Richard Wiig

I have a very good sense of humour, but I don't know if you're taking the piss out of the quarantine idea or if you are just having a laugh. Just because I am not laughing with you doesn't mean I have betrayed anything, other than perhaps I haven't understood where you're coming from. And no, I don't consider myself an Objectivist, whatever it means to be one. I have read a fair bit of Ayn Rand, and should probably reread it and add to my reading. I think that reality and objectively identifying it matters, and have a huge respect for Objectivism, if that means anything. Anyway, I have no problem with injections of humour, but I do have a problem with taking the piss out of ideas for combatting Jihad. Naturally if that's what you're doing, I wouldn't laugh.

Are Are you making fun of it all? I don't understand the taking so lightly of such a serious issue.

That is considerably loaded there, Baal. One could equally say that reasonable people support Socialism. Anyway, it's true that Jihad is about struggle to overcome weakness. That, however, is merely part of what Jihad is about. The writings devoted to what they call, the greater jihad, the struggle that you talk of, are small and insignificant compared to the writings and time devoted to the lesser jihad, which is the Jihad that Islamic State supporters are undertaking. A reasonable thinker would not try to obscure that. We can't form any defence against the problem by obscuring that.

Not fair. In fact we should start quarantining anyone who does that! See how clever they are! I think I saw a kid at a Little League game do that today. I am going to report that ISIS child. A... Of course, there needs to be some objective standards applied. Ejecting an Imam who preaches jihad or hatred towards Kafir isn't the same as a kid who happens to hold up his index finger. The index finger, btw, signifies one Ummah.

Who dNo one is equating all of Islam with lot to do with Islam. Islam leads to woman wearing the hijab. To say that isn't to practice moral relativism, or to say anything controversial. Islam leads to jihadism. To say that also isn't to practice moral relativism, and saying it should be no less controversial than the preceding comment. Wearing a hijab isn't a problem. Jihadism is. You don't get rid of the problem of jihad by pretending it has nothing to do with Islam. You combat it by examining exactly what teachings within Islam lead to jihadism and seeing what, if anything, can be done about it. Whether it can be dealt with or not, it's essential to know what it is as a matter of defence, as a matter of knowing ones enemy. I consider Jihad to be a product of Islamic theology. You can call me a bigot for that all you like. So be it. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

In other words, quarantine them. That's exactly the approach required, along with an explicit identification of what is being quarantined and why it isn't compatible with a civilised and prosperous world. That won't be happening any time soon though, Jules. Not until Multiculturalism, Environmentalism, Moral relativism, and all the rest of the bilge that is dominating peoples minds is gone, or at least has retreated somewhat. And as someone pointed out, Islam is now well established within Western countries itself: http://www.news.com.au/technology/online/facebook-riddled-with-australian-muslims-supporting-isis/story-fnjwmwrh-1227034437804

The hood was persecuting the Copts anyway. This was simply a glimpse into where things stand for the Copts in Egypt today. As for the dechristianisation of the Middle East and parts of Africa, and potentially of Egypt, and the ongoing persecution in general, yes, absolutely it has a lot to do with Islam. The idea that it doesn't is preposterous. Like the so-called leader of the Free World claiming that IS has nothing to do with Islam.

The situation for the Copts 1 year on. http://muftah.org/one-year-morsis-ouster-looted-coptic-churches-turn-trash-dumps/#.U_fcj0u6hFL

