The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info -----------------------
Last updated on March 5th, 2018 at 01:41 pm
Let’s hope this rally gets the promotion and publicity it deserves:
The Free Muslims Against Terrorism are proud to announce that on May 14th 2005, Muslims and Middle Easterners of all backgrounds will converge on our nation’s Capital for a rally against terrorism and to support freedom and democracy in the Middle East and the Muslim world. This will be the first rally of its kind in Washington DC that is led by Muslims and Middle Easterners.
Join us in sending a message to radical Muslims and supporters of terrorism that we reject them and that we will do all we can to defeat them.
We also want to send a message of hope to the people of the Muslim world and the Middle East who seek freedom, democracy and who reject radical Islam that we are with them and that we will do all we can to support them.
This rally is NOT limited to Muslims and Middle Easterners. We request anyone and everyone who supports our message to join us at the rally. We want to send a message to the extremists and terrorists that American Muslims, Christians, Jews and people of all faiths are united against terrorism and extremism.
Hit the link for further details. Please send the name of your group to Free Muslims Against Terrorism if you are interested in sponsoring the rally. Presumably Nina from Toronto won’t be attending:
“I hate to say this to Iraqis, but I pray for chaos and civil war,” Nina from Toronto emailed the BBC. “It’s the only way to stop Bush’s policies and show that peace can never come through force. If Iraq gets peace, Bush gets credibility. It cannot be allowed to happen.”
Nina wants violence instead of peace … because that will prove peace can never come through violence. This gal has taken one too many hockey pucks to the head.
- I think the “Nina” post is phony. Those sentiments really came from Senator Barbara Boxer.Posted by Mystery Meat on 2005 03 30 at 11:31 AM • permalink
- If I were the BBC I’d be embarrassed, but then again I’d be British, wouldn’t I? The quote is the modern-day version of “We had to destroy the village in order to save it.” Maybe Peter Arnett was good for something after all…Posted by chinesearithmetic on 2005 03 30 at 11:55 AM • permalink
- Re #6, Nina needs a hockey STICK to the head. Repeatedly. Thus demonstrating that while violence may not bring peace, it sure as hell can remove obstacles to peace (like Nina), thus allowing people to work towards peace.
What an asshat.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 03 30 at 12:57 PM • permalink
- Maybe Nina is right. The Allies should not have gone to war against the Germans. We should have given the ovens, er, I mean, peace a chance.Posted by wronwright on 2005 03 30 at 02:27 PM • permalink
- Mr. Bingley, leave Labatt out of it; it was Molson who ran “the rant.”Posted by chinesearithmetic on 2005 03 30 at 02:40 PM • permalink
- One has to applaud any demonstration that there are moderate muslims wanting to fight the influence of the extremists.
Unfortunately, the supreme Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has just succeeded in having a site (in the USA) REMOVE REFERENCES to books which give an alternative view of the nature of the prophet.
If we in the west have achieved, by virtue of secular humanist democracy and political correctness (non-discriminatory policies and Multi-culturalism being a large slice of this) a situation where we are in effect “censored” by a foreign religion, then we have a real problem.
A recent survey of mosques in America revealed many books which qualified as Hate Literature being distributed.
Se LGF and Jihad Watch for more background.
- Well maybe Nina can show up at the march and tell them how she feels. She can carry her Victory to the Iraqi Resistance sign and talk up the brave terrorists.
What this silly bitch fails to understand is that if things go badly in Iraq it will not prove Bush is wrong so much as it will prove that Arabs are incapable of any kind of government that is not enforced by violence. If Bush fails, violence succeeds.
- Daniel Pipes’ comments on moderate Islamic groups (including this one).
The good news: Anti-Islamist Muslims have found their voice since September 11.
The bad news: Islamists note the urge to find moderate Muslims and are learning how to fake moderation. Over time, their camouflage will undoubtedly further improve…. There are lots of fake-moderates parading about, and they can be difficult to identify.
Read it all…
Posted by Indy Media Watch on 2005 03 30 at 08:17 PM • permalink
- taspundit, you bring up a good point. But here is a discussion on taqiyya. Note that the Sunnis and Shi’as view taqiyya differently, so unless the march is exclusively Shi’a, your point doesn’t hold up. And that moderates aren’t renouncing their faith, merely terrorism. However, hudna might appy here.
