The Agenda of Islam - A War Between Civilizations

betar ^ | Wednesday 24th Dec 2003 | Professor Moshe Sharon

[risk]

It seems that Daniel Pipes disagrees with you as well.

Daniel Pipes is in an official capacity. He's director of the Peace Institute. Not only that, but even his own kindly position is decried as being genocidal by CAIR and AMC, and their likes -- simply because he accuses them of not being moderate.

You asked me to disagree with particulars, so I am:

You are the enemy, right along with Islamic extremists.

Why is demanding that moderates be counted either as being with us or against us a threat to you? You can say you disagree and why, but why call me the enemy? Sometimes people get angry at those who want to kill them, Luis. To me you sound like you want to dampen that anger. That's fine, you're trying to show the face of reason and logic. I'm not feeling very logical about this problem. But why call me the enemy?

You will not be allowed to involve the 90% of the world's Muslims and Christians who haven't the slightest desire to involve themselves in a "war of religions" to turn this planet into a massive slaughterhouse of religious warfare.

You're assuming I want that. I'm just saying that I doubt that we will gain an advantage by trying not to offend the Muslims. I also disagree with you about the issue of Muslim moderate eschatology. It's more of a problem than you think, and there is plenty of scholarship to back up that claim. I also disagree that the Christians or the Judaists are the problem here. You know the word "reform" because you were raised in a Christian culture. It means something here. You can only dream of it reforming in the east. I'm just saying I hope it happens but I don't think I'm going to bet on it. What then?

You will be stopped from doing that, as Islamic extremist will be stopped from doing the same, you both have the same goal in mind.

I still don't know what you're talking about here, so it's hard to respond. I have the survival of my people in mind, and I'm beyond the point where I can trust that moderate Islam will solve our problems. It seems the burden of proof is on them and on you in that case. I'm saying I don't feel safe. You're demanding that I do behave as if I am safe, and I do not accept your demand. My conclusion requires that I state that we are not safe, and that we must be prepared to accept the results of that failure. If you feel safe, then enjoy it! Why waste you're time trying to make me feel safer?

I don't give a rat's ass about your "newcomer to this land" crap, I am on this land, and I have every right and privilege that you enjoy, the only exception being the fact that I am not allowed to be president. This land is my children's land, and I will protect them from the narrow point of view exhibited by you, regardless of who you yearn to engage in a war of religions, the only possible outcome of such a war being the situation we witness in Israel daily.

First of all, I have no interest in a war of religions. Second, you're again saying that you feel safer from the threat of global warfare if you avoid riling up the moderates and tilting the battle toward a global scale. That tells me a lot. You're afraid, too. You know that if those people get angrier (as if that could be possible) then your children could be at risk. You have a strategy to feel safe. Good for you. It may not work. Then what? In any case, you are a newcomer. I doubt your sincerity, and I'm free to do that. I don't think you've sacrificed much for this country. I think you're pumped full of love and sunshine about all religions getting along with each other in the land of Oz. That's great, but the experiment is falling apart. Certain aspects of it are probably going to change now. I'm sorry if you're unahppy -- your party of love and reconcilliation is failing to materialize. The west needs to learn one thing and learn it quickly: there can be no tolerance for intolerance. If anything, that's just a matter of recollection. We saw it with WWII and the Germans and Japanese. Of course we're being accused of stupendous inhumanity now because we used incindiary and nuclear bombs on populations that were totally sworn to our destruction. Maybe you'd care to join in with the cacaphony of hate?

In order for good people to survive, extremist must not be allowed to run amok, you are every bit the extremist that they are.

Spoken like a true appeaser. You're unhappy that I'm more militant than you are, so you blame me for the war.

Call me what you may, but you will be stopped, and common sense will prevail...in spite of your best efforts.

Stopped from what? Pointing out that just minding my own business as a free thinking member of a democratic society that refuses to convert to Islam may one day become a liability if I don't point out to my fellow citizens that the end of our freedoms may be near if we don't act? I'm sorry, but I'm not singing Kumbaya anymore, Luis.

[risk]

Not I.

[Luis Gonzalez]

In other words, you just dismissed the man's opinion, unquestionably one of the best-informed sources on the Middle East in the U.S., written prior to his having gained any political post, as being politicized?

