Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Muslim’

We (Western Civilization) have a problem. We have a problem with Middle Eastern relations, with Muslim immigration (and refugees), with terrorism (foreign and homegrown). The common factor and thus the actual problem is Islam; not “radical” Islam… just Islam. But why? Why is Islam a problem? Why has Islam been a thorn in the side of Western civilization for 1400 years? And why has it reached a point of being an existential problem today?

Religion - Islam - Freedom Go to HellWhy Islam is a Problem – It’s Nature:
Islam has always been, is today, and always will be a problem when exposed to Western civilization. This is because Islam (through the teachings of Muhammad and Sharia law) contain at its core the seeds of fascism, and terrorism. These are the two main fruits of that “religion”.

Islam produces fascism/totalitarianism, when those in control of the state (government) are Islamic. Islam produces terrorism in individuals (who are Islamic) when the state is not. Again, those two seeds are there by the nature of the ideology created by Muhammad; the questions is whether or not the seeds take root and when.

Two Conflicting Ideas About Islam:
How can this be if Islam is a “religion of peace” one may ask. The simple answer is that it can’t be. One of these premises is false. Either Islam is a “religion of peace” OR it is a religion of “fascism and terrorism”. I submit through empirical evidence that if you simply read the words of Muhammad (on the whole), if you simply look at the actions of Muhammad, if you simply read the moral and legal code found in Sharia, if you look at the overall consequences of Islam (ignoring the myth and propaganda)… it’s pretty easy to ascertain which premise is true and which is not.

Jesus (the non-Islamic Jesus) said “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing (a claim to be a religion of peace), but inwardly they are ferocious wolves (fascist and terrorists). By their fruit (results of their faith and actions) you will recognize them. (We have had 1400 years of Islamic fruits on which to base our judgment) Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.” (Matthew 7:15-20)

Religion - Christian - Bad Fruit

To wit, Islam isn’t some religion of peace (good tree) hijacked by a few extremists… it’s a religion of extremism (death, destruction, and slavery) sometimes constrained by a slim majority of moderates and secularists. The true, faithful practitioners of Islam (as intended by Muhammad) are the fascist dictators and terrorists.

islam-fascismSeed of Islam: Fascist State
In the case of a nation, the seeds (of fascism) almost always take root in an Islamic state. If the controlling authorities of a nation are Islamic, the results is fascism. The two words are practically synonymous. The state is brutal towards anyone who does not fall into lockstep with Muhammad (and his current servants). To resist draws attention, imprisonment, and death. The idea of a minority religion receiving protection from an Islamic state in exchange for “jiyza” is a lie that has never existed. “Protection” and “jiyza” is Islamic code (and an excuse from Allah) to subjugate, enslave, and extort… until the Muslim decides to just go ahead and kill the offending infidel population.

Moreover the fascist Islamic state finances and exports terrorism to some extent to other Muslim nations that aren’t fascist (Islamic) enough, and to infidels who must (by Muhammad’s command) be subjugated (enslaved) and converted (by the sword if necessary) or killed. THIS, is a key facet of Islam that the world has been subjected to for fourteen centuries.

Seed of Islam: Terrorists and the False Hope of Moderate Islam
In the case of the individual (when the state is not Islamic and the individual is), the seeds are much less likely to germinate. (Yayyy…) In fact, western society generally produces a “moderate” Muslim/Islamist with little interest in their religion. This tendency to not put much effort or faith into a religion is not a trait of Islam or Muslims but of mankind in general (which is also why you see so many secular Jews, and “Christians”).

So, “moderation” mostly occurs with “secular” practitioners of Islam who have inherited their religion by birth; but pay little or no attention to its edicts to subdue, force tribute, hate and/or drive into the sea… One might call these practitioners “luke-warm” Islamists. Fundamentalists Islamists would call them apostates and seek to convert, subdue, or kill them (in that order). This “moderation” is about the best a host/infidel nation can hope for from an Islamic community or individual.

The biggest problem with a “luke-warm” Islamic population is that they cling just enough to the religion to keep the seed of terror alive (buried… dormant… but alive). Eventually someone in this community bothers to read (and believe and practice) the teachings of Muhammad (and/or Sharia) and the next thing you know they’re shooting up an office, school, or nightclub (screaming “Allahu Akbar” and looking forward to a little virgin nookie). Even if the groups of refugees or immigrants themselves don’t germinate the seed of fundamentalist Islam, their progeny (latter generations) are susceptible to getting pissed-off at their adopted country (that they haven’t assimilated into for some reason). Once disillusioned, they fall back on the religion/culture that made their fatherland the hellhole it was (and probably still is today).

The greater the population of the Islamic community the greater the probability you’re going to have a spontaneous combustion of Islamic terrorist events (manmade disasters to those of you on the left). By that standard Europe is royally #$@%ed for several generations (if not existentially). The U.S. is… slightly less #$@%ed; and will reach the state of Europe if the left is not stopped from carrying out its fundamental transformation (as implemented by Obama and the left). Unfortunately, the damage (fruits of death and destruction) the relatively small number of Islamists will do and the terror they will inflict on society will really never go away. As long as Islam is present… that seed will be present.

Back to the “moderates”, I would have to agree with Winston Churchill (1899) that “Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.”

Yes… granted… Percentage wise the number of Islamic spontaneous combustions (in Europe and the U.S.) is small in comparison to the overall population of Islamists (though huge when compared to other races/religions). So let’s look at the good… moderate… majority… practitioners of Islam.

Generally, a “moderate” Muslim/Islamist doesn’t want to actually pull the trigger on the infidels of his adopted nation; but will “understand”, “sympathize”, (and sometimes celebrate) with the ones who do. They will scream with indignation (“they don’t represent my peaceful religion”) when Islam produces yet another rotten fruit (terrorist attack, socially abhorrent behavior, etc.)… but when it comes to actual action to reclaim their “religion of peace” from the terrorists? The “moderate” Muslim is the same as the moderate German (during WWII), moderate Japanese (during WWII), moderate Russian (during the cold war), and moderate Chinese (during Mao reign). The proper term would be IRRELEVANT. MILLIONS upon MILLIONS died during these evil regimes. “Moderate” Muslims are no more the answer to the evil Islam would impose upon the world if given half a chance than their predecessors.

Proof? Half (51%) of Muslim Americans support the implementation of Sharia law over U.S. law and over the U.S. Constitution for Muslim communities. A quarter (25%) of Muslim Americans believe “violence against Americans here in the United States can be justified as part of the global jihad.” (Source Center for Security Policy) Remember that Sharia would implement the subjugation (and death at the whim of Islamic leaders) of non-believers who won’t convert, horrific oppression of women, the execution of gays, the extermination of Jews, and the beheading of anyone who draws Muhammad. Islam is malicious by nature; Sharia is Islam on steroids. Half of Muslim Americans say “Yep… that’s what we need”.

muslims-moderates

And these are the “moderates” that are embraced by the useful idiots in the media, and the halls of power. Vladimir Lenin reportedly said “The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.” He was only half right. We seem ready to sell the rope to our executioners, but it will be to the fascist Islamists (not the communists) we sell the rope to, and the paltry price will be the warm fuzzy feeling of inclusion and political correctness.

