrate into society as we know it?"
Yeah, I believe it.
Rodger Beals
Posted by: Rodger Beals | 2006-08-03 8:52:26 PM
I agree, Wonder Woman, that there is, as you put it, "a battle being waged within the Muslim community, between fundamentalist extremists and progressives, for the heart of Islam." I have further conjectured that there is an ancient battle between the Sunni and the Shiite that is going on that is driving more of this than meets the eye, but that is orthogonal.
As to your question to the effect that "is there anyone who still believes that Islam will ever be able to peacefully integrate into society as we know it?", the question is malformed. It isn't about what we believe, It's about whether the fundamentalists or the modernists will prevail.
The modernists are, broadly speaking, our allies. The fundamentalists are the enemies of the advancement of civilization. I'm an optimist, so I agree with Rodger. Time will tell.
Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-08-03 8:58:31 PM
Don't leave me hanging guys. When and under what circumstances?
Cheers.
Posted by: Mike_RoA | 2006-08-03 9:06:42 PM
We'll see.
Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-08-03 9:08:45 PM
The internal battles of Islam are secondary. Sunni or Shia; radical or "moderate"; Western or Arab; they all unite in one thing: at best, mild contempt for, and at worst, violent hatred for non-Muslims. It's been the bloody path followed by Muslims since it all began just over 1400 years ago. It is fully incompatible with modern western society. If long-time Jew-baiters are considered "moderate", then the answer is self-evident.
Posted by: NCF TO | 2006-08-03 9:15:16 PM
If you think the internal battles of Islam are secondary, NCF TO, then I'm glad you're not responsible for strategic planning for the defense of western civilization. This is not 1,400 years ago. Things change. Shit happens. Even to ancient ideologies. As to your other over-generalizations, that's a tactical mistake.
Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-08-03 9:20:14 PM
Rubbish.....this is another arguement from a dhimmi mindset that says because Islam is 600 years younger then Christianity that we must give it time to mature!!
What rot!!
Nazism or Marxism can never mature from being brutal and evil ideologies and nor can Islam.....
Please read about the Founder of Islam and what he taught....THAT is why you have had 1400 years of brutality and THAT will NEVER quit....
THE ONLY way Islam can be moderated is if the Texts such as the Quran, Hadiths and Sira and others be edited........and that will NEVER happen..
Christianity was easy to moderate....Christians simply returned to what was taught in the Greek Bible .....in otherwords what Christ taught..
MUSLIMS have had their reformation...it is called Wahhabism......among other reformations...the muslim brotherhood, various terrorist cells ad infinitum and so forth...
Their will always be good muslims but they will be in spite of what Islam teaches....the Muslims attacking Mr. Fateh are only obeying Islam's teachings...
WE SURE the hell better start waking up to this reality and quit playing around....ISLAM is the problem....the Bin Ladins, Khomeinis, Hizballah, Hamas and others are in perfect accordance with Islam....remember, Muhammed taught himself to 'strike terror into their hearts' and muslims have been doing this for 1400 years...
I really cannot figure out some of you conservatives who are so willingly ignorant of what we are facing???? I suppose its only based on emotion....that you know some decent muslims and you somehow extrapolate that to mean that Islam somehow isn't responsible but simply a misunderstanding or twisting of its essential teachings????
AGAIN, have any of you ACTUALLY taken the time to read and study Islam's primary teachings and texts??? Please do so and you will quit expounding useless wishful thinking where you continue to parade decent muslims before us so as to comfort us with the idea that Islam is not the problem!!
Your pissing against the wind....
And for what is worth Wonder Woman...Tarek Fatah also has a very nasty islamic paronoid side also....
That being said, he is still heads above most muslims in his decency...and others like Salim Mansour and Rahim Jaffer MUST be supported...BUT that doesn't mean nothing if we do not understand the roots of our problem....and that is Islam...nothing else....
Read the damned Quran and at least one collection of hadiths...the Burkari.....and then get back to me about how ISLAM is not the problem!!
This is really getting tiresome of having to fend off the fantasies of libertarians and conservatives!!! WE SHOULD know better!!!
Posted by: Albertanator | 2006-08-03 9:44:37 PM
And now, here come the folks who are incapable of expressing themselves in a few well-formed cogent paragraphs. Back in the days before Liberal education (that's big-L, not small), children were taught how to communicate effectively.
Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-08-03 9:50:52 PM
Quit your sanctimonious schoolmarm crap, Vitruvius. Albertanator is 100% right. Time has nothing to do with it, interpretations have nothing to do with it, levels of moderation have nothing to do with it. ISLAM IS AS ISLAM DOES. I'd say 1,400 years is a good enough sample size.
Posted by: NCF TO | 2006-08-03 10:05:18 PM
I disagree. You're assuming linearity. Existence doesn't work like that. Existence is chaotic.
Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-08-03 10:13:41 PM
Vitruvius, it would be foolish to dismiss outright the possibility that the practice of Islam ultimately requires the rejection of western values. The exceptions, duly noted, might only prove the rule. If Tarek Fatah and others like him continue to be rejected by a main pool, who view force against such practitioners as justified, and as a trump card of sorts, your assurances that "existence doesn't work like that", and your "shit happens" prognostications -- or mine -- are neither here nor there.
Posted by: EBD | 2006-08-03 10:32:10 PM
Modern civilization, driven by Judeo-Christian morality, strives to improve life on earth by reducing chaos. Certain other ideologies seek to drag us back into a chaotic abyss. Existence may be chaotic in an academic sense, but life is empty and meaningless if you resign yourself to its inevitability.
Posted by: NCF TO | 2006-08-03 10:35:05 PM
I think the point is that we have to assume moderate Islam will "win" over the Islamofascists, in fact we need encourage moderate Islam to make sure this happens.
To constantly go on and on about how hopeless Islam is will hardly help anybody, anywhere, and will, in fact, encourage and invigorate the extremists.
Posted by: Johan i Kanada | 2006-08-03 10:39:51 PM
Johan: Neville Chamberlain assumed Hitler would stop with the Czechs.
Posted by: NCF TO | 2006-08-03 10:43:29 PM
I'm sorry, NCF TO, that was rude of me to use a term of jargon without proper explanation. When I said chaos, I meant nature's tendancy to self-organize spontanously. That's how atoms, stars, life, and civilization form.
I do think, EBD, that Islamic totalitarianism is one of the top few enemies of western civilization at this time. So, arguably, is excessive western consumerism, though that's arguably less immediate and off topic. Meanwhile, the question remains, how do we infiltrate their ideology, hopefully with the help of those of them who are already on our side?
The matter of Mr. Fatah, based on what I've been able to read to date, is interesting. It is possible that he has made a calculated move in an attempt to be of more effect.
Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-08-03 10:49:45 PM
But Johan, if it ends up being the case that moderates are ultimately labeled as westernized, defiled and un-Islamic by the body of Islam -- and there's a lot of evidence to suggest that this is the case -- why would our support of the moderates have any positive effect on Islam? Might not our very support for moderates be seen as a verification of the main body's assertion that the moderates are apostates?
Posted by: EBD | 2006-08-03 10:53:23 PM
Vit: Being attacked by twelve Muslim youth was a calculated move on his part?
Posted by: EBD | 2006-08-03 10:54:37 PM
Not if the moderates win. Then they're the new body of Islam.
Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-08-03 10:54:51 PM
Oh, please, EBD, I didn't say getting attacked was a calculated move, you demean yourself with that sort of cheap rhetoric.
I was just thinking that his response to the situations he has encountered, compared to the other available responses, may have been calculated to raise his stature in future confrontations, by now being able to claim a certain form of righteousness on his side.
Maybe he found himself confronted with a 2 and a 2 and has a plan to put it together into a 4. And if I'm not mistaken, and Mr. Fatah is a moderate, then that may not be a bad thing, if it works.
Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-08-03 11:05:16 PM
Well, V, I guess what I was trying to say is that your speculative conjectures about his private motivations and about some future result that he was privately orchestrating don't carry the same weight as his own statement: that he is stepping down due to threats from within his own community by those who oppose his moderation. But you knew that...right?
Posted by: EBD | 2006-08-03 11:14:28 PM
Correct, EBD. My opinions are nothing more than that. If I wish to claim that something is explicitly a fact, I will explicitly do so, but I rarely do so unless it's in my field of expertise.
Meanwhile, the latest on the newswire is that Mr. Fatah is thinking of writing a book on the problem. I hope he does, and I wish him well in that endeavour. We may even find that such a book ends up being a valueable weapon against the opposition in the Canadian discussion.
Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-08-03 11:21:52 PM
Can we also support moderate Nazis and Moderate Marxists also????
Vit, you don't get it.....the damned ideology of Islam is corrupt....the decent muslims from our pov are considered heretical and indeed in many cases apostates thus branding them for death!!
Mr. Tarek understands this all to well...
IF ONLY one thing we need to know about Islam it is this........it teaches it students to kill those that dare leave this Ideology....that's all you need to know about Islam really....
You can't get by that Vit or anyone else....aside from all the other brutal teachings in Islam that are indigenous to it, this teaching of executing those that dare leave it should make us all shiver!!!!
How can we reconcile this ideology EVER with our Freedoms??? It can't be done....its like saying their is nice Nazism......Islam is what it always was.....
Quit spouting this crap about decent muslims and abberant islamic sects...THE REAL muslims are Hamas, are Bin Ladin, are the Wahhabies.....that is WHY you NEVER see a MASS of millions or even thousands of muslims parading in the streets from Java to Casablanca demonstrating against Hamas or the Muslim Brotherhood or the leadership of the Sudan..........the MUSLIM MASSES know damned well that what these brutal people are doing is perfectly islamic....
ARE you defenders of Islam not troubled by the FACT that the only time you see Muslim protesters come out in the West or East is to support murderers like Saddam or Hamas or Bin Ladin??
ARE YOU not troubled that poll after poll in Muslim countries that BIN LADIN is considered a GREAT MUSLIM???
Does this at least prick a bit of your grey matter???
Use your bloody common sense!!
If the moderates are truly moderate, they are hardly going to go join the fanatics if we tell it like it is........indeed, we will find out how just moderate they really are when they are confronted with the truth of Islam's teachings!
WE DO ourselves no damned favors by whistling past the graveyard and not telling the truth....
Posted by: Albertanator | 2006-08-03 11:23:03 PM
Hang on, it's my turn again now isn't it? Ah, yes, well then, good night everyone, take care, live well, Vitruvius is over and out.
Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-08-03 11:30:25 PM
There is a book written by a Toronto gal about the need to reform Islam ... she's a regular on TV panels.
I read her book two years ago. Ishtar Manjit??? could be her name.
Not quite as heavy-hitting as The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam, but worth a look.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-08-03 11:31:14 PM
"To constantly go on and on about how hopeless Islam is will hardly help anybody, anywhere, and will, in fact, encourage and invigorate the extremists."
It's only problematic because Islam, and the non-traditional immigrants who practise it, are here. Enoch Powell was the hammerless re-incarnation of Charles Martel.
Stop immigration and offer incentives to repatriate.
The German voluntary program in 1983, encouraged 250,000, mainly Turks, to return home. It worked in Yugoslavia. It's working in Denmark and it can work in the Anglosphere as well.
Posted by: DJ | 2006-08-03 11:36:17 PM
I noted the reference to Enoch Powell by poster DJ. Mr Powell is usually quoted by people attempting to smear realistic appraisals of the negative aspects of 'immigration' with the epithet 'racist.' He also said the following observation about unchecked and wholesale immigration:
"So great a catastrophe does not happen unless a whole people wills it upon itself. This is what we did."
From the comments made here and on other sites in this publication and others worldwide, it is clear that everyone speaks, hopefully, of 'moderate islam' and of the 'silent moderate majority of moslems.' I have not yet seen any presentation of what this 'moderate' form of Islam is. Unless one removes all of their soi-disant 'prophet's' later remarks and disregards almost the entire history of Islam in relation to other societies, cultures and genuine religions, what grounds are there for even speaking of 'moderation' and why, indeed, should one try? This is evil and it should be fought, not accommodated and the best way of fighting it, apart from removing its most violent members from one's own society, and forbidding any further adherents the privilege of residency, is in reasserting our civilisation's fundamental beliefs and proscribing the Training Manual for islamic world-wide war.
Posted by: Centurion | 2006-08-04 12:09:15 AM
I noted the reference to Enoch Powell by poster DJ. Mr Powell is usually quoted by people attempting to smear realistic appraisals of the negative aspects of 'immigration' with the epithet 'racist.' He also said the following observation about unchecked and wholesale immigration:
"So great a catastrophe does not happen unless a whole people wills it upon itself. This is what we did."
From the comments made here and on other sites in this publication and others worldwide, it is clear that everyone speaks, hopefully, of 'moderate islam' and of the 'silent moderate majority of moslems.' I have not yet seen any presentation of what this 'moderate' form of Islam is. Unless one removes all of their soi-disant 'prophet's' later remarks and disregards almost the entire history of Islam in relation to other societies, cultures and genuine religions, what grounds are there for even speaking of 'moderation' and why, indeed, should one try? This is evil and it should be fought, not accommodated and the best way of fighting it, apart from removing its most violent members from one's own society, and forbidding any further adherents the privilege of residency, is in reasserting our civilisation's fundamental beliefs and proscribing the Training Manual for islamic world-wide war.
Posted by: Centurion | 2006-08-04 12:10:53 AM
DJ, is that really true about the Germans paying for Turks to go home???
Now that isn't a bad idea really...though it is costly, it is well worth it and it is humane...
Perhaps when the masses of Westerners from Denmark to America start realizing the trouble we are in from Islamists, then this could be a real possibility for us to provided incentive for Islam to return to its shores?!!
Posted by: Albertanator | 2006-08-04 12:20:16 AM
SYF, that brave little gal is Irshad Manji and her book is 'The trouble with Islam' and she has had to live in fear for her life since it was released...
Interestingly, she is a lesbian so I doubt she could ever be taken seriously by the Islamic body proper but she makes some very salient points .....and she does so courageously to say the least!!
Posted by: Albertanator | 2006-08-04 12:22:19 AM
I wonder how many of those who continue trying to defend Islam have actually lived in a Muslim country. I have and am not so certain about the predicted, or hoped for, outcome. I am not however suggesting a ban on Islam, but I strongly recommend that we take off our blinders and keep a very close watch on what takes place in the Muslim community in Canada. Political correctness equals suicide.
Of course we must protect and support those who denounce the jihadists and violence, and I would hope that security is checking into any death threats made. This may very well be a true case as reported, but I am very much aware of some non moderate Muslims parading in the guise of moderates, even to the point of claiming to have received threats, etc.
Posted by: Alain | 2006-08-04 12:41:44 AM
I have an incentive to get the Muslims to go home: the barrel of my gun!
What's all this joking about "moderate" muslims? There are certainly secular individuals from Muslim-dominated backgrounds, but any serious practicing Muslim would be considered "extremist" by our standards simply because their worldview is not compatible with ours.
Posted by: Big Makk | 2006-08-04 12:47:30 AM
Alain,
I too have lived in the Muslim world, and I think that you are being a little harsh. My experience was that, except in the Demented Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, most people weren't that much different from us. (Many weren't overly fastidious about telling the truth, but that afliction is becoming pretty well entrenched here at home too.) As in any society, there always seemed to be a small minority of intolerant and hateful nutbars, but I don't recall meeting more than 3 or 4 who were in the same "hate league" as some of the folks who regularly spill their bile on the Shotgun.
Posted by: Zog | 2006-08-04 1:07:20 AM
Decent article by Charles Krauthammer for TIME:
http://tinyurl.com/rue5y
My god! Someone at TIME is starting to see the light! I think I will buy a lotto ticket now.
Posted by: Big Makk | 2006-08-04 1:20:50 AM
To Big Makk:
Don't break out the champagne yet --- you'll notice the requisite "radical islam is the bastard child of a real and great religion" in the TIME article's text.
Reality may arrive with a thud when the land dispute moves from the Holy Land to Spain which this article mentions as part of the islamic notion of wherever this intolerance has ever been becomes henceforward 'moslem' land and is meant to 'revert' to islam. When it really starts to spoil the holiday plans of the head-in-the-sand leftwingers and secularists, they may acknowledge the truth. In the meantime,the Washington Times has a 3 piece article by a moslem former naval officer talking about 'islamicism' and something called 'Americanism.' aka 'democracy'. He is putting forth the usual bit about moderation and how the moderates must speak up to overcome the 'radicals' (possibly forgetting that radical means the root or foundation). Everyone, therefore, skirts around having to actually talk about the doctrines of Islam, rather like the crazy relative incarcerated in the attic. Someone should point out that when Moslems remain silent about the atrocities committed in the name of their dogma, that they are actually a part of the 'outer jihad' lot --- not the warriors on the front line, murdering non-Moslems, but, rather, by contributing funds in their mosques and not worrying or questioning to which organisation, charity or terrorist cell these funds go, and that their unwillingness to integrate in their non-moslem 'host' countries is actually part of the requirement of jihad and that, lastly, remaining silent or speaking of their 'great religion highjacked by fanatics' is part of Al-Taqqiye, the Doctrine of dissimulation and deceit in order to promote Islam. So much for moderation. Let me hear from a 'moderate' Moslem specifically as to what changes, alterations, additions, deletions, etc he or she would make in order to render Islam palatable and peaceful. I throw down the gauntlet? Any takers? All are welcome to the debate, it is still a free, sharia-free country.
Posted by: Centurion | 2006-08-04 6:10:55 AM
To Big Makk:
Don't break out the champagne yet --- you'll notice the requisite "radical islam is the bastard child of a real and great religion" in the TIME article's text.
Reality may arrive with a thud when the land dispute moves from the Holy Land to Spain which this article mentions as part of the islamic notion of wherever this intolerance has ever been becomes henceforward 'moslem' land and is meant to 'revert' to islam. When it really starts to spoil the holiday plans of the head-in-the-sand leftwingers and secularists, they may acknowledge the truth. In the meantime,the Washington Times has a 3 piece article by a moslem former naval officer talking about 'islamicism' and something called 'Americanism.' aka 'democracy'. He is putting forth the usual bit about moderation and how the moderates must speak up to overcome the 'radicals' (possibly forgetting that radical means the root or foundation). Everyone, therefore, skirts around having to actually talk about the doctrines of Islam, rather like the crazy relative incarcerated in the attic. Someone should point out that when Moslems remain silent about the atrocities committed in the name of their dogma, that they are actually a part of the 'outer jihad' lot --- not the warriors on the front line, murdering non-Moslems, but, rather, by contributing funds in their mosques and not worrying or questioning to which organisation, charity or terrorist cell these funds go, and that their unwillingness to integrate in their non-moslem 'host' countries is actually part of the requirement of jihad and that, lastly, remaining silent or speaking of their 'great religion highjacked by fanatics' is part of Al-Taqqiye, the Doctrine of dissimulation and deceit in order to promote Islam. So much for moderation. Let me hear from a 'moderate' Moslem specifically as to what changes, alterations, additions, deletions, etc he or she would make in order to render Islam palatable and peaceful. I throw down the gauntlet? Any takers? All are welcome to the debate, it is still a free, sharia-free country.
Posted by: Centurion | 2006-08-04 6:12:09 AM
"As to your question to the effect that "is there anyone who still believes that Islam will ever be able to peacefully integrate into society as we know it?", the question is malformed. It isn't about what we believe, It's about whether the fundamentalists or the modernists will prevail.
The modernists are, broadly speaking, our allies. The fundamentalists are the enemies of the advancement of civilization. I'm an optimist, so I agree with Rodger. Time will tell."
I just hope that time is on our side before one of their more excitable chaps goes thermo-nuclear postal on Detroit.
The prevailing winds won't be kind to the Canadian health care system in Toronto...what will all those stabbing, shootings and such.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-08-04 6:19:31 AM
Islam cannot be revised. However, Osama bin Laden is reforming it. Like Martin Luther, Osama is bringing it back to it's roots.
To revise Islam you would have to remove the prophet Mohammed and his example of the perfect Muslim man.
No Mohammed = No Islam.
Only those westerners who are atheists can conceive of a revised Islam and that conception rests on active willful ignorance on their part.
"I disagree. You're assuming linearity. Existence doesn't work like that. Existence is chaotic."
Posted by: Vitruvius | Aug 3, 2006 10:13:41 PM
This quote exemplifies how a atheist willfully ignores that Muslims hold contempt for westerners for the very chaos that Vito embraces. It is a glaring blind spot.
Muslims believe their lives have purpose and are ordered because they follow the Koran and Hadith which they believe are perfect and have never changed. They will neither change nor revise these sacred writ because it would plunge them into the chaos that Vito thinks is the essence of existence.
People who believe in Monotheistic religions believe God has a plan and it is playing out according to His will. Chaos is of the devil.
The 'moderates' would leave Islam if there weren't a death penalty for doing so, but do not make the mistake in thinking Islam can be emasculated.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-08-04 7:20:30 AM
Reuters 2003-12-18: "The State Department voiced misgivings on Thursday about French President Jacques Chirac's plan to bar the wearing of Islamic headscarves, Jewish skullcaps and large Christian crosses in French state schools.
"A fundamental principle of religious freedom that we work for in many countries of the world, including on this very issue of headscarves, is that all persons should be able to practice their religion and their beliefs peacefully without government interference as long as they are doing so without provocation and intimidation of others in the society," the U.S. ambassador for international religious freedom said.
"President Chirac is concerned to maintain France's principle of secularism and he wants that, as I think he said, not to be negotiable. Our hope is religious freedom would be a nonnegotiable as well," ambassador John Hanford told reporters when asked about the issue as he presented the State Department's annual report on religious freedom."
Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-08-04 8:20:20 AM
Orwell's axiom that, "the lie is in the title" seems to hold true with the aggression of this "religion of peace"....c'est guerre ;-)
Posted by: Wlyonmackenzie | 2006-08-04 8:23:46 AM
As a matter of fact, the Reformation occurred in the 16th century, so Islam is actually only about four hundred years behind the West. Martin Luther, John Calvin, Zwingli and others all flourished in the 1500s.
Posted by: Barry | 2006-08-04 8:47:54 AM
400 years behind it may be, but I'm not willing to wait. I'm thinking we should force the issue...
Posted by: Warwick | 2006-08-04 9:46:55 AM
Alas, my diary is quite full for the next 400 years and I am unlikely to be able to fit in a Reformation of Islam. As I mentioned before, are there any Moslems who would venture to suggest how their 'religion' is to be moderated in order that the rest of the world can last out the next 400 years? If they consider themselves 'moderates' they must surely be able to define what makes them so, and, crucially --- what aspects of the Doctrines of Islam they accept and which they find they must ignore in order to qualify as 'moderate'?
Posted by: Centurion | 2006-08-04 9:52:03 AM
Lot of big brains here debating the sophistries of the situation at hand and much of the history behind it.
History is only the opinion of the people who got to reord and it may not be even close to the truth. Look at the spin we get daily from our media and leaders. All Bullshit all the time!
The only real debate is what we must do to drive these menaical bastards back to their sand dunes and keep them there.
It will be on our streets everwhere soon enough.
You will wish you had spent more time leaning to use a mini 14 instead of debating the fine points of islamic discontent and the virtues of Christianity and the indifference of the secularists. All bullshit all the time.
Talk is cheap and there is a blowout sale on here today.
The old worn out line may indeed apply ....
We are merely rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Posted by: Duke | 2006-08-04 10:07:59 AM
In every single society, there are always more sheep than there are herders.
What matters, is what views the leadership hold. And by that I do not merely include those who hold encumbent positions, such as mayoralities, princedoms, presidencies, PMs or deputy PMs etc....
To know where they are actually going, you have to look at their laws. Their laws, say where they have been, where they are going, and most importantly, where they are right now.
The majority of people could be seemingly sympathetic to all people, as states of internal rest encourage sheepdom. Although anyone could say it is just one society, as Zog did, the issues and the extent of the threat is far more prevalent in many nations.
If this were not so, we might have a UN that was viable.
Recall Zara Kazemi was free to go around taking pictures, until the Iranians determined she no longer would be permitted to live. Although she was a leftist, only right wing people stepped out on the ledge and made concrete demands. The Liberanos failed, as they were coopted by their own lack of resolve, that they had to remain in the suppossed neutral stupour. The Kazimi matter, required them to be strong, to protect our gentle lambs. They failed.
My mother used to say that it takes a strong person to be gentle. It is easy to be a bully. To be strong, one has to have power, and one has to have inner strength.
With so many people getting herded into supporting terrorists, I fear the worst, that people will choose to be terrorists, over being gentle, and strong and doing what is right. Lack of that inner strength will lead to destruction.
Although it is it is a fear, I pray for inner strength, that I may make the right choices, and choose integrity at every single corner, as we see we are having to put up with, either islam making the leap into the current world, or dragging us down into the depths of WWIII.
At this point in time, although I would hope that that community can make it, it appears to me to be going in the opposite direction. Mr Fatah has pointed that out to us. And the media, they are as cowed as he is now.
People said to me a few years ago, "we have come a long way baby". It was said to me in person, by those close to me, like people would say "when the going gets tough, the tough get going". And the message was all over the media. No one actually knew, back then, that although things had changed, that where we were was nowhere in relation to the journey that was about to placed onto the shoulders of every single man and woman in our nation.
The choice is submission or freedom, democracy and liberty.
I have made up my mind. I am not going to betray freedom, democracy and liberty. It is either that, or nothing.
And yet even democracy has failed to bring about freedom and liberty, in some governments. So, it is freedom and liberty, or it is nothing folks. Nothing less than that will ever do!
We have come a long way, but we are not there yet!
Posted by: Lady | 2006-08-04 10:08:38 AM
Your analysis of Islam may be correct, but I would like to point out that when Muslims live in a free country they very seldom waste their time worrying about killing infidels and proselytizing their faith at the point of a gun. They're too busy working and raising families - an impulse which is far more powerful in the human psyche than any dry, dusty words written by a self-anointed prophet 1500 years ago. The facts of life (as I'm sure most of you already know) are conservative.
If you would take a break from studying the Quran and have a little bit of a harder look at where terrorism is happening and what are the circumstances of the persons who fund and commit acts of terrorism I think you find that the common factor is not the scriptures cited by the terrorists, but rather is that the governments under which these people live are intrusive, socialist Nanny States or would-be Nanny States. The more powerful and gangster-like the state, the more terrorists it breeds and the more atrocious their actions. It's simple to understand - people who are unable to find meaningful, remunerative work and take care of their families in freedom will be driven to extreme acts out of desperation.
A few examples to illustrate this point: Gaza and the West Bank are classic examples of a wannabe socialist state whose intrusive and freedom-robbing Nanny State institutions are (were) funded by western governments, which, combined with a greater-than-average tendency towards gangsterism by those in power, is one of the greatest breeding grounds for acts of desperate violence. The facts that the perpetrators of the violence are spewing Islamist doctrine and that they are directing their violence against Jews are only the symptoms of the real problem, not the cause.
Saudi Arabia is a gigantic, self-funded socialist state whose first and primary cause of dissension and violence is that its oil resources were expropriated and nationalized by the government. As you western Canadians already know, the nationalization of resources is one of the biggest sources of dissension in a country - because it represents the abolishment of private property and because it places an incredible amount of power in the hands of the politicians (princes, sheikhs, mullahs, whoever) who control the resources. It is this combination of fantastic wealth concentrated in a few politicians' hands, along with a socialist state which denies to ordinary people the freedom to earn, keep and spend their own property, which provides the powderkeg and the match for terrorism. The fact that the terrorists spout Mohammedan catchphrases is hardly more relevant to the acts they commit than American paratroopers shouting "Geronimo!" when they assaulted Normandy. To me it is very clear that 9/11 and most of the War on Terror is nothing more than an Arabian (Egyptian, Iraqi, Iranian, Yemeni, ...) civil war rather than any kind of clash of religion and civilizations. You don't believe me? Then please explain to me - why are the vast majority of the victims of your so-called clash of civilizations are actually fellow Muslims, and usually the countrymen of the terrorists?
And last of all, consider Sri Lanka, the home of suicide bombing. Religion is not a very important factor here at all - many of the terrorists are Hindu but the real cause of the violence is that a socialist government was formed by the British Raj and propagated and enhanced in the post-colonial era, in which most of the money and power were accumulated in the hands of one ethnic group, and the other ethnic group was largely shut out of all of those juicy, undemanding government jobs, and the confiscatory and redistributive power that goes hand-in-hand with government jobs everywhere.
It is our own dedication to socialism which makes our country vulnerable to terrorism and extremism, not our ignorance or apathy about Islamic doctrine, or our lack of commitment to winning the clash of religion and civilizations.
Well, actually it is a clash of religion and civilizations, it's just not the one that you think. It's a clash between the ideologies and practices of socialism and freedom. The front line of this war is right at home in your neighborhood and your city, not in Kandahar or Bekaa.
Posted by: Justzumgai | 2006-08-04 10:15:15 AM
Warning: Cussn/swearing. ...-
Just heard on CBC Newsworld .... the CBC reporter openly stated that "Canadian troops were demoralized and want to get out of this hellhole" .... and speaking to female Canadian soldiers "they were crying because of the conditions" ....!!!!
FUCKING CBC IS NOW BROADCASTING SEDITIOUS AND TRAITOROUS PROPAGANDA .... AND SHOULD BE SHUT DOWN IMMEDIATELY .... THE FUCKERS ARE WORKING FOR THE TALIBAN TERRORISTS AND THE LIBERAL PARTY BY GIVING THE LIBERALS EXCESSIVE FREE TIME TO BLAST THE GOVT OF CANADA .... AND THEY ARE OVERTLY ANTI-ISRAEL TOO .... CUT OFF THE CBC FUCKERS FAST .... !!!!!!
http://www.voy.com/178771/21966.html
Posted by: maz2 | 2006-08-04 10:30:05 AM
Good points Centurion (I like the crazy relative in the attic ananology). I think that Krauthammer was probably vetted by TIME or PC-ness when he wrote that article, because the spinoff-from-great-religion bit doesn't make sense when you acknowledge at the same time that the Muslims are trying to RE-conquer their old territory. They were an aggresive expansionist cult(ure) to start with, and they continue to be. Of course his article mentions nothing new to the informed (us), but its a good sign to see some contrast to TIME's (and the MSM in general) usual moderate-islam mumbo jumbo.
