Over the past week or so, we have had an increase in traffic of approximately 20%. I would estimate that at least half of that comes from Europe.
What does this mean? Why am I writing about it? Who cares?
Well, what has happened in the past week or so?
A worldwide Islamofascist network has been uncovered who, apparently, meant to detonate a chemical vest in England, and certainly meant to detonate 3 tons of ammonium nitrate in Canada.
We are a website which was built on the Cartoon Intifada. What I mean by that is, prior to the Cartoon Intifada, we had almost no audience. But, when Muslims worldwide reacted in such an insane manner to simple humor, many Westerners woke up.
The first reaction of Westerners when they wake up to a problem, is to try to find out as much about the problem as they can. But, as we all know, MAINSTREAM MEDIA REFUSES TO BE HONEST ABOUT ISLAMOFASCISM.
Thus, more and more Westerners turn to blogs like the Infidel Bloggers Alliance.
And so, let us welcome our new European readers. The debate can be pretty fierce around here. This is not a place for the feint of heart. We have bloggers from around the world, as you can see if you read our sidebar, and all of us have differing opinions on issues of politics, religion, and respect for our countries.
BUT, WE ARE UNITED IN OUR HATRED OF THE ISLAMIC JIHAD.
AND, WE ARE DETERMINED TO DEFEAT IT.
Please, feel free to leave comments, and tell us if you think we are wrong, or if we are being bastards about anything.
Add yourself to the debate. The West itself needs to become united if we are to destroy our enemy.
20 comments:
But, as we all know, MAINSTREAM MEDIA REFUSES TO BE HONEST ABOUT ISLAMOFASCISM.
They also refuse to be honest about Islam, partly by not admitting that Islam and "Islamofascism" are the same.
Thanks for pointing that out.
By the way, since you are anonymous, I don't know if you are the same anonymous who always points this out to me.
I want to ask you, have you ever REALLY paid attention to the language that I use? Have you ever noticed that I often make the point that we have yet to receive any confirmation from the Islamic population that Islam is anything different from Islamofascism?
"The West itself needs to become united if we are to destroy our enemy."
But this jihad is not just Islam against the West. Ultimately it must be Islam against the Rest. The Muslims seem to have realised that to achieve global domination they'll also have to confront an increasingly powerful China.
"This International Crusade and Buddhism have the permanent five chairs [on the UN Security Council] ... America and Britain represent the Christian Protestants, Russia represents the Christian Orthodox, France represents Christian Catholic and China represents the Buddhists, but the Islamic world is made of 57 countries and 20 percent of the earth's people ... who have no seat in the Security Council."
from http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=611882006
P.S. I think the Dalai Lama might be surprised to know that China represents the Buddhists.
By the way, since you are anonymous, I don't know if you are the same anonymous who always points this out to me.
Yes, that's me.
I want to ask you, have you ever REALLY paid attention to the language that I use?
I have to admit that due to the high number of posts on this blog, I often don't find the time to study them in detail - I just skim through them, unless I find something particularly interesting, and even then I might not have the time to read it thoroughly. (I do recognize your name from other blogs/forums, and I know you're one of the "good guys", as it were).
Have you ever noticed that I often make the point that we have yet to receive any confirmation from the Islamic population that Islam is anything different from Islamofascism?
I can't say I have, although I believe you when you say so.
But the thing is, we already know that Islam cannot be anything but sheer evil, or it simply won't be Islam. There's nothing anyone (and that includes the Muslims themselves) can do and say that will change that. So, basically, we don't need confirmation from Muslims, we know what we need to know already.
Anonymous,
I understand your point. It is a good one. I simply think we need to give Muslims who are not Jihadis at heart some time to stand up and be counted.
At a certain point, I think that is likely to change.
Another thing I say repeatedly here is that I expect that we will, sometime in the near future, get hit with WMD's. At that point, there will be no more time for the mellow Muslims.
It will be a very sad thing, if they have not stood up by then.
I am glad you read our blog. Hopefully, you will tolerate my relative moderation, or, as you would probably think of it, dissembling
I simply think we need to give Muslims who are not Jihadis at heart some time to stand up and be counted.
Yes, but be counted as what? Surely not as good Muslims, because their lack of "jihadism" is not because of Islam, but rather in spite of it.
I think the idea of "Muslims who are not Jihadis" is the idea of Muslims the way we would want them to be. In the eyes of a true Muslim, however, those people are bad Muslims and even apostates of Islam.
At a certain point, I think that is likely to change.
Perhaps, but Islam as such will not, at least not in a way that is acceptable to us infidels.
I am saying they can redefine Islam. You say, it's possible, but then, it would not be Islam. But, of course, my point isn't that it OUGHT to be called Islam, or that it is Islam proper. Instead, my point is, Muslims would identify it as Islam.
