We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Discussion Point III

Are you afraid of Islam?

72 comments to Discussion Point III

  • Pa Annoyed

    A better question would be to ask whether you felt you knew enough about Islam to make an informed choice?

    Most people I talk to evidently don’t. But that’s understandable, as it’s a sort of catch-22. It’s not until you’re worried enough to spend a lot of time researching it that you can hope to find out enough about it to justify your worry.

  • Johnathan Pearce

    No.

  • Novus

    Nope.

    Islamists are another matter entirely, however.

  • I think Novus nails it. Islam per se is just another daft creed in a world awash with daft creeds… it is the followers of political Islamism (and their fellow travellers) who are the problem.

  • Pa Annoyed

    OK, so what is the difference between the beliefs of Islamists and the teachings of orthodox Islam?

    And do you understand the distinction between fard al kifaya and fard al `ayn?

  • Nick M

    Pa A,
    I agree, almost. I knew enough about Islam well before 9/11 to think it an absurd and repugnant faith.

    Thaddeus,
    Islam doesn’t scare me. Islam fills me with pity and sadness. What scares me is the extent to which so many people give credence to this guff because we are so much more powerful than them if we only all knew and believed that. I’m talking about the power of our culture and our unfettered imaginations and dreams, not because we could pave the Islamic World from from Morocco to Malaysia in an afternoon. We have to push Western culture and its achievements or I fear that it will come to either turning the sands of Arabia into glass or my wife buying her clothes from the Black’s tent section.

    Mind, the later will not happen while I have a single Marlboro tainted breath in my body.

    I hate the enemy. I fear Western self-hatred.

  • Julian Taylor

    Are you afraid of Islam?

    No. Am I afraid of Mohammed’s fan club? Yes.

    Are you afraid of Christianity?

    No. Am I afraid of Jesus’ fan club? Not at all.

    Are you afraid of Judaism?

    No, and I’m certainly afraid of Abraham’s fan club, especially not their brilliant Eurovision entry.

  • M4-10

    No. Islam is afraid of me.

  • Chris Harper

    Interesting question Thaddeus.

    Afraid? A big buy like me afraid of an itty bitty religion?

    Am I afraid of being blown up by some islamst nutjob when next I step on a plane or even go into a crowded area? What person possessed of rational self interest wouldn’t get a slight case of the butterflys as he (she) considered the possibility?

    There is that religious maniac over in Iran, and am I scared of his behaviour once he gets the bomb? Probably not. This will not happen. By the time the country gets the bomb he will be out of his job, and from what little information the press provides it looks as if the next prez of Iran will be a little more sensible.

    Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was allowed to run for the job because of his devotion, but even the ayatollahs are starting to see the downside of Tehran being turned into a glassy field, even if Mahmoud is convinced the 12th Iman will be back before that can be allowed to happen. I am betting that the next prez will be someone a little more sane. Even if just as devout.

    What worried me was not Islam, we retain the capability to contain the weirdos if we choose to do so. What did worry me was the reaction of parts of the reaction of parts of the West to the Islamic threat. The “Why do they hate us” and the “It is all about the oil” nutjobs.

    The reason they hate us is easy, after all, they tell us often enough. They hate us because of those norms which everyone, regardless of their other political beliefs, believe in. They hate us because we don’t give Islam and Muslims superiority under the law. They hate us because we treat women as equals under the law. All else is rhetoric.

    What relaxes me is the debate which is starting to engage the left, and which will soon be raging, and that is the propriety of elements of the left offering support to supremist, misogynistic, totalitarian, gay hating and fanatically religious medievalists. I firmly believe that those who see America and Western Civilisation as the chief threat to the world are going to lose this one. The best writing I see supporting freedom of expression, supporting the right to criticise any viewpoint, and rejecting any concept of a ‘right’ not to be offended are starting to come from the left. And these writings are not directed at their supposed adversaries on the right, but at their brothers and sisters on the left. Our civilisational core principles are starting to be expressed again, and written about by those who were previously wincing in embarrassment when faced with expressions such as “The Free World”.

    I am heartened by the cynicism I encounter whenever the Religion of Peace is mentioned in general conversation. Anecdotally, all claims about AGRHBAFM (A Great Religion Hijacked By A Fanatical Minority) expressed by our ‘leaders’ result in condescending sniggers even by their natural supporters; a fine, informed and heartening reaction.

    Abuse and opposition politicians can cope with. Caricature is normal. Politicians can cope with being laughed at, but sniggered at? These guys have a great sense of self worth and sniggering condescension does not fit in with this.

    What I see around me is that although there are battles still for us to lose, such as Iraq and Iran, and the rest of the middle east in fact, the tide of the war of ideas is turning, and will start running strongly in our direction. That is what matters.

    If you wish to contribute to winning the war, don’t discuss freedom of expression with opponents or waverers. Explain female circumcision instead. Describe in graphic detail, at the dinner table, the excision of the clitoris and labia minora from unanesthetised little girls. Describe in detail the way the vagina may later have to be enlarged with a knife on the wedding night.

    Don’t talk about stoning – show them this picture –

    http://www.amitiesquebec-israel.org/texts/stoning.htm

    Next time you see Gays for Islamofascism don’t argue the point. Just show them this –

    http://www.blacktriangle.org/blog/?p=1104

    and then ask them to explain their position.

    Ask proud parents for the hand of their nine year old daughter. Describe in detail the damage you will do to her on your wedding night.

    The intellectual argument is being won. Help it along, show the undecided, graphically, and in the most stomach turning manner, what they may be for, if they are not against it.

    Me? Islamophobic? A phobia is an irrational fear, but my knowledge of Islam is growing greater all the time, and my contempt for it increases with all I learn.

    I am not scared of Islam, it isn’t worth it. Let’s just bury it instead.

  • Dave

    Yes!

    I wouldn’t be if this was the WW2 generation with a strong culture of patriotism, but with todays moral vacuum and uncontrolled borders I think Islam is a much bigger issue than it otherwise would have been.
    I think what we have seen so far is just the start and WW3 is around the corner. It wouldn’t take much to kick things off, such as Israel or the US bombing Iran, then Iranian agents coming active on US soil which would then encourage ‘copycat’ attacks throughout the Western world.

    How long before the US attacks Iran?, the Neocons may want to do it before the next presidental election. They have another battle group heading to the area, just diplomacy?

  • I’m afraid if Islam like I am afraid of Influenza. Sure, it is deadly if left untreated, but we have the technology to handle it.

    We just don’t have the will to handle it.

  • Any I afraid of Islam. Yes, in the same way I am afraid of all virus-like belief structures that inhibit reason.

    Am I afraid of Islamists? Wary, but not afraid. They intend us harm, but largely we have the ability to stop them.

