Harry's Place

Same thing seen just around the corner on Cambridge Heath Road, sprayed on the pavement, yesterday. Language here has to be seen as crucial, it seems to me. Equating Jihad, or Islam itself, with terrorism is part of a process (a discourse even?) which not only defines an ‘enemy’ but actually helps to create it (clearly, there is more to than this, but this is part of it). Were our own commentators and authorities better versed in the basics of the religion to which so many in the world subscribe (try asking someone guys!) then maybe they would be better equipped to tackle the problem. Good to hear some relatively thoughtful stuff coming out of the US Govt on this at last…

Well these “criminal movements” include the mass of public opinion in places like Jordan, Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Syria.

“Uneducated Muslims,” sure.

At what point am I supposed to decide that wishful thinking deserves my respect. Exactly why should I do it?

Read the Pew polls over the last 5 years if you don’t know what I’m talking about.

Why is sounding reasonable more respectable than actually knowing anything?

“Jihad is the only solution for Israel”

Its comforting to see a pro-Israel graffito written by a moderate Muslim who obviously understands the true meaning of jihad.

Jihad-On Israel!

Jihad-On Israel! should not to be confused with Jihad, on Israel of course.

Seems like this Sheila, is confusing cause and effect.

Defining Jihad as violence carried out with the aim of advancing Islam, seems like a fairly er..kosher, exposition. Much of this is indeed terrorism by any reasonable definition…..stuff like blowing up civilians on buses, chopping people’s head off while shouting ‘Allah Akbar’, bombing markets in Iraq, firing Qasim rockets indiscriminately into civilian areas….that sort of thing.

Calling it by it’s name hardly obliges folks to do it.

Here are the verses in the Quran that condone a Jihad or religious war, make of it what you will, but I agree Terrorism does not equal Jihad, terrorism is just a tactic, Jihad is not a tactic, I suppose Mohammed never said “I have been made victorious through terror!” as stated in the hadiths.

Here are the Qur’an quotes:

Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors. And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (2:190-191)

Slay the disbelievers. Sounds like a religious war to me. So does this:

Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not. They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: “Fighting therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members.” Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they can. And if any of you Turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein. (2:216-217)

And this, which identifies the enemies of the Muslims as disbelievers and friends of Satan:

Let those fight in the cause of Allah Who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah,- whether he is slain or gets victory – Soon shall We give him a reward of great (value). And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)?- Men, women, and children, whose cry is: “Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will protect; and raise for us from thee one who will help!” Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject Faith Fight in the cause of Evil: So fight ye against the friends of Satan: feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan. (4:74-76)

Here the religious warriors, or the angels who protect them, are to behead those who do not believe:

Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): “I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.” (8:12)

Cf. this verse, which also makes clear the religious character of the fight:

Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah’s Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost. (47:4)

This one states the goal of the fighting in terms that also make clear that the war is religious:

And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. (8:39)

This one, like many others, makes it clear that the fighting that believers must do is not spiritual, but physical — otherwise the promise that the believers will overcome long odds would make little or no sense:

O Prophet! rouse the Believers to the fight. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred: if a hundred, they will vanquish a thousand of the Unbelievers: for these are a people without understanding. (8:65)

This is the celebrated “Verse of the Sword”:

But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. (9:5)

Again, hard to see that as spiritual or metaphorical fighting. And this one establishes that the warfare is against the People of the Book, that is, Jews and Christians:

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (9:29)

And that is just the Quran, once you look in detail at the hadiths it becomes even clearer.

Terrorism is not Jihad, Jihad is one of the ways of spreading Islam, the critical aspect about all this is whether its the 1% who are currently involved in the struggle, or the 20% who would if the clash became one between civilisations.

Of course, Islamophobes like Robert Spencer and Hugh Fitzgerald don’t approve, but they also thought Islamo Fascism Awareness Week was a good idea.

Of course?

Believe it or not, I was once convinced that queer males were more intelligent than the average and a great deal more sensitive to the world around them.

Then I hit 40.

Here we have a gay atheist musing, pontificating, on all things religious. A gay atheist who’d choke on his own goddamned tongue if asked to recite even a single prayer.

You cannot even make IMPORTANT and CRUCIAL distinctions between the fundamentals of Christianity and Islam, Brett, and yet you feel you’re in a position to “inform” us that Jihad does not involve terrorism.

Perhaps you’ll post your term-paper on quantum physics next.

Your knowledge of the subject is so scant, and your arrogance so obese, that your postings degenerate into a form of disinformation that will, in the long run, endanger a great number of lives.

Why don’t you stick to what your know? As a humanist you’re simply not equipped with a functioning moral compass, and as a result you’ve got people running in all the wrong directions and are inadvertently hastening your own anéantissement.

But you DO occupy the ‘middle’ ground!

I suggest you read a history book on the subject, one printed PRIOR to your birth.

Now, pass the tequila, Sheila, and lay down and love me again…

I doubt that Spencer or Hugh Fitzgerald would have ever limited jihad to its extreme violent form -ie acts of terror aimed at infidels or apostates.
Such acts are merely the tips of the iceberg-easily identifiable they are to the general public. They explain that its most potent form is indeed the stealth Jihad, the steady,slow coercion and subversion of outside cultures through non violent means.

“Now, pass the tequila, Sheila…”

By the sounds of it Palubiski, someone passed you the tequila before breakfast.

So Muslims who believe that terrorism of Jihad are ‘ignorant’?
Evidently they haven’t been paying attention to noted Koranic scholars such as Tony Blair, Bono, George Bush, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Brett, that guy who hangs around Starbucks etc. who have comprehensively demonstrated with extensive referencing of the Hadith and seminal Medieval jurists that Islam is the RELIGION OF PEACE. For some reason they insist on listening to Sheik Al-Wotzhisname instead. Go figure.

By the sounds of it Palubiski, someone passed you the tequila before breakfast.

I went to church before breakfast.

And I now await, with baited breath, your quantum physics thesis and your critique of the mandelbrot equation.

I went to church before breakfast.

Did you have communion? Did the priest slip you one?

*fnarr*

Did you have communion? Did the priest slip you one?

Unfortunately Morgoth I didn’t feel I was in a sufficient state of grace to take the wafer.

And the money I should have put in the collection plate, I spent instead on a hearty breakfast at a nearby café.

‘Robert Spencer & his ilk’ has done more to bring the Islamic doctrine to our attention than any halfwitted commie-liberal-multiculti-diversity-gay-lesbian atheist.

There is no cure for ignorance and stupidity, but Islamic jihad is real and will destroy us. Not necessarily the violent kind, mind you: the jihad by subversion, treason, infiltration, intimidation and finally outbreeding. Terror, in case you don’t know it yet, is fundamental to Islam: it always works.

Shouldn’t worry a gay atheist. In an Islamic state you can only be killed once…

Where would anyone get teh idea that Islam = violence? Ask the Copts in Egypt, or the Jews who used to live in Egypt but were stripped of their wealth and evicted back in the 50’s. Or ask the millions killed or driven out by the johadist regime in Sudan. Teh US and IK goivernments’ word games about how terrorism is not related to ‘True” islam are moronic as well as dishonest.

Why can we not refer to acts of terrorism conducted in the name of Islam or the glorification of Allah as Islamic terrorism. What is the precise term we should use to reference acts of terror conducted by a believer in Islam? The term Islamic terrorist is much more accurate, more direct, more to the point, and more descriptive that the favorite ’smoke screen’ term Islamophobia. It may violate the principles of Political Correctness, but there is nothing correct about this speech and thought limiting philosophy. It is a cop out for those that want to avoid any serious discussion or debate.

Islamophobia is nonsense term invented simply to suppress freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and freedom to acquire new knowledge. Any criticism of Islam, Muslims, or any of their foundational tests is met with cries of Islamophobia. Implying that criticism of, or expressed apprehension, of Islam and Muslims is phobic is in itself phobic. The “Islamophobes like Robert Spencer and Hugh Fitzgerald” provide links to their sources of knowledge. These sources include, but are limited to, the sacred texts of Islam. Copies of these texts are readily available to anyone with enough honesty to educate themselves about Islam before reaching a conclusion. Before I became aware of “islamophobic” websites and blogs My opinion of Islam changed radically. Prior to using the Internet to acquire knowledge of Islam, and Muslims, I accepted the premise that Islam is a ‘Religion of Peace’. I now see very little evidence to justify that claim. If I had not acquired any knowledge of Islam and suddenly began to criticize it then I could have been properly classified as an Islamophobe. However, since my most earnest criticisms of Islam have evolved based on the knowledge I have acquired I am no longer phobic.

Even the asking of a thoughtful question is condemned. Supposed scholars claim that unless someone is fluent in Arabic they can not properly read and understand Islam. Okay, if this is ‘the test’ are all these learned Islamic scholars fully fluent in the Arabic dialect(s) used to create the ‘Tradition’? [See Chapter 2 The Religion of Islam - Maulana Muhammad Ali -ISBN 0-913321-32-X]

when their false claims are echoed in the media in the West, that adds some legitimacy to their claims, at least for uneducated Muslims

Do you really want to endorse such a disparaging statement about Muslims, that they are so weak minded that they find “false claims” by Western media about their own religion persuasive? Would you ever claim that abortion clinic bombers were confused about their religion in the same way? And that the local Imams also misunderstand their religion so badly they can’t clear that up for these “uneducated Muslims”?