Useful Idiots Embrace is Islam
By useful idiot standards, I am an Islamophobe, exhibiting a “hatred or fear of Muslims/Islam or of their politics or culture”. In my defense, I neither hate nor fear any man based on his race. It is his actions, his fruits if you will, and the fruits of what he embraces (be that a culture or religion) that I base any reaction to (hatred, fear or even respect). Also, a phobia implies an irrational fear of something. Being afraid of Islam is not irrational. Only a fool ignores an apparent danger for the appearance of diversity and open minded acceptance. Any rational man who loves life, liberty, individualism, and freedom should fear Islam’s encroachment and influence on our society. Islam, by its fascist and totalitarian nature, is antithetical to these founding principles. (Fundamentalists) Islam has plans for us; and the “moderates” will watch passively (and eventually celebrate) if that horror ever comes to pass upon America and western society.

Another scary aspect of this posting (concerning how far Western civilization has fallen) is that it would be illegal in Canada and Great Britain (two Western nations) and deemed a hate crime. It will be illegal in the U.S. soon enough.

Rome - Fall of EmpireProgressivism is to blame. In fact, progressivism is actually the existential threat to Western civilization. Islam will simply prove to be the barbarians who loot and pillage what remains when the progressives have their way. Progressivism invites the barbarian hordes through the gates. Progressivism seeks to destroy and dilute western culture. Progressivism makes it a crime (or at least socially egregious) to speak the truth (any truth).

The only solace the sane have is that the progressives will be put against the wall right after us.

Actually the real solace the sane have is found only in God and His Son, Jesus Christ! As bad as we (men) seem to make things, we (the sane) must remind ourselves that He is in control.

Psalm 97:10 (NIV) Hate evil, you who love the LORD, Who preserves the souls of His godly ones; He delivers them from the hand of the wicked.

Romans 12:9 (NIV) Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

America IslamiphobicA Self-Evident Truth:
The media is throwing a hissy-fit over recent comments by Dr. Ben Carson that “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that. If [a president’s faith is] inconsistent with the values and principles of America, then of course it should matter.”

Ben Carson is exactly right. A Muslim commander in chief would be a travesty for this nation. Further, the incompatibility would endanger its very existence.

I believe the media (and even some conservatives) missed the point of Dr. Carson and lamented that he should learn a little civics. This included Senator Ted Cruz (of Texas) who said “You know, the Constitution specifies there shall be no religious test for public office and I am a constitutionalist”.

Carson did not address whether or not Muslims should not have the right to run for the office. He simply made two points.
1. We (the voters) should not put a Muslim in charge of the nation.
2. It the candidate’s faith is inconsistent with the values and principles of America (which Islam is) then that should matter in the selection of our leader.

Both points are not only true, they are self-evidently so… or at least should be.

Antithetical:
Islam is antithetical to democracy and freedom. It’s very nature seeks to destroy any system that is not Islamic. It is a religion of subjugation and slavery; and not so much your submission and slavery to Allah, but to those who would set themselves up to define who/what Allah is… thus by it’s very nature Islam promotes fascism, totalitarianism, and oppression.

But it goes beyond just the U.S., Islam’s morals and mores are antithetical to western civilization as a whole. Just the basics of civil rights, slavery, pedophilia, and murder prove the two are incompatible. It is probably too late for Europe to realize or reverse the damage of this cold hard fact. “Mass immigration by Muslims is altering the culture of Europe because Muslims don’t join the culture of their new homelands. Muslims do not so much enhance European culture as supplant it, and are patiently conquering Europe’s cities, street by street”. (paraphrasing author Christopher Caldwell)

Protecting the Republic:
So, If we (the people, the voters) are to protect the principles upon which our nation (and civilization itself) was founded, then no… No Muslim (defined as “a follower of the religion of Islam”) should be allowed anywhere near the Presidency. And as if by prophetic warning, we’ve already seen first-hand the damage one who simply identifies with Muslim culture can do.

Does that mean that no Muslim should be allowed to run for office (any office). No… freedom and democracy demand it. They should just never be elected. If we are that stupid; if we are that willing to open the gates to the invading hordes who seek to destroy us (and we may be); we deserve what we get.

Attacking the messenger of an obvious truth such as this is just a tactic of the hordes who threaten our freedom.

Immigration:
I will also go one step further… In fact, considering Europe, Islam should be a mitigating factor within our immigration policy. These hard truths and resolutions to address them may seem harsh… and by western standards, they are. But they are far less harsh than what the true followers of Mohammed have planned for us (long and short term).

The leftist administration is planning on importing tens of thousands of Muslim refugees into this nation. This process will include screening each for diseases such as tuberculosis. Shouldn’t we screen for another sickness just as dangerous (if not more so) to our very existence?

Texas is a state that sees great population growth. Why? Because we still understand the principles that made this nation great. So we produce jobs and grow at the expense of those states that have abandoned those founding principles. Thus a common refrain from Texans is “Welcome to Texas, try not to screw it up like the place you just left”. Is it too much to ask Muslims who are fleeing a cesspool to abandon and denounce the very %$#* that made it a cesspool.

Read Full Post »

Food - Meat - Bacon - Couple Enjoy on Grill - 50sThe restaurant, Sneakers Bistro put up a sign outside its business that read “Yield for Sneakers Bacon”; toward which a Muslim woman resident was quickly offended, calling it insensitive to those who don’t eat pork. Pause right here and think about that… would it ever occur to you to be offended that people eat something that you don’t?

In Texas (my home state and one of the last dwindling bastions of freedom and sanity), this would have immediately resulted the offended Muslim woman being told in so many words to take her business and offense elsewhere; at a minimum out of the state and preferably out of the country. We Texans would also feel it to be our obligation to give her directions to a much, much warmer climate (than even Texas) where her offense might be more openly received. The restaurant in question would double its business and bacon sales in the process.

That’s not what happened in this case; and here are some key words in the account given that may clue you in as to why… “Bistro”, “Winooski”, “Vermont”, “diverse”, “French”.

Religion - False - Muslim - OffendedSo the Muslim woman was offended; complained; did an internet thingy (Facebook & Yelp); got a bunch of local, open minded, inclusive, leftist on board that “sparked a massive backlash”; the diner (probably leftist) owners contacted the Muslim woman and apologized; they removed the sign; to which the city Mayor sang the praises of all involved. Yeaaaaa….

“We are here to serve people breakfast, not politics. We removed the sign that was located on public property as a gesture of respect for our diverse community.” — Owner of the Sneakers Bistro

Concept - Diversity - Hands“The cool part of living in a diverse community is that it’s not always comfortable. It’s a fascinating place with lots of opportunities for conversation. The city has to pay attention to a lot of factors while acting within what we can regulate. Winooski has always welcomed immigrants, including my ancestors who spoke only French (which would explain your propensity for surrender) in 1835 when they arrived here.” — Katherine Decarreau, Mayor of Winooski Vermont

Translation: We are all a bunch of leftist weenies. We kowtow to the Muslims in the name of political correctness and suffer under the delusion that they would spare us under an Islamic state as we share the enemies of Christians and conservatives.