  • Answer 1: No, I think it’s rather cool(Link).
    Answer 2: If you’re afraid of an idea you’re as bad as the fuckwits having hysterics over drawings
    Answer 3: Afraid of Muslims, you mean? Which Muslims, when? Some of the really rather cool Muslims I work with? Or the fuckwits who have hysterics over drawings?
    OK…My response to someone yelping that I should be beheaded if I insult his fantasy about a sky-fairy is this(Link).
    Beyond that, am I ‘afraid’ of what is happening to my country? Appalled, yes. Afraid, no. But the problem is politicians backing Muslim fascists, not Muslim fascists themselves. There are 1.8 million Muslims in this country, a tiny minority.

    • The outlook of strongly religious Muslims of Britain often has more in common with pre-Renaissance Catholic Europe than with the world of 21st century secular people.

    • Far from all Muslims have that mindset. According to the rueful calculation of the Islamist Tariq Ramadan, only 40 to 50% of Muslims in Europe are “practising” even on a loose definition.

    Sharia socialists: ‘Go the whole hog! Convert, comrades, convert!'(Link)

    I reckon from these and other stats that around half the population of Muslim origin is to varying extents antipathetic to basic freedom and democracy. They are irrational, power-crazed and generally a pain in the rear – and about 1.5% of the population. Aside from the few dedicated to blowing up both themselves and other people, they could have no real power over the rest of us, if it were not for the power given them by politicians and the evil of politicians and the politically active sharia socialists who a) make people afraid not of Islam but of the law; and b) conduct the vilest psychological warfare against critics of even the vilest aspects of Islam. The aim should be the shattering of the nonsensical alliance between the so-called Left and the Islamists. They are not the Left. They are grubby little fascists with a thin veneer of red paint. The Left is atheist. The Left is feminist. It can have no truck with theocracy and misogyny. Shorn of the backing of Neu Arbeit and the sharia socialists, political Islam would pose no greater threat to liberty than any other batch of moonbats. (What is the collective noun for moonbats?) Can’t remember the exact quotation but something about England naught shall rue if England to herself be true. The country is currently dominated by lice. You know that.
    Answer 4: ‘Afraid’ civil war is inevitable? Not afraid, no. Just accepting that unless there is a sea-change in politics we shall have to fight to get our freedom back

    I appreciate I am Ruth among the alien corn here. Just a view from the left-hand side, that part of it where atheism and the supremacy of reason are the norm – where it is unthinkable the rational be silenced by religious maniacs.

  • Rob

    It’s very easy to talk about Islam and the ‘enlightened West’ becoming involved in some sort of war, and oddly reassuring (I suppose), but I just don’t think it will happen.

    The fact that we have MPs like Sadiq Khan waiting to ram political correctness down our throats, our own institutionalised cowardice, and the complete and wholesale destruction of the British (and particularly English, the Scots and Welsh seem to be making a comeback) identity means I think that it’s far more likely we’ll be left with a multi-cultural melange than a war.

    And it’s not war that’s the issue. It’s breeding. Wealthy protestants in western countries just don’t do enough of it. It’s why we’ll lose.

  • veryretired

    Interesting question, TT, whether asked on a personal level, or a cultural one.

    I recall the cliche’ accusation during the Cold War that people in the US were paranoid about, and “inordinately” fearful of, communism.

    This was usually followed by a lecture on the benign realities of marxism/leninism, the crimes of the “imperialist capitalist west”, and the legitimate concerns of the Soviets or Maoists regarding the aggressive policies of the US and its military alliances.

    The conclusion of the argument was the contention that the entire “Cold War” confrontation was the result of the fear driven antagonism of the west for a new and revolutionary political/social doctrine, which in and of itself was not a threat to the west and its culture at all.

    This rhetorical shell game is now being reprised in the west vs islam debate. Any criticism of islam and its excesses is written off as racism and “islamophobia” —i.e., intellectually dishonest and suspect as an overly emotional response to what is merely another world culture.

    As pointed out very concisely in a post by Shannon Love at Chicagoboyz, the tranzi take on the entire affair is that it is best handled by cosmopolitan negotiators removed from the poisonous paranoia of the western cultural viewpoint, which, after all, is the true cause of all these problems anyway.

    But let’s look at the West’s response to islam, and islam’s response to the West.

    Who is it that is fearful?—

    The culture that admits and accepts different faiths, or the one that restricts and forbids any other faith but the approved one;

    the person who can live side by side with any number of neighbors of all sorts of nationalisties, colors, and religions, or the person who requires conformity and homogeneity in all those around him;

    the culture whose libraries and schools are filled with a wide range of texts and studies of any and all religions, political philosophies, and literary works in every language under the sun, or the society that restricts and forbids all but the approved texts, religious observances, and political ideas;

    the society in which every citizen, regardless of gender, is deemed to be a fully competent member eligible for any and all benfits, rights, responsibilities, and priviledges, and which wages a daily effort to make that ideal a reality, or the culture which demotes half its members to a twilight existence, restricted and severely controlled, both by law and accepted social violence;

    and, just to bring an end, which culture allows the construction of a massive monument to a competing religious view within a few miles of its most powerful religious centerpiece, and which refuses to allow even one copy of another holy text to cross its border, lest it infect the faithful?

    Repression, hostility, relentless violence, and ruthless suppression are the hallmarks of the fearful and hysterically terrified.

    Openness, debate, non-censorship, and inclusion are the marks of the calmly confident.

    If anyone can read this and not know which side is which, then their problem isn’t fear, it is abysmal ignorance, and willful denial.

  • Rob

    Oh – one thing that does terrify me about Islam. Somehow, the OIC has got sufficient numbers in the United Nations to make an almost unstoppable voting bloc (albeit one that donates a tiny amount, possibly 2% but that might be a mis-remembered figure, of the total funds of the United Nations). Yet almost none of its countries make any efforts to implement the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, signed in the 1940s. In fact, traditionalist Sharia law is the antithesis of the Declaration.

    So why is it that people like Jimmy Carter can publish a book about Israeli apartheid whilst in Saudi Arabia, non-Muslims are only permitted in very strictly-bounded areas? The ‘West’ is crazy. Islam is sane.

  • RAB

    Amen Veryretired.

  • Paul Marks

    Am I afraid of Islam – no.

    But then I have no children, and I do not place a high value on my own life (I have no logical reason to).

    If I did I might be concered that there are large numbers of people who wish to see all infidels killed or enslaved – although (I admit) it might be amusing if this happened to some infidels (the ones who think that the followers of Mohammed are all fluffy bunnies).

    Islam (or rather its followers) has been in conflict with the West, in the shape of the Byzantine Empire, since the 7th century A.D., and with Western Europe since the 8th century A.D.

    It is true that since then some periods have been more quiet than others (and there has been much trade, exchange of ideas and so on), but there has never been a period when there was no conflct at all.