On the other hand, this could be a genuine display of moderate Muslims protesting against terrorism. I’d hold the cynicism in check for now.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 03 31 at 01:35 AM • permalink
- Nina is typical of the feral left. I recall similar opinions being voiced by similar dummies when I attended uni, way back when. It seems they havent changed – there is a new generation spouting the same old claptrap (learned from their lefty teachers of course).
The philosophy went as follows:
All chaos and destruction is good, because the more society deteriorates, the more worried people become. When they become worried enough, they will become angry and refuse to accept any more abuses of Capitalism, and will turn automatically towards Glorious Socialism.
So she is saying that civil war and death in Iraq, and the subsequent suffering of Iraqis takes second place to proving Bush (and hence the West) wrong. How little they’ve changed.
- JeffS,
I’d use something other than a wikipedia reference if you are going to research this sort of thing. Wikipedia certainly has a left liberal slant to it, just have a look at the entries for Kerry and Bush for proof.
The other thing is that when you are discussing taqiyya (and kitman), you must bear in mind that you are talking about deception for the purposes of religion. That very thing should alert you to bullshit. If you even suspect that it might be ok to bullshit or mislead in a religion such as Islam, you need to start questioning and verifying your sources. Ask yourself: Would a Sunni want you to believe that religious deception is somehow confined only to the Shia despite the truth of the matter? Yes? Well, seek some more sources. In short, you need to start doing your own research on the subject and not listen to proponents of Islam.
You’ve probably heard about the logic riddle where you ask two men, one you know always tells the truth and one who always lies (but you don’t know which), how to get to the next town? It’s not straightforward to determine who is the lying party, or to get the information you want. In addition, in our real example of finding truth about Islam, a Muslim in this scenario can lie when it suits them and tell truth at other times. They are not constrained to do anything other than advance their religion by any means they can.
By itself, deception is not the problem. Loads of Westerners lie. But couple that with a holy book that is the unalterable word of god and that tells followers to slay infidel where you find them… it’s not good.
I know the neocons would like to believe that a wave of democracy over the Islamic world is going to solve our problems (and so would I), but I think it’s necessary to steel ourselves a bit more and understand just who we actually face. Even if we don’t like what we find.
Here is another way of looking at taqiyya, check out the rest of the site too.
- taspundit, I’m hardly listening to the proponents of Islam. I tried to point (poorly, as it turns out) that an effort by moderate Muslims is not to be sneered at. You have no proof that this is a sham. Granted, I have no proof that it is sincere, but all this means that we don’t know one way or the other….and all we can do is accept this at face value until we know otherwise.
If Osama bin Laden offered a truce (again!), I wouldn’t accept it at all. Same thing for other head-chopping terrorists.
But moderate Muslims? They exist. I’ve seen people on this very blog lament for the lack of moderate Muslims standing up. They are standing up. Give them the benefit of the doubt.
I also noted hudna as a possibility, you might note. Deception is always out there, it’s not limited to any one culture. I merely mention this as further clarification of my position.
Oh, and while I agree that Wikipedia isn’t the most authoritive source in the world, at least I posted links up front (i.e., I looked it up), while you just tossed a term out, and made us look. Not very good blog manners, hmmmmm? Thanks for the follow up link, though.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 03 31 at 03:33 AM • permalink
- jeffs,
I think it’s a start. I do admit my first statement was a little cryptic, figuring that Tim would have an idea what I was talking about. Sorry for the lack of an up front link.
As an explanation:
Even if you are hardly listening to proponents of Islam, remember that the wikipedia folks aren’t exactly pro-war. They aren’t going to want to make a lot of waves. Hence they are going to listen to the first source they can get that tells them Islam is a Religion of Peace, taqiyya only applies in the rarest of circumstances and only to Shia, etc. etc. They are going to gobble up anything that the likes of people like Stephen Schwartz write.And yes, I have been one of those very ones arguing for the moderate muslims to stand up. That was before I did some more research to actually figure out what Islam taught. From different translations etc. At first I thought it was like Christianity but with bowing to Mecca 5 times a day. I was wrong.
Moderate muslims DO exist and are probably the majority. Also known as hypocrites. Most might give some money at the mosque to help support jihad, or mouth some platitudes. But in the end they act (mostly) like other humans.
Christianity is not really different in that respect. Most moderate Christians are in fact hypocrites. They don’t turn the other cheek, they don’t give most of their money to the poor let alone even a tithe. They covet their neighbour’s wife, they have affairs, they tell white lies (and not so white lies!), they covet their neighbour’s property. They use contraception and have abortions. They do unto others as they want, not as they would be done by.
