The Muslims are Taking Over The World

[jeffrey smith]

I have stated it numerous times I believe. I was born and raised in Australia. I have excellent English and thankfully no Australian accent. I also disagree that becoming Muslim means that you've abandoned your country, quite the contrary actually. I believe that if a Muslim properly understands the Libertarian ideas within Islam it would make them stick up for the constitution more and thus become a better American.

Right! Sure. A better American like Jihad Jane. Or Azzam the American. See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Yahiye_Gadahn for details.

Caution! Before any of you believe this man look up taqiyya (Arabic for deceit). The doctrine of deceit is part and parcel of Islam. Then decide if what our buddy here is saying is truthful.

Keep in mind that we Americans are part of the dar al harb which it is the mission of Islam to destroy or subjugate. When your enemy smiles at you, don't be so quick to be taken in. Think about it carefully. Have a look at this site for more details:

http://www.meforum.org/2095/islams-doctrines-of-deception

Islam is Submission to the will of Allah. There is no liberty there. It is pure slavery of both the body and the soul.

Ba'al Chatzaf

That is the utmost in bigotry. You take a limited practice, distort its meaning and declare it is universal, and pretend to know what Adonis' state of mind is by ascribing to him what you have falsely universalized.

The blindest of all are those that sew their own eyes shut.

Jeffrey S.

[Robert Campbell]

Bob K,

I'm really tired of this taqiyya business.

Lying for political purposes is not the exclusive attribute of any race, color, or creed.

Calling it by an Arabic name and attaching that name to Islam as a whole is ridiculous.

Islam has plenty of genuine liabilities, so far as I am concerned. (I have several questions for Adonis that he hasn't answered yet—such as whether he, as an observant Muslim, feels obliged to comply with hadith that call for executing gay men.)

There's no need to invent a bogus liability.

Robert C

[Brant Gaede]

Submission to the will of Allah simply begs the question of not what that is, but was. Unless Allah talks directly to someone like God supposedly did to Joan of Arc what we have is what He told His Prophet plus interpretations and variations enough to sectify the religion. To me any religious war going on between Muslims and Christians is powered not by the religion primarily, but despotic countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran and a commodity called oil.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Islam has plenty of genuine liabilities, so far as I am concerned...

There's no need to invent a bogus liability.

Robert,

You have no idea what a relief it is to me to read stuff like this. And see others writing in this vein, too.

Facts are--and have to be--the standard.

Michael

[Michelle]

What, apparently people here were under the impression that every Muslim man was an irrational savage with gore dripping from his jaws?

Of course, it is important to realize that murderous beliefs and a civilized attitude are not mutually exclusive. Even "moderate" Muslim leaders were calling for Salmon Rushdie's head, after all.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michelle,

That Rushdie thing is part of the insanity of Iran's leadership. If Khomeini had not done that, I doubt the mainstream in Iran would have. I am pretty sure the opposition in Iran (which is made up of Muslims) doesn't think that was a good idea.

This is a very good reason to promote separation of church and state in the Muslim world, and promote small government. When one man gets too much power, if he is a nutter, he is in a position to do a lot of senseless damage.

Michael

[Michelle]

Michelle,

That Rushdie thing is part of the insanity of Iran's leadership. If Khomeini had not done that, I doubt the mainstream in Iran would have. I am pretty sure the opposition in Iran (which is made up of Muslims) doesn't think that was a good idea.

This is a very good reason to promote separation of church and state in the Muslim world, and promote small government. When one man gets too much power, if he is a nutter, he is in a position to do a lot of senseless damage.

Michael

You do realize that there were prominent Muslim leaders, in England, not Iran or some other Middle-Eastern death pit, who were agreeing with Khomeini's fatwa. Not only that, but supposedly "civilized" people were ACTUALLY WILLING TO KILL RUSHDIE THEMSELVES IF THE OPPORTUNITY PRESENTED ITSELF. Hell, even the Muslim Parliament supported the fatwa. These aren't psychos or minority viewpoints.