    Interpretations of Islam vary, with many Muslims holding to the position that non Muslims must be killed on enslaved – and many others holding that this is quite mistaken.

    However, there is no point in pretending that (for all the crimes of Christians) Jesus was like Mohammed (study the life of this man) or that the Islamic scriptures are like the New Testiment. Although I fully admit that there are some parts of the Old Testiment that are vile.

    For example, I hope that I do not have a rose tinted view of war – but Joshua’s way of war (exterminating whole cities, stealing land, and murdering or enslaving everyone his people came upon) shocked even me when I read about in the Old Testiment.

    And all because God told him to do it.

    Either Joshua was telling lies (or was deluded) and there was no voice in his head. Or there was a voice – the voice of Satan.

    Still this part of the Old Testiment is based upon oral tradition and was not written down till centuries after the supposed events, so one can hope it is not accurate – but that is a weak defence.

  • bob

    Am I afraid of Islam? Not the religion, but the parties. Once went to an Eid party where the highlight was a Mango shake chugging contest. I lost, but managed to be sick all night.

    As for the Islamists, I am definitively not afriad of them, but somewhat saddened by this entire cultural struggle which seems so unnecessary to me. I am repulsed by the left’s abhominable rejection of 200 years of civilizing progress and apprehensive that my children may very well have to experience the sort of intra-statal Vernichtungskrieg that last happened in Germany during the 30 Years War. I am tired of the ‘Plant a Tree; Remove Bush’ bumper stickers just as much as the ‘Nuke Mecca’ ones.

    Mr. Harper mentioned earlier that the political climate has turned and I do believe he is right, but twenty years ago who would have believed I would be reading Op-eds in the Guardian from the Muslim Brotherhood or seeing CAIR on CNN, playing identity politics with Wolf Blitzer? It would be an astonishment of the shut-the-fuck-up variety.

    Even if the left does manage to wash off most of their spots, the legacy of the last five years will be a dire one; governments if confronted by a rabid, violent constituency will concede the universality of the writ of the law for short-term political gain and easily relinquish our fundamental freedoms. A tad of this feeling comes out in the above comments which mention extra-procedural non-licensed citizen actions of the violent type. No one mentions the government, since no one expects any help from it (puting the matter charitably).

    When one says ‘Islamist’, I don’t think of some poor putz in benighted northern Pakistan, who will spend his youth memorizing a book and the rest of it reciting it to others. I have a mental picture of a bobby guarding a young man who, wearing a Pali like a balaklava, holds up a sign: “Behead those who insult Islam”. The young rapscallion was, of course, just outisde Westminster on a Sunday morning. I am sure it was all video-taped and the ASBOs were duly sent out, but I can’t excise that image from my memory and it fills me with a rage comparable only to that which my ancestors felt after Pearl Harbor or during the latter stages of the War between the States.

    Does this man or his ilk scare me? Naw. In this state should the need arise, you can always pop down to the shops and exercise your Second Amendment rights.

  • Midwesterner

    I don’t have any fear of our destruction from Islam as an external threat.

    However, Islam as a polity has found and exploited weaknesses in our immune system. Then working from both inside and outside, it seems to have triggered a sort of auto-immune reaction in which we have thrown out our heritage of tolerance and our constitutionally protected liberty and privacy. It is like going into anaphylactic shock from a bee sting.

    There is one certain cure. If any Islamic actor carries out a successful very large scale attack in the form of a nuclear explosion or massive casualities from other WMD, I have no doubt that Islam will cease to be a factor for the rest of time. Even if the name survives, the religion as it now exists will not. For our sakes, I hope we never a driven to that extreme.

    And after seeing how Chernobyl fallout dispersed and even turned up in very small amounts in our food products in the USA, I would like to see our food products in vulnerable categories stockpiled in several year quantities in case of a deliberate, optimized for maximum fallout, attack. This, I believe, is a legitimate defense matter.

  • ResidentAlien

    Because of whom I chose to marry I was the subject of a threat of “punishment” from an armed Islamist group. For the same reason my wife was threatened with beheading. Although this was a general threat against all infidels marrying women from the country concerned it was specific enough to make me take great care of our safety.

    The group that made the threat has been pretty much destroyed by a brutal government although the remnants seem to have formally incorporated themselves into Al Qaeda.

    Of course, everybody in the West is probably now covered by some death threat or other from Islamist groups.

    Because of my personal situation I have had particular reason to ponder this issue since the mid 90s. I am categorically not afraid of Islam. I am afraid of the nutjobs who want to wage war aginst us. The best way to exterminate them is to stand with those within the Muslim world who are equally as threatened by the nutjobs.

  • Sean

    Am I afraid of Islam? No. But I am afraid of what’s going to happen to Islam once the mask drops in the West. I have no idea when it will happen – but happen it will if we continue to ignore the problem.

  • Uain

    Afraid of Islam?
    Nope, Terrified would be closer, as all you nutters should be.
    Yes we have the technology to fry them but not the will. With the present democrat controlled congress, the USA is now in the process of negotiaiting the terms of surrender (surge not withstanding). The democrat party, the US State department and much of the government are now wholly owned subsidiaries of the House of Saud.
    To add to Chris Harper’s revolting portrait of Islam above (if that is possible), how about the stories this week of the 19 yr old Saudi girl, raped and beaten by 7 men, who was then sentenced to 90 lashes for being “with” a man who was not a close relative?
    Looks like we all should start thinking how we will look in fist length beards, because a dark ages is about to befall humanity. Islam conquered what was once the centroid of human civilization and turned that region in to an armpit of ignorance, violence and superstition for the past 1200 years.
    And don’t look to cretinous liberals to save us. How many of these people are willing to fight to the death for gay rights and abortion, pedophilia or pay per view pornography?

    I for one can pass for non-european in a beard, you all are f***’ed.

  • Sunfish

    Someone else called it:

    Allah and I get along just fine. Some of his fan club, I could do without.

  • Afraid of Islam? No – Islam is an invented warrior cult riddled with hate, criminality and unreason.

    Islamism and Islamists on the other hand should be feared but we should not be “afraid” as in scared into inaction or submission. We need to stand up to these bearded nutbags. The best way is to expose the religion for what it is and to laugh at them and not give them the unearned respect they crave.

    p.s. Funny how Islamists hate gays, yet want “fist length beards”…Maybe that refers to how far they can shove their heads up their own backsides without the beard showing.

  • Chris Harper

    Chris Harper’s revolting portrait of Islam

    Uain,
    Thank you for what I know to be a sincere compliment.

    I am absolutely chuffed.

    What is truly revolting is that it was so easy to write. And that, as you show, it would be so easy to expand on.

  • Fiona X

    For a view from a group of ex-Muslims check out this site:-

    http://www.faithfreedom.org/index.htm

  • Chris Harper

    (What is the collective noun for moonbats?)