I guess I can understand why one might yield to Muslim offense. Put a cross in a jar or piss and fascist Christian bastards are likely to be offended and complain, and worse demand that your art not be publically funded.

Put up a sign about bacon with no mention or thought to Islam and you might get your restaurant blown to hell or your head cut off (not necessarily in that order). The owners of the restaurant were lucky, in this case the offended Muslim was a “moderate”; meaning intolerant, irrational, but not completely homicidal (but that threat is always hanging in the air isn’t it).

Thus we have constant attacks on Christians who (for the most part) react in accordance to the teachings of their founder and savior (Love even your enemies), while Muslims likewise react according to their prophet (subjugate, enslave, or kill all who do not join your fascist little party).

Thus today in Vermont we get a glimpse of three things pointing to our imminent demise. 1) Our refusal to recognize Islam as tyranny and fascism disguised as religion 2) Our refusal to see “moderate” Muslims as inconsequential at best when it comes to that tyranny & 3) Leftist who think they can appease and coexists with such evil.

Attacking bacon is one thing; allowing it to stand? Who will end this campaign of terror?

Read Full Post »

(Side Note: You can read my original and lengthy piece on Islam and Jizya from May using these links)
Jizya, Welfare, and State Sponsored Terrorism
Jizya – Defending my Position


Religion - Islam - Jizya - Spitting WaterBack in May (2013), I debated a Muslim concerning Islam in general and the Jizya tax in particular. My victim (MustafaHoward)’s mistake in the debate was assuming I was a milquetoast American interested in pretending Islam (historically and functionally) is something other than what it is… specifically a religion of peace. It’s not, never was, and never will be. Islam was created by a war lord and pedophile and its tenants and practices are exactly what you would expect from such a “prophet” of such character.

The left and specifically Obama make up many of the milquetoast Americans MustafaHoward likes to encounter. He can bully them into submission and pretending through political correctness. This dangerous capitulation has led to real consequences in places like Egypt where Obama and the left threw a dictator (bought and paid for by the U.S.) under the bus and replaced him with the Muslim Brotherhood. (This by the way is exactly what Jimmy Carter did to produce that wonderful Islamic state of Iran we have today.)

The left has these grandiose ideas that new enlightened Muslims will usher in democracy and peace without any thought that Islam is the antipathy of democracy and peace. What is political and policy folly to them is death and slavery to thousands at the hands of Islamist. Egypt is only the latest scene in this ongoing crime against humanity.

The latest…

“Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood to Coptic Christians: Convert to Islam, or pay ‘jizya’ tax” — Washington Times Headline

All this comes from the Koran 9:29 which allow Muslims to take this money in exchange for “benevolent” protection. The Koran definition of jizya is tribute “that conquered non-Muslims historically had to pay to their Islamic overlords ‘with willing submission and while feeling themselves subdued’ to safeguard their existence” (Raymond Ibrahim) Of course in practice (historically and today) it’s just dogma sanctioned extortion.

It seems the Islamist thugs are extorting money (that’s what jizya is) from around 15,000 Christians in a village called Dalga in Egypt.

ALL Christians (every last one of them) in the Egyptian village are being forced to pay anywhere from 200 to 500 Egyptian pounds per day. It’s hard to quantify just how onerous this is. Taking the average of 300 Egyptian pound would be about $43 a day ($15,000 a year) using the current exchange rate. How would you like to pay that to your Muslim overlords/protectors? What makes it worse is the average per person income in Egypt is… $16 a day or $5,680 a year.

Religion - Islam - Jizya - SubjugateBut don’t worry, these benevolent Muslim existence protectors offers other options, renouncing Christ (ooops that’s not even good enough, you must also embrace Islam), or if that doesn’t work for you… death (and likely the death of your family).

Think this is just a few nutballs in Egypt? The Syrian rebels (yeah… the latest batch of good guys we’re supporting) recently went to a Christian shop owner and gave him three options: 1) become Muslim 2) Give them $70,000 dollars in jizya (I wonder if they’d give him a receipt) OR 3) be killed… oh and they’ll kill his family too.

THIS is Islam! The real Islam! These are the guys following the true “take and plunder” philosophy of Muhammad. And it’s hard to tell if the Muslims who say otherwise really believe it or if they are just practicing the verses in the Koran that lets them lie and betray infidels.

I lot of people like to say “we’re not at war with Islam”. That’s too bad because they’re dam sure at war with us (Christians). The sooner we face that the better for us and humanity. Unfortunately, where the American (Western) mindset is today, it is much more likely our descendants will be sticking their collective asses in the air several times a day… at least those who eventually submit rather than die when they run out of jizya to pay the extortionists.

Read Full Post »

Concept - Credibility - DictionaryWe (and by “we” I mean Obama and his administration) have really screwed the pooch on this one. It’s just the latest example of the wages of “Pussy Diplomacy”.

Our main problem with Syria (and our foreign policy in general) is in the value of words. Words mean things. People, (and governments and tyrants) watch them and the actions that follow to back them up… they then place value (capitol) on the words based on how true the original words were. (On a side note this is a currency still accumulated and spent on the world stage… but has completely lost its value domestically. Here rhetoric is king thanks to the Main Stream Media.)

We (and by “we” I mean Obama) have little or no capitol in our words. Our enemies don’t fear us (because of the past actions behind our words); and our allies don’t trust us. And who can blame either of them?

Instead of rehashing all the situations that have brought us to this low point, you can read my previous entry (Been There, Done That, Doing it Again – The Consequences of Being Seen as American Pussies).

People - Obama, Barack - Red LineOne More Example:
I will recount one instance here that happened since that posting that is a great example of the problem I am describing. It’s even specific to Syria.

Of course Obama talked big a year or so ago; warning Syria not to use Chemical weapons… or else that would be a “red line”. Of course this was nothing less than Obama spending the capitol of words backed by the actions of previous Presidents. As an amateur he gave no thought to the capitol that would need to be built by his actions. Obama understands only the concept of spending and consuming… not saving or building up.

When that line was obviously crossed months ago… Obama hemmed and hawed and finally… finally… announced that we would send “small arms” to the rebels fighting Assad. Everybody knew this was wuss-out. He might as well have sent them boxes of condoms to throw at Assad’s tanks and jets. But that’s not the end of it… He didn’t even follow through on that meager threat. Nothing to date has been sent. He wussed-out on the wuss-out. His words… his threat… meant nothing. The man IS an amateur and a pussy!

As I said a couple of weeks ago… “If we say we’ll act when a line is crossed, we act. If we’re not really willing to act then we shut the $#@# up! Just doing what we say will go a long way in gaining the respect we need to operate in the world.”

Now the line is crossed again. And Obama seems ready to act this time. No really… Assad has gone tooooo far…

So Obama says this is “not about regime change” so Assad can rest assured he isn’t going anywhere. There will be no boots on the ground and this will be an exercise that is completed in hours, not days, so Assad can just wait it out. We can do this anytime we want (days, weeks, months) so we’re not really committing to anything here other than lobbing a few hundred missiles at most. And even though he doesn’t need it; he’s going to let Congress vote on it, seeking their approval; but it’s not so important that we’re going to actually call them in now. We’ll just wait until they get back.