Oh, in most things, when there is no skin off their back they will act in accordance with the bible and even propose that most other people follow it. But as soon as they have to make a choice between desire and faith, there is some point where the desire takes over and faith takes a back seat if the desire is strong enough.
(I don’t have a problem with that, although when I was younger and influenced by Christians I was appalled by their hypocrisy.)
It’s not the moderates who are the problem, technically speaking. Well, they are partly the problem, because they give money and support to the hardcore Muslims, even if being in a sleeper cell is a bit too much effort.
The real problem are the fundamentalists. There are those in both religions who seek to live their lives by their holy book as best they can. They approach their holy books logically and seek to carry out the instructions.
And whereas your hardcore Christian is going to go to bible study and start missionary work, or live a frugal life and work for the poor (in a missionary role), or at least be nice and do unto others, a fundamentalist Muslim does something different. He has no other choice.
As far as I know, there is no way to predict who will be fundamentalist and who won’t be ahead of time. Just like in Christianity, one family might have 5 kids. One might become a priest or do missionary work, the other 2 might go to church now and then but limit their Christianity to believing in god and going to church, and the last might be only nominally Christian, never attending Church.
Even in the heart of a blue state there will still be fundamentalists. You can’t isolate it to a sect or “the bible belt”. More may exist there, but it’s not complete.
Until they excise the offending Sura, haddiths, etc from the Koran (and we can covertly verify this), there will be Islamic terrorism. And I don’t think this will go down too well, since the whole Koran is the word of god.
- taspundit, I agree that Wikipedia isn’t the best source available, but it needn’t be excluded because it might lean left; I used it because it was available on short notice, and is reasonably reliable. In fact, I have linked to Wikipedia from this blog before, on right wing topics, with no complaints. Let me also point out that Jihad Watch could be classified as biased in the opposite direction. Perhaps they average out. In any case, let’s cease flogging this particular dead dog, OK?
Your entire post can be summarized here….
Until they excise the offending Sura, haddiths, etc from the Koran (and we can covertly verify this), there will be Islamic terrorism. And I don’t think this will go down too well, since the whole Koran is the word of god.
What you asking is that they change their religion to meet your standards. Tell me, are you really serious about that? If so, my impression of you from previous posts just went out the window. What gives you the right to set standards like that? “Worship the way that I say, thundered the Great taspundit!!”
If we include within “free of religion” the choice of religion (which is the American way of looking at the subject), you speak with forked tongue. Hypocrisy. Pure hypocrisy.
However, you note that “…your hardcore Christian is going to go to bible study and start missionary work, or live a frugal life and work for the poor (in a missionary role), or at least be nice and do unto others, a fundamentalist Muslim does something different. He has no other choice…”
Now, pray tell, why does he have no choice? Does Islam demand that he not live a life similar to that fundamental Christian? Funny, from what I’ve seen of the Arab world, they try and do very much like that. If it weren’t for the occasional terrorist setting off an IED, some despot strangling the economy for personal gain, or maybe the religious police stepping in, that is.
Does the Koran mention that? Are those problems unique to the Muslim world? Hint: answer this question—when and where have you seen or read about similar problems in Western civilization?
The answer is “Yes”—I’ll let you research the matter as an exercise. Do we have those problems now? Yes, but (excluding the Muslim terrorist threat) not as severe as within the Arab world? The IRA is diminishing. The Neo-Nazis in America have little influence, and are in the crackpot fringe. And so on.
So, what is the difference, taspundit? Is it religion? Do Christians do a better job at Justice than Muslims? How about a clue from that Jihad Watch article you linked to? The part where they discussed how the use of the term “Jihad” has changed over the last century. Perhaps religion influences culture, but there is no reason to think that culture never influences religion.
Perhaps—just perhaps—Western institutions set themselves to a secular standard (which seems to be eroding these days) because we’ve built our civilization on that premise, among many others, and not allow those standards to change for convenience. We tend to call that “corruption”, and it generally illegal (but by no means extinct). Corruption is much more common within the Muslim world.
So—is it culture or religion that is the problem? A combination of both? Perhaps neither; I could be way off mark here. But I believe that you are certainly out of your lane on this one.
Does this mean I agree with the way Islam is practiced now? Hell, no! But I’m not so stupid as to think that we can change their religion to suit our needs. Certainly not by fiat. If we are to affect changes, it’s better to lead by example (excluding the lefties and ultra right wingers, I should note).