    A craze of moonbats?
    A barking of moonbats?

    Does this not deserve its own thread?

    Methinks that as the neologiser for the word Perry has an obligation to –

    1) provide a forum to discuss this matter,

    2) Chair or otherwise arrange the adjudication on the final result.

  • Nick M

    Uain,
    What the hell does the availability of pay per view porn and abortion have to do with this? These sort of things would certainly be very heavily frowned upon by the future caliphate. I enquire because your sort of comment often comes up from the “Lizards” over at LGF and I simply don’t know why?

    Personally, I don’t share your pessimism about the “liberals”. When muslim gangs start queer-bashing and Islamic schools start banning the teaching of evolution to an extent that it is impossible for even the most ardent multi-culturalist to ignore the religious factor then we might see a bit of a change from the left. Islam is contra even more of the left’s sacred cows than fundamentalist Christianity and look how popular that is with “liberals”…

    I think this process has started already. I think the thing that really got the lefties starting to show interest was the Motoons of Doom intifada.

    Or do you just prefer to get your porn on a monthly subscription?

  • I am not afraid of islam, moslems, islamicists, political islamists, or any of Mohammed’s followers in any way at all.
    My reason? Because the moment you are afraid, the moment you change your life to accommodate a terrorist threat, they win.

    People bandy about that not all moslems are terrorists when the majority that are supposedly against islamic terrorism stand mute and trembling in its shadow. Maybe not all moslems are terrorists but to let the extremists act unopposed in the name of the faith they claim is peaceful is tantamount to holding the gun themselves.
    Islamic extremism is a cancer that is well entrenched in the middle east, and which is extending its malignancy to the rest of the world. The time will come when we no longer need the middle east for its oil and, unless the middle east states get their act together, I predict that the most reflective surface on the planet will stretch from the red sea to Pakistan.

    So I am not afraid of islam and its practitioners, I am more afraid for them. Many innocents are going to die before this particular hydra is brought to heel.

  • Chris Harper

    Something that has been crossing my mind –

    There are a number of people who comment on this site who are literate and informed. The site tends to attract extremists in the cause of openness, honesty and liberty, and it discourages both moonbats and wingnuts.

    There are those who post pertinent comments (pa annoyed, veryretired, others – you know who you are) containing both opinion and hard fact, and you know the difference.

    There are a lot of blogs out there which post ‘stuff’ about Islam, of varying quality, most of which is pretty ephemeral and most of which deserves to be. However, there is the occasional speck of gold which deserves to be preserved and made available in a central location. Details, like descriptions of genital mutilation, examples of official Saudi bigotry, photographs of stonings, examples of lies and hypocrisy. In context quotes from the Koran, Sunnah and Hadiths, with accepted Islamic mainstream interpretations of them. Modern exhortations to barbarism by senior clerics. Definitions of Kufr, Jizah, Dhimmi (without being pedantic about spelling either) and so on. I hope you are getting the idea. All centralised and most ephemera excluded. Not a blog, where entries can drop off the end and never be seen again, but a book, continually developing and published as a pdf, where entries are scrutinised and fact checked before inclusion, and the whole thing is freely downloadable.

    Maybe a wiki as well, but where access is limited by the editorial group. Although I do prefer the idea of a book(let), where the whole thing is distributable and printable.

    The philosophy of this is not ‘objectivity’ but honesty, and driven by the core principles ofttimes discernible on this site.

    Anyone interested? We may get our heads lopped off, but what the hell. Who wants to live forever, and it would be in a good cause.

    Perry, do you object to my touting this idea here?

  • Nope, but I am worried about many of its practioners however.

  • squawkbox

    In any sane society, no one would be afraid of Islam. After all, modern Islam’s main characteristic is grotesque incompetence in every field of human endeavour – science, art, economics, war – with the exception of the casual murder of unbelievers. Unfortunately, we no longer live in a sane society, so the combination of Islam and the self-hating nihilism of the modern left scares me shitless.

  • Ron G

    Yes, I am afraid of Islam. I am also afraid of communism, and Nazism, and Alzheimer’s. I don’t like what happens to people who are infected by any one of them. To say that some Muslims are decent and charming people is like saying some decent and charming people were/are Nazis. So what? Does that make Islam better, or worse?
    That decent and charming people believe that a thieving, raping, murdering shit from Arabia is a prophet from god and the ideal Muslim does not lessen the fear (and to those enamored of Sufism, don’t forget that they believe the same thing, and many have also killed in the name of their sect). That decent and charming people supported Hitler and the Nazis does not make Nazism any better; they in fact helped the Nazi regime and prolonged the war (and I can cite examples from my own family). I don’t believe that one can separate a persons morality from their ideology. I suspect rather, that ones morality helps define ones ideology.
    As for those who denigrate fear and hate, let us not forget that these emotions are even more basic for our survival than love and altruism. It IS natural to fear that which wishes to destroy us, and it IS natural to hate that which motivates the destroyers. The problems occur when the objects of hate and fear are irrationally conceived. Rarely has the West attempted to totally destroy the Islamic world; in fact we have at best struggled for some breathing space against it. Any fear we thus have of Islam is existential and thus rationally conceived.

  • Nick M

    Chris Harper,
    Much though I appreciate your vivid portrayal of the reality of what Islam often stands for I hope you don’t mind if you’re not invited to my next dinner party. It would quite ruin the ambience.

    I think you’re wrong on one big thing though. Anybody who didn’t want to be convinced would just hit back that (a)those are cultural and not religious practises – and they’d be right about the FGM on that call. And (b) muslims in more civilised parts of the world don’t normally exhibit such barbarism so these are artefacts of poverty rather than Islam per se.

    So… I think a better tack is to direct them to one of the many online “fatwa banks” where rulings on all aspects of life can be found and explain that Islam is a juridicial religion with laws set in stone 1300 years ago covering the entire political, economic, moral and religious spheres. Tell them there is no room in Islam for personal judgement or morality, no mystical or transcendental aspect* and no space for mercy or forgiveness there is just following the rules to the letter or else.

    Then explain some Islamic concepts. Tell ‘em what a Hudna is and about Taqiyyah. Tell ‘em about Islam’s pathological aversion to giving up any territory ever. Sprinkle in a few Koranic verses (explaining how the earlier more tolerant parts are abrogated by the later psychotic ones). Then ask them if they now see the Madrid train bombings as being about a little bit more than the Spanish Government’s support for Bush and just possibly the first blow in a jihad to re-take Al-Andalus?

    Maybe by now you might have convinced them that Islam isn’t a peaceful religion hi-jacked by a bunch of nutters but is intrinsically a demented faith – a kind of OCD with added violence and the many good people who are muslims are good despite their faith.