All this is just another look at amateur hour.

And where are our allies in all of this? The UK? They’re out. Germany? Nope. Italy? Insists on a U.N. mandate (which is laughable). France? Still In? One out of four… and the one is France! But again, who can blame them. I don’t. Our words no longer have any value. Depend on actions behind the words or Barack Obama and you’re bound to get screwed. Just ask Dr. Shakil Afridi doing 33 years in a Pakistan prison for helping us get Osama bin Laden.

Blame:
Sure all this is Obama’s fault. His words and actions on the world stage; which I term “pussy diplomacy” is little more than one “amateur” mistake after another.

But what did we expect from a junior Senator with little or no experience in anything other than rabble rousing (community organizing) and teaching a few college classes. Sure he’s pretty (hansom), and talks the talk (rhetoric), and… and… that’s about it. But that seems to be all you need to be President of the United States these days.

I guess what I’m saying is we get the government (and President) we deserve… and boy are we getting it. Twice now! Buy hey, who can really put a value on a “light-skinned African American with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.” — Harry Reid. Just look at the dividends that fact is paying in domestic policy and race relations.

People - Obama, Barack - Mickey Mouse EarsNow What?
So where do we go from here?

Long term? We as an American people need to elect real men (I don’t mean this as sexist) to the office of the Presidency. Rank amateurs no matter their skin pigmentation are still rank amateurs. Even Bill Clinton knew that.

“Obama doesn’t know how to be president. He doesn’t know how the world works. He’s incompetent. He’s an amateur!” — Bill Clinton

“A few years ago, this guy (Obama) would be getting us coffee.” — Bill Clinton (reportedly to Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.))

Short term? I’ll admit I’m not sure what we need to do in Syria. My complaint and this post has more to do with how and why we are in such bad shape globally and diplomatically.

As in most of the Middle East, there are few if any good guys in these conflicts. If the rebels were half-way decent (not Sharia-law pushing radical extremists) and really wanting democracy and freedom… I’d say we take action. Real action and make sure they won. I would even be willing to help… If I thought they would set up a dictator or junta that was favorable to us for a decade or two; but I don’t.

They’re not our friends. They’re Islamic (which is the antipathy of democracy and freedom). And not the watered down Islam we pretend is prevalent (there or here). They’re nut-jobs vying for power; who will kill Jews and Christians (and their own people) and turn on us at their first opportunity. Who needs this crap?

Religion - Islam - Symbol and Book

The Obama “plan” (if it could be called that) will not protect the people being slaughtered by Assad or from the next tyrant who will take his place if we get him. As Obama campaigns (the only thing he is good at) to try and convince Congress and the American people that we should lob a limited number of missiles at Syria; to convince me, he’s got to show me a real plan to really help those people AND protect our interests over there. But this would have to appeal to reason and facts, which is not something Obama can do… his only tool is emotional manipulation. With that said, and with the understanding of what Obama has planned right now… I say No.

We need to shift our Middle East policy to reflect that we have few friends in the Muslim world; and if we do they’re really just rich secularist dictators from a Muslim culture. We need to weigh the benefits to us and take actions that support those benefits… and that’s it. We need value for our buck and nothing else. If anybody over there wants to be our “friends” let them prove it first.

The Syrian rebels want our help? OK. A few questions first. How will you purge the Al Qaeda elements in your ranks? What do you have to offer in return and what will you do to guarantee delivery? And please understand your answer will directly affect the level of support… if any…

Read Full Post »

People - Obama, Barack - Throw Like a GirlPerception is Reality:
Let me start out by saying that when Obama ordered the closing of scores of embassies and consulates in the Middle East (08/04/2013), he made the right decision. Keeping our people safe is the right thing to do, especially when we find ourselves in our current predicament.

That said… It’s finding ourselves in our current predicament and why we are here that’s the problem.

When Osama Bin Laden attacked the United States on September 11, 2001, he expected the United States to lob a few missiles from a warship in response. He saw the United States as weak and lacking in resolve. Why? Well, in his own words in December of 1998 (Osama bin Laden: American Soldiers Are Paper Tigers)…

“We have seen in the last decade the decline of the American government and the weakness of the American soldier. He is ready to wage cold wars but unprepared to fight hot wars. This was proven in Beirut when the Marines fled after two explosions, showing they can run in less than twenty-four hours. This was then repeated in Somalia. We are ready for all occasions, we rely on God…”

People - Osama bin Laden - Tent in Camo

“After leaving Afghanistan they headed for Somalia and prepared for a long battle, thinking that the Americans were like the Russians. They were surprised when the Americans entered with 300,000 troops… The youth were surprised at the low morale of the American soldiers and realized more than before that the America soldiers are paper tigers. After a few blows, the Americans ran away in defeat.”

“After a few blows, they forgot about being the world leader and the leader of the new world order. They left, dragging their corpses and their shameful defeat, and stopped using such titles. They learned in America that this name [i.e., God] is larger than them.”

Why would he think that? Well… back in August of 1998 Muslim terrorists (al Qaeda) attacked American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224 people (12 Americans) and injuring 5,000.

Our response by then President Bill Clinton? Operation Infinite Reach! (Insert dramatic crescendo here) Which translates to… we lobbed about 75 cruise missiles at a few targets (mostly camps) in Afghanistan AND we lobbed a few more at a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan. Problem solved!

It was after this that Osama Bin Laden became a wanted man. U.S. Intelligence either couldn’t find him or didn’t consider him a high priority. I guess it was a higher priority for John Miller of ABC News who found him in the mountains of southern Afghanistan in order to do an interview that yielded the quotes above.

Of course there was also the attack on the U.S.S. Cole a couple of years later and our response… about the same.

2011 09 11 - Twin TowersThe Consequences:
This attitude eventually lead to 246 dead on four airliners, 125 dead at the Pentagon, 2,606 dead at the World Trade Center; at the cost of 19 Muslim hijackers.

My point in remembering all these events is this. It was our weakness, actual and perceived, that led to 911. Osama bin Laden got more than he bargained for in Bush and the United States. I guess he didn’t study history very well or thought it no longer applied. He woke the sleeping giant and that giant opened up a can of whoop-ass on him.

But now, through great effort from the left, and complacency on the right; that giant has returned to square one. We are sleepy, complacent, and in the eyes of our enemies wimpy and weak.

President Barack Obama cited Guantanamo, our bad reputation with Muslims, and Bush’s cowboy diplomacy with being a big al Qaeda recruiting tool. And maybe he had a point. He made dam sure that would no longer be the case (except for Guantanamo in which case the Republicans stopped him). But now we’re faced with an even bigger recruiting tool for terrorist. Being seen as a pussy again. But why would they come to think of us that way again? Because it’s practically the only message we’re sending them…

2013 - Guantanamo Protestors

Prisoners of War:
We coddle our captured enemies in Guantanamo. We give them TV, libraries, a soccer field; and all the while we ring our hands about the morality and injustice of keeping them (prisoners of war) in the first place. We release many who simply return to the battle field. As for those we still keep; we consider bringing them to our home soil, extending to them rights that our citizens enjoy and few (foreign) Muslims can even conceive. Who could watch this absurdity and not think we are a bunch of idiots and pussies?