People do this all the time. For instance, look at the Reverend Fred Phelps, the "God hates Fags" guy. He calls himself a Christian, although, most Christians would say either that he isn't a Christian, or that he is not following God.
He has redefined Christianity to suit his own way of looking at the world.
All of us do this to a greater or lesser extent.
Some of us actually codify our agreements and disagreements with our own religions.
Some of us who do codify our own peculiar take on our religion then go about aquiring followers.
If a person redefines his religion, and aquires signifigant followers, then he has been successful in creating a new brand of that religion.
Fred Phelps is unsuccessful. The scholars of the Talmud were successful at redefining Judaism, in my opinion.
Etc.
"The Jews no longer stone people to death. It is possible that Muslims could learn the same thing."
This is the heart of the issue.
If the immutable document says stone...hey I Might not want to stone, but I have to stone (to butcher Dylan).
The jews, we read in the bible were commanded by God, during the conquest of Canaan (thus firing off 3000 years of trouble), that if a certain city (forget which) resisted the jews, all the men should be killed and all the women and children enslaved. The jews REFUSED. The city was conquered after resistance, but was not put to the sword.
It is just this use of the minds and hearts God gave us all which is rendered impossible by the Quran being immutable.
Thus, any of the hundreds of millions of muslims who would do just as the jews did, would instantly be apostate, and takfir'ed. This is the fate of those who MUST in the end act to change what MUST be changed.
Our part is to unceasingly and relentlessy point out the agressive, imperial, racist, supercessionary, armed dawa history and future of this religion if nothing changes.
It's a blunt 2 x 4, and we have got to continually whack the world with it.
It is, to quote, Sayd Qutb, and Ibn Tamiyya, our individual and moral responsibility (no virgins for us though)
I think the Cartoon Intifada when joined by the Hamas victory and the rise of nuclear Iran had a cascading effect for many of us. It forced us to realize just how dangerously out of control things were getting. I know it made me get my head out of the sand and get serious about learning the nature of this nightmare we're facing.
Possibly because I'm not religious either I don't have much sympathy for the alleged need of the "mellow Muslims" to preserve the security blanket of their religion. As things are shaping up what they are going to need to decide is, do they want to follow the tenets of that religion to their "logical" ends or do they recognize that will destroy any chance for peace, progress and happiness in this world? Because as this heats up the flames will start licking at their doors and they will not indefinitely be able to evade the need to chose between grabbing a torch or an extinguisher.
I've read a theory that if Mecca and Medina were destroyed -- if the Kaaba was smart-bombed to smithereens, doesn't have to be nukes or during the Haj or whatever, just Zarqawi the damn thing -- it would likely have a more catasrophic effect on Islam than destruction of a physical entity would have on most other religions. Obviously we could only expect this to be undertaken as a Last Resort -- but better Mecca than Manhattan, say I. Any thoughts on this? Because if nothing will make Islam "safe" except fundamental change, and if the choice is between imposing that change or losing the world to Islam, then I don't think that's much of a choice.
The threats to our civilization is why I started my Blogger blog and left behind my more anti-leftist one that I had just started. No matter what happens in my life, my love and need to protect our civilization always come to the top.
We MUST unite, and more and more people are waking up. I'm just shocked at how slowly it is happening, but more than anything, I think the people are pretty much awake and not writing or talking much about it. Wait until more elections happen, then you'll see the real firestorm.
We cannot afford to be hospitable little Trojans while the people with a will to destroy us are sneaking one trick ponies through our gates. I spent a year prior to blogging interviewing Muslims, a large percentage of them converts. There is no allegiance amongst them to anything but the "ummah". I'm not that familiar with the Star Trek series besides the original, but familiar enough to know about the "Borg". That is what we are facing.
I am saying they can redefine Islam. You say, it's possible, but then, it would not be Islam. But, of course, my point isn't that it OUGHT to be called Islam, or that it is Islam proper.
So, does that mean that you agree with me that it actually wouldn't be Islam, even if "Muslims" called it that?
Instead, my point is, Muslims would identify it as Islam.
As I've said, their identifying it as Islam wouldn't actually make it Islam. And, to make matters worse, the Quran, Allah and Mohammad would not disappear (regardless of whether they were part of the "redefined Islam"), so true Muslims would at some point demand that those other Muslims follow true Islam, or else. And, as we have seen, a few generations later, these Muslims wouldn't necessarily be so "moderate" anymore either.
People do this all the time. For instance, look at the Reverend Fred Phelps, (...) He has redefined Christianity to suit his own way of looking at the world.
I don't know anything about Fred Phelps, but it sounds like he has changed his way of dealing with Christianity rather than making a new version of it.
If a person redefines his religion, and aquires signifigant followers, then he has been successful in creating a new brand of that religion.