    (For the record I do think most of the Jihadi’s gripes are political in nature and just couched in religious terms but then Islam is the politicised religion par excellence).

    *Apart from the heavily persecuted Sufi sect.

    bob,
    intra-statal Vernichtungskrieg that last happened in Germany during the 30 Years War

    Are you Paul Marks in disguise?

  • Nick M

    Chris Harper,

    There’s tons of stuff out there. How do you think I got to know my wudu from my shirk? I actually find it quite fascinating in the same way a psychiatrist finds total nutters fascinating. The more you delve the weirder it gets.

    One of the strangest things that I discovered is that the fact that most muslims can’t read C7th Arabic they still have recitation contests in the madrassas. The kids learn the book phonetically and the contest is judged on how it sounds.

    Chris, I think you might have a good idea there. Want some help?

  • Chris Harper

    Nick,

    Yep, I don’t think there is a single statement you made there I would disagree with. Although I was so looking forward to revolting your bosses wife just after she says “Why can’t we all just live together”

    However, you go down the pub and after two pints no one wants to hear you pontification on about the difference between a hudna and a peace treaty. No one cares enough to listen to why I believe the acceptance of taqiyyah of itself corrupts Islamic society. They don’t want to know the difference between the pre and post hijra verses of the Koran. and nor do they want to know the textual context of – “There is no compulsion in religion”.

    So what the hell, tell another component of the truth and sicken them instead. That they will remember.

    I know there is a lot of stuff out there, I have trawled a lot of it myself. And in some of it you have to have a high tolerance for that nonsense string – (pbuh). A bit like reading Homer I guess, you just start tuning out references to “rosy fingered dawn”, or variants thereof.

    What I want to put together tho is, in part, the sort of independent reference for non muslims that I kept looking for, but never found.

    Have you ever seen the films of boys in madrassas, rocking back and forth and reciting verse after verse in a language they had no knowledge of? That can be their schooling, their whole schooling, learning to recite an entire book with less meaning to them than Jabberwocky. Am I the only person who regards this as a waste of a life? Child abuse even?

    Need help? Yep. If this works it could be a next ten year commitment though.

    Anyone else?

    Try countingcats@gmail.com as an initial contact.

    I bags the job of chief executive senior editing facilitator tho.

    Tell ‘em about Islam’s pathological aversion to giving up any territory ever

    Should we have an article entitled “The tragedy of al Andalus” then?

    I suppose we gotta.

  • Chris Harper and Uain are on the right track. The best way to fight reality-denial is to confront people with the graphic truth of the situation.

    On the issue of how many people would be willing to “fight to the death” to make sure America stays the kind of society that has gay rights, abortion, and pornography (pedophilia is a red herring, I condemn it and so does everyone I know), it depends what you mean. I’d be unlikely to be willing to die for that cause, but I’d be very willing to kill for it, which is more relevant. I do not consider myself a liberal, but many liberals I have met are very aware of, and hostile to, the Islamist threat. They do know that it’s hugely hostile to their values.

    The view that Islam is not intrinsically any more violent or dangerous than other major religions, but has merely been “hijacked” by “extremists” just as any religion theoretically could be, is a view that could only be held by people ignorant of Islamic history, ideology, and sacred texts. But knowledge about those things is easily available to anyone who makes a serious effort to learn about them, as increasing numbers of people are doing, so this head-in-the-sand attitude will decline in the future.

    Am I afraid of Islam? It would be foolish not to be somewhat afraid of an ideology with so many followers, the goals of which include the destruction of the free secular way of life we have in the West and the killing or enslavement of me and everyone like me. As others have pointed out, we have the technology to defeat them or even destroy them, and I believe in the long run we will win. But they may well draw more blood — much more than on Sept. 11 — before we are aroused enough to make an end to this menace.

  • Midwesterner

    (What is the collective noun for moonbats?)

    A flutter of moonbats.

  • Gabriel

    However, there is no point in pretending that (for all the crimes of Christians) Jesus was like Mohammed (study the life of this man) or that the Islamic scriptures are like the New Testiment. Although I fully admit that there are some parts of the Old Testiment that are vile.

    For example, I hope that I do not have a rose tinted view of war – but Joshua’s way of war (exterminating whole cities, stealing land, and murdering or enslaving everyone his people came upon) shocked even me when I read about in the Old Testiment.

    And all because God told him to do it.

    Either Joshua was telling lies (or was deluded) and there was no voice in his head. Or there was a voice – the voice of Satan.

    Still this part of the Old Testiment is based upon oral tradition and was not written down till centuries after the supposed events, so one can hope it is not accurate – but that is a weak defence.

    Jesus was a deranged cult leader, who taught vile and wicked doctrines about the nature of divine justice and was lucky to get crucified before he went all Bob Jones on his gang of brainwashed apostles.

    Joshua, on the other hand, was a prophet and hero.

    Just saying.

  • I held out some hope that 7/7 would wake people in the UK the hell up about the Islamist threat in their midst. And it might have done but they are now being beaten down by the political correct lot who are taking those feelings of anger and trying to reduce it to “White guilt” all over again.

    It will take another far worse 9/11 tragedy to get them to truly turn on the politically correct bullshit and wake up to real threat that exists in the UK.

  • Chris Harper

    (pedophilia is a red herring, I condemn it and so does everyone I know)

    Except that Islam wishes to ban the other things but will allow pedophilia. It is a complete inversion of what I see as human decency.

    Kill adulterous women and gays, and don’t just legalise child molestation, but legitimise it.

    Mohammad did it, he is the moral exemplar, so make it available to all.

  • Except that Islam wishes to ban the other things but will allow pedophilia. It is a complete inversion of what I see as human decency.

    This is a very good point and one which should be added to the list of “graphic truths” about Islam with which reality-deniers need to be confronted. The story of Muhammad and Aisha, and the stance it forces Islam itself to take on this issue, are utterly repulsive to any normal person, whether liberal or conservative or whatever.

  • veryretired

    Ah, Mid, just right. Flutter gives that ephemeral hint of mental processes in fibrillation.

    And further, what do you think—a chatter of intellectuals? A cocktail of tranzis?

    Your turn.

  • murph

    I’m afraid that my fellow western citizenry is prepared to roll over for Islam.

  • Chris Harper

    a failure of tranzies?
    a selfregard of tranzies?
    an incompetence of tranzies?
    an isolation of tranzies?
    a hotel of tranzies?
    a conspiracy of tranzies?
    a fraud of tranzies?
    an irrelevance of tranzies?
    a superiority of tranzies?
    a supercility of tranzies?
    a brown nose of tranzies?
    an importance of tranzies?
    a flight of tranzies?
    an insult of tranzies?
    a waste of tranzies?

    This one is really really easy. I could keep going all night (it is 1:40 AM in this part of the world right now).

