Our 'friends' at the BBC have posed an interesting question.
According to Bostom, Spencer, Steyn and Kuntzel the truth defense renders this void. Islam dictates, they feel, the militancy, and birth rates are what they are. The second issue in the previous sentence is not disputable. But that cannot be said to be a religious issue. Such birth rates can easily be related to other factors, and throughout nations, history and religions.
According to valiant people like this (and they are) those we are concerned with, and their religion are not muslims, and that's not Islam - so why aren't they in the streets, or in front of certain mosques with big signs?. That's' a harsh and dangerous action I look for, but is there a choice?
If academicians such as Bostom, Spencer, and Kunztel are correct, then of course what Khurrum Awan claims as inflammatory incitement is nothign of the kind, simply a statement of fact.
If our friends like Eteraz and Hisham Kabbani and the Naqshbandis are correct then it probably is a bigotry, but that doesn't help anyone since they (can ?) offer no solution to the question of defining Islam in a way that ostracizes the people we are concerned with (maybe we should just use that phrase in a 'find and replace' manner) among the huge percentage of those who think of themselves as proper Muslims, and of the Eteraz's among us as some kind of apostates probably corrupted as Qutb warned.
Somebody, as Spencer says, misunderstands Islam.
Now I don't find, looking at the mullahs that my feelings for them are prejudice. In fact I would say they are a righteous product of reaction TO prejudice. Pick your kind. They have it all. Najas, baby.
I certainly don't find, when I see the MEMRI posts, that the majority of Sunni pronouncements are a litany hope in that way either.
In both camps, it's all Crusaders (the result of muslim invasions of 300 years from ~700-1000 AD) and Zionists.
I see the Tantawis and Qaradawis, the Mesbah Yazdi's, and Jannati's drowning out anything and anyone else. That opposition is invisible signifies. I see the popular result in the Valley of the Wolves. This leads to undeniable effects. The Hisham Kabbani's simply must hope for a better day and must depend on the law here for protection from true bigotry. And how many hate incidents have there been?
On the other hand, while we know that europe is not the easiest place in the world to be assimilated, that doesn't change the issue at hand.
So I understand the natural reaction of law student Khurrum Awan, that is I might if he wasn't being supported by and therefore supporting the Canadian Islamic Congress and their idea that anyone in Israel over 18 is a righteous killing, ANYWHERE in Israel. Add in the incredible bigoted ranting against 'zhoos' in Canada by their leader(s), who 'run Canada by proxy (Mahathir and the OIC)'. And there we are, full circle.
Those who issue the complaints, that generated the question posed, are so tainted with racism that it simply destroys the issue which merits real discussion if they were a Gibran.
Of course, perhaps I am just a 'typical western person'
Intolerance towards intolerance is a virtue.
Somehow, the BBC seems to miss this, painting the complainants as those who 'abhor radical Islam'...of course, they seem to use it's practice as a yardstick of complaining, being in reality, members. That is precisely the problem. Right now, for better or worse, radical Islam IS Islam.
From court evidence:
Those not 'radical' (to the western mind) are clearly ...exceptional.
According to Bostom, Spencer, Steyn and Kuntzel the truth defense renders this void. Islam dictates, they feel, the militancy, and birth rates are what they are. The second issue in the previous sentence is not disputable. But that cannot be said to be a religious issue. Such birth rates can easily be related to other factors, and throughout nations, history and religions.
According to valiant people like this (and they are) those we are concerned with, and their religion are not muslims, and that's not Islam - so why aren't they in the streets, or in front of certain mosques with big signs?. That's' a harsh and dangerous action I look for, but is there a choice?
If academicians such as Bostom, Spencer, and Kunztel are correct, then of course what Khurrum Awan claims as inflammatory incitement is nothign of the kind, simply a statement of fact.
If our friends like Eteraz and Hisham Kabbani and the Naqshbandis are correct then it probably is a bigotry, but that doesn't help anyone since they (can ?) offer no solution to the question of defining Islam in a way that ostracizes the people we are concerned with (maybe we should just use that phrase in a 'find and replace' manner) among the huge percentage of those who think of themselves as proper Muslims, and of the Eteraz's among us as some kind of apostates probably corrupted as Qutb warned.
Somebody, as Spencer says, misunderstands Islam.Now I don't find, looking at the mullahs that my feelings for them are prejudice. In fact I would say they are a righteous product of reaction TO prejudice. Pick your kind. They have it all. Najas, baby.
I certainly don't find, when I see the MEMRI posts, that the majority of Sunni pronouncements are a litany hope in that way either.
In both camps, it's all Crusaders (the result of muslim invasions of 300 years from ~700-1000 AD) and Zionists.
I see the Tantawis and Qaradawis, the Mesbah Yazdi's, and Jannati's drowning out anything and anyone else. That opposition is invisible signifies. I see the popular result in the Valley of the Wolves. This leads to undeniable effects. The Hisham Kabbani's simply must hope for a better day and must depend on the law here for protection from true bigotry. And how many hate incidents have there been?
On the other hand, while we know that europe is not the easiest place in the world to be assimilated, that doesn't change the issue at hand.
So I understand the natural reaction of law student Khurrum Awan, that is I might if he wasn't being supported by and therefore supporting the Canadian Islamic Congress and their idea that anyone in Israel over 18 is a righteous killing, ANYWHERE in Israel. Add in the incredible bigoted ranting against 'zhoos' in Canada by their leader(s), who 'run Canada by proxy (Mahathir and the OIC)'. And there we are, full circle.
Those who issue the complaints, that generated the question posed, are so tainted with racism that it simply destroys the issue which merits real discussion if they were a Gibran.
Of course, perhaps I am just a 'typical western person'
Intolerance towards intolerance is a virtue.
Somehow, the BBC seems to miss this, painting the complainants as those who 'abhor radical Islam'...of course, they seem to use it's practice as a yardstick of complaining, being in reality, members. That is precisely the problem. Right now, for better or worse, radical Islam IS Islam.
From court evidence:
The process of settlement is a "Civilization-Jihadist Process" with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who chose to slack….
Those not 'radical' (to the western mind) are clearly ...exceptional.
No comments:
Post a Comment