2013 - Rolling Stone - Terrorist CoverHome Grown Terrorists:
Look at what we do to Americans who join our enemies. Back during World War II they would have been quickly tried and hung (or shot). Today, we take years to actually hold a trial. We allow them to make a mockery of our justice system. In some cases we don’t even acknowledge what they are (terrorists). We call their terrorists attacks “work place violence”. We glorify them on covers of magazines (for money). Who could watch this absurdity and not think we are a bunch of idiots and pussies?

Declaring Victory:
We announce strategic information for political purposes. When will our commitment to Iraq or Afghanistan end? Here’s the date within a few month window. Just sit tight; then you’ll have free reign again. We declare our enemies to be “on their heels” and that “wars must end” as if our very words make it so; facts be dammed. We not only demonstrate a lack of commitment or resolve, we announce it to the world. Who could watch this absurdity and not think we are a bunch of idiots and pussies?

Our Friends:
Our policy towards Israel is that they should immolate us; in respect to pussy diplomacy. We pressure Israel to capitulate and not target or respond as their enemies build nuclear weapons. This is what we do to our only real ally in the entire region.

Our main informant that made it even possible to kill Osama bin Laden, Dr. Shakil Afridi, is in prison in Pakistan. He has been sentenced to 33 years and his family claims he is now being tortured. How did he get there? Instead of getting him and his family out of the country like we promised; we leaked the information that identified him. After he was arrested we just let him rot. Sure we talked big but what is that worth when your target knows talk is all it is. Pakistan told us to “respect their legal process” which is Arabic for “go $#@* youself”.

The U.S. through Barack Obama betrays our allies and supporters.

Dr Afridi isn’t the only ally we’ve screwed and continue to screw. Congress set aside 5000 visas to help and protect informants and translators who help us in Afghanistan. 200 have been approved, and the bureaucratic process is mind-numbingly slow. We let thousands who will do little more than suck off the public tit cross our borders every day, but actually help us defend American lives… actually take up arms and kill our enemies… actually put your life and that of your family at risk? You wait… we need to be extra careful with you. This is even after our embassies and military generals do their part (quickly) to vouch for the invaluable service these guys provide.

Who could watch this absurdity and not think we are a bunch of idiots and pussies?

Response to Attacks:
On the anniversary of 911 or enemies organize, attack, and burn a U.S. Consulate. They kill four Americans in the process, including our Ambassador, Christopher Stevens. Our response? Declare the attack as “a spontaneous demonstration”; shift blame to an internet video we know had nothing to do with it; we even imprison the creator of the video. We then proceed with a massive cover up. We bribe or bully our citizens who were there to keep quiet. Our Secretary of State chastises the people who make a minimal effort to find out what happened by saying “At this point, what difference does it make”. The President himself calls attempts to uncover the truth “false scandals”.

2012 - Benghazi Burns

2012 - Benghazi Molehill

And as for accountability to the terrorist perpetrators? Almost a year later we have finally taken decisive action AND Federal authorities have filed the first criminal charges. Your heard me. We’ve filled out paperwork on the bastards! That’ll teach them to mess with us.

An idiot congressman (Adam Schiff ) on the House Intelligence Committee explained our “progress” this way.

“It’s been frustrating for many of us that it hasn’t moved faster, but it is a very difficult working environment for our agents. Gathering evidence in Libya, you might imagine, is very difficult, finding, interviewing witnesses, extremely difficult. We have identified many of the parties involved. We’re still trying to identify what the command-and-control structure would be. A lot of missing pieces still, but we are finally making progress.”

Translation: We’re back to the mindset of treating these acts not as terrorism, or even acts of war, we’re treating them like a crime… sort of like robbing a liquor store.

Who could watch this absurdity and not think we are a bunch of idiots and pussies?

United Nations - Host TyrantsForeign Respect:
We host and assembly of dictators and thugs on our own soil who routinely denounce us and thwart our diplomatic efforts. We invite our enemies to come and mock us. Our universities embrace them with crowds of adoring (leftist) students.

Foreign dictators give us a total screwing even when there’s nothing really to be gained. They do it simply for the pleasure of doing it. Our traitors find refuge with ease. We don’t even put that much pressure or effort into getting them back.

Talk to China or Russia about giving up an American traitor? Obama’s response? “I have not called President Xi personally or President Putin personally and the reason is … number one, I shouldn’t have to.”

President Obama is absolutely correct in that statement, “shouldn’t” being the key word. And he “wouldn’t” have to if not for the fact that both nations, the dictators involved (and pretty well the whole world) know he’s a pussy.

But it’s more than just that. Obama finds himself in the same position of a mad little boy who has once again lost his lunch money to a bully. He could fight and even likely get a bloody nose; but that embarrassment is worse than anything he can imagine… so he avoids the confrontation and his reputation (and ours) solidifies further.

So Obama cancels his meeting with Putin. He had to. To use the urban vernacular, Putin (and just about everybody else) has treated Obama like a bitch from day one. Someone in Obama’s position doesn’t sit down across from a bully who has repeatedly bent him over without reminding everyone in the world which one of the two is always on the receiving end. The really sad part is watching Obama try and explain his relationship with Putin…

2013 - Obama Putin Meeting - Frosty


Michele: “Is Putin still picking on you?”

Barry: No, No… we’re buds, we have a great relationship. 🙂

Michele: Do you have your lunch money today?

Barry: Ummm… no I gave it to my buddy, Putin.

Michele: Where’s your “Snowden” bicycle?

Barry: (in a hushed voice) Putin’s uhhh… borrowing it… I didn’t like it that much anyway…

Michele: Are you sure everything’s OK between you two?

Barry: Great! great… love the guy…


Conclusion:
Who could watch this absurdity and not think we are a bunch of idiots and pussies? Thus we find ourselves in a position where we must close our embassies and consulates. We must hide. And we’ll keep doing that until we elect a leader (years from now) with some balls; and even then he’ll have to use them effectively for some time before we regain what we’ve lost under Obama and the Democrats.

Read Full Post »

Religion - Islam - Jizya - Spitting WaterIntroduction:
This fortunately (or unfortunately… I’m not sure which) turned from being a reply to something worthy of its own post. I would suggest reading the original post and the reply from MustafaHoward before proceeding.

A Muslim gentleman (MustafaHoward) took exception to my recent post concerning the Islamic idea of Jizya (taxes on non-Muslims by Muslim states) and how some Muslim clerics today say that western welfare and social programs are a form of jizya.

This is basically a detailed reply to his objections and his attempts to “educate” me concerning the verses in the Qur’an that were quoted and interpreted by me in the original posting.

First Second & Third:
First an apology for not being completely clear in my original post. Please understand that I was not always trying to translate or quote the Qur’an. I was trying to give my interpretation of the verse from what I had read. Anything in “quotes” was taken from a translation of the Qur’an. Anything not was my interpretation. In hindsight I see that was not apparent so I apologize for that lack of clarity. MustafaHoward did not see this and that is my fault.