What the hell can you say about people, full citizens of a first-world nation like England, who are willing to kill a man for writing a novel in order to defend the faith? I especially fear for America. How many Muslims here would be willing to turn martyr for the glorious Allah once things intensify in the Middle East?

Edited March 12, 2010 by Michelle R

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michelle,

There is no need to be condescending.

I do realize that dangerous Islamists exist in the Western world. Especially since I do not live under a rock.

btw - Do you have any idea of a solution? I happen to be doing something about it. You may agree or disagree with what I am doing, but I am doing something. What are you doing? Telling others that Islam is bad?

That ought to work.

I already went through all this fear-mongering crap with Leonid. Do I have to go through it with you, too?

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

What the hell can you say about people, full citizens of a first-world nation like England, who are willing to kill a man for writing a novel in order to defend the faith? I especially fear for America. How many Muslims here would be willing to turn martyr for the glorious Allah once things intensify in the Middle East?

I fear we shall find out the hard way. So many good folks are victims of their own good nature. They refuse to see evil and danger when it is staring them in the face.

Ba"al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

So many good folks are victims of their own good nature. They refuse to see evil and danger when it is staring them in the face.

Bob,

I don't.

If you want to destroy a target, you have to identify it correctly. Your shotgun approach, taking out innocent and guilty alike in nuke 'em all salvos, doesn't work in any area of life I know of. Not physically. Not intellectually. It certainly didn't work in eliminating the Jews. The Nazis found that one out the hard way. What makes you think it will work eliminating the Islamists?

I am not advocating murder of the Islamists, either. Just the ones who attack or are in clear and present danger of attacking. We have a military for that.

My battle is intellectual. (I don't expect to convince any Islamists, either. But I can make a bridge to moderate Muslims and shed light on freedom.) The first order is to identify correctly. Not point in a general direction and say in a panic, "All of them!"

Michael

[Michelle]

Michelle,

There is no need to be condescending.

I do realize that dangerous Islamists exist in the Western world. Especially since I do not live under a rock.

btw - Do you have any idea of a solution? I happen to be doing something about it. You may agree or disagree with what I am doing, but I am doing something. What are you doing? Telling others that Islam is bad?

That ought to work.

I already went through all this fear-mongering crap with Leonid. Do I have to go through it with you, too?

Michael

If I come off as condescending, I don't mean to be. And I'm not fear-mongering. But I do think there is a difference between a rational fear and an irrational fear. If these "dangerous Islamists" were merely individual nutjobs, I wouldn't think much more of it. Every ideology has its extremists. The problem with Islam is that even many of the supposedly "moderate" Muslim leaders harbor dangerous, potentially lethal beliefs. And this is because their beliefs are perfectly legitimate within the context of their religion.

What to do about them? To be honest, I have no idea. But that doesn't make a sober assessment of the danger Islam poses to the rest of the world illegitimate. And the simple fact is that "extremists" are not the only dangerous ones. Heck, they might even be the less dangerous ones, since the moderates have access to the mainstream of society.

From what I've seen, we don't disagree on anything of a factual nature. So I would ask why you're reacting so violently to what I said? I'm not a Geert Wilders, and I'm certainly not a Bob.

[bmacwilliam]

You do realize that there were prominent Muslim leaders, in England, not Iran or some other Middle-Eastern death pit, who were agreeing with Khomeini's fatwa. Not only that, but supposedly "civilized" people were ACTUALLY WILLING TO KILL RUSHDIE THEMSELVES IF THE OPPORTUNITY PRESENTED ITSELF. Hell, even the Muslim Parliament supported the fatwa. These aren't psychos or minority viewpoints.

I get frustrated with the "Yeah but every religion has whackos" argument too. I might not agree though that these folks aren't psychos, and the viewpoint could indeed be minority. After all there are hundreds of millions of civilized muslims that largely ignore, or at least selectively apply their religion and are decent sane human beings.

BUT, your point is a critical one. There are levels of support for these reprehensible ideas like this that put Islam in a league of its own. We're not just talking about fundamentalist sects and whacko cults. Like you said, there's institutionalized "parliamentary" support for this, and that makes it dangerous.

Recently, the government in my area actually considered allowing the Muslim community to implement Sharia Law. Thankfully, enough anger erupted in response and it was rejected. But DAMN, that was too close!

However, Bob K (Baal) is a perfect example of the dangers of not separating the people (Muslims) from the risk of acquiring a serious mental illness(Islam) and so the racism accusation inevitably gets tossed in there (deserved or not) for anyone "insulting" Islam.

I have no irrational fear of Islam, but I do fear it. I fear it like I fear cancer. It's a nasty, dangerous disease.

Edited March 12, 2010 by Bob_Mac

[bmacwilliam]

and I'm certainly not a Bob.

Maybe just clarify "Bob" a little next time if I may make a humble suggestion ;)

[Selene]

You do realize that there were prominent Muslim leaders, in England, not Iran or some other Middle-Eastern death pit, who were agreeing with Khomeini's fatwa. Not only that, but supposedly "civilized" people were ACTUALLY WILLING TO KILL RUSHDIE THEMSELVES IF THE OPPORTUNITY PRESENTED ITSELF. Hell, even the Muslim Parliament supported the fatwa. These aren't psychos or minority viewpoints.

I get frustrated with the "Yeah but every religion has whackos" argument too. I might not agree though that these folks aren't psychos, and the viewpoint could indeed be minority. After all there are hundreds of millions of civilized muslims that largely ignore, or at least selectively apply their religion and are decent sane human beings.

BUT, your point is a critical one. There are levels of support for these reprehensible ideas like this that put Islam in a league of its own. We're not just talking about fundamentalist sects and whacko cults. Like you said, there's institutionalized "parliamentary" support for this, and that makes it dangerous.

Recently, the government in my area actually considered allowing the Muslim community to implement Sharia Law. Thankfully, enough anger erupted in response and it was rejected. But DAMN, that was too close!

However, Bob K (Baal) is a perfect example of the dangers of not separating the people (Muslims) from the risk of acquiring a serious mental illness(Islam) and so the racism accusation inevitably gets tossed in there (deserved or not) for anyone "insulting" Islam.

I have no irrational fear of Islam, but I do fear it. I fear it like I fear cancer. It's a nasty, dangerous disease.

Bob:

Out of curiosity, what is your area, is it within the US or elsewhere on the globe?

Recently, the government in my area actually considered allowing the Muslim community to implement Sharia Law. Thankfully, enough anger erupted in response and it was rejected. But DAMN, that was too close!

Adam

[bmacwilliam]

Bob:

Out of curiosity, what is your area, is it within the US or elsewhere on the globe?

Recently, the government in my area actually considered allowing the Muslim community to implement Sharia Law. Thankfully, enough anger erupted in response and it was rejected. But DAMN, that was too close!

Adam

Ontario, Canada

[anthony]

When you strip away everything known about Islam, its similarities and differentiae with other religions, there is one last thing that sticks in my craw, that thing called >Obedience<.

Obedience to your husband, to your Imam, to your State, and to your Holy Book. Whether its by force, or by voluntary sanction, it never seems to end.

With so much of it, any individualism that still exists to a degree in other religions, has been stifled to death in this one.

O'ists, as full-blown Individualists, are I think, battling with this most of all - just because Islam is at heart, collectivist.

It appears to thrive on authority figures, and so do its practitioners.

I have personally known and worked with several (male) Muslims, each of whom has displayed high intelligence, ability, and individuality; but then, there comes a point with all of them, where they revert to glib, unthinking, conformity. I think then, what a waste of a fine individual!

Is this then, racism? Am I lumping all Muslims together under one characteristic? In defence, I certainly don't want to.

However, at which point of a people all conforming and all-obedient, do they deserve - in fact, are asking - to be treated as One?

Tony

[tjohnson]

...but then, there comes a point with all of them, where they revert to glib, unthinking, conformity.

And at what point is this? Could you be more specific?

[dan2100]

When you strip away everything known about Islam, its similarities and differentiae with other religions, there is one last thing that sticks in my craw, that thing called >Obedience<.

Obedience to your husband, to your Imam, to your State, and to your Holy Book. Whether its by force, or by voluntary sanction, it never seems to end.

With so much of it, any individualism that still exists to a degree in other religions, has been stifled to death in this one.

O'ists, as full-blown Individualists, are I think, battling with this most of all - just because Islam is at heart, collectivist.

It appears to thrive on authority figures, and so do its practitioners.

I have personally known and worked with several (male) Muslims, each of whom has displayed high intelligence, ability, and individuality; but then, there comes a point with all of them, where they revert to glib, unthinking, conformity. I think then, what a waste of a fine individual!

Is this then, racism? Am I lumping all Muslims together under one characteristic? In defence, I certainly don't want to.

However, at which point of a people all conforming and all-obedient, do they deserve - in fact, are asking - to be treated as One?

And you've never had this feeling with the more strident followers of other Abrahamic faiths? Do they not also counsel unquestioning or nearly unquestioning obedience all around?

[Robert Campbell]

Tony,

Glib, unthinking conformity has been encouraged in other religions (including Christianity, at many points in its history).

The problem in Islam is that literal adherence to the every jot and title of the Qur'an and the hadith has been taken as proof of devotion for a very long time.

Even the schools of Islamic jurisprudence have been frozen in time since somewhere around 1100.

What it's going to take to isolate and marginalize the Islamic imperialists is to oil the rusty hinges and put a bunch of shoulders to the "gates of ijtihad" (where ijtihad roughly means ongoing debate about religious precepts and their application, including novel interpretation).

They've been stuck shut for 900 years or more, so they won't give way easily. I'm not sure Adonis has begun to gauge what he's pushing against.

In the meantime, governments in Britain and Canada and such have to get real and, in this instance, get tough.

Shari'a law, as presently understood, is already a tyrannical yoke when imposed on self-declared Muslims, and a sure catastrophe, should it be imposed on the wider society. No ground can or should be conceded to it. And people like the present Archbishop of Canterbury or the cultural commissars of Norway ought to be getting ripped in the media whenever they propose the mildest concession.

And any voicing of support or expressing sympathy for orders to kill or silence in the name of religion must be met with widespread revulsion and shoulder-to-shoulder opposition.

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

From what I've seen, we don't disagree on anything of a factual nature. So I would ask why you're reacting so violently to what I said? I'm not a Geert Wilders, and I'm certainly not a Bob.

Michelle,

I don't mean to come off as violent. Sorry about that. Please read the rest below as strong feelings of a productive individual, not violence.

For starters, I get really tired of people insinuating that I can't see obvious things, then writing in all caps as if yelling. You are not the first who has done this. It rubs me the wrong way.

For the record, I do see obvious things and I don't like being yelled at.

The next point is that I usually see critics of Adonis totally ignore everything he says except the parts they want to yell about. And he has made some very important observations that need to be considered, to the extent that ignoring them is irrational. These hostile people pull out quotes, lop off the context or qualifications, cherry-pick the Qur'an. Hell, they don't even confirm whether Adonis believes half of what they attribute to him or not. They just start yelling.

That makes me think, what do the hostile people who engage Adonis want? Do they want him to stop posting on OL? Do they want to hit him? Do they want him to grovel? What?

I don't get it with all this fear and hatred. I understand the need for caution (and I am a very good person to have near in an emergency), but I just don't feel the blinding rage. I don't understand how people can tune out the following message. If you treat a person like scum, how do you expect him to respond? With gratitude?

Then there's the next point. If you don't solve a problem as big as the gap between Islam and the Western world, it will not go away on its own. We have to do something, not just complain. This thing is growing.

So what do people do when finally a Muslim person willing to discuss these things shows up? They want to throw stones at him.

Great.

Why?

This frustrates me to no end. People are not interested in being a part of a solution and they are not interested in making a solution effort of their own, but they want to crap on the efforts of those who are trying to contribute to solving things, right at the time the person is doing it. I don't have much sympathy for that. And I guess that makes me testy.

There are some very serious ideas on the table. In order to discuss them, I am not going for religious conversion with someone like Adonis. His mind is pretty well made up on metaphysics. Neither is he going to convert me and, if you look, he is not even trying. The start of a dialog with that premise is a stance of mutual respect. That's a good place to start. Not a bad place. A good place. Especially if you are going to discuss very difficult issues.

Then things get going, material starts being presented to show the problems, the perspectives get presented. Then along comes someone who starts ripping out with all kinds of rhetoric and bullying questions. And it almost always all boils down to yelling, "Can't you all see that this man is evil?"

Well I don't see that. And I don't see how that yelling contributes anything productive to anyone. Maybe it makes the yeller feel better...

But it is destructive. The thing it destroys is the small effort some people (like me, and like Adonis for that matter) are trying to do--to build a bridge in a difficult situation. I'm not talking to Ahmadinejad, for God's sake. I'm talking to Adonis, a young intelligent Muslim interested in libertarianism and in being a good person. If these bridges don't get built, the problem will never go away. It will only get worse until there is an enormous explosion of violence, say, like WWIII.

Is that what you want? That's not what I want. So I am doing what I can to try to prevent it. It's a small effort, but it's something. And if the yelling ever stops or pipes down a bit, it might even grow into a bigger bridge.

People don't need to fall on one side or another of the bridge. People have their different cultures and their own choices. But it would be nice if people could cross over for a bit and return without all hell breaking loose among their neighbors. The only alternative I see is WWIII in the end.

So I build bridges...

I have personally known and worked with several (male) Muslims, each of whom has displayed high intelligence, ability, and individuality; but then, there comes a point with all of them, where they revert to glib, unthinking, conformity. I think then, what a waste of a fine individual!

Is this then, racism? Am I lumping all Muslims together under one characteristic? In defence, I certainly don't want to.

However, at which point of a people all conforming and all-obedient, do they deserve - in fact, are asking - to be treated as One?

Tony,

That is not racism, but it is extremely presumptuous. Have you ever asked one of those fine individuals you think is a waste if he feels like a waste? Or if he thinks of his family as being supported by a waste, or maybe a waste themselves? Or if he is comfortable interacting with a person who thinks he is a waste?

In my world, you throw waste into the garbage. Is that what you are implying?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

In the meantime, governments in Britain and Canada and such have to get real and, in this instance, get tough.

Shari'a law, as presently understood, is already a tyrannical yoke when imposed on self-declared Muslims, and a sure catastrophe, should it be imposed on the wider society. No ground can or should be conceded to it. And people like the present Archbishop of Canterbury or the cultural commissars of Norway ought to be getting ripped in the media whenever they propose the mildest concession.

And any voicing of support or expressing sympathy for orders to kill or silence in the name of religion must be met with widespread revulsion and shoulder-to-shoulder opposition.

Robert,

I am in agreement with this.

On Shari'a law, there is a point where I don't know if we agree or disagree. I have no problem with a community practicing Shari'a if they do so in the manner of, say, the bylaws of an organization, or the behavior determined by any other religion operating within the country. That is, subordinate to the law of the land the community is in and not affecting anyone outside of the organization.

Michael

[Selene]

Michael and Robert:

We have some comparative existing commonality in American Family Law and Domestic Relations Law.

For example, a State Family Court, does not have automatic jurisdiction on a custody issue involving a child with one parent being from a recognized indigenous American Indian tribe. Since the indigenous American Indian tribe is a nation within the United States and has a treaty with the United States.

Another example, involves a Jewish divorce, or: get:

"A get (Hebrew: גט‎, plural gittin גיטין) is a divorce document, which according to Jewish Law, must be presented by a husband to his wife to effect their divorce. The essential text of the get is quite short: "You are hereby permitted to all men," i.e., the wife is no longer a married woman, and the laws of adultery no longer apply. The get also returns to the wife the legal rights which a husband holds in regard to his wife in a Jewish marriage."

