Where Do You Go
When There's No High Road
Left To Take?

click.jpg

Thursday, February 09, 2006

Who Is Xenophobic? The West, Or Islam?

The Astute Blogger kicks ass. Discussing people who say the West is intolerant, and that we declared war on Islam:


WRONG.

This war was declared by the INTOLERANT islamofascists ON THE WEST, and not the other way around. WE ARE JUST FRIGGIN FIGHTING BACK!

Religious freedom for all religions is guaranteed in the West, and NOT in all Islamic nations. Harassment of other faiths is routine in Islamic nations; in fact, it is against the law to practice another faith in Saudi Arabia. The islamofascists are the ones trying to enforce their fanatical religious beliefs on us, and not the other way around.

The West would be happy to have Muslims praying 5 times a day in mosques all over our nations if we didn't have to worry that the mosques were really jihadoterrorist clubs planning terror against us!

Today, much of the West is fed up with jihadoterror and the outrageous hypocrisy of apologists for jihadoterror. Our tolerance got us into this mess: For way too long we tolerated the intolerance of Muslims. We are sick and tired of hypocrites like Gerges and Abu Laban (one of the 2 Danish imams who trumped up this whole Cartoon Intifada) who berate the West for intolerance while accepting it in Muslim nations - and in Islam itself.

Most Muslims NEVER condemned a single beheading or kidnapping which was done in the name of Islam; when jihadoterrorists beheaded someone on behalf of their faith, or MURDER DOZENS AT WEDDINGS OR FUNERALS, we never heard these apologists say that the jihadoterrorists had slandered Islam. But then, when NON-Muslims publish a few mild CARTOONS, Muslims go on a friggin rampage! Over friggin CARTOONS! And the apologists blame us!

People in the West can ONLY conclude that the rampaging Muslims are absofrigginlutley INSANE - or are jihadoterrorists! And professors who wear suits and appear on CNN should say so, and not argue that we in the West are not tolerant enough, or understanding enough, or that we haven't reached out enough!

LOOKIT: the enemy is attacking us - using violence and intimidation against us because of THEIR xenophobia, not ours.

Then again, we should expect this kind of horrifying behavior towards us by some muslims (and also we should expect the amoral defenses of it by other Muslims). After all, we are mere "kafirs", and they are people whose religion says it's sometimes necessary to murder your own daughter to restore "honor" to your family.


Sho 'nuff.
Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link#

12 Comments:

Blogger Christine said...

Gee, looks like I'm not the only one who is totally fed up.

Thursday, February 09, 2006 10:36:00 pm  
Blogger Tito said...

Same here, this kafir is not going to sit idly by.

Thursday, February 09, 2006 11:28:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I`m a blue-collar working man(logger) with not much work, but just ordered $200 Danish goods. Totally fed up with these barbarians, wish I was young enough to go back in the Army(Viet and GW1 vet).They keep pushing and they might not like what they get.

Thursday, February 09, 2006 11:39:00 pm  
Blogger Pastorius said...

Conde is gonna get nasty.

I couldn't help myself.

Thursday, February 09, 2006 11:40:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

silly boy. islam doesn't say you should murder you daughter to restore honour. those are tribal habits in some arab countries, the way you have female excision in parts of africa. get your facts straight before you say you've reached out. and the jihadoterrorists wouldn't exist in such vast numbers if your ancestors hadnt occupiied their countries and enslaved their ancestors for centuries. so don't be a hypocrite. there is a problem, that's true. but don't make certain people seem like 'the problem'

- yours, an athiest

Thursday, February 09, 2006 11:59:00 pm  
Blogger Pastorius said...

Atheist,
Islam is used to justify those practices, and you know that damn well.

Friday, February 10, 2006 12:14:00 am  
Blogger JMJ said...

silly anonymous,

"islam doesn't say you should murder you daughter to restore honour. those are tribal habits in some arab countries, the way you have female excision in parts of africa. get your facts straight before you say you've reached out."

I agree that these barbaric acts do originate from tribal habits/culture but radical muslims DO USE Islam and the Quran as an authority to justify these very actions. Do you deny this?

All with the motivation that if everyday Muslim do not follow these practices of violence and death, they will BURN IN HELL.

Since you seem so wise in your assessment that there is a problem, maybe you can show your additional wisdom by showing us the way to a valid solution. The tribal concept is hardly a new one in this discussion.

***********************

"get your facts straight before you say you've reached out"
Would you be so kind as to reveal your references to these facts. I happen to agree with them. Reliable references will only help further support the concept of the intermingling of religion and culture and the violence that results from it. I believe you have hit the nail right on the head!

Friday, February 10, 2006 3:03:00 am  
Blogger Pastorius said...

JMJ,
The culture did not poison Islam. Islam is already poisoned in so many ways. You know, Kill the infidels and Jews, take their property and women as booty, make the entire world Dar al-Islam by the sword, dhimmification, jizya;

That's all in the Koran and the Hadith.