Still, I suspect MustafaHoward would disagree even with my interpretation (not translation) so the point is minor. It could even be argued that the words I chose in my interpretation were wrong or misleading… They’re not… (see below)

Quote - Frankness - Disraeli, BenjaminSecond, an apology for my frankness. I’ve never been one to beat around the bush and this posting and response has me riled up a bit. 🙂 If your sensitivities require excessive tact and pretending that certain things are true when they obviously are not (as is done the Main Stream Media and leftist apologist when breaching the subject of Islam and terrorism); then I would suggest reading and commenting elsewhere.

Third, comments and dissenting views are welcome and even encouraged; but they obviously will not go unchallenged. Past posts are proof of that. So here we go…


Jizya (Confounding the Definition of a Duck):
>> Jizya: not something to worry about. There’s no one attempting to collect jizya from you, is there?

Concept - Its a Duck - Islamic DuckWow… condescending right off the bat! Impressive… but I don’t bully that easy… I would suggest another tactic.

Ummm… Actually… in the post… that’s pretty well EXACTLY what I’m saying is happening. “Islamic clerics (of both terrorists and “moderate” variety) have identified western social programs as a form of jizya that Muslims are entitled to and should take advantage of.”

Let me be clear. I’m not the one who came up with the idea of welfare being a form of Jizya. Muslim clerics are the ones espousing and preaching the idea to their followers. I am simply relaying the information and commenting on the moral and social implications.

Unfortunately, as is one of the main complaints of the original post; not only is someone “attempting to collect” a form of jizya from me (and all taxpayers by proxy of the government); they are actually succeeding due to the ineptness of the Massachusetts and Federal government. Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev are proof and examples of this.

So your (MustafaHoward’s) original assumption is wrong… isn’t it?

Your approach in refuting my original post seems to be to shoot the messenger and then muddle the debate. You simply pretended that I defined this (welfare and social programs) as jizya and then you proceed telling me that this doesn’t fit the definition as defined by the Qur’an.

Do you refute or denounce the idea (jizya through western welfare) as espoused by Muslim clerics? Nope. Do you offer that it’s a minority interpretation and offer evidence and/or quotes from clerics who say the opposite? Nope.

Instead you choose to give me a text book “traditional” definition of jizya and say that since what is happening doesn’t fit the letter of the law from the Qur’an so… we can’t call it jizya… despite your guys (Muslim clerics) being the ones who dreamt this stuff up. Granted, crazy people dream this kind of stuff up all the time, and it’s harmless as long as nobody acts on it. Unfortunately, that’s not the case here.

In essence, it walks like a duck, it talks like a duck, your guys say it’s a duck. You have a book that also mentions something about bills and feathers that don’t quite fit so your position is for me to even mention the duck is wrong and slanderous. … It’s a duck!


Qur’an 3:28 (Friends or Protectors)
>> You mistranslated Qur’an 3:28: it doesn’t say friends, it says protectors. It doesn’t say false pretenses: it says “unless you are afraid of their threat”.

Religion - Islam - Non-Believer as FriendI think I interpreted and understand the verse just fine. It DOES say “friend” (in three of the six translations on Quran.com).

Here’s the list:
Sahih International: “allies”
Muhsin Khan: “Auliya” (supporters helpers, etc.)
Pickthall: “friends”
Yusuf Ali: “friends or helpers”
Shakir: “friends
Dr. Ghali: “constant patrons”

It doesn’t say protectors in any of them. The closest any translation comes is using the word “patron”.

You are correct in that it doesn’t say “false pretenses”. These are my words, my interpretation of the verse. And, I stick by them. Personally I think the false pretenses aspect here is self-evident, but I will explain it. (see below)

For the benefits of those following this post, Here is what each of the six translations on Quran.com actually say for (3:38) concerning when a Muslim can ally or befriend himself with a non-Muslim:

Sahih International: “except when taking precaution against them in prudence.”
Muhsin Khan: “except if you indeed fear a danger from them.”
Pickthall: “unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security.”
Yusuf Ali: “except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them.”
Shakir: “but you should guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully”
Dr. Ghali: “excepting that you may protect yourselves against them (in manner) of protection.”

I stick by my interpretation because someone who takes a “friend” or “ally” or “patron” because he fears them and wants to keep a close eye on them is NOT REALLY being a “friend” or “ally” or “patron”. He is simply pretending to be and hopes to fool the other person into believing he is genuine. Another phrase one might use to accurately describe this behavior is … acting under “false pretenses”. And this (acting under false pretenses) is the only exception Allah makes for having this type of relationship with a non-believer. On the plus side subjugation seems OK though…

So you are incorrect concerning “protector” and correct concerning the idea of fear of danger (which doesn’t affect the negative connotation of the verse at all).

So looking at the entire verse one more time…

Qur’an 3:28 (Sahih International)(Numbers are added by TL to associate the portion of the verse with the TL interpretation below)
(1)Let not believers take disbelievers as allies rather than believers. (2)And whoever [of you] does that has nothing with Allah , (3)except when taking precaution against them in prudence. (4)And Allah warns you of Himself, (5)and to Allah is the [final] destination.

  1. If you are a Muslim, never take a non-Muslim as a friend or ally.
  2. If you do this Allah will not help you in any way.
  3. Allah allows an exception to this rule in that you may ally or “befriend” a non-Muslim if you fear them and want to take prudent precautions.
  4. But when you do this remember and fear Allah and his possible punishment.
  5. Allah is the end-all be-all…

Quote - Fake Friend

>> The Muslims of Madina were not the betrayers of their agreements: it was the non-Muslims, mostly some of the Israelites and hardened pagans.

So you say… Them dam Jews and pagans you say…


Qur’an 2:225 (Unintentional, Idle, and Vain Oaths)
>> Qur’an 2:225 It doesn’t say “breaking your oaths”. It says “mistakenly spoken”. Otherwise, there is required penitence and expiation of fasting for breaking promises.

Religion - Islam - Oath on QuranAgain, “breaking your oaths” is my analysis/interpretation, not a quote. So no… those exact words do not appear in this verse of the Qur’an. But strangely enough… neither do yours (“mistakenly spoken”), though you seem to be trying to quote the Qur’an.

Here is what the Quran (2:225) in all six translations on Quran.com actually says:
Sahih International & Muhsin Khan & Pickthall: (All use unintentional): Allah does not impose blame upon you for what is unintentional in your oaths, but He imposes blame upon you for what your hearts have earned. And Allah is Forgiving and Forbearing.
Yusuf Ali: Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts; and He is Oft-forgiving, Most Forbearing.
Shakir: Allah does not call you to account for what is vain in your oaths, but He will call you to account for what your hearts have earned, and Allah is Forgiving, Forbearing.
Dr. Ghali: Allah will not take you to task for idleness in your oaths, but He will take you to task for whatever your hearts have earned; and Allah is Ever-Forgiving, Ever-Forbearing.

You say there is “otherwise” a “penitence” and I’m sure that’s considered a big part of Islam. But I just don’t see it here. I see a lot of pardoning and justifying… “does not impose blame”, “will not call you to account for”, “will not take you to task for”.