    Ok, morning.

  • Chris Harper

    it is the followers of political Islamism (and their fellow travellers) who are the problem.

    Nope, can’t agree.

    Islam is a political movement every bit as much as it is a religious one. The two components are so intertwined that they cannot reasonably be teased apart.

    Islam is not a religion as we tend to view them in Christendom, it is a whole life thing, dictating structure in both the public as well as the private sphere. Any system of law outside Sharia is invalid, because it places man made law at the level of, or above the laws of God. For a Muslim to support this could render them kafir, and liable to capital punishment.

  • Afraid of islam?

    In the same way I am afraid of socialism, communism, fascism, environmentalism, christianism, judaism, and other similar evangelical movements: yes.

    They seek to kill me for my own good, either explicitly, as in juda/christian/islam-ism, (being atheist I am under automatic death sentence in all), or effectivly, as in the others.

    (perhaps we can incorporate the J-C-I triad into abrahamism?)

    so far as the people go, 90% or better just go along to get along, believe or belong to, whatever majority religion or party holds sway where they grew up or live. They are not the problem. It is the other 10% or so that are the dangerous ones, they support the 1% or so that will actually, physically, engage in violence, whether through bombs or badges.

  • Midwesterner

    a reversion of Greens
    a quarrel of deligates
    a shearing of assessors
    a pontificate of experts
    a derision of Democrats
    a revile of Republicans
    a predation of Labor
    a collusion of Tories
    a block of bureaucrats
    a babble of spokesmen
    a kleption of candidates
    a scheme of collaborators
    a perception of Samizdatistas
    a distraction of commenters

    Which reminds me. I’m OT. Back to the threat of Islam.

    an arrogation of Muslims.

  • Midwesterner

    I think the key point that only a few have touched on is how Islam is triggering a (preexisting?) self destruct switch in our society.

    The attacks on our nations had a very finite consequence. On the other hand, our response to those attacks has been to accept things that are in fact far worse. I have heard politicians repeatedly set the benchmark of one act of terrorism is too much. That we must do anything it takes to prevent even one of them.

    That is suicidal not to mention impossible. We must take thoughtful precautions to reduce the consequences of an attack. But our primary focus of prevention must always be outward, not inward. The existence of terrorists is not our fault. Terrorism certainly predates recorded history. Our liberties are not to blame for our being attacked. Our enemies are. We need to lighten up domestically, keep only prepositioning bases internationally (not occupations), and retaliate in no small way when cultures attack and even try to conquer us.

    I’ve heard this 90% argument before. If that is the case, then there is no excuse for terrorists to have any bases of operation. But they do. Any nation who’s population knowingly harbors a terrorist is a terrorist. If those passive collaborators fear their co-religionists more than they fear our reaction to attack, the fault is ours.

  • Simon Jester

    How about:
    a shriek of moonbats
    and
    a twittering of tranzies?

  • Midwesterner, So far as the 90% goes, that is a generality I have observed in any organization. Others have said the same in my experience.

    Take any group of people that are together for any reason, 90% are followers that are there for no particular reason, other than, perhaps, affinity if they were not born into the group, 10% are active in supporting and working towards the groups goals, if any, and only 1% will be leaders and activists. This has been true in my experience for political groups, religios groups, (if atheists are considered a religion), bicycle, gun, aquarium, mushroom hunting or high IQ clubs, and any other group I have ever belonged to.

    While ultimately you can probably lay blame on an entire population for the actions of the activists and leaders, I am not certain I would condemn them for what I believe to be a failing of human nature, rather than a deliberately chosen act.

    There is a difference between being born in the PRC and actually taking part in millions-slaughtered pogroms as a party aparachik.

  • Pa Annoyed

    Chris Harper,

    It’s an interesting idea, and I’d have loved to have found such a site when I was starting, although I think if you want to do it you’ll need to get a few more experts than us here on board. I know enough to argue with most debaters, enough even to have been asked by practicing Muslims if I’d be willing to contribute a few essays on Islam to their web-sites, since I knew more about it than they did (oh boy, that was funny!), but I don’t have the deep theological and historical knowledge that you would need to withstand the sort of intellectual attacks to its credibility such a website could face.

    Another point that you ought to consider most seriously is security, both for yourselves and your readers. If your site acquired the sort of profile that I think you’d like, and there’s no telling on the internet when fame might be thrust upon you, you can expect some serious opposition – the sort that governments and transnationals can supply. You can expect attacks on and attempts to vandalise the site, pressure applied to the web host, your employers if they can trace them, and you personally. There was Paul Belien in Belgium threatened with prosecution under incitement laws for his blog, and others have been “questioned by the police following complaints”. And don’t forget copyright, claims of libel, general digging of dirt, and other tools of the fascist opponents of free speech. And there are people who have been killed for doing this sort of stuff.

    I’m told Theo Van Gogh’s last words were “Don’t do it. Have mercy.” There are a whole range of others under police protection, some forced to move home and go into hiding. You can expect your neighbours, friends and family to have a view, too. I might be being a bit paranoid here :-), and it is most likely that your project would languish in obscurity, or perhaps evoke no more than the usual rudeness from the islamopundits and netnutters, but there is quite a difference between making occasional anonymous comments on blogs and deliberately setting up shop as “Islamophobe Central”.

    There are a few other sites around that make the attempt, and you ought to be sure there isn’t something out there already doing it you’ve missed. If you’re still up for it, I would suggest trying to get a bunch of material together based on your own knowledge to give a framework that others could then slot stuff into. If you’re going to be executive senior editing facillitator, then you’re going to have to come up with the clever creative bit. ;-) You may be sure; if you get some of the content wrong, people will tell you about it. The most important thing is right from the start to get the structure more or less right.
    Incidentally, a Muslim jurist did such a project back in the mid-1300s gathering together a summary of all Islamic law and practice in a manual designed for the Muslim traveller abroad: Reliance of the Traveller is extremely informative, and you might usefully borrow its structure. Seriously, if you haven’t already got it, go buy this book right now.

    I wouldn’t say no to getting the odd essay published, or maybe quite a bit more, but I’m afraid I’ll have to decline an active editorial role, at least for a few years yet. I have other stuff on at the moment that, let us say, wouldn’t be compatible.

  • J

    Afraid of Islam? Why? I like Islam. I like its aesthetic, just as I like the Christian aesthetic. Those blue tiles, and the elevation of a writing system to an art form. It rocks.

    Also, I like Islam’s fanatical approach to monotheism. They really care. It has that whole mathematical, monochrome, monotheistic, black and white “This is how it is” thing going on. I like that. It’s the exact opposite of Hinduism, which is all billions of colourful gods with too many hands, and glad rags and holy cows and a different version in every village. I like Hinduism too. Actually I prefer Buddhism, but I digress.

    I mean, if I had to be, say, Shi’ite or Presbyterian, I’m with Allah all the way. And I’d rather be anything than calvinist. I would personally prefer being allowed to remain lapsed RC, but hey.

    Now, am I afraid of members of islam killing me? No, the odds are stupidly small, I’m more afraid if being killed in a train crash, and I’m not remotely afraid of that, even though it’s far more likely.

    Now, am I afraid of people who believe strongly in islam causing, via some kind of reasonable non-violent means, changes in my society that I will dislike? Well, a bit. But I’m more afraid of groups _other_ than Islam doing the same. Socialists, for instance. And young people. And Libertarians.

    So, all in all, not really very afraid of Islam. Just in case you think I’m terribly brave, here’s a sensible list of things to be afraid of:

    1. My parents getting Alzheimers
    2. Regretting not having children
    3. Chronic disease
    4. Getting divorced one day

    All of these have depressingly high odds. Some of them I can mitigate, some of them I can’t. All, should they happen, would be far worse for me than even the most derranged imaginings LGF style dhimmitude/eurabia nonsense.

    So, I’ll continue trying to deal with the aspects of life that cause me real fear, and will continue to not worry about Islam. Or Presbyterianism.

  • Pa Annoyed

    “How horrible, fantastic it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing. I am myself a man of peace from the depths of my soul.”

  • Uain

    Nick M said;
    “Uain,
    What the hell does the availability of pay per view porn and abortion have to do with this?

    These are sacraments of the western left. Last week a San Fransisco politician got the mayor to officially declare a day of appreciation for a hard core gay porno studio located in town.
    My point is that although the western left holds their views with a religious intensity and declare their own form of jihad against any and all transgressors, I submit that they will do nothing to save it when it comes to fighting or die for their beliefs.
    This is because beliefs that promise an after life will inspire people to fight to the death. Or those who love their families and communities will fight to defend them. Not so with the present western left which has created a culture that provides unlimited personal gratification while denigrating the concept that there is anything worth fighting to preserve.
    Islam through out it’s history has easily conquered cultures that were superior in military strength, wealth and accomplishment. All because these cultures were indolent in their wealth and comfort, like ours.

    My final point;
    If a Christian preacher was quoted as saying any non-Christian or person of alternative sexual predeliction was only fit for death AND his parishoners should take upon themselves to do it, there would be a thunderous outcry.
    How many times each Friday in any Western city does this occur and is met with a deafening silence?

  • Uain, again, being willing to kill for what you value is more important in practical terms than being willing to die for it.

    Speaking as an atheist, I for one would fight all the harder and more ruthlessly against any threat to my existence that I think is serious. My life is that much more important to me because I don’t believe in an afterlife.

    I also don’t fear divine judgment. A Christian might hesitate, for “moral” reasons, to carry out mass deportations or use nuclear weapons on Muslim targets even if he believed Western security depended on it. I wouldn’t hesitate for a second if I really believed that that were the situation.

    I know I’m not the only atheist who feels this way.

    The Muslim rabble-rousers in Europe and Russia are playing with fire more dangerous than they know.

  • Ibn Warraq

    Shit scared.

  • Chris Harper

    tomWright

    as in juda/christian/islam-ism, (being atheist I am under automatic death sentence in all),

    No you aren’t. There have been Christian societies where you may have been, but there is nothing in Christian theology where you are condemned to death for non belief. And until the death of Julian the Apostate, about mid C4th, there would have been no possibility that any such religious injunction could have been enforced, or even advocated, without automatic extinction of all of Christianity. We are not talking about sporadic and short term persecution here, but root and branch elimination by the Roman authorities. The worst Christian theology offers you is eternal damnation in the afterlife. It is quite relaxed about having a pint with you in this life.

    Judaism? If you are not a Jew then Judaism just plain doesn’t care about you. You are one of Gods works, and therefore are an example of why God should be glorified, but as for the state of either your soul in the next life, or your spiritual wellbeing in this one? You are of no interest. Judaism is not a proselytising religion and just plain doesn’t care enough about you to kill you.

    This is the Christian/jewish/Hindu/Buddhist/Calathumpian fundamentalists are as bad as the Muslim variety meme. They are not.

    Christian fundamentalists believe in the Garden of Eden, Muslim fundamentalists fly planes into buildings.

    There is a difference.

  • Nick M

    Uain,

    I’m what Dawkins would call a “principled agnostic” (he doesn’t seem to like them much more than he likes Christians).

    I would fight to the death (if it came to it) to protect those things and people dear to me. And I know this applies to a great many people I know of a similar persuasion. There have been a lot of atheist in the fox-holes over the years. Life and liberty are especially valuable and fighting injustice especially important to those of us who think it’s probably once round the block, then nothing.

    Christians, Jews, Agnostics, Pagans, Hindus and all the rest have a great deal of common cause against militant Islam.

    Let’s have an example. The antics of the “Gay Village” in Manchester have nothing to do with me. The services at my local Catholic church are similarly irrelevant. But in a Shar’ia state both would be persecuted. Both therefore have a vested interest in preventing that from ever coming to pass.

    When I say “fight to the death” I mean preferably to the enemies death, not my own. I’ll quote that noted “liberal” thinker George Patton, “You win a war by getting the other bastard to die for his country”.

    In answer to your final point. Well, it outrages me!

    Infidel753,
    Rattle them sabres! ;-)

  • Nick M

    Smitten again!

    I forgot to say this though:

    Mid,
    I like “flutter of moonbats” but I prefer “flitter” because of it’s relationship to the archaic English “flittermouse”.

    I’ll add one more:

    An embarrassment of celebrities.

    Which reminds me. Earlier this week my wife and I were thinking up collective nouns for nationalities. These are the ones I remember:

    An inebriation of Finns
    A despondency of Swedes
    A perfidy of Frenchmen
    A belligerence of Germans (post ’45 – ” a contrition”)
    A waffle of Belgians
    A line of Colombians

  • Chris, The death penalty is mandated in the old testament, which applies to both xtians and jews, for, among other things:

    Sacrificing to false gods (Exodus 22:20)

    Violating the Sabbath (Exodus 35:2; Numbers 15:32-15:36)

    Blasphemy, cursing or denying God (Leviticus 24:16,24:23)

    False prophets (Deuteronomy 13:10), and their followers (Deuteronomy 13:12-13:18).

    All of which can and have been applied to atheists and those that refuse xtianity.

    Further, hearing stories from Israel where jewish fundies there are attacking people for violating religious bans, like mixing male and female on buses or not observing their sabbath, leads me to think that fundie jews care as much about enforcing their religious insanity as fundie xtians do.

    Having read and heard what many xtian fundies say here in the US, as well as the more conservative anglicans and catholics in South America, Africa and Asia, it would seem both xtian and jewish fundies seek to use violence on others.