Are you suggesting that Pipes had foreknowledge of his upcoming appointment, and thus, slanted his views accordingly?

Ridiculous.

"Why is demanding that moderates be counted either as being with us or against us a threat to you?"

I am growing quite tired of this practice of yours of pissing on my leg, then telling me that it's raining.

You responded to my arguments, by insulting me, and "reminding me" that I should be mindful of my place in this nation as a "newcomer".

"I might remind you that you are a newcomer to this land. You are here reaping the benefits of sacrifice and zealous blows to the enemies of freedom dealt by my people for more than 350 years."

Kiss my ass.

You then called me a traitor.

Kiss my ass.

You throw the word "reconquista" in to once again, remind me of my place, not realizing that the word "reconquista" originated in Spain, and described the taking back of Spanish lands conquered by Muslims.

Along the way, you have been so damned full of yourself, that you have failed to notice that you actually have no disagreement with me.

However, in light of your insulting tone, your calling me a traitor, and your need to remind me to "mind my place", for my unforgivable temerity at being uppity enough to believe that I too can exercise my right to free speech, I called you for what you are...kit and kin to Islamic extremists, every bit as intolerant of dissenting voices as you accuse them of being, and every bit as dangerous.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Not that it matters, but no I am not.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Calling in reinforcements?

[risk]

Woo hoo, what fun, Ganelon! But I already knew the origin of of the term reconquista, so there. Are you sure you're not making the mistake your forebears did when they allowed themselves to be conqured in the first place? I mean live and learn, right?

[dennisw]

Very nice. All you need to know is Islam always wants more territory and will pursue this in the most feral ways via demographic warfare and bloody Jihad. They call Islamic nations Dar al Islam (house of peace) and view all other nations (territory) as up for grabs for future conquest.

[Rummyfan]

"When I'm finished, the only place Japanese (Arabic) will be spoken is in hell".

Believe that was Admiral Halsey.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Are you sure you're not making the mistake your forebears did when they allowed themselves to be conquered in the first place?"

I'm not even making the mistake of mistaking you for an intelligent individual any longer.

Interestingly enough, you left your statements stand, leading me to believe that indeed, you A) consider the exercise of an individual's First Amendment rights to be treason, and B) you believe that I should not get so uppity as to forget "my place", and attempt to rise above my station in relation to real Americans.

Well, real Americans don't behave in the manner that you behave, real Americans believe in the America of Ronald Reagan, and America where "anyone, from any corner of the world, can come to live in the United States and become an American."..."become an American", not by accident of birth, but as a result of a desire to be free; so I became an American, and along the way, I gained a deep understanding of just how wrong your thought process is.

I also have the advantage of having actually seen just how wrong this thought process of yours can lead a people, by way of living through the fall of my native country (albeit as a very young man) to a despot, who disguising himself as a fighter for freedom and against evil, instead raised evil as a standard. He was aided and abetted by people such as yourself, who failed to recognize the deeper evil behind his intentions. I see the deeper evil behind extreme Islam's intentions, as I see people such as yourself aiding in abetting them by fanning the fires of civilizational strife.

The truth of the matter is that militant Islam is a new movement among Muslims, that it continues to be a minority within the Islamic world community, and that your "wait and see" attitude of standing by idly while Muslims solve their own problem is diametrically opposite to the actual solution to the issue. We are not the first victims of Muslim extremism, moderate Muslims, the vast majority of the adherents, are, and in order to eradicate the growth of Islams, we need to be deeply involved in helping the moderates succeed.

I do not adhere to the notion of standing by and waiting for them to solve the problems within their culture, because I believe, like Edmund Burke believed, that "all that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing."...good men will prevail, on their side and on ours, in spite of your best efforts.

So, you go right ahead and do nothing...I will continue to do something; and the molds seem to fit each one of us perfectly.

[SauronOfMordor]

Marx defined communism, not socialism.

He defined both:

"What is the difference between communism and socialism?"

According to Marx, socialism is a stage on the way to communism, which is the more advanced stage of humyn organization not yet achieved in China or the Soviet Union, even according to Lenin, Stalin and Mao.