Simply a case of no one can see the future. That might be how you view them, but that isn't how the truly faithful view them. All the Sunni nations are under the control of the Zionists and American dogs. The House of Saud ensures that Saudi Arabia is not a truly Sunni nation. That holds true wherever the American/Zionist dogs have established their regimes. The reason they proliferate their beheading videos is to normalise terror against the Kufar. They are proud of what they do, and make recruits among sunnis. I don't know the numbers between those who support them, in goal and tactics, or just in goal, and those who don't, and neither do you. You can assume that it is low and insignificant, but that would be a pretty dangerous assumption to make. They refer to orthodox Islamic law to justify their actions. There is a lot of support globally for the Islamic State. In Indonesia mosques were handing out Islamic State magazines along with vouchers for free chicken. In India Islamic State t-shirts are apparently flying off the shelves. All I have said is, who knows the numbers? Not you, not me. But what I do see is the global jihadists going from success to success. That is easy to see, regardless of what the numbers might be. I have never said that they will only grow. I think they can be easily defeated, but only if people start looking at the reality of what they are. This is not on the table though, and appears unlikely to ever be on the table. Also, as unwarranted as it is to think that they will only grow, it is equally unwarranted to make an assumption that they will not grow. I have not seen this muslim reaction you refer to. Where are the protests? In Syria hundreds of thousands protested against Assad atrocities. Now that there are IS atrocities against Christians there is not a single protester out there. The next real protests I expect to see from Muslims worldwide is when some non-muslim has offended them again. The UN is greatly influenced by the OIC and the Islamic bloc, and it's not so much a case of power they have now, but of what they aim for. It's also about the power of ideas. The OIC normalises the idea of a Caliphate, of Islam as being a civilised force in the world. The OIC were greatly behind the cartoon furore a few years back. That was a global attempt at imposing Sharia on the West. They have constantly kept up that pressure. If you could boil the OIC down to a single character you'd probably end up with something like Ellsworth Toohey. From your point of view, but we are not talking about your point of view. I don't see ISIS brutality as an impediment. How is it an impediment? Islam is spread by the sword, and you see it everywhere that jihadists fill a void. Violence isn't an impediment to their agenda, lack of a void is. The greatest creator of a void are things like multiculturalism, moral relativism, etc. The establishment of a Caliphate is not a controversial goal. I doubt that you'd find many Muslims who would oppose reestablishing a Caliphate. In regards to unity against ISIS, I don't see it. I've seen some statements from spokesmen who speak from both sides of their mouths, but little else. They are fighting for Islamic law, not for themselves. Whether they manage to unify the Ummah or not is 100% irrelevant. What matters is the terror and tragedy and damaged lives that are wreaked towards that end, by any Jihadist, not just by ISIS. You sit comfortably somewhere in a comfortable world. It's not so comfortable on Mount Sinjar. The existential consequences are what matters. It seems that for many here it's more important not to offend Muslims than it is to actually fight this evil.

Iran is Shia and only about 5% of the Muslim world. The Islamic State, on the other hand, is Sunni, and wishes to represent about 90% of the Islamic world. They are not establishing themselves as a simple state, but as the Caliphate, the head of the Ummah. They might or might not succeed, but regardless of whether or not they succeed, it is all part of Islamic orthodoxy and will not go away if you destroy this particular group. There are very high up political forces that wish to reestablish the Caliphate - the OIC is a powerful organisation that seeks the return of the Caliphate. Erdogan seeks the return of the Caliphate. The longer that IS manages to hold ground the more support it is going to gain from orthodox Muslims, on a global scale. When it comes to reestablishing the Caliphate, it will be a case of backing the strong horse.

I am defined by my belief in Capitalism, free-enterprise, individual rights, etc. Any small defiance to Islam by using Infidel as a nickname on a message board is in defence of liberty and simply a declaration of my interest. Nothing more, nothing less. When the cartoon furore erupted, the best response from the West would have been the widespread publishing of the offending cartoons, not the fawning submission that we got. Islamic supremacism is an extreme threat to liberty in my opinion, so it deserves resistance and attention. Anyway, back to my original question, which I think is a reasonable one to ask. The question of what does and doesn't make a fundamentalist underpins all these questions. If the teachings of Muhammad are necessarily part and parcel of Islam (and I believe they are), and given that many of those teachings are supremacist and totalitarian in nature, what are the fundamentals or prerequisites that need to be present in order for an individual to adopt them? How do you know the ratio between individual muslims who have these prerequisites and those who do not? Should people who value liberty be concerned about the possibility of Muslims adopting these teachings, or should there be no concern? Is it possible to value liberty, as a Muslim, and stay true to Islam (it would be wrong to make the assumption that it is the case. Muhammad's teachings need to be examined to determine it one way or the other.)? How much of a fundamental belief needs to be present to make an individual susceptible to full submission? What is being taught in the mosques that counter those teachings of Muhammad that call on Muslims to make Islam supreme? I think those questions and more are important ones to be answered in combating the Islamic supremacist threat. Liberty depends on it, does it not?

Sure, it isn't the only force. It is the force that seems to be making most headway in Islamic populations though. The Islamic countries (the non-Islamic countries too. Just look at France) are heading down a path of more Islamisation, not less. I have a question for you, Extropy. What do you mean when you say that most muslims are not fundamentalists? What are the fundamentals of Islam, and how many fundamentals, and which in particular, does a muslim have to adopt before he has gone from being just a muslim, perhaps in name only, to a fundamentalist muslim? What is really mean't when that assertion is invoked?

That was clear from your posts, and I agree with you. My point was simply that the majority are not in the drivers seat. The majority are simply taken along for the ride. Unless they actively work against the authority of Muhammad then they are next to useless in terms of acting as a bulwark against those who take the teachings of their prophet seriously. The tragedy is that those Muslims who actually do work against the authority of their prophet often end up dead. What is needed is a reformed Islam, but that will never be possible until critics of Islam have sanctuary. The West perhaps used to be a sanctuary, but no longer.

As you say, though, it is the motivated ones who drive the agenda. That the drivers are backed by Muhammad's teachings is a great help to them. Here's a book that documents the encroachment of Islam into Europe. http://www.amazon.com/Eurabia-Euro-Arab-Axis-Bat-Yeor/dp/1611473144

It wasn't a rejection of fundamentalism either. It was rejection of a loss of power to the Brotherhood. The current military regime has no qualms about applying fundamentalist Islamic law as and when it suits them.

Egypt was a case of the Muslim Brotherhood pushing too hard too fast for their own good. It was a major blow to them, but they will learn valuable lessons from it. It is about gaining power and holding it. More broadly, the rejection of the Muslim Brotherhood wasn't a rejection of Islam, and the Islamisation of that country continues. Events in Egypt certainly haven't slowed down the global Jihadists. I don't see the rejection of Islam that you claim is underway. Go to Egypt and criticise Islam and see how long your liberty lasts.

There is an assumption that it is not enough? Given the advances that Jihadists have made since 9/11 I think it is axiomatic that it is not enough. There are only two options with these people, and that is to persuade them on Islamic grounds, or with a bullet. Muslims who reject, not ISIS, because ISIS is merely one jihad group, but the Jihad doctrines within their own religion that gives rise to all these groups, need to not just say "I don't agree with Jihadists". They need to persuade the Jihadists that they have the religion wrong. Failing that, if they truly do reject the Jihadists vision of Islam as it should be, they'll have to start using bullets alongside others who equally reject the tyranny of Muhammad.

Ah... the circularity of the bigot... It never fails, Jews, blacks, Indians, Irish, Polacks, gays, women and on and on. The good ones aren't good because of their character while being themselves. They are good in spite of themselves. I always did love that argument. Michael Not "in spite of themselves". In spite of what their prophet wants. This was clearly visible on Australia's Insight program, in which supporters of ISIS were quite comfortable with what their prophet wanted of them, but other muslims in the audience were decidedly uncomfortable, even fearful. In Islam, just as in every other religion, you have followers that run the gamut from "in name only", to those who take it consistently and fully to its logical end.

And the review does not detract from that. Do you have any instances of Goska saying that all Muslims tacitly support the Jihadists? Is this factual, or is it what you believe he thinks? He critiques her ideas in regards to them addressing the root of the problem, as he sees it. His review is not an attempt to discredit a book. It is an examination of the ideas she puts forward to gauge their worth as an antidote to Jihadists. Something that is fairly evident even without her. I do not understand the point though of writing such a book if it is not to be something of an antidote to the Jihadists. But the existence of counter-jihadists among muslims isn't controversial. It is their efficacy in dealing with the threat that is controversial. You can almost hear him tut-tut-tutting. And he goes on to bash Islam. Yet earlier in the review, he says this: Goska said There is no contradiction. Muslims are living peacefully not because of Islam, but in spite of it. When that peace is broken, with brutality and the tyranny of the devout, it is Islam that those peaceful people are becoming victims of. That's a major point in his review. Is her book in any way an antidote to that problem? It isn't, judging by the review. In fact, it's the opposite, because if Goska is correct in his analysis her book serves to obscure the root of the problem by shifting the blame. They were living in peace because they desired a peaceful life more than they desired to be fully devoted to their religion. When Jihadists move in, it is reference to all the parts of Islam that the more peaceful followers have chosen to ignore. I saw a perfect example of this on Australia's program, Insight, the other night. It was studio audience participation thing. The topic was "Why are Australians going to fight in Iraq and Syria". As you probably know a Muslim from Sydney photographed his 7 year old son holding up someones head with the caption, "That's my boy". Anyway, there were muslims there arguing that IS were not following Islam. The response from IS supporters was that they do not sugar coat their religion. This is the nub. To get them to change their ways they are going to have to be shown that their actions are unIslamic. So-called moderate Muslims, so far, have not been able to do this - hence their impotence. The most important question is, do those Muslims have any potency in combatting the threat. If they have no potency, then what does it matter whether they exist or not, or whether anyone notices them or not? It would merely be an exercise in Kudos for the sake of Kudos.

A good review of Karima Bennoune's book,"You Fatwa Doesn't Apply Here". Reviewed by Danusha Goska. http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/01/your-fatwa-does-not-apply-here-not-what-it-appears-to-be

They are not in fact perverting it. It is often stated that they are, but never is any example provided of just how in fact it is being perverted.

I'm only going to do this once. X produces good things. X also produces bad things. Therefore X is all bad. That is the logic of a bigot. Right before he starts saying X actually never produced anything good. And, yes, calling that a "fact" makes one a bigot. Michael Islam produces good things. Islam produces bad things. Therefore Islam is all bad. That does not represent my thinking at all. The jihad groups are products of Islam. They follow the teachings of their prophet, Muhammad. They claim that they follow Islam without any sugar coating. When you look at the teachings they refer to, you find that they do in fact follow Muhammad's teachings as Muhammad required. Islam is indeed what creates them. To pretend that this is not the case is to evade reality. It also doesn't logically follow that to acknowledge the case means to treat all muslims as one and the same.

I want to add a note to this. When people talk about Obama being a Muslim, I don't believe he is, but I do believe he shares the same orientation, or something very similar, as that of Muhammad Ali. So he has major respect for the religion on the basis of race alone. And note, I don't believe that particular frame is racist. Islam for many blacks is a powerful origin story with centuries of glory and a full set of its own mythologies that rival Christianity, especially seeing that the alternative origin story for them is coming from slaves. I can see that attraction easily and it has nothing to so with hatred of the West, hatred of the good, love of misogyny, and all the other stuff people have attributed to the intent of Muslims. In the case of American blacks in the Nation of Islam, it was about reclaiming an historical storyline they could be proud of--one that got interrupted with slavery. Michael Too bad Ali was too much of a racist to simply be proud to be an American... which has nothing to do with any particular race, but is a system of moral values which make Western civilization possible. Greg And that too hits the nail on the head. Ali would have been best off to have embraced the constitution than to adopt Islam, which has in fact been worse in regards to black slavery than any other institution.

Greg, I believe this, but that is not this dude's stated meaning. He has stated over and over (in different words) that making a category like "Islamist" is somehow misguided and appeasing. To him, the real trouble is Islam itself, which means in practice, all who follow it. Michael Of course the trouble is Islam itself. All these groups are products of Islam. Given that, how is it possible to think that Islam isn't in fact the problem? Acknowledging this fact does not make someone a bigot.

No! That is the recognition that the conflict is being brought to us whether we asked for it or not. It is all being brought about by forces beyond your and my control. I think Richard has overcooked his case by about 10,000 percent; these things wax and wane. --Brant no need to send out the signal; I read OL daily Time will tell that. If I'm wrong, and it isn't Islam that is the problem, then there is no problem. If I'm right though, and Islam is the problem, then it will become clearer as time goes on that we are in a global civilisational struggle, and that it was wrong to focus on distractions such as Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Al Nusra Front, Taliban, or whatever the favoured name of the day happened to be.