    The requirements for this lack of accounting:

  1. Your oath (word) was thoughtless, unintentional, vain or idle… AND
  2. Your heart (intentions) were good towards Islam and Allah. Sure you will be held into “account” if your heart isn’t doing what Allah wants; but what doesn’t fit that bill? (I assume penitence is mentioned somewhere else because it’s not here.)

Thus my original interpretation of “Allah will not hold you to account for breaking your oaths as long as your intention (faithfulness to Allah and Islam) is good.” is right on the money.


Qur’an 66:2 (PO-TAY-TOE… PO-TAH-TOE)
>> Qur’an 66:2 : It doesn’t say dissolution. It says absolution, which again, is that a penitence and expiation are required.

Concept - Pronounce - PotatoeOK, let’s try again.

Sahih International: Allah has already ordained for you [Muslims] the dissolution of your oaths.
Muhsin Khan: Allah has already ordained for you (O men), the dissolution of your oaths.
Pickthall: Allah hath made lawful for you (Muslims) absolution from your oaths (of such a kind), and Allah is your Protector.
Yusuf Ali: Allah has already ordained for you, (O men), the dissolution of your oaths (in some cases)
Shakir: Allah indeed has sanctioned for you the expiation of your oaths
Dr. Ghali: Allah has already ordained for you (The believers) the lawful absolution of your oaths.

Well, much better! At least this time they (the various translations) agreed with you two out of the six times; but still less than “dissolution” which got three votes. Not that it matters. Whichever word is used doesn’t change the meaning that much. Both imply the breaking of the oath, absolution just also implies a little more guilt, blame and penalty free.

dissolution: the undoing or breaking of a bond, tie, union, partnership

absolution: act of absolving; a freeing from blame or guilt; release from consequences, obligations, or penalties

>> In Islam, anyone who dissolves his oaths is known publicly as a liar, and he/she will be reputed as such in this life and punished in the next.

So you say… this verse sure doesn’t say that. It says pretty plainly states that Allah dissolves, absolves, and expires the oaths of Muslims.

Even if “absolution” requires some “penitence” (that’s not really mentioned here); the idea of freeing the Muslim from his oaths is clearly there. All penitence really does is equate it to a parking ticket. Double parked? Break you oaths to non-believers? Make sure you pay that fine! But honestly… I don’t even think it goes that far.

So again, I completely stand by my interpretation of this verse. I’ll let those who read this exchange decide for themselves.

>> So, it’s not a habit of practicing Muslims.

I cannot say… I sincerely hope you are right.


Qur’an 3:54 (A Concession)
>> Qur’an 3:54 – “And they (Israelites and Romans) plotted (to kill Jesus), and Allah also plotted, and Allah is the best of those who plot.” Arabic is huge… (“makar” never used to describe Almighty PLAN…) But, when you translate to English, it needs a deeper study of the language and its contextual usage.

Religion - Islam - Islamic JesusLet me concede a point on this one. The verse 3:54 here does fall within the context of Islamic Jesus being a disciple (I hope I used the right word) of Allah (as told by Muhammad). Saying that verse 54 is the Jews and Romans plotting against Islamic Jesus seems a bit dyslexic (when looking at the “context”) to one who is not learned enough in Arabic I suppose; but then I grant, so is the interpretation of Allah being a great deceiver.

Looking at context… (Qur’an 3:50-56) In the previous verses Islamic Jesus is chastising the apostles/disciples for not believing properly in Allah and them (his disciples) then properly submitting and declaring and groveling etc… Then comes verse 54 and all the scheming that implicitly refers to Jews and Romans… Then I think it’s Islamic Jesus telling the disciples how Allah told Islamic Jesus he will purify him and make those who follow him superior to those who disbelieve (yet another message of superiority and subjugation of non-believers)…

Religion - Islam - Jesus is the Slave of AllahJust for my Christian brethren out there who don’t really know how the Qur’an depicts Jesus and the disciples, here is but a taste (Sahih International):

3:52-53 – But when Jesus felt [persistence in] disbelief from them, he said, “Who are my supporters for [the cause of] Allah?” The disciples said,” We are supporters for Allah. We have believed in Allah and testify that we are Muslims [submitting to Him]. (53) Our Lord, we have believed in what You revealed and have followed the messenger Jesus, so register us among the witnesses [to truth].”

Can you just imagine Peter (the mouth of the apostles) saying such a thing!?

Anyway, back to the concession…

I concede this (Allah the deceiver) may be a loose and incorrect interpretation of this verse. It is no more plausible than the Jews, Romans, Jesus, and Allah all plotting and Allah being the best at it…

>> Arabic is huge

[Puzzled look] … It has more words than other languages? If so, is this a point of pride or something?

>> We would never use the word “makar” in describing the plots of evil people in the same meaning as the Divine Ordainment of the Almighty whose PLAN encompasses all events.

Are you saying that “makar” is or isn’t used here? If it’s not… I would concede the point. But I’m suspicious that you didn’t tell us what word was used.

Or are you saying “makar” means something different depending who it refers to? (The second argument would bring us back to confounding the definition of another duck.) I would expect if Arabic is so huge then another word with the proper meaning could have been found.

But OK… I’ll have to take your word for it and will try to extend that courtesy. I don’t have the time or inclination for that much research.

>> But, when you translate to English, it needs a deeper study of the language and its contextual usage.

Contextual, I just looked at. (see above)

So are you saying I’m never really going to understand Islam unless I study and learn Arabic? And by extension am not qualified to form an opinion or comment on the teachings of the Qur’an unless I learn Arabic first?

That’s convenient. It’s equivalent to saying don’t think for yourself, let me tell you what’s in there and what to think about it. I grant that many religious leaders seek that type of obedience. But it’s a quest for control and power… not truth.


Slandering al-Fakhr al-Razi
>> Your “translation” of al-Fakhr al-Razi’s statement seems a slander.

Religion - Islam - Fakhruddin RaziOK… so provide the non-slandered “translation”. A link… some text… would be just fine.

Tell me what in the text is wrong? Which ideas are not his? The concept that the Muslims should spare the lives of non-Muslims as if it’s their natural position in the world? The idea that non-believers must subjugate themselves with humiliation and servility (a common theme in Islam)?

You yourself say non-Muslims should be “allowed” liberties (assuming a lower status) which says to me you believe Muslims have the authority (via Allah and Islam) to grant (or not if you choose) this liberty. This is not too far off from these quoted statements by Fakhruddin Razi.

I will also add that this concept is the very antithesis of American founding principles; that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” But that’s another post entirely.

For the record “my translation” and slander of al-Fakhr al-Razi is not mine. I found this exact translation in several places. One of which can be found in Wikipedia article on the jizya. Wikipedia quotes the source as “al-Razi, Fakhr al-Din (1981). “(9:29)”. Tafsir al-Kabir. Dar Al-fiker.”