Yes and no. You have to keep in mind that the redefined version of that religion has to keep the essence of the original version, or it will be something that doesn't belong in the same category as that original version. So, if some Muslims come up with a "moderate Islam", chances are it either isn't Islam, or it isn't really moderate (at least not in any lasting sense), because it has to incorporate Allah, Mohammad and the Quran in order to be Islam, yet cannot be moderate with those elements present.
The point is, something doesn't become Islam simply because people who call themselves Muslims decide to call it "Islam", the same way I don't become a horse if I call myself that, or a bike doesn't become a car if Ford launches it on the market and calls it a car. Terms have meanings independent of and unaffected by what we want them to mean.
I find it interesting that a lot of people who argue for the possibility of Islamic reform do so by treating "Islam" simply as a term without inherent meaning, which illustrates the lack of substance behind the idea. I suggest you keep that in mind and try to observe this whenever reading the words of someone arguing for Islamic reform.
I think words are malleable.
I think the human mind is more important than words.
I understand your point, though.
The interesting thing about your point is it seems that you think Philosophy can not be changed, as if it referenced something tangible.
I am the religious guy, and yet, I say, Philosophy is a thing of the spirit, and, as such, it can be changed.
Laws of nature can not be changed. Laws of spirit can.
I think words are malleable.
Words may be, but terms are fixed.
But here's the point - if we change our usage of the word "Islam" so that it refers to something else than what it does today (and has for 1400 years), have we changed Islam? Obviously, we haven't. We have only made the word "Islam" point to a different term.
Does this reflect a potential for change in Islam? No. Because that would be a bit like saying that cats can become dogs by our using the word "dog" about cats, yet there is nothing about cats that suggests that they can actually become dogs. Still, I often see Islam apologists argue in this way about Islam.
Cats are physical entities. A religion is a spiritual, or mental entity.
It can be changed in my opinion.
Your assertion that terms are not malleable is not supported. What do you mean by that?
Cats are physical entities. A religion is a spiritual, or mental entity.
The point is that something belongs to a category because it matches the criteria for that category. Whether something is a mental/spiritual or physical entity is simply an example of a criterion. And of course, it represents one of the reasons why a cat can never be a religion ;).
It can be changed in my opinion.
So, then, what criteria should apply for what can and cannot be called Islam, in your opinion?
Your assertion that terms are not malleable is not supported.
By whom? Nominalists?
What do you mean by that?
You do know the difference between words and terms? It is the latter that is unchangeable.
Ok, now I understand what you meant.
But, here's the thing. You say that if Islam changes, then it would no longer fit the category of Islam.
So what?
What matters is that people who are Muslim would call it Islam.
Jews stopped stoning people. Jewish women are now allowed in Temple. Jewish women no longer wear coverings for their heads. They are allowed to do whatever they want.
If Judaism can change, and it did, then why can't Islam.
The only answer I have heard that makes any sense is an answer of degree. Islam is more militant than Judaism ever was. It is more specific in its calls for Jihad and stoning.
Yes, I will concede that that is true. It is obvious.
But, still I don't understand why you say that Islam can not fundamentally change, when Judaism did, and it is still called Judaism.
You said:
"The point is, something doesn't become Islam simply because people who call themselves Muslims decide to call it "Islam", the same way I don't become a horse if I call myself that, or a bike doesn't become a car if Ford launches it on the market and calls it a car. Terms have meanings independent of and unaffected by what we want them to mean.
I find it interesting that a lot of people who argue for the possibility of Islamic reform do so by treating "Islam" simply as a term without inherent meaning, which illustrates the lack of substance behind the idea. I suggest you keep that in mind and try to observe this whenever reading the words of someone arguing for Islamic reform. "
I ask:
Ok, so explain to me why we agree with Jews that they have had a consistent religious tradition for almost six thousand years.
When there religion began, it began with God being the kind of God who would periodicaly get angry and wipe out entire populations. He was a jealous and vengeful God. He demanded the sacrifice of blood for sin. The punishment for homosexuality and apostasy was death. God would tell the Israelites to wipe out their enemies, man, woman, and child.
This is a far cry, in my opinion, from the God of the latter "Old Testament." The God who speaks of bringing His message to all the world. And, his message? Help the widows and the orphans, this is sacrifice.
And, in the book of Hosea, God tells His people that he loves them like they are his children, and he describes tenderly helping them to learn to walk.
Is this consitency? Has not Judaism changed in kind?
Sorry about the late response, but I haven't had the time to reply sooner. As you will see, my answer is rather messy, as I don't really have the time to reply now either.
But, here's the thing. You say that if Islam changes, then it would no longer fit the category of Islam.
Actually, my point is not that Islam cannot change and still be Islam, but that there are limits to how Islam can change and still be Islam. (This is not just true for Islam, of course, but for anything.)