I wonder if the atheist knows anything about those texts.

I've actually read them.

Friday, February 10, 2006 3:26:00 am  
Blogger von Schlichtningen said...

And even without reading the Quran, just the fact that hardly any Muslim speak against those practices is in itself enough.

Show me the last demonstration in the West gleeing about thousands of Muslim dead innocents including women and children in actions of terror. Show me placards at those demonstrations asking to maim, exterminate, behead and otherwise kill opponents.

Pastorious. yes, Yes and YES. We agree entirely with you. The hipocrocy is absurd and incongruous. Only the the blind by choice can not see it. It must be blindness based on fear and/or stupidity.

Friday, February 10, 2006 3:44:00 am  
Blogger JMJ said...

Pastorius and Von,
I agree that much of the violence DOES originate from Islam and the Quran. But I do think it also comes from the culture as well. To me, this just goes to show how these 2 forces can combine to bring a very high level of violence into the world.

Again, I think it is necessary to state the violent verses from scripture so the actual words can be justified or condemned. And then hammer it over and over again. I will have to renew this projeect.

Some of my new moderate Muslim friends are beginning to show me another side of non-violence that is encouraging. One that I need to pursue more.
*****************
I still have not been able to get a Muslim to provide me with an actual verse from the Quran that actually addresses the prohibition of depicting Mohammed or the other prophets. I will keep trying though. The best I have gotten so far is the "principles" of Islam or the idolatry rationale. I am beginning to think the sensitivity of Mohammed's depiction actually stems from the Middle Eastern culture which is cloaked in Islam. Like the Japanese culture in "losing face".

Friday, February 10, 2006 7:32:00 am  
Blogger von Schlichtningen said...

JMJ,

As far as I know there is nothing in the Quran forbidding pictures of the Prophet. In fact images exist in countries like Iran.

But of course there is a difference between images and making fun of something holy to the Muslims.

Outside Shia Muslim areas there probably is a tradition or a fatwa against pictures or statues of the Mohammed.

In the West we do not make many pictures of God either. (I never saw one of the Holy Spirit though). But we do have many of Jesus like the Virgin Mary and the saints.

It could both be cultural and related to an interpretation of the Quran.

The biggest hope in this conflict are the Moderate Muslims. They are also pontentially the biggest loosers. I find it strange there are so few though. Maybe they are scared of speaking against the Imams. Just like people were scared of speaking against the church in the Western World not too long ago. In Denmark now a group of Muslims have created the Moderate Muslims of Denmark. An organisation for dialogue and which believes in democracy. They have specifically stated that the Imams do not speak on their behalf.

The Egyptian Sand Monkey and others are refreshing voices in the blogospere. I have big hopes for them.

But sincerely. I do not think we can avoid a serious conflict with radical Muslims.

Friday, February 10, 2006 9:21:00 am  
Blogger JMJ said...

Von,
But that difference is indeed very big. One rests on holy scripture and the other more on the sensitivities of human beings. Especially in regions/cultures like the Middle East and Asia where "losing face" is HUGE.

If it can't be found in the Quran, then a much stronger argument can be put forth regarding one's sensitivities. That varies from region/culture to region/culture or person to person! Putting a fatwa out on someone because of cultural/personal sensitivities (not religious scripture) when the fatwa's "mechanism" or "rational" is religious based is unacceptable and cannot be tolerated.

Otherwise, one can use religion and fatwas to support anything one wishes to do or support or complain about that is NOT based in one's religion. And I really think there is a lot of truth to this in what we are seeing today and in the past.

Having said that and to complicate the picture further, the quran does seem to support violence in a very real way. But the more I hear from moderate Muslims, they seem to feel that this is not so or at a much less quantity than what is depicted in these discussions.

And that is why I continue to push for the actual verses that prohibit the depiction of Mohommed. (I think the push to saturate the media with cartoons should have a parallel effort to push for the verses prohibiting the prophet being depicted).

With no actual verse (the bible refers to "graven" images), one has no leg to stand on to justify the violence and threats of death other than personal/cultural/regional sensitivities. And those are VERY SUBJECTIVE.

Rememember that the danish imamms that toured the ME to seek support felt the need to add 3 more cartoons of unknown origin to get the reaction they were looking for. I guess not everyone thought the origianl 12 were so bad.

SUBJECTVE SENSITIVITIES!
*************
Just last night, Hihad Awad from CAIR, on the Charlie Rose show, said that not only were all the prophets prohibited from being depicted but so was Allah!! I have been asking the Allah question frequently as well with no response.

What is the rationale for NOT depicting Allah. Idolatry does not apply.

If Allah or Mohammed is depicted in a respectful way or in a positive light, as seen in the Middle East when one can find paintings or a picture, why is this prohibited?

It is the inconsistency and lack of reasoning that breaks down this whole argument.

Please someone give me the verse in full context and with proper and accurate Arabic translation!
*****************
Just my 2 cents.

Friday, February 10, 2006 3:39:00 pm  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home