    Just because we have not seen it recently in European based societies, does not mean it is gone or ceased to occur.

  • Nick M

    Tom Wright,
    That’s as maybe but (a) pretty much all Christian denominations don’t have a blanket ban on “innovations in religion”. Even the most extreme fundamentalist protestants are by definition an innovation. And (b) it is a matter of proportion and threat-level. Extreme Orthodox Jewish fundamentalists could never conceivably be more than a very small local threat. (b) Christian extremists just aren’t as violent anywhere near as often as their muslim counterparts. With the exception of nutcases like Fred Phelps they are nowhere near as vitriolic or nasty as the likes of Abu Hamza, Omar Bakri, Adam Gadahn or a horde of others. Uain had a good point here. There is only one Fred Phelps but there are hundreds or thousands of imams across the western world spewing similar bile to his. Mr Phelps self-identifies as a Baptist. All the US Baptist organisations have categorically denounced him. If only we could see the same coming from “mainstream” muslim groups without the usual ifs, buts and references to US/UK foreign policy or the Palestinians.

    You play-up way too much the shared heritage of the Abramaic (sp?) faiths. They are very different from each other and the shared heritage of the OT is interpreted in very different ways. It isn’t just the what a sacred book says that matters (though, obviously it does) but how that book’s religion commands it’s followers to interpret it.

  • Nick M

    J,
    So you like Islam’s aesthetic aspects. Well I like the tiling to and the rugs though I could live without hijabs and beards.

    What I don’t like is it’s morality and I’m sure in religion morality is more important than aesthetics by several orders of magnitude.

  • Chris Harper

    Tom Wright

    Christians and Jews in the main have adapted to the Enlightenment, and incorporate elements into their beliefs and practices, not only in the West but everywhere else as well. Or at least they don’t, in the main, regard most enlightenment values as completely antithetical.

    As have Hindus, Shintoists, Buddhists, Animists, Zoroastrians, and just about any other damn fantasy based belief you care to mention.

    However, who are the only significant group of religious observers who not only reject the Enlightenment, but are viciously violent in that rejection?

    I will give you one guess.

    Speaking as an atheist, living and working in a predominatley Christian society, the claim that you are in danger from Christians, or Jews, strikes me as an absurd piece of moral equivocating.

  • Midwesterner

    Tom Wright,

    Christians, at least fundamentalist evangelicals, consider the Old Testament to be entirely a book of history except for the prophecies. None of the laws of the Old Testament are binding on Christians who are followers of the New Testament. I can not tell you the number of times during my very fundamentalist upbringing the number of times my teachers pointed out “how wonderful it is that we are no longer subject to those laws.”

    Whenever I here somebody spouting off those kinds of Old Testament passages as ‘Christian’, I know there is politics afoot. Certainly not theology. In fundamentalist Christianity they are the infallible record, but it is an historical record. If you attend a church where your pastor is teaching those passages you quote as ‘Christian’ law, you need to sit him down and have a talk.

    I do not know how Judaism has addressed this matter, but it is pretty obvious they have.

  • Chris Harper

    Tom Wright,

    In all religions that I know off, including Islam, latter revelations supersede earlier ones.

    That is why the laws of the Old Testament are not binding on Christians, they have been superseded by the teachings of The Christ. That is also why the earlier and more peaceful Meccan verses of the Koran can be ignored when they conflict with the more violent, intolerant and bloodthirsty verses from the later Medinan period.

    I am not as familiar with Judaism as I think I should be, but it is my understanding that the chief source of Jewish Law is not the Torah, but the Talmud, which is a great deal less bloodthirsty and more realistic.

    The comparison between The Bible and the Koran as justifications to act simply do not stand up.

  • Patrick

    Yes. It’s easy to ignore the global agenda of Islam’s core zealots, that is until we in the West lose somthing we actually care about, say a European nation (never say never, half of Europe was lost to Islam before the Christian kings finally got off their in-fighting arses and launched a counter offensive the last time) or access to some vital resource that keeps our society running.

    A few here stated the dead-on truth, if we were dealing with these issues with the WWII generation (or even the Westerners of 500-700 years ago) the West would be able to survive and counter-punch, now that isn’t the case.

    Europe is hyper-pacifistic, PC flat-footed and incapable of mounting a proper defense (be it demographic nor strategic) anti-Christian trends have destroyed the main social coagulant that helped save the West the last time, and America? America seems to be suffering not unlike the conclusion of Hamlet, suffering from a slow death from the poison blade wound, in the USA’s case it was what was born on the streets of America during and after Vietnam. Living long enough to slay the immediate most obvious enemy (the Soviet Union) but will it survive the poison that coarses through its veins now, the self-loathing, the lack of intestinal fortitude, a suicidally-predatory mainstream media, the zeal of it’s loudest activists and many rank and file types to wound and loathe itself rather than tend to it’s mortal enemies, this as has been typical since the latter half of Vietnam, this does not bode well in facing an enemy who is happy to die for his cause, facing those with deep faith that they will prevail.

  • Sue

    I fear Islam because it responds to a deeply felt and common human need: emotional and moral certainty. Suscribers to Islam surrender their scary freedom to a rule and an order that solves all their problems and answers all their questions. Can’t you all see how seductive that is? Christianity as a doctrine is more compatible with the concept of human freedom than Islam. Unfortunately the West is so full of self-loathing that I fear for its ability to defend its own precepts.

  • Phil A

    Re: “If you’re afraid of an idea you’re as bad as the fuckwits having hysterics over drawings”

    No – An idea on it’s own with no one to have it in their head is one thing, but you miss the point.

    What makes it dangerous is when it gets into someone’s head and they believe it.

    What makes it dangerous is when it is not grounded in reality.

    What makes it dangerous is when it starts making them infect others with copies of itself.

    What makes it dangerous is when it makes people who have it in their heads do mad, bad, things to those who don’t have the exact same idea in their heads.

    You would have to have seriously missed the point not to be concerned. Smell that coffee!

  • Chris Harper

    Re: “If you’re afraid of an idea you’re as bad as the fuckwits having hysterics over drawings”

    Um, you mean that the sword is mightier than the pen?

    Sorry, without going into pages and pages of justification please accept that it is my opinion that ideas can be the scariest things in the world.

    Try these –

    1, It is right and proper to sexually mutilate little girls without anesthetic. Or with for that matter.

    2, It is right and proper to kill people who disagree with me.

    3, Your opinion on religion/politics/economics is in my opinion just that, an opinion. Not truth, and I choose to disagree with you.

    4, I am right. You are wrong. However, I could be wrong, you could be right, so how about we are each entitled to hold out opinions.

    Dunno about you, but I am pretty scared of 1 and 2. Even disgusted by them, but relaxed by 3 & 4.

    You?