According to Marx, under socialism we have a dictatorship of the proletariat which is a government organized for the defense of survival "rights." Also, distribution goes by the principle "from each according to his/her ability, to each according to his/her work."

Under communism, according to Marx, the government disappears and there is economic cooperation as well. The principle of distribution becomes "from each according to his/her ability, to each according to his/her need."

Socialists and communists existed before Marx. Marx is the single most-respected authority and reference point, but the words "socialism" and "communism" still have various shades and applications, because of the diversity amongst those calling themselves "communist" and "socialist."

Many calling themselves socialist would like to stop with the nationalization of the means of production and not move on to communism. They also often oppose the "dictatorship of the proletariat" in the name of democracy. For example, they supported the imperialist World War I, because the majorities of their countries supported it, while we Marxist-Leninists found World War I anathema to the proletariat, against survival "rights."

Since World War I, there has been a very large split between many calling themselves "socialist" and those calling themselves "communist;" however, to make matters more complicated there are socialists found who would not support World War I today and there are "communists" who would favor doing whatever the majority wants. There are also "social-democrats" who want reforms to imitate the results of socialism while keeping capitalism.

The old "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" is an example of Socialism as Marx defined it.

[SauronOfMordor]

Contradictions in the text have been studied and reconciled over the centuries through extensive scholarly study. Some verses have been abrogated and replaced by others with contrary meanings. For example, verse 9:5 commands Muslims not to slay pagans until the sacred months have passed and verse 9:36 tells Muslims to fight pagans during those same months. The casual reader has no idea which of these is operational. (In fact, the latter is.)

verse 9.5: So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

verse 9.36: Surely the number of months with Allah is twelve months in Allah's ordinance since the day when He created the heavens and the earth, of these four being sacred; that is the right reckoning; therefore be not unjust to yourselves regarding them, and fight the polytheists all together as they fight you all together; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).

I see no contradiction between the plain text of the two verses. In the first is a command to fight the "polytheists" (and I assume a Catholic who believes in the Trinity would qualify) after the "sacred months". The passage does not prohibit fighting them during the months, just mandates fighting after the months. The second verse tells Muslims to maintain unity in the fight.

[SauronOfMordor]

An unchanging holy scripture cannot account for change over time. If the Koran causes terrorism, then how does one explain the 1960s, when militant Islamic violence barely existed? The Koran was the same text then as now. More broadly, over a period of 14 centuries, Muslims have been inspired by the Koran to act in ways aggressive and passive, pious and not, tolerant and not. Logic demands that one look elsewhere than an immutable text to account for such shifts.

Islamic doctrine is to feign peaceful intentions while weak, and strike as soon as the Muslims are strong. The Islamists didn't have much in the way of funding until OPEC managed to get oil prices up in the 70's

[SauronOfMordor]

Profound. One cannot pick it up and understand its meaning when nearly every sentence is the subject of annotations, commentaries, glosses, and superglosses. Such a document requires intensive study of its context, development, and rival interpretations. The U.S. Constitution offers a good analogy: its Second Amendment consists of a just 27 words ("A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed") but it is the subject of numerous book-length studies. No one coming fresh to this sentence has any idea of its implications.

Translation: "Outsiders cannot understand our sacred writings. So stop pointing out embarassing passages which reveal our true intentions, and just listen to our PR"

[Luis Gonzalez]

Take it up with Pipes.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Of course, you know better than Pipes.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"...reveal our true intentions...

Which is what you're doing here.

[A. Pole]

Why then is the Bible not similar to the Koran? Mohammed explains that the Jews and Christians forged their books. Had they not been changed and forged, they would have been identical to the Koran. But because Christians and Jews do have some truth, Islam concedes that they cannot be completely destroyed by war [for now].

Religion of Submission bump.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"The passage does not prohibit fighting them during the months, just mandates fighting after the months."

Do you write speeches for Wesley Clark?

[Helms]

http://www.conceptwizard.com/pipeline_of_hatred.html

[Luis Gonzalez]

So, Daniel Pipes, who is currently the most strident voice warning of the dangers of extreme Islam to America, the man who counsels the U.S. government in the need to maintain a watchful eye on American Muslims, to disallow the entry into the U.S. of known Islamism supporters, etc. is actually conducting PR for extreme Islam?

You are deranged.