As for the comments about an Islamic reformation, I think Speller nails it.
Posted by: Big Makk | 2006-08-04 10:35:06 AM
justzumgai,
Just because people do ordinary things, does not mean they have no political will to move our nation in the wrong direction.
Just because people are working, just like everyone else, does not mean they are not supporting anti-western values and principles.
Just because people work and play here, does not mean they would rather destroy our way of life, and install their own.
In their view, we would be workers, if they permitted us to live. The dhimmis laws have been designed to ensure that anyone who is not one of them, can never have a good life. And everyone who is not included in dhimmis law protection, is dead.
They see themselves as being the righteous, and everyone else as being in the wrong.
Sure, there are many westernized Muslims, who are doing every day things, and are choosing freedom and liberty over islamic submission.
That is not the point.
The point is, that their society is the one which owns the issues, that are directly connected to islamofacism.
To understand the situation, you have to break it down to its elements.
Where could people stand in that community?
They can stand for submission.
They can stand for freedom and liberty.
They can be fooled to stand for submission, through their ignorance of what that means, such in islamic/communist alliances or historical roots and familiarity.
They can not know anything about it, and simply not do anything about it, the same as anyone else would not know.
Ignorance is not limited.
Only knowledge is limited.
Chances are, there are as many amongst them, who are herded in the same manner as anyone else. The difference is, it is their thing, and not anyone elses.
You cannot be fooled to choose freedom and liberty, so that is not a possible position.
So, given the possibilities, and there are perhaps a few minor positions missing, it is far more likely that their community would choose to go in the wrong direction, at this point in time.
No matter which choice, they choose their own destiny.
Problem is, given the likelihood of their choices, and their proximity in space, whether inside our borders, inside the borders to the south, or anywhere for that matter, they effect us in a very negative manner.
The thing is, if we are not pro-active, in a positive sense, we will actually assist them to go down the wrong path.
That path does not just destroy the average living of the members of their communities. It drags us down with them.
And they are very quick to blame the other communities, for their own failings. That is part of their industry. The formula is: failure equals blaming the west, which equals money from the west, to ease the conscience of those who are doing the work, and living well. They see no individual or group responsibility while in the framework of submission.
If we point out the issue, they get heat from the islamofacists. If we point out the failings, we are pointed out as being against them.
So, it is a loose/loose scenario, and the islamofacists know it!
The only solution, is the choice of freedom and liberty. That exists within the hearts and minds of people, and that is where the real war against terror is being waged. And, the more you actually spend your time hating islamofacism, the more power it actually gets. Since you can never love islamofacism, the answer lies in only committing and recommiting to fredom and liberty, each and every day.
And, to that I say, Amen!
Posted by: Lady | 2006-08-04 11:00:32 AM
Regarding CBC ... I watched CTV new last night where
Lisa Laphlem spent a good chunk of time tugging at our heart strings regarding the dead soldiers, the funerals the sobs from the parents etc. .
Her tone was one of disgust for the war that raging to hold back the terrorists.
In short she too us using the network to wage propaganda war against the west and obviously in support of her pals in the Islamic world.
SHE WILL LOOK GOOD IN A BURKA
Posted by: Duke | 2006-08-04 11:38:54 AM
Everyone can debate this until hell freezes over, but it remains that we are fighting (?) a gobal war against international jihadists. Why? Simple, because they are commited to global jihad against infidels. Yet we still have a large number of people in the West believing they have the luxury of opting out.
As David Limbaugh states: "The uncomplicated answer is that no matter what we do, policy-wise, we will remain infidels with gigantic bull's-eyes on our backs unless we renounce our capitalistic ways, destroy our churches and synagogues, outlaw our pluralistic religious society, convert to a radical Islamic theocracy and join the global jihad en route to a worldwide caliphate."
Posted by: Alain | 2006-08-04 11:40:59 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.