Think about this, would you?
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 03 31 at 06:39 AM • permalink
- Jeffs,
I can only ask this: how much of the Koran have you personally read? If the answer is almost none, I suggest you go read it.
Now, pray tell, why does he have no choice? Does Islam demand that he not live a life similar to that fundamental Christian?
No, the two religions are poles apart. Please note I have had quite a bit of personal experience and study of Christianity, although I am not a Christian.
Here is some homework. I will let you research these Sura with a search engine on your own, as I don’t want to provide you with biased information. Please explain to me where you can find biblical equivalents for the following Sura (that is not superceded by something Christ is reputed to have said. i.e. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John have priority, as any proper Christian fundamentalist should realize.):
Sura 55:0-1
Sura 9:5
Sura 9:12
Sura 9:29(In fact, the whole chapter 9 is informative reading.)
Sura 8:12
Sura 4:34
Sura 5:51
Sura 3:28
Sura 16:106You might also want to research the very devout and Christian like Thuggees. (some were Hindu, but similar point.)
- Another interesting Muslim demo occurred last week on Friday 24th. About 80,000 people marched to demand democratic change in Bahrain and in opposition to the autocratic rule of King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa.
80,000 people equals about 12% of the population. These kinds of mass protests have occurred a number of times in the last decade or so.
I hope this rally will one day get the attention it deserves, too.
- taspundit, the Koran is immaterial to my questions, because you want to change it, or the holy texts that support it. I am asking who you are to demand this change. More to the point, how do you expect to make those changes?
Since you decided to side step my questions, and instead trot the basis of your (possibly valid) fears, I can only assume that you know what you want, but are clueless on how to achieve it. This alone puts the moderate Muslims (be they genuine anti-terrorists or devout Muslims practising taqiyya) light years ahead of you, and hence are to be taken more seriously.
Accordingly, this discussion is at an end.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 03 31 at 09:17 AM • permalink
- Jeffs,
Here is your quote of mine, which (according to you) apparently sums up my entire post:
Until they excise the offending Sura, haddiths, etc from the Koran (and we can covertly verify this), there will be Islamic terrorism. And I don’t think this will go down too well, since the whole Koran is the word of god.
Here is what you said in response.
What you asking is that they change their religion to meet your standards.
Also this:
…because you want to change it, or the holy texts that support it. I am asking who you are to demand this change. More to the point, how do you expect to make those changes?Please point out where I said that I am asking them to change their religion to suit my standards? Basically you take a misinterpretation of what I said and riff on that for another 10 paragraphs.
I am merely stating that fundamentalist Islam implies terror, and that wherever you find moderate Muslims you are also going to find fundamentalists, the more devout of which will practice terror etc as laid out in those Sura I posted. Hence this: Until they excise the offending Sura, haddiths, etc from the Koran (and we can covertly verify this), there will be Islamic terrorism.
The key to the next bit…
And I don’t think this will go down too well, since the whole Koran is the word of god.
What I mean is if ANYONE tries to reform Islam, they are attempting to rewrite the word of god. The last person who got away with it IIRC was some early caliph, who burned all versions of the Koran bar one. And probably didn’t change it. Before that it was Mohommad himself, who excised the Satanic Verses. I don’t see anyone who would be able to do that now, and even if he did there would still be the matter of most of the Muslim world who are in the same position as the Catholics after Luther broke off.So, I’m suggesting that it may well be impossible to stop Islamic terror by attempting to spread democracy. As a prudent first step I think it would be a good idea to secure Western borders and also to cease letting people from Muslim countries immigrate in case our experiment doesn’t work.
It bears mentioning here because while the democracy experiment goes well, we neocons are going to inherently want to believe our efforts will be successful. Such desires can lead to a lack of critical thinking. I think we will be better off with Bush than anything the Democrats had to offer, but it may not be enough.
- As to who am I to make these changes, I certainly can’t. But as a citizen of the West, I am part of the non-Muslim majority. I daresay most non-Muslims would have a large problem with the Muslim minority (or the fundamentalist minority within them) acting out those Koranic verses I posted.
You can do a lot with a majority vote. The fact is, while most Westerners know at least basic tenets of Christianity they probably know more about communism than Islam. I daresay most of them thought that Islam was much like Christianity or Judaism but with bearded men, veiled women and some bowing to Mecca every now and then.
So, I’m both informing and I’m improving my ideas by bouncing them off other people. If they are well thought out they may spread.
that and too many labatt’s…