So what?
Well, at the very least, two reasons. First of all, we have the matter of giving credit where credit is due. This is important to avoid confusion, especially because Islam apologists rely on such confusion when making their points.
Islam apologists can for example claim that Islam is not necessarily or inherently evil, and support this argument by pointing to Muslims who are not evil. A lot of people would buy such a ridiculous argument, but just think about it - should Islam really be given the credit for this? The answer is no, as these Muslims' lack of evil is made possible by their lack of devotion to Islam, and not because of Islam.
Basically, this is about whether Islam can be reformed because its nature allows it, or if it can be "reformed" only by Muslims de facto abandoning it in favor of something else that they (incorrectly) call Islam. If it is the latter (as I think it is), then we have to make sure that it doesn't make us assert the supposed potential benignity of Islam, or at the very least we have to be wary of other people trying to do so.
(But Islam apologists have another trick up their sleeve. They redefine Islam into "what Muslims believe it is", "whatever Muslims want it to be" or the circular "what Muslims say, do or believe in the name of Islam". Thus, non-Islamic behavior by someone calling himself a Muslim all of a sudden becomes a feature of Islam!)
Second, I often argue that there is a commitment inherent in calling oneself a Muslim, sort of like a pledge of allegiance. But since (true) Islam is after all based on the Quran, Allah and Mohammad, sooner or later true Muslims will confront those pseudo-Muslims with this commitment. Since we all know how well true Islam tolerates apostasy, and we can assume that, given the choice between death and devotion to a religion he already claims to belong to, a "Muslim" would probably choose the latter.
This has to do with the viability of the "Islam that isn't really Islam".
Sorry if this became messy... I'm writing in a hurry.
What matters is that people who are Muslim would call it Islam.
But why would they call it Islam when they have already de facto abandoned it?
If Judaism can change, and it did, then why can't Islam.
Good question, and sadly I don't have an answer, as I know next to nothing about Judaism. But I do know that you have asked the question repeatedly, although I don't know whether anyone has provided you with a satisfactory answer.
The only answer I have heard that makes any sense is an answer of degree. Islam is more militant than Judaism ever was. It is more specific in its calls for Jihad and stoning.
Perhaps. It might be because apostasy is (better) tolerated in Judaism, or its scriptures not being the immutable, perfect word written by God (correct me if I'm wrong).
As a last tip, I suggest you read this page.
I say: No, that's not what I am talking about.
I was not talking about you, but about Islam apologists :).
Here is a way that Muslims could reform their religion. They could decide that only Allah can call for physical Jihad. Other than that, all Jihad is a Jihad against the Infidel in one's own heart. In other words, it is a war against one's own disbelief.
The big question then becomes, where in the Quran would you find an unabrogated verse which literally calls for what you're suggesting?
Listen, I am not saying that Muslims will do this.
I'm afraid they won't.
I am saying they could.
Yes, but could they do it despite of or because of Islam?
Do those sound like the words of a guy who isn't aware of the dangers of Islam?
No.
Yes, this is a good point. The question isn't whether many, or most, Muslims would continue to adhere to traditional Islam. The question is, can Islam reform itself.
But what principled resistance towards the ideas of "traditional Islam" could Muslims following the reformed Islam be as long as the reformed Islam incorporated Allah, the Quran and Mohammad? This is why I sent you that link in my previous post. I fear that a reformed "Islam" would be a crippled version of Islam that would eventually have recovered and reverted to its old self.
So, by fighting the war thusly, we will have pushed the Islamofascists out of the picture, which will leave other Muslims (those who do not want to leave their cultural and family identity behind, but, at the same time, who were never down with the violence in Islam in the first place) into the foreground. They will have the upper hand then. At that point, they will have the mental room required to reform their religion.
The way I see this is that those Muslims you here describe are among those whose beliefs and behavior are testament to the fact that they don't really care that much about Islam. Now, why would such "non-religious" Muslims go ahead and reform a religion?
Unfortunately, I believe it will take violence to reform this violent religion.
Where there's Islam, there's violence, I'm afraid.
Note that I don't say believe in the goodness of Islam. I don't think Islam is good. I think it is a violent and dangerous relgion, because its scriptures are violent and dangerous.
Indeed.
But, I think there are people who self-identify as Muslims who could change Islam, if they were brave enough.
I think such efforts would only lead to an Islam that at the end of the day would not be viable, and the only thing such people could do is to inspire other Muslims such as them to not take their religion seriously.
Well, I understand your points more clearly now. Hopefully, you also understand my points more clearly.
It really bothers me that people think I'm being some kind of pansy on this subject. I don't think anything could be further from the truth.
The truth, it seems to me, is that anyone who didn't have much knowledge on this subject would think I'm radically prejudiced against Islam.
Thanks again.
Post a Comment