Religion - Islam - Muslim Hissy FitI can’t imagine the “translation” is that far off since it is found in the Wikipedia. Not that Wikipedia is all that accurate, but it strikes me as an organization very susceptible to political correctness. I suspect that any mistranslation or misquote within the article would have resulted in Muslim hissy-fits by now and thus capitulation by Wikipedia. Perhaps, MustafaHoward, you might want to direct this complaint to Wikipedia. I suspect they would be much more responsive to bullying via political correctness than I am.

Back to the actual words of al-Fakhr al-Razi. I assume this is his interpretation of Qur’an 9:29 which says (Sahih International) “Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.”

Ahhhhh…. it sounds so much more reasonable when you get it straight from the source…

>> Muslims are taxed in Islam. Americans are taxed in America. People are taxed everywhere. Jizya is a tax, not an “extortion”.

Government - IRS - TaxesAmericans taxed in America is a straw man argument and nothing to do with this debate. IF America taxed Muslims differently from others, it would be… but that’s not the case.

Muslim nations taxing via Islam. It’s their business… and again a straw man argument.

Where jizya IS relevant to this post is that Muslim clerics have declared western welfare and social programs a form of jizya that Muslims are entitled to and should take advantage of; and certain recent Muslim terrorists have indeed done that. You and I seem agree that this is an inaccurate interpretation of the Qur’an definition and purpose of the jizya. Yet you attack the messenger (me) as if I had come up with the idea. It’s your guys who are espousing this crap; but you don’t address that. You just muddle the issue by droning on the “traditional” definition of a duck (jizya).

Admittedly, I did call jizya “Islamic sanctioned extortion of subjugated peoples”. And… I stand by that. MustafaHoward tells me it’s not extortion based on the “traditional” definition in the Qur’an. My response is that the “traditional” definition in the Qur’an has rarely (if ever) been practiced. The words in the Qur’an just give religious, legal, and conscientious cover to the extorter.

In practice jizya is like a Chicago shake down where a business buys insurance (also called protection) from the mob. This is to ensure their establishment doesn’t burn to the ground. The guys selling the protection are the ones who will burn it to the ground if the businessman (enjoying the liberty and protection) doesn’t pay; and all parties involved know that. Jizya works on the same concept. The only difference… words in a book that pretend otherwise.

>> Again, they were allowed their liberties and enjoyed the protections of the Muslims.

Religion - Islam - Jizya - SubjugateI just love your use of the word “allowed” here… [groveling]… oh thank you, thank you, thank you for this privilege…

As for the “traditional” idea of a non-Muslim receiving/enjoying “protection” (from outside aggressors) from Muslim “benefactors” (state or people)? That would assume they manage to somehow survive their Muslim “benefactors” in the first place. The very concept would be laughable if not for the seriousness of the life and death struggles these people must endure.

I have never seen any evidence of either liberties or protections. The actions of Muslim nations around the world today and their persecution of non-Muslims speak louder than anything positive that might be found in the Qur’an. And the inaction of “moderate” Muslims to right these wrongs speaks even louder.

Carrying the logic just a little further, if it (protection) doesn’t really exists today despite all the claims otherwise, who in their right mind would believe it ever existed?

Political - Liberal - Coexist

>> In fact, the earliest Muslims and those who followed enjoyed peaceful coexistence with those of other religions.

Obviously I’m skeptical to put it mildly. Statements like this are just politically correct propaganda to promote the false idea of the “religion of peace”.

But give it try. Give me an unbiased (non-Muslim, first-hand preferably) account of the “peaceful coexistence” and “protection” enjoyed by other religions living in a Muslim nation.

>> So, what has changed? I’ll leave that for you to either research on your own, or you can ask my opinion if you like.

[Huge belly laugh!] Nothing! [More laughing] 1400 Years! And NOTHING has changed! Your original premise that things were ever substantially any different than today is… wrong!

The “traditional” practice of jizya, the enjoyment of merciful rights and protection, the peaceful coexistence, the singing of “We Are the World”… NEVER EXISTED! And the whole idea that it did is, again, nothing but propaganda from Islamist and their useful idiots.

Just one example of this… we (the United States) have had to deal with this crap off and on, off and on for our entire history. Beginning with the Barbary Wars in the late 17 and early 1800s we were afforded the honor of paying ransom and tribute (also known as extortion) as our ships were plundered and our citizens killed and enslaved by Muslims. Of course the payments were never enough; and as required in dealing with any bully and/or tyrant we eventually just had to build a big enough navy to kick their collective asses to get it to stop.

200+ years ago? Today? What has changed? Not a dam thing!

History - Thomas Jefferson - Barbary Pirates

Your opinion? Is based on a false premise that things were ever different from today. But please suit yourself if you feel the need to share it. Since I approved your original comment it should post just fine.

>> I thoroughly appreciate your disgust with and anger with the 2 mis-guided men who committed the multiple murder in Boston. They have gone now to meet their Maker, Who will deal with them most appropriately.

Really glad to hear those words! Got any actions to back them up…?

But at least on the words we agree! Though not (of course) on the Maker they will meet.

>> And if you don’t like Islam, there is no compulsion in Religion.

Oh how I wish that were true! But no… We don’t agree. That (non-compulsion) generally applies for pretty well every other religion I know of… except Islam. My impression of Islam is that Muhammad and/or Allah pretty well DO consider it compulsory; as do many of Islam’s followers. Spread Islam by word or sword… Convert or die… (or at least subjugate and pay jizya for a time).

Religion - Islam - Allah or the BladeQuran (9:5) (Sahih International)
And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists [as in those who believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to you Christians reading this] wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, (meaning convert to Islam and pay Islamic taxes) let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. [Wow… thanks Allah]

Non-Compulsory my ass. I guess when you consider death as a valid option mercifully afforded the un-believer then sure… you can stick with the non-compulsory argument.

Sure some Muslims don’t take it that far and that’s great. I guess we should be grateful even. But enough do take it that far that we still (after centuries) have the radical Islamic problems we have today. And instead of cleaning up their mess in their own house (faith)… “moderate” Muslims STILL leave it for us infidels to deal with.

>> What I would ask is that you show respect to Muslim human beings and our Holy Books by not mistranslating them.

Concept - Respect - EarnedNO man, nor holy book, is entitled to my respect. EVERY man and his beliefs (espoused in holy books) ARE entitled to opportunities to EARN that respect. And I freely and gladly extend that courtesy.

Islam, Muslims? How many opportunities do you need before you clean up the radical mess in your own house (faith)? How many of our people (non-Muslims) must pay the price for the anarchy in your religion before YOU deal with it? Every courtesy has been extended AND we’re still waiting! Respect!? Do us a favor! Don’t just expect it. Don’t just demand it! Do something to Earn it!

Even more than the sound of guns, and bombs, and crashing jets; the inaction from “moderate” Muslims is deafening!

Again, please try and forgive my bluntness; but I’m really sick of this crap! And those who should be fixing the problem are sitting on their hands; and sometimes, SOMETIMES, gather the courage to utter WORDS like “I thoroughly appreciate your disgust with and anger with… [Fill in Muslim atrocity Here].

And as for my “mistranslating”; I’ve presented my case stating that I believe my track record is just fine in that regard. I’ll let those who read this blog decide for themselves.

>> Take Care.

Thank You… You too.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »