John Farnham: Youmaynot Philosophy Rears its Ugly Head In Australia

The following article originally appeared at defensetraining.com and is republished with the author’s permission.

By John S. Farnham

“Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our political opponents have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?” That’s a quote from Joe Stalin, so eloquently articulating the “Youmaynot Philosophy.” Which rears its ugly head in Australia this time . . .

Most of this day, I’ve listened to hand-wringing commentators on many networks, including Fox News, agonizing about how to prevent lethal attacks on citizens in Western countries by Islamic terrorists.

“Lone wolf” is the “term du jour,” but the next attack may be more organized, along the Mumbai massacre model, and we’ll be back to talking about that convention.

No corespondent was able to offer any concrete solution, save outright banning of Islamics from our shores.

We have observed over the past few decades that neither Jewish zionists, nor Christian crusaders, nor Norwegian folk-dancers for that matter, have presented a terrorist problem. The problem is always Islamics. Islamics are terrorists, and have been for the past 1500 years.

We can, immersed in PC, dance around that fact, ad nauseam, but it is something we all plainly see.

The only legitimate answer to these unprovoked and mostly unpredictable terrorist attacks (“lone wolf” or otherwise) on innocent citizens in Western countries, is privately-armed, private citizens. Of course, that is the only solution, the mere mention of which, is absolutely banned from the lips of all media commentators and “officials” alike. It is prohibited from even being acknowledged, much less publically discussed, in any fair and enlightened forum.

The open discussion of armed teachers in public schools was also “subject non grata,” for years. Some of my courageous colleagues, Mas Ayoob for one, were viciously censured for even suggesting that the subject be talked about in anything but whispers.

The concept is only now seeing the light of day. Curiously, it has worked splendidly everywhere it has been tried, but the very idea of such a high degree of personal freedom predictably upsets control freaks (“Youmaynots”), both elected and appointed.

Two days ago, the Lindt Cafe in Sydney was filled with unarmed IguessIcan’ts, all of whom were obediently following the dictates of Youmaynots in Parliament (who themselves duplicitously enjoy continuous personal protection provided by heavily-armed bodyguards), and thus submissively left the important matter of self-protection against jihadi madmen exclusively to “the police.” They were unwittingly betting their lives on that personal decision.

Several lost that bet.

Sadly, no Icans were present. A single audacious, armed citizen could have stopped this violent attack in its tracks, and, in so doing, discouraged others

Disarmed and helpless IguessIcants, who religiously obeyed wide-reaching gun bans enacted by Youmaynots, were, once again, pitilessly murdered and maimed during this incident. As a result, future massacres are, even now, being entertained.

Politicians have expressed “deep personal concern.” They always do. I’m sure that represents a prodigious source of comfort to families of the murdered.

All collectivist reform, without fail, peremptorily supplants its purported goal of everlasting utopia with a sinister, but familiar, feudal system of masters and slaves, wherein owners remain few, and the masses are forced to accept “security” at the expense of perpetual servitude. And, of course, Youmaynots are ever fearful of armed slaves!

Curiously, modern firearms, which Youmaynots piously purport to hate, are actually protecting them every moment. Those particular guns are apparently okay. It’s only privately-owned guns, that protect you, that they don’t like. Although you may not view yourself as a slave, they do.

One might even accuse those particular Youmaynots of being Exceptfroms.

“The Roman Republic fell, not because of the ambition of Caesar, but because it had already long ceased to be a republic at all,” Teddy Roosevelt wrote. “When the sturdy Roman Plebeian, who lived by his own labor, who voted without reward according to his own convictions, and who formed in war the terrible Roman Legion had been changed into an idle creature who craved nothing in life save the gratification of a thirst for vapid excitement, who was fed by the state, and who sold his vote to the highest bidder, then the end of the Republic was at hand, and nothing could save it.”

comments

  1. avatar Kaleb says:

    Molon Labe!

  2. avatar LarryinTX says:

    I think “Exceptfromes” is supposed to be “Exceptformes”, RF, You can delete this post.

    1. avatar NoID says:

      You could also amend it to “Exemptfroms”

  3. avatar Rob Aught says:

    When we abdicate personal responsibility to others, we should not be surprised when they don’t have the same regard for our lives that we do.

    The past few decades we have seen many nations cede more and more responsibility, and in turn freedom, to the government in hopes they would take care and protect them. Clearly this has not happened. I’m glad to see people are starting to think otherwise, but the transformation is taking a long time.

    If it were not Islamists it would be something else. The wolves will never leave unguarded sheep alone.

  4. avatar TT says:

    I know two of Monis’ hostages were fatally shot. As far as I can tell, no news agency has reported that Monis shot them (or anyone else for that matter). Has anyone else noticed this?

    I’m beginning to think that the police probably shot everyone who got shot. I’m not second guessing. The police likely did what they had to do, and the rescue had inherent, unavoidable risks. However, some straight information about who shot whom would be welcome. The information is certainly known, at this point.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      I read somewhere that the café manager rushed the attacker and absorbed a fatal shotgun blast in the process. That is what triggered the police to rush in. I am not sure if the attacker also shot the female victim during the initial struggle between the café manager and the attacker.

      1. avatar Grindstone says:

        FWIW, last I heard was the manager got shot trying to rush the guy and the other death was from a heart attack.

  5. avatar SouthernPatriot says:

    At least a handful of local public school principals carry at school. At least one offered a discounted price to his teachers and staff of $45 for the concealed carry training to qualify for a CCP. He then told them if the $45 was a hardship, please let him know. He would make sure they were able to afford the course, if they really wanted. Then he said once they had the CCP, he expected them to conceal carry at the school. I know this is a small advance, but it is an advance.

    An unarmed populace opens law abiding citizens to rampaging criminals, mentally unsound, and jihadists (terrorists). That will not change. An armed populace will either help prevent or mitigate such attacks.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      “An armed populace will either help prevent or mitigate such attacks.”

      ^ This!

      As SouthernPatriot stated, an armed populace cannot guarantee that attacks never occur … what they can guarantee is fewer casualties if an attack does occur.

  6. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    I love the literary construction of “Youmaynots” and “IguessIcan’ts” … has a pleasant Dr. Seuss quality to it!

    1. avatar Jordan says:

      Like this?

      I am Sam.
      Sam-I-am;
      and I want to carry
      that which goes “Bam!”

      I want to carry in the rain;
      I want to carry on a train;
      I want to carry in the dark;
      I want to carry in the park;

      I do not like that Sam-I-am.
      I do not like things that go “Bam!”

      You may not carry in the rain;
      you may not carry on a train;
      you may not carry in the dark;
      you may not carry in the park;

      I don’t like things that go “Bam!”
      You may not carry Sam-I-am.

      1. avatar Carry.45 says:

        Nailed it. You deserve money. Write a gun-related Dr. Suess kids book.

  7. avatar MattG says:

    Not impressed with the OP’s overgeneralization of all Islamics as terrorists. A few quantifying words like “an extremist subset of” would have helped, but I think the lack of these words belies the OP’s prejudice against Islam.

    What do we always say around here? Never judge the many over the misdeeds of the few. Let’s not be selective on how we apply this wisdom.

    1. avatar Simon says:

      The religion of Islam condones and even preaches violence. It is not a coincidence that these things keep on happening. Anyone with such a worldview is capable of such acts, but not everyone has the stomach to go through with them.

      This is not the same as judging the many over the actions of a few, since the beliefs are all (Muslims) promote violence against the innocent.

      1. avatar Another Robert says:

        Seriously, Islam is the only major religion I know of whose holy writ demands conversion by the sword. ( And yes, I know that Jehova commanded the Israelites to wipe out the Canaanites. That was a specific command for a specific situation, not a matter of Judaic doctrine). I can’t imagine why people can’t see the natural consequences of that fact.

        1. avatar Paul G says:

          Yes…the OT actions were defined and singular events, the demands of the quran are eternal. Even if they could kill or covert all the kuffars, making the world one for allah, there will be heretics, thieves, etc to be dealt with.

        2. avatar int19h says:

          Most mainstream Islam madhabs also consider Muhammad’s calls for a religious war on unbelievers (such as the infamous Sword Verse) to be “specific commands for a specific situation”, and don’t believe it to be a binding rule for eternity. Salafi do believe it to be binding, which is precisely what makes them different from mainstream Islam.

          Also, Islam does not require conversion per se. It requires conversion or submission (i.e. becoming a dhimmi). Conversion under duress is actually prohibited (a quote from Koran literally goes, “there can be no compulsion in religion”).

        3. avatar Paul G says:

          That peaceful verse has been abrogated.
          http://library.flawlesslogic.com/verses.htm
          Also, it is impossible from reading the quran to view the violent commands to be one time, past events. The peace that islam claims to represent can only be had when there are no more infidels. The highest calling of islam is jihad, war against the unbelievers. The quran even claims that when the time comes, even the rocks will cry out to the believer that there is an unbeliever hiding behind it, and to come kill the unbeliever.
          Kind of hard to put that into a “past” context.

        4. avatar int19h says:

          Abrogation is not a universally held idea in all madhabs. More importantly, it’s not a mechanical process – to determine whether the later verse abrogates the earlier verse, and to what extents, you must take context of both verses into account. For any particular verse, how much context is relevant for it is also not universally agreed upon between madhabs.

          The Sword Verse (which is usually said to be what abrogated the other peaceful verses), for example, is actually part of a longer commandment of Muhammad to his followers that is given in the context of an ongoing military campaign against several pagan Arab tribes that have previously breached a peace treaty with the Muslim tribe. If that context is considered essential, then the Sword Verse only applies to that war, and since it’s long over and the tribes are long since converted, it has no modern significance. If that context is not considered essential (which is the Salafi view), then it abrogates pretty much all of the peaceful commandments, yet. But the latter is not the mainstream Islamic view.

        5. avatar Paul G says:

          The verse of the sword is not the only one which abrogates earlier peaceful verses. Muhammad himself declared the concept of abrogation, and he spoke as Allah’s representative, how can one legitimately deny it? Hint…..you cannot.
          In actuality abrogation is a natural enough idea, it occurs in everything. Certainly the rules you were expected to obey as a child (in when the streetlights come on, etc…) are no longer valid for you. Abrogation is a big word for a simple concept, when earlier verses conflict with later ones, the later ones over-ride the earlier ones.

        6. avatar int19h says:

          Yes, and which verses abrogate which, and to what extent, is something that has a very wide range of opinions within Islam.

        7. avatar Paul G says:

          Elaborate. Since you are full of it. It is quite clear, the biography of Muhammad is widely available to put verses in order.

        8. avatar int19h says:

          I have already explained in detail, even giving a specific example of the Sword Verse. It’s down to how much context should be considered for each verse, and therefore what its scope is.

        9. avatar Paul G says:

          You really explained nothing, you made a poor attempt at reasoning around an explanation.

        10. avatar int19h says:

          Well, if Muhammad allowed it in a way that you describe, surely you can quote him on that? Preferably from the Koran, since you don’t seem to be considering the hadith as relevant at all.

        11. avatar Paul G says:

          Surah 2:106:

          None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?

        12. avatar int19h says:

          Sorry, the software is acting up. This was supposed to be a response to your comment on taqiyya, namely the following assertion:

          “The threat need only be to dar-es-islam. Since the world is not one for allah, the duress is implicit. Once the world is one for allah, there is no infidel to deceive. It is self-cancelling.
          Use of minutiae to dissemble is interesting, however relying on books used throughout all of islam is much more generally informative. The Ahmadiyya muslims shilling for Salafists is definitely a case of odd bedfellows.”

          I am aware of exactly one place in which Koran implicitly allows to lie about one’s faith, and that is very specifically under a personal threat.

        13. I think you need to work on your jihadist apologetics a bit, “int19h”. The Qur’an does not contain any quotes of Muhammad.

          Incidentally, “jihad” quite nicely translates to “holy war.” You can use it in the sense of a struggle, and some of al Hadith do this, in the manner that an American might say “I’m at war with my diet.” Such a metaphoric expression does not change the definition of “war.”

          Would you consider Yusuf al Qaradawi, with his sixty-million-plus radio audience and his listing as “ninth most influential Muslim in the world,” a “mainstream” imam? This Muslim Brotherhood leader teaches that Muslims have a duty to destroy Israel and the US, and the symbol of “struggle” he holds aloft in his sermons is an AK-47, which brings us back on topic here.

          ==============/ Keith DeHavelle

        14. avatar int19h says:

          But of course the Koran contains words of Muhammad. According to Muslims, the entire Koran was dictated by him.

          “Jihad” does not translate to “holy war”. It means simply “struggle” in Arabic; war is “ghazwa”. Within the context of Islam, “jihad” can mean war in some, but by far not all contexts, especially in the wider corpus of texts (i.e. if you go beyond the Koran to Sunnah).

        15. Surely you are jesting; you’ve been here for hours, holding forth as an authority on Islam.

          The Qur’an is, according to Islam, dictated by the Angel Gabriel (“Jabreel” in Arabic) to Muhammad, who repeated it perfectly, later, to be written down by others. He added not a word nor thought of his own to this, so the speaker throughout is Jabreel relaying the dictates of Allah.

          According to Islam, the deeds and words of Muhammad himself are recorded in al Hadith and Sunnah. Unlike the Qur’an, there can be arguments or different schools of thought as to the strength of individual narrations of the Prophet. This results in “strong” and “weak” Hadith and Sunnah — and Sunnis are called that because of the reliance they place on the Sunnah. Islam, unlike most religions, has three sets of sacred writing.

          Early sura, because Muhammad was weak and keeping his profile low, encourage coexistence. These are the “no compulsion in Islam” verses and similar sura. Later, as he consolidated his strength through caravan raids and conquering of cities, later sura reflect the “convert or die” and “jihad against the infidel” themes. And thus launched Islam’s conquests across the Middle East and beyond.

          You have, several times (which tells me it is not likely a typo) used the expression “sword verse” as a singular, as if there were only one. But there are hundreds of these, chronologically later and thus replacing the earlier gentle admonitions.

          Moreover, it is Muhammad’s own examples and statements, depicted in the other sacred works, that guide how Muslims are to act. It is there that the doctrines of taqiyya and jihad and so on are spelled out an expanded upon at length. The Qur’anic “sword verses” are quite bad enough; protestations of “context” do not save them. Amplified by the bloody example of the sacred and unquestionable prophet-warlord himself, the recipe is there: If you are completely serious about Islam, you are called to jihad against the infidel.

          To this mix, al Banna in the early 20th century and particularly Qutb during the mid-century whipped up the anti-Western hatred. Not because we “dropped bombs on them” as one poster here suggested, but because Qutb had been to the US, and decided that we were too decadent to be allowed to survive. They felt threatened as well because the Saudis were (starting in the 1930s) doing increasing business selling oil. Their rage alarmed the Sauds and Wahhabis, who threw them out to settle ultimately in Egypt.

          Now the relationship is partially repaired, as the Brotherhood is helping the Sauds conquer the US’s “miserable house” from within through CAIR, Muslim Students Association, other “non-profit” (but not “non-Prophet”) groups, and the Saud’s daily missives of hate to US mosques for which they spend millions per year.

          The Muslim Brotherhood has since spun off hundreds of terrorist offshoots from al Qaida to ISIS to CAIR and such in the US. And every single day, they preach the necessary war against the West, vowing to destroy the US and Israel (which is closer, comparatively weaker, and much more convenient to them). And the US orgs play the victim all the while, getting hapless Westerners to write that they’re not really radical and we’re being unfair.

          Most Muslims are content to pay only nominal attention to this conflict — but they are considered insufficiently pious by the smaller portion of radical jihadists. Moderate imams were largely slaughtered in the Middle Eastern cleric purge of the 1990s. This is why few Muslim leaders loudly condemn the jihadists — and the ones that do generally need bodyguards. Some will say “It is against the Qur’an to slaughter innocents” while in Arabic reminding their audience that the West and Israel are not innocents. Sheik Faisul Rauf of Ground Zero fame was good at this, exhorting destruction and Shariah while in the Middle East, but at the same time appearing in TED talks because he was such a charismatic “moderate.”

          Yes, Islam is a religion, which makes it just like Christianity or Buddhism to an extent. But it is also a political system, and it is that system that demands the death of any who leave the faith, among many other affronts to individual liberty. The two aspects cannot easily be separated, thus we have majorities in Muslim countries that actually support these dire Islamic edicts as appropriate and just.

          A friend of mine is a Muslim Egyptian, a professional, who lives in Cairo where she was born. She regularly travels the world as part of her profession, and cannot easily articulate why she supports Shariah law. But she most assuredly does. The reality of it has not quite hit home, I think. We have interesting discussions.

          ===|=============/ Keith DeHavelle

        16. avatar int19h says:

          I do not consider myself an “authority” on Islam. My knowledge of it is far more limited than that of, say, Christianity, and in any case I am not a professional researcher on the subject.

          Understand that I am not a Muslim. When I say that Koran is literally the words of Muhammad, I say so because that’s what it is – Muhammad’s own creation that he dictated to his followers. That it has some mythology behind it whereby it’s claimed to be a directly transcribed word of God is, to me, irrelevant. What’s relevant is that it is what he said, and it is what the people around him heard and acted upon.

          In a similar vein, I’m not trying to “salvage” any citations from the Koran. It’s not about my interpretation of the verses at all – it’s all about how Muslims themselves interpret them today. As I’m sure you know, there’s a noticeable difference of opinions among the ulema on many controversial verses. Furthermore, this has not been immutable over the course of history as well, and in many cases the prevailing interpretation was the politically convenient one (e.g when early Caliphs, or a while later the Ottomans, needed to justify their conquests, the prevailing opinion on offensive jihad of the sword was that it is permissible subject only to the discretion of the Caliph – but by 19th century already that was the minority view).

          When I refer to the Sword Verse, I refer to it as singular because there is a verse that is specifically most known as such, and is most often cited in that context, both by Islamists who use it to justify their methods, and by anti-Islamic propaganda purporting to provide evidence that all Muslims are inherently violent. I’m well aware that there are other verses that are similar in nature, but this one is a useful example because of it being the most expansive among them, the most famous, and exhibiting the difference in interpretation between Muslim scholars.

          Now as you rightly say, in modern Islam, the literal interpretation of this and other similar verses is generally common to a relatively recent strain of heavily politicized Islam that claims a “return to the roots” from the heretical shackles of “innovation” in religion – a lot like Christian Protestants, actually, which also started with a theology of getting rid of what they saw as accumulation of non-Christian practices over the ages, and quickly transformed it into a political movement. But because the original Islam of Muhammad’s days was much more brutal than Christianity, those “Muslim Protestants” also arrived at a much more brutal version compared to contemporary mainstream Islam, and were generally rejected by the establishment. Remember that Wahhab, who was arguably the earliest forerunner of the movement to whom a chain of transfer of ideas can be formed to modern times (the real first were arguably the Kharijites, but there’s no direct connection from them to modern Salafism – ideas are similar, but they come from a different root), was declared a zindiq, and his views declared bid’ah, in fatwas issued by the prominent clerics of his time. Similarly, more recent preachers of the Salafist movement – Deobandists and their modern incarnation the Taliban, Muslim Brotherhood founders like Banna and Qutb etc – do not exactly have a ringing endorsement from the mainstream ulema. In Chechnya, Salafists have ultimately lost the conflict because their increased aggressiveness towards the established Sufi Islam resulted in large swaths of the local ulema turning against them, and ultimately allying with Russia.

          And yes, unfortunately, the popularity of Salafist ideology is still growing, and while they’re a minority among Muslims, they’re a large and significant minority. But when we start paining all Muslims with the same brush, we play straight into their hands by making their propaganda that much easier, painting their war as a defensive jihad against western “crusaders” who are hell-bent on destroying all Islam.

          Mainstream Islam is our ally in the war against Salafists, not our enemy – because Salafists hate mainstream Islam and seek to “purify” it by force and mass slaughter of the people who they see as “munafiq”, as Daesh is doing right now.

        17. avatar Paul G says:

          Mainstream islam knows the Salafists are fundamentally correct. The quran is not subject to interpretation. The ancient linguistics of the quran make it unreadable by most adherents, they only know the recitations in the manner that most schoolchildren used to know “Frere Jacques”. Muslims, even non-arab muslims, are not allowed to utilize translations, as even that is heretical, it violates the sanctity of the word. Strangely, however, islamic groups do produce translations so as to proselytize. A lot of explanation in those translations, trying to whitewash the simple truths. Even they explanations cannot fully disguise the intents, of course. Any part of the sunnah that disagrees with the quran is heretical. Also, the life of Muhammad is exemplar of the way to live ones life, a large part of the sunnah. This absolutely means conquest, conversion by the sword, child marriage, rape and pillage, beheadings, etc…..

        18. avatar int19h says:

          It doesn’t matter what is “fundamentally correct” according to some arbitrary rules (e.g. literal reading of Koran and disregard of any subsequent interpretations). What matters is that 80% of Muslims don’t agree with those rules. They don’t think that they are wrong; rather, they think that Salafi are wrong. Yes, the Salafi consider that heretical, but when 20% considers the other 80% heretical, I think that we have to award the title of mainstream to the latter.

          I could similarly argue that what all mainstream Christian denominations believe today – from Orthodox to Catholics to Protestants – is heretical on account of obvious disagreements with the teachings of Christ as expressed in the Gospels. Nevertheless, this is what modern mainstream Christianity has evolved into, and if I start claiming that 99% of the Christians aren’t actually Christians because they deviate from my literal reading of the Bible, I’m just unilaterally rewriting the dictionary.

        19. avatar Paul G says:

          But they do not think the salafists are wrong. They KNOW that the salfafists are right. The “rules” are anything but arbitrary. They are inviolable and sacrosanct. Good luck changing that.

        20. int19h wrote:

          I do not consider myself an “authority” on Islam.

          I cannot say what you consider yourself. But you have been acting as an authority despite your protestation here.

          Understand that I am not a Muslim.

          Your writings demonstrate that clearly enough.

          When I say that Koran is literally the words of Muhammad, I say so because that’s what it is – Muhammad’s own creation that he dictated to his followers. That it has some mythology behind it whereby it’s claimed to be a directly transcribed word of God is, to me, irrelevant.

          If you are going to ignore accepted Islamic tradition on the origin of the Qur’an and discount “mythology,” you are left with no way to assert that Muhammad created it, or even existed at all. The Qur’an first appeared as collections of writings long after Muhhamad supposedly died. According to tradition, every overlapping piece matched perfectly, but (brave) scholars admit that this is not remotely true.

          What’s relevant is that it is what he said, and it is what the people around him heard and acted upon.

          Suddenly you accept the mythology again.

          In a similar vein, I’m not trying to “salvage” any citations from the Koran. It’s not about my interpretation of the verses at all – it’s all about how Muslims themselves interpret them today.

          As opposed to the previous millennium and a half? Apologists today, knowing that jihadism needs an apologetic cover, ascribe new, milder meanings. But the scholars within Islam and external to it were in strong agreement about the eternal and offensive-war nature of jihad. Only recently have a few tried to re-invent this for Western audiences.

          As I’m sure you know, there’s a noticeable difference of opinions among the ulema on many controversial verses.

          I do not know this, and in fact am convinced that, but for recent apologists, the opposite is true.

          Furthermore, this has not been immutable over the course of history as well, and in many cases the prevailing interpretation was the politically convenient one

          Here at least we can agree. For Western audiences, “jihad” as merely “struggle” is much more benign and “politically convenient” as you say.

          (e.g when early Caliphs, or a while later the Ottomans, needed to justify their conquests, the prevailing opinion on offensive jihad of the sword was that it is permissible subject only to the discretion of the Caliph – but by 19th century already that was the minority view).

          And they went back to the doctrine of eternal, offensive jihad.

          When I refer to the Sword Verse, I refer to it as singular because there is a verse that is specifically most known as such, and is most often cited in that context, both by Islamists who use it to justify their methods,

          Like Muhammad himself, for example.

          and by anti-Islamic propaganda purporting to provide evidence that all Muslims are inherently violent.

          Perhaps. I have certainly never made such a statement. The doctrines of Islam, including many parts of the Qur’an (specifically the latest and controlling parts) are inherently violent, but as I have already said here, not all Muslims follow or support (or even think about) these dictates.

          I’m well aware that there are other verses that are similar in nature, but this one is a useful example because of it being the most expansive among them, the most famous, and exhibiting the difference in interpretation between Muslim scholars.

          All right. Let’s go with Sura 9:5, which is probably the most popular of the verses dictating war. It was one of the last things in the Qur’an (and by tradition actually follows the later part of this last section). It says, essentially, “You non-Muslims have four months to clear out of area we control, or convert, or die.” Other places add the submission tax for “people of the book.” Muhammad (really Allah, by tradition) had just conquered Mecca and about a third of Arabia, and was no longer having to keep a low profile.

          Now as you rightly say, in modern Islam, the literal interpretation

          Literal interpretation? Are you prepared to stand in front of Muslims and state that Surah 9:5 or 9:29 or the others are some sort of metaphor or parable? Or that Allah never really meant was he said there?

          of this and other similar verses is generally common to a relatively recent strain of heavily politicized Islam that claims a “return to the roots” from the heretical shackles of “innovation” in religion

          The issue is not what you describe at all. “Soft” Islam had been on the path to becoming secular by ignoring the dictates of the Qur’an and Hadith and Sunnah, like a bomb buried in the yard, and just sort of getting along with their lives. The interpretation of those verses did not change, they were just allowed to sit without much attention. That is the objection raised by the Muslim Brotherhood and the hundreds of millions they reach: That bomb is still live, and is now ticking for attention.

          But because the original Islam of Muhammad’s days was much more brutal than Christianity, those “Muslim Protestants” also arrived at a much more brutal version compared to contemporary mainstream Islam, and were generally rejected by the establishment. Remember that Wahhab, who was arguably the earliest forerunner of the movement to whom a chain of transfer of ideas can be formed to modern times (the real first were arguably the Kharijites, but there’s no direct connection from them to modern Salafism – ideas are similar, but they come from a different root), was declared a zindiq, and his views declared bid’ah, in fatwas issued by the prominent clerics of his time.

          And now Wahhabis and Sauds rule Saudi Arabia — the Wahhabis are the religious leaders — and with the Brotherhood, their reach is world-wide including into madrassas in th United States.

          Similarly, more recent preachers of the Salafist movement – Deobandists and their modern incarnation the Taliban, Muslim Brotherhood founders like Banna and Qutb etc – do not exactly have a ringing endorsement from the mainstream ulema.

          This is an astounding statement. I would like to see you cite ANY “mainstream ulema” who denounce the Muslim Brotherhood as inauthentic.

          In Chechnya, Salafists have ultimately lost the conflict

          When did this occur?

          because their increased aggressiveness towards the established Sufi Islam resulted in large swaths of the local ulema turning against them, and ultimately allying with Russia.

          And dying.

          And yes, unfortunately, the popularity of Salafist ideology is still growing, and while they’re a minority among Muslims, they’re a large and significant minority.

          Agreed. Just as the ISIS idiot was a minority in the Lindt Café — but he had a gun and a determination to do harm, so he was very much in charge.

          But when we start paining all Muslims with the same brush, we play straight into their hands

          I have never done this, and you are writing this to me.

          by making their propaganda that much easier, painting their war as a defensive jihad against western “crusaders” who are hell-bent on destroying all Islam.

          We don’t have to do anything to make the jihadists’ propaganda “easier.” Nor are we under any obligation to forgo any action that might be used as propaganda, because they were committed to destroying us anyway.

          Mainstream Islam is our ally in the war against Salafists, not our enemy

          You did not answer my question earlier: Do you consider Qaradawi “mainstream”? Muslim publications say that he is, and he’s fully on board with jihad against the West until the world submits to Allah. Moreover, Muslim scholarship decries “soft” Islam as “disdained” and out of the mainstream. Who tells you it is not?

          – because Salafists hate mainstream Islam and seek to “purify” it by force and mass slaughter of the people who they see as “munafiq”, as Daesh is doing right now.

          They had “innovative” Islam, like almost all outspoken imams. They’re just doing more about it.

          The upshot: Most Muslims don’t pay too much attention to such matters. But the ones that do are far more likely to be jihadist supporters than not.

          As an aside, here is a very detailed work on Sura 9:5 and surrounding verses, complete with scholarly references ancient and modern. Find some disagreement with this analysis of that most famous of the Sword Verses, if you can.

          ==============/ Keith DeHavelle

        21. avatar int19h says:

          First of all, I did answer your question about Qaradawi earlier (but it may have gone to a different thread – this blog software is not always reliable when keeping track of replies). To repeat and expand on it: every single person who belongs to Muslim Brotherhood, or shares it ideology, is an extremist, because it is inherently an extremist ideology (Salafism).

          I’m not claiming that you personally have proclaimed all Muslims or Islam itself to be inherently violent and unfixable. But some other opponents in this discussion (which is not just you and me) did just that, and that is what I was answering to.

          The “literal interpretation” of the Sword Verse is the one that is taken out of context of a specific military campaign that Muhammad was waging at the time. The mainstream interpretation is that it applies only within that context.

          The current Grand Mufti of Egypt has condemned Muslim Brotherhood on several occasions. And Dar al-Ifta, which effectively represents the official mainstream Islam position in Egypt, has rejected fatwas issued by MB, and specifically by Qaradawi – e.g. the one denouncing elections as un-Islamic. Is that mainstream enough?

          Regarding Chechnya. The current ruling regime is headed by Ramzan Kadyrov, who is the son of Ahmat Kadyrov, who in turn was the (Sufi) Grand Mufti of Chechnya. Chechens themselves have been Sufi (and not particularly religious at that) since Islam was originally introduced to Caucasus, but Salafist strains appeared as foreign fighters from Afghanistan and elsewhere from Middle East have joined their fight against Russia, and proved to be quite enticing for the younger generation. After the end of the first Chechen war, when they got their independence in practice if not on paper, the political arrangement was a compromise between Sufi traditionalists (and Chechen nationalists) like their president Maskhadov, Zakayev, and Kadyrov himself, and Salafi extremists, such as Jordanian Khattab and local converts such as Udugov, Basaev and Yandarbiev (who viewed Chechen nationalism from the Salafi perspective, considering it a sin of tribalism and divisive to the Ummah). However, bickering for power started almost immediately after, and the Sufi-nationalists, who were nominally in charge, didn’t actually control the military units headed by Salafists, which were the most experienced and well outfitted (being funded by Saudis etc).

          When Salafists, led by Basaev, invaded Dagestan in 1999, starting the Second Chechen War, it was against the direct order of the president and against the wishes of the nationalist party. However, they were divided on what to do next, especially after the invasion was repelled, and Russian troops crossed the border into Chechnya. One faction, led by the president and most other prominent nationalist figures, decided that struggle for independence is more important that ideological differences with the Salafists, and joined forces. After the war was lost, they went into exile, and the divisions between them and Salafists reappeared again, even as they maintained a hostile stance towards Russia and the new Chechen pro-Russian government.

          The other faction, led by traditionalist Sufi clerics, and in particular the Grand Mufti Ahmat Kadyrov, have decided that Salafists pose more danger to them long-term, and allied with Russia against them and the remaining nationalists, providing Chechen troops on the ground in exchange for concessions from the Russian government. Those concessions have effectively turned the complete power in Chechnya over to the Kadyrov clan, and guaranteed them safety and full military support, as well as significant funding of the country (a lot of it, obviously, ends up in the pocket of the clan), in exchange for clear and unambiguous loyalty and denouncement of secessionism. As a result of that deal, the separatists, both nationalist and Salafist, were crushed and went underground, which has slowly been dwindling and radicalizing further over the past decade, while Kadyrov has been heavily promoting Sufi Islam as an alternative.

        22. “The current Grand Mufti of Egypt has condemned Muslim Brotherhood on several occasions”

          No kidding? The Grand Mufti appointed by Mubarak during a time when the Muslim Brotherhood is against the law has spoken against the Muslim Brotherhood? This is hardly shocking, and despite being viewed as a sell-out by other clerics, he is a big supporter of Islamic government supremacy through Shariah law. Here is Ali Gomaa, talking about dissenters to government:

          The question is, if someone wants to take up arms against the army, what should be done about him?

          Kill him!

          I’ll say it again: Anyone who rebels against the Egyptian army or police should be killed, according to Islamic law. If even a single bullet is fired from within any gathering of people, the Egyptian army and police should respond in a manner that pleases Allah, even if that means firing into the crowd.

          During this interview, he was challenged (the interviewer was mainstream Islam, pointing out that Qaradawi, not Ali Gomaa, is the head of the International Union of Muslim Scholars and a member of the Higher Council of Islamic Studies, and a “most respected” scholar. Gomaa scoffed, suggesting that Qaradawi “used to be” but now has Alzheimer’s disease.

          Note that Qaradawi has never been a moderate. And if murderous, Shariah-pushing dictator-supporting Gomaa is the best you can offer as a “mainstream” “moderate,” then there is indeed little hope that Islam can be salvaged.

          I found a clip from that interview, but I don’t know if it is protected by a paywall or not:
          http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/3959.htm

          By the way, you posed this question to another poster here: “Well, can you demonstrate some examples of Muslim Kurds killing or otherwise prosecuting other people on account of religion?”

          The Kurds’ Article 6 of their constitution makes Shariah the supreme law, and they are busily firing any imam who does not go along with the program or has anything critical to say about the Kurdish leadership. The Kurdish Muslims are also very big on female genital mutilation. We like them right now much better than ISIS, for good reason, but they are hardly “moderates.”

          ==============/ Keith DeHavelle

        23. avatar int19h says:

          If Kurds are so big on Sharia, why does every single photo of female Kurdish peshmerga that I can find online doesn’t have any head cover, not even for the hair?

          As far as the take on government opposition, this has everything to do with politics and pretty much nothing with Islam. In Christian countries where church is both respected and subservient to the state (such as e.g. Russia), clerics have historically made similar pronouncements to deter people from rebelling. Not to mention the whole “divine right of kings” thing, that was essentially uniform in Europe at some point. So it just goes to show that these societies are closer in their level of development to that time in Europe than they are to modern democracies, which comes as no surprise to anyone.

        24. Well, “int19h,” at least you’re admitting that the one person you proffered as a “mainstream ulema” speaking against the Muslim Brotherhood was doing it for political reasons, as an appointee of a government (and now another, after Morsi) who treat the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood as an opposition rebel party.

          Do you have any others to cite? (You did not actually cite such pronouncements from Ali Gomaa nor even mentioned his name, but I was familiar with him.)

          Since mainstream Islam (like the Muslim Brotherhood and their hundreds of millions of adherents in Egypt, Indonesia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and around the world) has always correctly considered Islam as both a religion as well as political system, treating the MB as an opposition party is reasonable enough.

          ==============/ Keith DeHavelle

        25. avatar alexander says:

          The last part is great: “when someone says that Israeli Army is better than the Egyptian Army, they must be suffering from Alzheimer’s.”

        26. Regarding Chechen victory over the jihadists … this is from 48 hours ago:

          The attacks belie Ramzan Kadyrov’s claim that his heavy-handed security measures have put paid to Islamist militancy in the Chechen Republic, and raise the question of whether we are seeing the beginning of a new wave of jihadist militancy.

          Seen through Western eyes, it might look as if we are. The threat seems familiar.

          Disaffected youths are being recruited as jihadists, Chechen fighters are returning from the Middle East ready to internationalise jihad and make Chechnya and the Caucasus generally part of a larger Islamic Caliphate.

          There are certainly links between the Caucasus Emirate and jihadist groupings fighting in Iraq and Syria.

          There is also no doubt that Chechens – estimates of the number are as high as 2,000 – have been fighting for IS in Syria, as well as being a major presence in the al-Nusra Front.

          A bit premature to declare victory, don’t you think?

          ==============/ Keith DeHavelle

        27. avatar int19h says:

          Declaring a total and complete victory? Yes, it’s premature.

          Nevertheless, the Islamists have effectively controlled a good half of Chechnya in late 90s. It was everything that ISIS is today, complete with Sharia courts and executions, slavery etc.

          And now it’s gone, and the people who were behind it it are in hiding, living in the forests or underground. Yes, they do carry attacks such as this one that you’ve linked to, and yes, they keep replenishing their ranks with new followers recruited from radicalized Chechen youth. But they’re not in control anywhere (not even in the forests where their bases are – they have to constantly move those around, or be destroyed), and their popularity in the masses is low. For the most part, Chechens want a stable government with no wars, no rampant crime, and respect for their traditions; and their experience with Islamists in the 90s has shown them that they bring something directly opposite.

          So yes, I’d say that it’s reasonable to claim a victory in that battle, even if the larger war it was a part of is still raging on.

        28. avatar alexander says:

          I have, unfortunately, missed much of the discussion as yesterday I spent a productive evening reloading a few hundred rounds and an even more productive afternoon shooting them today, but now I’m trying to catch up and what I see is int19h using the “interpretations” of Islam as provided by CAIR and certainly not accepted by the authorities on Islam in Alexandria and Cairo, except as meant for Western consumption. I agree that most Muslims do not (and probably will not) practice violent jihad, but they all recognize it as the greatest fulfillment of Islamic faith; therefore, they will support and never condemn anyone who practice it, for those are, in their view, the truly holy men. Likewise, most Nazi’s did not kill anyone themselves (Hitler certainly didn’t). The key issue here, regardless how one parses the verses, is that the Muslim/Islamic theology is a direct danger to our lives; appeasing it will only increase the danger. Since it is not really possible to isolate Islam (in the way that geography isolated it until the 20th century), we either recognize its danger and fight it to win, or we will be taken over, even if that takes generations. Hoping that in that time-frame Islam will undergo some kind of a Renaissance is a folly. Islam, by it’s own definition and laws, cannot peacefully coexists with other cultures – it will either kill or be killed. Bush’s failure to recognize and admit this fact (remember – “Islam is the religion of peace” speech?) and subsequent actions (installing Sharia constitutions to Afghanistan and Iraq) has done tremendous damage to the West and enabled CAIR and a great many politicians in their embrace to steer us into disaster.

        29. avatar int19h says:

          Also, no, Muslim Brotherhood is not mainstream Islam. They’re the more moderate Salafists, but they’re still Salafists, with all that entails. Their ultimate goals are the same.

          Understand that we’re talking about a religion here that numbers over 1.5 billion. 60 million is 4% of that. There are more extremists than that, of course, and that number is unfortunately growing, not shrinking. But even if we’re talking about the extreme estimates, giving somewhere around 25% of extremists and sympathizers, it’s still not the majority.

      2. avatar JasonM says:

        Where do people get these stupid ideas? Just because the Koran says something, doesn’t mean modern Muslims follow it to the letter any more than modern Christians and Jews follow the crazy stuff in the old testament. Do you beat your wife for talking to men while menstruating?

        The imams who promote violence are outliers, as are the Christian ministers and Jewish rabbis promoting violence against Muslims (and yes, they are out there).

        Modern terrorism uses the same tactics (e.g. suicide bombers, roadside IEDs, guerrilla warfare) that people have been using for centuries, when they can’t possibly hope to compete directly against an occupying force. All that’s changing is the technology of the weapons and the technology allowing us to report it around the world almost immediately.

        Some American colonists used infiltrators, bombs, and other asymmetrical tactics against the British in our war for independence. Was it because they had a religion of violence (Christianity and Deism mostly)?

        The Filipino independence movement used suicide bombers against the US military during their war for independence. Did they have a religion of violence (Catholicism)?

        The Vietcong used suicide bombers, IEDs, and guerrilla tactics against the US military during the Vietnam war. Was it because Buddhism is a religion of violence?

        The Irish used the same tactics against the British for over a century. Are Catholics inherently violent?

        The communists of Western Europe used terrorist tactics…okay, so communism is an inherently violent “religion”.

        A recent study of suicide bombings showed that virtually all of them occurred in conflicts where one side is completely outmatched by the other militarily. In almost all of them the side responsible for the suicide bombing sees the other side as an occupational force. It’s a way of attacking the morale of the enemy while avoiding facing him directly on the battlefield.
        As for religion, there were more Christian suicide bombers than Muslim.

        1. avatar Alexander says:

          I see that your education comes from the “Media.” Well, if it’s on TV, it must be true! I do suggest, however, that you read more and watch TV less.

        2. avatar Paul G says:

          But that was a really good episode of “The West Wing”, even if had no basis in reality.

        3. Jihadists are at this moment slaughtering Christians, Jews, and even wrong-flavored Muslims in their own countries — from Iraq to Iran to Saudi Arabia to Syria to Egypt to Turkey to Indonesia to, of course, Pakistan. The West is getting into the act as attacks on Jews and Christians rise with the influx of immigrants from Muslim lands.

          Some national governments are fighting back; Egypt is now on this list after the expulsion of their short-lived jihadist rule. They seem to be more the exception than the rule.

          Such genocides die down to a trickle after the “Islamically incorrect” are eliminated or their remnants cowed or driven completely underground. This is the situation now in Saudi Arabia, and Ethiopia is getting there. We don’t hear much about this, but by far the largest number of religiously persecuted and slaughtered around the world are Christians, almost exclusively by jihadists who are far from a fringe element. The remainder of such persecutions is by communists, who in many instances have made common cause with jihadists.

          The unfortunate victims, the “not the right flavor of Muslim and thus must die,” generally have the same nationality as their murderers; they look like them and share the same culture. They are not “oppressors” and merely wish to be left alone. In countries where Islam is in the tiny minority, victim-hood and apologetics are practiced by their jihadist subset. As they grow larger, tolerance is replaced with repression and apologetics is replaced with annihilation.

          But even Egypt, now nominally on the “good guy” list, holds majorities of subjects that demand execution for leaving the faith of Islam, amputations for petty theft, and severe punishments including death for “insulting” their evidently thin-skinned prophet and god. Whether personally violent or not (most are not), these people actively support an oppressive, violent religion indeed. Similar percentages hold true in the Muslim populations of majority Muslim countries around the world.

          ==============/ Keith DeHavelle

        4. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

          Yes communism is inherently violent. Implementing communism necessitates mad murder in the hopes off changing human nature. Any system based on Marx’s ideas will come to this conclusion eventually if it is not part of the ideology from the start.

        5. avatar scoutino says:

          “Just because the Koran says something, doesn’t mean modern Muslims follow it to the letter any more than modern Christians and Jews follow the crazy stuff in the old testament.”
          The Myth of the Tiny Radical Muslim …: http://youtu.be/g7TAAw3oQvg

    2. avatar Rob Aught says:

      He did not say all Islamics were terrorists but that all terrorists have been Islamics. That is largely true except for maybe the oddball occurrence.

      I know many Muslims and I know zero terrorists. All good people. Which is why the answer cannot be to simply ban Islamics. Banning or outlawing doesn’t seem to work since criminals don’t seem to have a regard for the law anyway.

      However, we also cannot ignore for the sake of PC that a vast majority of the terror attacks seem to have a very common thread.

      1. avatar Ryan says:

        Yeah, my son’s best friend is a Pakistani Muslim. I knew a couple of Turkish and Pakistani Muslims who served right beside me when I was in the US Army. None of them were terrorists.

        1. avatar Paul G says:

          I know a couple of pro-choice Catholics, and a lot of young Catholic boys I hung with in my youth carried condoms. That doesn’t mean that Catholicism condones their actions.

      2. avatar int19h says:

        Just like torture, it doesn’t matter if it works or doesn’t – it’s simply not the question that you should be asking.

        The right answer is that we don’t do it because it’s wrong. In this case, the freedom of speech and of religion even something that is explicitly protected by the Constitution.

        1. avatar alexander says:

          The Constitution does not protect theocracy; in fact, it protects the US from any form of theocracy. It also does not protect against speech intended to overthrow the government. Example – communist activity is not legal as it is considered subversive. Islam is a theocracy that pretends to be a religion because us westerners are too dumb to know the difference.

        2. avatar int19h says:

          The Constitution protects all forms of speech without qualification. The only case where your speech may be restricted is when it can be shown to directly cause an imminent lawless action, such as a riot. Note that the “imminent” requirement here is crucial: if you get out in front of a mob and say something like “let’s go burn some niggers”, and they actually try to go and do that, then yes, you’d be prosecuted for inciting. But if you publish a book on the subject, and later on someone buys it, reads it, and starts lynching people, then you won’t.

          I have no idea why you believe that “communist activity” is considered illegal in this country. It has a perfectly legal and functioning communist party, CPUSA (in fact it has several, this one is just the most popular one), and it even gets on the ballot in some local elections occasionally. They certainly don’t have any trouble with law publishing their views. Similarly, there’s a perfectly legal American Nazi Party that distributes Mein Kampf etc.

    3. avatar Christian says:

      Your attempt to be understanding is laudable, but I think some study of the nature of Islam is in order. Islam holds a sharia based theocracy as the correct form of government, and all are subject to the rules and regulations of Islam, whether you believe it or not. Are most Muslims “nominal” and keep mostly to themselves? Probably. Particularly when they are a minority. Those same nominal Muslims when they form a majority will actively support Sharia law. Islam is neither tolerant nor understanding of other cultures, women’s rights, homosexuals, jews, athiests or “infidel” non-muslims. I hold no prejudice against others for their religious beliefs, but I recognize danger when I see it.

      I do not say this out of hatred or fear. I simply understand the nature of that religion. Mohammed spread his religion by the sword while he lived, the Caliphate that rose after him did the same, and we see to this day the effects of Islamic extremism and their efforts to spread their religion with violence and fear.

      All religions have their crazies. Even buddhists. None take it to the extreme that Islam does. It is an uncomfortable truth, but Islam is as dangerous to Western freedom as Nancy Pelosi and Governor Cuomo are to gun rights.

      1. avatar Pascal says:

        Unlike all other religions which have had a Reformation movement, Islam has not. Islam is exactly the same and has not changed nor has its people ever wanted it to change in 1500yrs. Silence among those who Muslims is the same as condoning the killings, terrorist acts and beheadings.

        When events like this one occur, I never see or hear the Muslim community condemn the act. I see no Muslim country go to the UN and publicly renounce what has occurred. Why? Because they accept it and a great majority are Okay with the violence and what occurred. I remember on and days after 9/11 many Muslims celebrating the attacks. Several Muslims who worked at my company were later fired because while many were crying in front of the TV as the events unfolded, the Muslim co-workers where having a party.

        We are told that it is a religion of peace, yet, I see no evidence that they are peaceful.

        The only time I hear them speak out is when they believe events like this could cause an incident at a local Mosque. They run to local government to protect them, but they offer no condolences nor do they speak out about the attackes.

        Hard to believe they want peace when they do nothing for peace.

        1. avatar Paul G says:

          The peace islam refers to is the one they are working to attain. That peace can only be achieved by making the world one for allah. No unbelievers allowed.

        2. avatar Grindstone says:

          “When events like this one occur, I never see or hear the Muslim community condemn the act”

          Probably because you have your eyes shut and fingers in your ears. Do a bit of googling for once.

      2. avatar Ing says:

        Spot on, Christian. This may be the best I’ve ever seen it said.

      3. avatar int19h says:

        Bullshit. Daesh (ISIS) established just this kind of Sharia theocracy, and look at what’s happening: they’re slaughtering people by the thousands, and most of their victims are Muslims who are not happy with their rule. Indeed, the majority of people on the territory they have conquered are Muslims (Sunni even!), and yet very unhappy.

    4. avatar Paul G says:

      “Never judge the many over the misdeeds of the few”.
      You have it a bit wrong, in that terrorism is not a misdeed for muslims. They are called to it by their religion.

    5. avatar Don says:

      Not what he said at all, it’s an IF:Then:Else sort of logic. Not all Muslims are terrorists, but with rare exceptions in the last couple decades all terrorists are Muslim. Pretty hard to argue with the logic. It’s like the hand wringers calling Sheriff Joe in Arizona racist and accusing him of racial profiling because he only checks Hispanics for ID or documents. 99.9% of all criminal aliens (I refuse to use the term “illegal aliens” any longer) are hispanic, so why would we be checking all white or black citizens, how likely is it that they’re not from here?

    6. avatar Rick the Bear says:

      MattG,

      I recently read that an extremist Moslem wants to cut your head off; a moderate Moslem wants an extremist to cut your head off.

      Sadly, as already noted, followers of Islam are the main group whose members commit such terrorist acts while claiming their religion teachings as validation. Moslems who speak against such acts often find themselves targets of those whom they criticize.

      I have read that the Crusades were a response to Moslem crusades of sorts.

  8. avatar Sian says:

    I can’t help but notice the parallels, the same people who say we absolutely can’t just kick all the Islamists out of the country for the acts of criminal extremists because freedom of religion is protected (Never mind that it’s a religious AND political philosophy, but that’s for another post) are the same ones who don’t even blink at the thought of removing the right to bear weapons from the people because of the actions of criminals, despite being quite clearly protected by the same document.

    They don’t even notice the hypocrisy.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Sian,

      I think gun grabbers see the hypocrisy — they just don’t care because, guns.

      Remember, gun grabbers are quite literally hysterical in every possible clinical sense of that word. You cannot reason with a hysterical person.

      1. avatar Another Robert says:

        Bullseye! +1000

      2. avatar Sian says:

        You have a good point, but I think I’m going to have to disagree.

        I don’t think it’s deliberate per se, otherwise more of them would be trying to directly challenge the 2A. (good luck with that)

        They simply don’t see it as a ‘valid’ right and take it as that. They have to be so far up their own asses, that they literally can’t conceive of the idea that a firearm could be used (by a lowly civilian) for anything but evil.

    2. avatar James says:

      You’re assuming they subscribe to the same or similar principles that you hold. Be careful not to project your decency onto these folks. They subscribe to the principle of what makes them feel good or righteous is always correct. This enables all the contradictions you see, but they see it as perfectly consistent to them since they are righteous and always correct.

    3. avatar Grindstone says:

      I’m pro-2A and pro-1A for all. So you would be wrong then.
      Generalizations are not productive.

      1. avatar Paul G says:

        Generalizations are very productive, who are you trying to kid? One must not lose sight of the fact that generalizations are just that, and there can be exceptions. If generalizations were unproductive, law enforcement would not spend so much time analyzing them.

        1. avatar Grindstone says:

          Oh, right, the generalizations that lead law enforcement to disproportionately arrest minorities over whites for pot even though all races have similar rates of use? And the NYPD disproportionately using “Stop and Frisk” on minorities? Yeah, very productive if you’re a xenophobic racist who lacks a single rational bone.

        2. avatar Paul G says:

          You are a funny guy, and I don’t mean comedy.

        3. avatar alexander says:

          I take that you do have the statistics to support your claims?

        4. avatar Christian says:

          The reason so many minorities get tossed in prison for drug charges are because drug charges STICK. Whether they have you pee in a cup, or take a sample of your hair or blood for analysis, the lab results will speak for themselves. Why spend man-hours trying to prove someone’s a dealer, or that they knocked over a stop’n’rob, when you can pay LabCorp $20 for damning evidence that will put them behind bars for roughly the same amount of time as if you went to all the trouble of building a case against them – just so they can plea bargain when they sit down with the DA? It’s extremely similar to the FBI’s philosophy on Al Capone – if we can put him away for life on Tax Evasion, [or Drug Charges] why bother with the rest of his crimes?

          The fact that many minorities are seemingly over-represented in drug convictions has more to do with those same minorities being over-represented in the world of crime than racial prejudice.

  9. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    Good post RF. And it seems Barry Soetoro is emboldened to do whatever the hell he wants-see Cuba.

  10. avatar travis m. says:

    Truth be told, there have been Jewish terrorists if you check your history, though it has mainly been in the middle east, particularly during the British occupation of what is now known as Israel. Granted, maybe it doesn’t meet your criteria of past few decades. Either way, killers don’t really need any religious/ideological/ethnic justification, they like having it, but they don’t need it.

    1. avatar Christian says:

      I would put the Jewish terrorists of that era in the same category as the IRA. It wasn’t religiously motivated, had more to do with occupation by a foreign power.

      1. avatar Grindstone says:

        That’s a whitewash. IRA targeted Protestants just as much as they targeted the British.

  11. avatar ST says:

    “We have observed over the past few decades that neither Jewish zionists, nor Christian crusaders,”

    Some folks in northern Ireland would disagree with that sentence.
    Bottom line-terrorism is terrorism.Its not a ‘religion’ problem, its a ‘scumbag management’ problem.

    1. avatar SleeStac says:

      That’s true for Ireland and for Oklahoma City too. Even Pennsylvania sort of got in on the act recently.

      1. avatar Rob Aught says:

        You could take all of the IRA’s activities from their inception and I doubt it would touch the number of terror acts committed by Islamists in the last decade.

        There are exceptions, but terrorism is overwhelming committed by those who propose to follow Islam.

        How many years between Oklahoma City and the events in Pennsylvania and how many terrorist acts were committed by Islamists in the same time frame? There is no comparison.

      2. avatar Grindstone says:

        That dude shooting up Austin was part of a Christian cult.

        1. “That dude shooting up Austin was part of a Christian cult.”

          The “cult” has no members, except for people deciding to call themselves members. And no meetings, of course. And no Christians saying “yes, we approve.”

          Contrast this to jihadism, where national religious leaders give honors to Muslim Brotherhood spinoffs such as al Qaida. For example, the religious leadership council of Pakistan awarded Usama bin Ladin the “Shaifallah” or “Sword of Allah” for his attacks on the US, the highest honor one can bestow within Islam.

          This is not a case of “no true Scotsman”; the memberless cult you alluded to is not taken as Christian by anyone of consequence.

          But assuming arguendo that they are a Christian cult as you suggest, we’d be up to about 0.000000001% of Christians as potential terrorists or supporters of terrorism, as opposed to 15% to 25% of Muslims. The entire death toll of all abortion clinic bombers in the last half-century is equaled by jihadists before breakfast on any random day.

          As a blistering counter to Islamist jihadism, your “Christians do it too!” approach lacks a certain amount of punch due to the million-to-one or more issue of scale.

          ==============/ Keith DeHavelle

    2. avatar Omer Baker says:

      There’s been a lot of bombs dropped in the Mideast over the last 25 years. Perhaps that my be a reason for Islamists attacks?

      1. avatar Paul G says:

        I think you have that backwards.

    3. avatar C.Z. says:

      You couldn’t be more correct!!!

      We try too hard to make someone else the “other” because of faith or some other view and consequently demonize all of “them” when they are just phucked up people. Forgetting good and bad people come in all shapes, sizes, faiths, races, and levels of income and education.

    4. avatar Ross says:

      And lets not forget Nelson Mandela and his ANC network.

  12. avatar Paul G says:

    Here it comes….background checks to express oneself. Ideas are more powerful than guns, so even more people should be prohibited from speaking one’s mind. For the children….

  13. avatar Stephen says:

    One forgets that Catholics from Ireland operated in a terrorist fashion in England and Northern Ireland.

    1. avatar tdiinva says:

      Catholic in Ulster is more of a cultural and political designation than a religious one. The modern IRA had more in common with Bader-Meinhoff and the Red Brigades than a Catholic civil rights organization. You know those IED tactics that Iraqi insurgents used? They learned them from Palestinian terrorists trained by the IRA in Libya.

  14. avatar NoID says:

    I guess that makes us all yeswecans!

    Obama would not be pleased.

  15. avatar DickG says:

    The chief of the YouMayKnots once declared that he would like to create a “civilian” force as well equipped and as strong as the U.S. military.
    .
    I would suggest that if properly equipped, the YesWeCans and the YouBetWeWills are in sufficient numbers to constitute that civilian. It used to be called the “Militia”.
    .
    Surely many of the former top leaders of the Military would volunteer for the “Militia”, and encourage many of their former comrades in arms to defect.
    .
    I believe it would reverse the situation with no shots fired, and the chief of the YouMayKnots would suddenly be impeached!
    .

    .

    1. avatar Grindstone says:

      “The chief of the YouMayKnots once declared that he would like to create a “civilian” force as well equipped and as strong as the U.S. military.”

      Still waiting for that to materialize.

      I sear, right wingers today sound exactly like left wingers during the Bush era. “OMG HE’S GOING TO TAKE OVER AND BECOME A DICTATOR!!!111”

      1. avatar Accur81 says:

        The way Obama treats the constitution there is clearly some cause for concern.

        1. avatar Grindstone says:

          You mean treating it the same way Bush did? Yeah, such concern.

  16. avatar Bill in Hawaii says:

    “Ideals are peaceful, history is violent.”

    Sgt. Don “Wardaddy” Collier (Brad Pitt) from the movie Fury.

  17. avatar IdahoPete says:

    “Although you may not view yourself as a slave, they do.”

    Got it in one. Remember the only Duty mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.

  18. avatar lolinski says:

    Majority of terrorists muslim? I call bulls***.

    http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005/terror02_05#terror_05sum

    What is true is that most reported terrorism is muslims/alleged muslims. Of all people I thought the POTG should know when someone is trying to smear someone.

    1. avatar Joe says:

      +1 Terrorism comes in many forms and is committed by a variety religious groups and ethnicities. While prevalent among some followers, Islam by no means has a monopoly on this kind of behavior.

    2. avatar Paul G says:

      You are so right….muslims only commit workplace violence.

    3. avatar IdahoPete says:

      True, the majority of “terrorist” incidents in the US, as reported by the FBI, seem lately to be perpetrated by – wait for it – ENVIRONMENTALIST GROUPS! )Notably the Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front)

      However, for sheer numbers of people killed by terrorists world-wide over the last 100 years or so, communist governments are way out in front. Muslims are trying hard to catch up, however. (Terrorists as defined by the FBI: engage in “violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that … appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population…”)

    4. But the original assertion is accurate. Your stats are for the US only, and stop at a decade ago. Muslims make up a vanishingly small portion of the US population, and yet Islamic terrorism is well represented (so to speak) on that US-limited list. And, of course, has more than 90% of the body count.

      Even the McVeigh/Nichols terrorist attack in Oklahoma City had a jihadist influence, as Nichols traveled to Cebu, evidently to be trained in bomb-making by al Qaida of the Philippines (according to counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke, on page 145 of his rather self-promoting book on his experiences with Clinton and Bush).

      World-wide, one does not need to look far to see the overwhelmingly jihadist nature of terrorism. And as the radical racists and communists in the US of the 60s, 70s, and 80s take their place in government instead, jihadists get more of the US playing field to themselves. The others are working from the inside.

      And regarding working from the inside, I count civilians killed by governments in a separate category. If we were to include them in “terrorism,” then we’re stretching the term beyond usefulness in conversation.

      Communist governments are way out in front in that death toll, but US environmentalists in our own government are catching up, with the tens of millions dead due to the ban on DDT and many more starving because of the effects of biofuels on food prices. Still, this is a different category.

      ==============/ Keith DeHavelle

    5. avatar Robert says:

      Plenty of things that should be labeled as terrorism aren’t. The Ft Hood shooting for instance. Also those stats only go back to 2005. It is the stats from the last 10 years which are pertinent to the current environment that we live in.

  19. avatar Grindstone says:

    “We have observed over the past few decades that neither Jewish zionists, nor Christian crusaders, nor Norwegian folk-dancers for that matter, have presented a terrorist problem. The problem is always Islamics. Islamics are terrorists, and have been for the past 1500 years.”

    As an Oklahoma City resident, I take objection to this statement.

    Xenophobic fear-mongering will get us nowhere fast.

    1. avatar Paul G says:

      Why? I don’t think Zionists or Christian crusaders had anything to do with OKC.

      1. avatar Grindstone says:

        Ever hear of a guy named Timmy McVeigh? Christian nutjob.

        1. avatar Paul G says:

          Atheist if I remember correctly….though he did may have made a claim of being Christian, to implicate religion. I think he was actually raised Catholic, and did rediscover religion before being executed.
          All of that is besides the point anyways, his reasoning for his acts had nothing to do with any religion. Islamic terror is always based on quranic instructions.

        2. avatar Grindstone says:

          Yeah, that Christian Identity movement was totally atheist. No True Scotsman, etc etc.

          His religious beliefs were certainly part of his politics.

        3. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          False. McVeigh neither claimed to be Christian, nor claimed to carry out his act of terrorism on the basis of Christian belief. But don’t let facts get in the way:

          McVeigh was raised Roman Catholic. During his childhood, he and his father attended Mass regularly. McVeigh was confirmed at the Good Shepherd Church in Pendleton, New York, in 1985. In a 1996 interview, McVeigh professed belief in “a God”, although he said he had “sort of lost touch with” Catholicism and “I never really picked it up, however I do maintain core beliefs.” In McVeigh’s 2002 biography American Terrorist, he stated that he did not believe in Hell and that science is his religion. In June 2001, a day before the execution, McVeigh wrote a letter to the Buffalo News identifying himself as agnostic. Before his execution, McVeigh took the Catholic sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick.

        4. McVeigh was “reinvented” as a Christian Terrorist after 9/11, by US media, to make a “balance” between Muslim and Christian terrorism. He was not religious, per se — “science is my religion” he famously proclaimed.

          But the difference here is more important than that. McVeigh and Nichols (trained by jihadist bomb-makers in the Philippines) never once proclaimed that their acts were motivated by Christianity or demanded by the Bible. In fact, the folks who tend to proclaim that such acts are Biblical are non-believers themselves.

          (Disclaimer: I am myself a non-believer (I use “non-theist”) as people think of “atheists” as militantly against religion, which I am not.)

          ==============/ Keith DeHavelle

  20. avatar alexander says:

    I see a lot of uninformed opinions here about Islam and Islamic terrorists. Clearly, many here have taken the media’s “education” about the subject without ever opening the Koran. Please do; this is an important subject today. You will see that 1) the Koran is considered the literal word of God – it is not to be interpreted or modified in any way, as opposed to the Jewish and Christian Bible, which is an interpretation and open to change. 2) everyone in the World is divided into the believers and the unbelievers. The Koran (God) commands the believers to convert or kill all unbelievers. There are no options. You either convert or you die. 3) all Muslims, as Mohammad himself, go through stages of development. Just as the early parts of the Koran are peaceful, Muslims in the early development (religion-wise) are allowed to be peaceful (like the one’s that you normally meet everyday); as they progress in their development, they must take on jihad and cleanse the World for Allah). It is like looking at a butterfly – so pleasant and harmless, until the grubs eat your entire garden. Someone else put this in a very clear way: “Radical Muslims want to kill you; Peaceful Muslims want the Radical Muslims to kill you.”
    Image that we are in the 1940’s, fighting Nazis. Meanwhile, we have a large Nazi establishment at home (partly on Welfare), holding Nazi meetings, demonstrations, mostly peaceful (a few killings, a beheading or two, but mostly peaceful…) Does that make sense?

    1. avatar Paul G says:

      Well, to be honest, there is enslavement or the paying of the jizya…though they are really only temporary means of avoiding the other choices.

    2. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “The Koran (God) commands the believers to convert or kill all unbelievers. There are no options. You either convert or you die.”

      Wrong.

      The choices are –

      (1) Convert to Islam.

      (2) Pay the tax.

      (3) Submit. (Women, submit means your worst nightmare.)

      If not 1,2 or 3 – The Sword.

      Islam. “The Religion of Peace”

      Looks like the “uninformed opinion” here is yours, alexander.

      1. avatar alexander says:

        Well, I could write a treatise on the subject, but few would be interested in reading it. So, several minor simplifications were made. Yes, as was earlier pointed out, another option is to submit and pay the tax, but it is a temporary option. The Final Judgement is envisioned as the killing of all unbelievers, for “even the rocks” will call out to the believers and say that an unbeliever is hiding behind it, to be killed.

    3. avatar drav says:

      Absolute load of BS, being married to a muslim, whos entire family is muslim that comes from the largest Muslim population in the world (indonesia), the jihadists are a minority. A loud minority, but minority nonetheless.
      Anyone whos actuslly visited muslim countries (that arent overrun by jihadists or in war) and been around the population can tell you thats just wrong. When all you know of muslim is the news and the occasional “good muslim” you meet, you really dont have much truth about the majority of the people other than what the Koran technically states, which is,no different than the murderous intent of the good ol Bible.

      1. avatar Paul G says:

        Not even close. Quran commands its adherents to kill, NOW, the OT had a few vicious battles over a thousand years in the past. They don’t even come close to comparison.

      2. avatar alexander says:

        Let’s put aside the supposed “murderous intent of the good ol Bible” simply because I can’t think of too many Bible-toting terrorists at the moment; in fact, if I were to burn a Bible in public, many will not be happy, but I don’t think that my family and I will me marked for execution. OK, now that we got that straight, let’s look at the facts. So, the jihadists are a minority, you say? Then why is it that non-jihadists (the “good” Muslims) don’t speak out against the jihadists? And if the jidadists are a minority and don’t have support from the majority, why do they continue to win battles and take over countries? Perhaps Allah is helping them?

        Please ask your wife, is every Muslim man expected to do jihad sometime in his life? Is violent jihad (the cleansing from the infidels) not considered the highest form of jihad? Ask her what are the five pillars of Islam (see if jihad is one of them)? Ask her if the Koran is open to interpretation and various views and if a Muslim is allowed to pick and the parts of the Koran that he likes and ignore the ones that he doesn’t agree with? Finally, ask her what does the Koran say about lying to infidels when the lie promotes Islam. I will be waiting for an enlightenment from a “moderate” Muslim.

        1. avatar int19h says:

          If you have actually read all that you’ve claim to read, you should know that “jihad” doesn’t mean physical battle. For women, for example, birthing children is jihad. Jihad of the sword is only one of the kinds.

          And even jihad of the sword doesn’t mean offensive warfare. All mainstream madhabs consider only defensive jihad to be fard al-ayn (obligatory for every Muslim) – this is to say, when unbelievers invade Muslim lands, all able-bodied males must take up arms and resist the invasion. Maliki madhab, IIRC, also considers offensive jihad (expanding the borders of Dar al-Islam) to be fard al-kifaya – obligatory for Ummah as a whole, but not for individual muslims. But even in that madhab that viewpoint is largely historical, and others don’t subscribe it in the first place.

          Islam is also not immutable. Even within the established madhabs, prevailing views on many issues have changed significantly over time, and will likely change again. Indeed, the whole point of the Salafi movement is rejecting all the bid’ah (“innovations”) in religion, and returning to what they claim to be the literal interpretation of Koran and Sunnah as it was in the time of Muhammad. Coincidentally, all the guys you see running around beheading people or ramming jets into buildings are Salafi.

          Now, here’s a fun fact. The countries with largest proportion of Salafi Muslims are: Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar (all with around 40-50%). They also happen to be the US “allies”, well-liked by Republican and Democrat presidents alike. I find it sadly ironic that people are all up in arms about Daesh beheading people, when Saudi Arabia has been doing just that for decades now, all recorded and televised from the central square of the capital, and has it written into law.

        2. avatar Paul G says:

          Jihad can mean personal struggle. Context is everything. In the quran, the context overwhelmingly puts jihad as holy war. This is the jihad that is islam’s highest calling. The young, old, physically and mentally infirm, these people are exempted from jihad, but expected to support it. This makes no sense in defining jihad as personal struggle, but perfect sense in the sense of holy war. Such is the use of jihad throughout most of the quran. Fact.
          Jihad is definitely offensive. Look at history. Look at the verse in the quran. Look at Muhammad’s conquests.
          Also, unbelievers are not innocents. Read the quran, don’t quote facts you have not researched.

        3. avatar int19h says:

          The problem with quoting the Koran is the same as quoting the Bible. For starters, Muslims have Sunnah in addition to Koran, and there’s much more there. For another, there are a lot of interpretations that have been built over the ages.

          To actually reason and judge about Islam, you need to know the Koran and the Sunnah and the interpretations thereof (and have to be aware that they will be different between madhabs, and sometimes even within the same madhab). If your “research” consists of looking up quotes from the Koran from sites like “Islam exposed”, then you don’t possess anywhere near the requisite amount of knowledge for that. It would be like going to a militant atheist website and judging Christians based on choice quotations from the Bible, without learning all the background about how most Christians consider most of OT obsolete etc.

        4. avatar Paul G says:

          There is not any difficulty in quoting either, in context. However, imams and apologists are adept at quoting abrogated or out of context verses. In much the same vein, “judge not lest ye be judged” is oft quoted out of context from the Bible.
          Neither is problematic, used in context. Try doing so.
          Also, I do not get my research from the web, however it is a useful link to explaining things, since we are on the web. Your statement is errant anyways, the source of the information is not automatically suspect because of the location, that is a false dichotomy. The truth is the truth, no matter where it is found.

  21. avatar Ralph says:

    The most dangerous part of the Youmaynot Philosophy is the attendant notion that if you do what Youmaynot, you will be imprisoned for a long time or killed at the will of the almighty state.

  22. avatar Hannibal says:

    The “no need for guns” philosophy is so engrained down under that not only are police generally not able to carry off duty, but there doesn’t seem to be much of a feeling among them that they even should be able to.

  23. avatar Peldrigal says:

    This article is beyond idiotic. It dripped such sheer ignorance and self-assuredness that I had to stop about one third of the way.

    1. avatar Accur81 says:

      Write a better one and send it to RF. I can’t wait to see your superior wit.

    2. avatar Pg2 says:

      The 3rd or 4th paragraph in starting with “We have have observed over the last few decades that Jewish Zionists……” Tells you all you need to need to know about this pile of political propaganda……

  24. avatar Pg2 says:

    This article is a FAIL.

  25. avatar preston says:

    i am torn on the Islam means terrorists notion. i find it hard to believe that 1.5 BILLION people are terrorists or aid terrorists. I do agree that the conservative muslims pave the road for the extremist muslims. i am not a fan of ANY religion so they are all equally idiotic to me. I see islam as a hatchling in terms of religion. it hasn’t gone through social critiquing like all the other religions have. if any muslim/islamist group refuses to admit the barbarism of the quran then they should be dealt with, with equal and opposing force.

    BUT, whenever we take a no compromise stance on a subject, then we start to think just like Hamas and the like. We must evaluate every situation accordingly.

    1. avatar alexander says:

      Your confusion is understandable – we all tend to judge others by our standards. It is difficult to comprehend another person killing himself for a weird belief; it is difficult to comprehend mass murder, or the killing of one’s own child because she dates someone outside the faith, or the burning of a teacher because he teaches more than only the Koran… But we are not dealing here with people like us. One needs to comprehend this. We are dealing with Stone Age mentality (unfortunately with modern weapons) that, by the edicts of their religion, must not accept anything outside of the 7th Century teachings. The Koran, as difficult as it may be for some to accept, is NOT open to interpretation, improvement or influence of civilization. Any attempt to do that is an automatic death sentence, literally. The mostly “peaceful” Muslims that we interact with everyday ALL support the jihad, in one way or another. None of them would ever condemn even the worst acts of terrorism because those acts are done by the more enlightened and holier men, something that every Muslim aspires to be. In fact, they may appear to condemn an act, but always in a wishy-washy way and never in their native language or when speaking exclusively to Muslims. There is a feature of Islam (not often advertised) that allows Muslims to lie to non-Muslims if the lie is good for Islam. This duplicity is built into the Islamic culture of all Muslims everywhere in the world. Ask your “good” Muslim friends to swear on the Koran that they do not support the jihadists – try it!

      1. avatar drav says:

        My muslim wife and her family beg to differ

        1. avatar alexander says:

          Please enlighten us – does your Muslim wife and her family think that burning a teacher in front of the kids, killing hundreds in cold blood, of any age or persuasion, skinning people alive and slowly sawing their heads off is not an indication of Stone Age humanoids? Did we miss the Renaissance somewhere in their development?

  26. avatar Ethan762 says:

    MOLON LABE!

  27. avatar int19h says:

    Here’s a simple fact that completely demolishes all the “Islam is terrorism” rhetoric.

    Do you remember who is on the frontlines of the war against Daesh/ISIS Islamist fanatics today? That’s right, the Kurdish militia.

    And do you remember what religion do most Kurds adhere to? That’s right, it’s Sunni Islam.

    Yet the majority-Muslim Kurdish peshmerga has been the shield that protected not just their fellow Muslims, but also Christians, Jews and Yazidi in that region from the fanatics.

    1. avatar Paul G says:

      The enemy of my enemy is my friend…..for now.

      1. avatar int19h says:

        Well, can you demonstrate some examples of Muslim Kurds killing or otherwise prosecuting other people on account of religion? Because of not, then your notion that all Muslims are bloodthirsty religious fanatics hell-bent on world domination is demonstrated as invalid – I only need to provide a single counterexample for that.

        1. avatar Paul G says:

          I don’t have to demonstrate anything, read the quran. Actually read it, don’t pull up taqqiya talking points.

        2. avatar int19h says:

          I was wondering how long before “taqiyya” would come up in this discussion. You do realize that it is a Shia practice that is considered haram by most Sunni (and especially all extremist Sunni), right? In fact, even the term itself is not used by Sunni.

          And even if you take the most liberal view, taqiyya can only be used to deny one’s faith, or to e.g. do forbidden acts or consume forbidden items, only under direct threat or duress. In other words, if you put a gun to a Muslim’s head and tell him to eat pork or die, then he’s allowed to eat pork, even if it would normally be haram.

          But when there’s no direct threat to one’s life or limb, taqiyya does not apply. In particular, it doesn’t mean that arbitrary lies can be told to unbelievers. That’s a deliberate misinterpretation that is lifted wholesale from anti-Semitic propaganda of past centuries, with Jews replaced with Muslims, and goyim replaced with unbelievers.

        3. avatar Paul G says:

          Whether or not you call something by its name, it is quite legitimate for all muslims. Muhammad allowed it. Muslims have no duty to be honest to infidels. No duress required.

        4. avatar Paul G says:

          The threat need only be to dar-es-islam. Since the world is not one for allah, the duress is implicit. Once the world is one for allah, there is no infidel to deceive. It is self-cancelling.
          Use of minutiae to dissemble is interesting, however relying on books used throughout all of islam is much more generally informative. The Ahmadiyya muslims shilling for Salafists is definitely a case of odd bedfellows.

  28. avatar Skeptical_Realist says:

    A few days late, but still worth noting:

    The article uses “Islamic” and Islamist” as nouns. This is incorrect. The correct term is “Muslim”, or “Moslem”.

    Islamic is an adjective. A country may be Islamic. The people may be islamic. “Islamic terrorists” is also correct. A person may be Islamic, but to say they are an islamic is incorrect. One must either add another verb for islamic to describe (since as noted above, it’s an adjective), or use the proper word for an islamic person, which is Muslim.

    The media has this well and truly screwed up, and I suppose the repitition from such is why this wasn’t noted already.

    While I understand the article’s intent, as noted previously in the comments, it veers well into hyperbole territory.

    1. avatar int19h says:

      “Islamist” is a noun as well as adjective, just like “communist” is. It’s not the same as Muslim. Muslim is someone who adheres to Islam as a religion. An Islamist is someone who wants to establish the system of government based on Islam (Sharia), and, usually, to expand it over the entire globe. All Islamists are also Muslims, but not all Muslims are Islamists.

      1. avatar Alexander says:

        Int19h, I’m getting a feeling that you either have not read the Koran or refuse to believe what is written in it. “Not all Muslims are Islamists”? Are you kidding? Why is it so difficult to understand that there is only one Koran, there are no allowable interpretations, and violent jihad (cleansing from the infidels, e.g., killing them) is the highest aspiration of any Muslim? An individual Muslim may never kill in infidel, but his religion commands him to hold to high aspiration those that do kill in the name of Allah. This is not a choice – it’s the law.

        1. avatar int19h says:

          I’m getting a feeling that what you have read are the snippets from the Koran from anti-Muslim websites, along with their interpretation of them provided by those same websites, which completely ignore the Sunnah and the entire history of Islamic jurisprudence and philosophy. In particular, your claim that “there are no allowable interpretations” [of Koran] is an outright falsehood that is obvious to anyone who had an even cursory knowledge of the various subdivisions within Islam. If it were true, there would be no different denominations or madhabs.

          What you describe is the Salafist creed, shared by Deobandists, Wahhabi, Qutbists etc (with minor difference in details). It is not what most Muslims believe.

        2. In this instance, I must side with “int19h.” The expression “not all Muslims are Islamists” is a fair one, given that:
          (1) many Muslims, like many practitioners of other faiths, are not particularly devout or observant of their faith’s rules
          (2) while tens of percent in Muslim-dominated countries like Egypt are in favor of having Shariah law penalties enforced, other tens of percent of them are not
          (3) there are many examples of Muslims who actively oppose Islamist and jihadist interpretations and actions. These often live under death threats; their courageous stand is not to be discounted.

          ==============/ Keith DeHavelle

        3. avatar alexander says:

          We all know that the “silent majority” is irrelevant. They will follow the vocal minority, or the leaders. In this case, the leaders have the backing of the Koran and the authoritative thought on Islam and the Sharia from the schools in Alexandria and Cairo, who support the jihad and funnel money for mosques around the world that preach war against the West. CAIR has been very successful in the US in creating this “fog” of Islam and pretending that they only want peace (like Hitler – piece of Poland, piece of …). In fact, there is only one Koran and regardless of any of the minor interpretations (minor for us, major for the the Muslims, as in Sunni and Shia, for example, which has nothing to do with the Koran itself, but with the succession of the ruling party), the basis of Islam is to conquer the World for Allah. This conquest may not be immediate, but it must happen. Perhaps some of the apologists feel that their lives are safe – perhaps, but their children’s are not.

        4. avatar int19h says:

          Just to see how far the “minor interpretations” can actually go, read this:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunta-haji

        5. avatar alexander says:

          An interesting reference, The Chechens are known as unbending, unforgiving and unconquerable. Being a warrior is considered their highest achievement. Beslan is one of the examples. So, what effect did the preaching of peace had on the Chechens?

    2. There are no “Islamics,” of course — in the same sense that there are no “Americans.” The term is “American citizen,” but surely no one uses just the term American to mean a person.

      ==============/ Keith DeHavelle, proud American

  29. In case of adolescent stage, increase in sexual hormones and production of
    sebum cause acne to occur. Now gently rub it on the scar in circular motion before rinsing with cold
    water. Anti-oxidant chemicals are valued for their wide healing actions.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email