Finally, in a Catholic "divorce," folks spend a lot of money getting an "annulment" pursuant to Canonical law:

The annulment crisis in the Church

By Fr. Leonard Kennedy

Issue: March 1999

"The Catholic Church does not accept divorce. Jesus insisted on the original intention of the Creator who willed that marriage be indissoluble (Mt 5:31-21; 19:3-9; Mk 10:9; Lk 16:18; 1 Cor 7:10-11). However, the Church can declare the nullity of a marriage, i.e., declare that the marriage never existed (Code of Canon Law, #1095-1107; see also the Catechism of the Catholic Church, under "Divorce"). Last October Pope John Paul II, meeting with a delegation of US bishops, expressed his dissatisfaction with the number of annulments being granted to Catholics. US Catholics receive a disproportionately greater number of annulments each year."

"The United States has 6% of the world's Catholics but grants 78% percent of the world's annulments. In 1968 the Church there granted fewer than 600 annulments; from 1984 to 1994 it granted just under 59,000 annually. But more than 90% of the cases which were appealed to the highest matrimonial court, the Roman Rota, were overturned."

The problem with Shari'a law is that it is all encompassing. Whereby, the examples above are limited confluences and all involve marriage, children and family issues.

Adam

Edited March 12, 2010 by Selene

[anthony]

Dan and Robert,

At the risk of seeming glib and over-simplifying, I'm beginning to think that the strength and the weakness of the more moderate Abrahamic religions is their mixed premises. When one is taught obedience, but at the same time, "God helps those who helps themselves", one is being allowed one's individualism - to a degree.

I have heard 100's of variations of the sort - 'think for yourself','live and let live', 'you can't take the Scriptures literally'- approach from Jews and Christians.

The strength (and weakness) of Islam is that there is no such inconsistency. It hardly allows for any such liberalism, or independence.

GS and Michael,

The brightest and most likeable people I've met are often South African Muslims. Possible friendship with them usually hits the rocks when they've begun opening up to me, and I start hearing the tired old unoriginal rants against Zionists and America. Countering this rationally and with benevolence has only made me a figure of scorn.

It's a Jeckyll and Hyde mentality that is confusing and extremely disappointing (presumptuous as this sounds )

(As I've asked before: what do you judge other people by, your morality, or theirs'?)

Tony

[bmacwilliam]

In the meantime, governments in Britain and Canada and such have to get real and, in this instance, get tough.

Shari'a law, as presently understood, is already a tyrannical yoke when imposed on self-declared Muslims, and a sure catastrophe, should it be imposed on the wider society. No ground can or should be conceded to it. And people like the present Archbishop of Canterbury or the cultural commissars of Norway ought to be getting ripped in the media whenever they propose the mildest concession.

And any voicing of support or expressing sympathy for orders to kill or silence in the name of religion must be met with widespread revulsion and shoulder-to-shoulder opposition.

Robert,

I am in agreement with this.

On Shari'a law, there is a point where I don't know if we agree or disagree. I have no problem with a community practicing Shari'a if they do so in the manner of, say, the bylaws of an organization, or the behavior determined by any other religion operating within the country. That is, subordinate to the law of the land the community is in and not affecting anyone outside of the organization.

Michael

Michael,

I don't think it's possible to implement Shari'a law on this level. We're not dealing with Condo Corporation By-laws here. They don't want to give out Shari'a parking tickets.

Women are equal to men in my country and the "law of the land" should protect them ESPECIALLY if they are within an organization that wants to take rights away from them. I couldn't possibly disagree more with your line of thinking.

Bob

[tjohnson]

"The Catholic Church does not accept divorce. Jesus insisted on the original intention of the Creator who willed that marriage be indissoluble (Mt 5:31-21; 19:3-9; Mk 10:9; Lk 16:18; 1 Cor 7:10-11). However, the Church can declare the nullity of a marriage, i.e., declare that the marriage never existed

Yeah, Henry VIII took advantage of that, or sometimes he just beheaded them - that works too.