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

click.jpg

Saturday, May 02, 2009

What Do You Think Of This As A Rallying Cry?

ISLAM?

OK!

SHARIA?

NO WAY!

(hat tip to an Anonymous commenter)
Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link#

45 Comments:

OpenID jdamn13 said...

How about:

Islam?

Why?

Sharia?

Oh, hells no.

Saturday, May 02, 2009 2:47:00 am  
Blogger Pastorius said...

I understand the sentiment, but it doesn't rhyme.

;-)

Saturday, May 02, 2009 2:56:00 am  
Blogger Christine said...

Here's a question for you.

What would happen to Christianity, if you wiped out 85% of the bible?

Saturday, May 02, 2009 3:07:00 am  
Blogger Pastorius said...

I can answer that for you, Christine:

when the Pharisees heard that Jesus had silenced (AA)the Sadducees, they gathered themselves together.

35One of them, [a](AB)a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him,

36"Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?"

37And He said to him, " '(AC)YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.'

38"This is the great and foremost commandment.

39"The second is like it, '(AD)YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.'

40"(AE)On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets."

Saturday, May 02, 2009 3:10:00 am  
Blogger Christine said...

ok, (and you knew this was coming),

What would happen to Islam, if you wiped out 85% of the quran?

Saturday, May 02, 2009 3:15:00 am  
Blogger midnight rider said...

It would no longer be Islam.

And Islam Ok? I'd say no way. Jihad is more than just Sharia.

Saturday, May 02, 2009 3:30:00 am  
Anonymous Jewel said...

If you wipe out 85% of the Koran, Christine, it is time to get more toilet paper. Supersize your stock with Hadith and Sunnah brand toilet paper.

Saturday, May 02, 2009 3:31:00 am  
Blogger Pastorius said...

That's up to Muslims to decide, isn't it?

We can't define their religion for them.

Saturday, May 02, 2009 4:00:00 am  
Blogger Pastorius said...

By the way, Christine, here's some thoughts I left on this subject over at Jawa Report (in a debate about whether or not Geert Wilders is a fascist):


Sharia law is a whole set of law unto itself. In fact, it is ostensibly, the Constitution of the state of Saudi Arabia.

Therefore, advocation of Sharia law, in a Western country, is advocating for the overthrow of the government. In other words, it is sedition.

Anyway caught advocating the implementation of Sharia law in a Western nation ought to be tried, and imprisoned and/or deported, if they are found guilty.

We have a saying over at IBA:

Islam? Ok
Sharia? No way!

I think Geert should cease with the calls to ban mosques and the Krayon, and should focus more specifically on the problem of Sharia.

Many would say, well, if you remove Sharia from Islam, then you have gutted Islam.

Fine. That does not mean that Sharia advocation ought to be tolerated.

Let the Muslims figure out how to have their religion without Sharia. It's not our responsibility to define their religion for them. However, it is our responsibility to police our own nations according to our laws and respective Constitutions.
Guest Friday, May 01, 2009 - 18:45:25 | #
By the way, I also believe that Islam, or, perhaps more specifically I should say, most Saudi-financed Mosques, could be tried under RICO statutes.

From Wiki:

Under RICO, a person who is a member of an enterprise that has committed any two of 35 crimes—27 federal crimes and 8 state crimes—within a 10-year period can be charged with racketeering. Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and/or sentenced to 20 years in prison per racketeering count. In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains and interest in any business gained through a pattern of "racketeering activity." RICO also permits a private individual harmed by the actions of such an enterprise to file a civil suit; if successful, the individual can collect treble damages.
Guest Friday, May 01, 2009 - 18:48:25 | #
Continuing on about RICO:

Under the law, racketeering activity means:
Any violation of state statutes against gambling, murder, kidnapping, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, dealing in obscene matter, or dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical (as defined in the Controlled Substances Act);
Any act of bribery, counterfeiting, theft, embezzlement, fraud, dealing in obscene matter, obstruction of justice, slavery, racketeering, gambling, money laundering, commission of murder-for-hire, and several other offenses covered under the Federal criminal code (Title 18);
Embezzlement of union funds;
Bankruptcy or securities fraud;
Drug trafficking;
Money laundering and related offenses;
Bringing in, aiding or assisting aliens in illegally entering the country (if the action was for financial gain);
Acts of terrorism.
Guest Friday, May 01, 2009 - 18:49:26 | #
Continuing on about RICO

Here are some notable RICO cases:

Hells Angels Motorcycle Club
In 1979, the United States federal government went after Sonny Barger and several members and associates of the Oakland chapter of the Hells Angels using RICO. In United States v. Barger, the prosecution team attempted to demonstrate a pattern of behavior to convict Barger and other members of the club of RICO offenses related to guns and illegal drugs. The jury acquitted Barger on the RICO charges with a hung jury on the predicate acts: "There was no proof it was part of club policy, and as much as they tried, the government could not come up with any incriminating minutes from any of our meetings mentioning drugs and guns".[3][4].
[edit]Frank Tieri
On November 21, 1980, Genovese crime family boss Frank "Funzi" Tieri was the first Mafia boss to be convicted under the RICO Act.[citation needed]
[edit]Key West PD
In June 1984, the Key West Police Department in Monroe County, Florida was declared a criminal enterprise under the Federal RICO statutes after a lengthy United States Department of Justice investigation. Several high-ranking officers of the department, including Deputy Police Chief Raymond Cassamayor, were arrested on federal charges of running a protection racket for illegal cocaine smugglers. [5] At trial, a witness testified he routinely delivered bags of cocaine to the Deputy Chief's office at City Hall. [6]
[edit]Michael Milken
On March 29, 1989, financier Michael Milken was indicted on 98 counts of racketeering and fraud relating to an investigation into insider trading and other offenses. Milken was accused of using a wide-ranging network of contacts to manipulate stock and bond prices. It was one of the first occasions that a RICO indictment was brought against an individual with no ties to organized crime. Milken pled guilty to six lesser offenses rather than face spending the rest of his life in prison.
On September 7, 1988, Milken's employer, Drexel Burnham Lambert, was also threatened with a RICO indictment under the legal doctrine that corporations are responsible for their employees' crimes. Drexel avoided RICO charges by pleading no contest to lesser felonies. While many sources say that Drexel pleaded guilty, in truth the firm only admitted it was "not in a position to dispute the allegations." If Drexel had been indicted, it would have had to post a performance bond of up to $1 billion to avoid having its assets frozen. This would have taken precedence over all of the firm's other obligations--including the loans that provided 96 percent of its capital. If the bond ever had to be paid, its shareholders would have been practically wiped out. Since banks will not extend credit to a firm indicted under RICO, an indictment would have likely put Drexel out of business.[7]
Guest Friday, May 01, 2009 - 18:51:29 | #
Here's your answer, Rusty
jeppo Friday, May 01, 2009 - 18:52:20 | #
Continuing on about RICO (by the way, the above comments are all from me, Pastorius of IBA)

More RICO cases (I read with particular interest the RICO case against anti-Abortion activists)

Major League Baseball
In 2002, the former minority owners of the Montreal Expos baseball team filed charges under the RICO Act against Major League Baseball commissioner Bud Selig and former Expos owner Jeffrey Loria, claiming that Selig and Loria deliberately conspired to devalue the team for personal benefit in preparation for a move.[citation needed] If found liable, Major League Baseball could have been found liable for up to $300 million in punitive damages. The case lasted for two years, successfully stalling the Expos' move to Washington or contraction during that time. It was eventually sent to arbitration and settled for an undisclosed sum,[citation needed] permitting the move to Washington to take place.
[edit]Anti-abortion activists
RICO laws were unsuccessfully cited in NOW v. Scheidler, a suit in which certain parties sought damages and an injunction against anti-abortion activists who physically block access to abortion clinics.
Pastorius Friday, May 01, 2009 - 18:53:07 | #
If RICO can be used against anti-Abortion activists (and I think it's good that it was used against them), then RICO can be used against Islam, or as I said above, against specific Mosques which are Saudi-funded, or are linked through other means.
Pastorius Friday, May 01, 2009 - 18:54:06 | #

Saturday, May 02, 2009 4:02:00 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pastorius -

The reason I like your suggestion is that it forces the Muslims pushing for Sharia to explain to the west that they cannot practice their religion in a Constitutional Republic. One example: a state that has community property laws assumes that all property and money acquired during the marriage is the property of the "community," and, as such, gets divided equally upon that community's division (divorce). (Simplified, but you get the pic.)

OK - say a woman in a Sharia court gets completely shafted, and gets considerably less than half what the community acquired during the marriage. Now, she has voluntarily submitted herself to the Sharia court, but upon realizing that she is the victim of injustice, she wants to appeal to the state's Family Courts.

Should the civil authorities now REFUSE her appeal to the same law and authority that everyone else has access to? Because under "Sharia" that is what the Muslims will argue. She has no recourse to the US legal system.

So, if one defines the true practice of Islam as living under Sharia, we now can at least get it out in the open - it is incompatible with our laws, and either our laws and culture will need to go, or Sharia will.

The application of Sharia law violates so many laws and Constitutional principles it would take pages to enumerate.

Native Americans do not have the right to peyote as part of their religious worship; religious polygamists operate outside the law also.

They cannot coexist.

Ro

Saturday, May 02, 2009 6:40:00 am  
Blogger midnight rider said...

Ro -- you're correct about polygamists but (& I wasn't sure but thought it had changed & had to look it up) peyote is protected for Indian religious use:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=1996a&url=/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00001996---a000-.html

Saturday, May 02, 2009 7:05:00 am  
Blogger The_Editrix said...

Islam and sharia are inseparable, so the statement is self-contradicting.

Saturday, May 02, 2009 11:24:00 am  
Blogger Epaminondas said...

WOW, well I just learned something Jaco....
"" '(AC)YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.'"

That is the daily prayer religious jews say twice a day, and on the Sabbath eve and morn to show the covenant is kept.

Go to any Temple and you will hear it, as it has been for thousands of years.

Saturday, May 02, 2009 12:27:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How about:

Judaism?

OK!

Torah?

No Way!

*********** or ***************

Christianity?

OK!

Bible?

No Way!

***********

Judeo-Christian Foundation?

OK!

Ten Commandments?

No Way!

***********


None of the above 'slogans' would work based on our Constitutional rights as currently interpreted.




Sharia and the qur'an, hadith and sunnah together (inseparable) formulate the doctrine of islam - which are incompatable with the bible, ten commandments and our own Constitution and bill of rights.

So - no, the original 'slogan' will not cut it as a rallying cry.

Saturday, May 02, 2009 2:35:00 pm  
Blogger Christine said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

Saturday, May 02, 2009 2:53:00 pm  
Blogger Christine said...

Here are the reasons I posed my questions.

Within Christianity, we have core beliefs that do not depend on the bible. Core beliefs, that allow us to live along side people of all stripes, colors and religions. Although Christianity would prefer others convert, it is not a requirement calling for out casting or murder of the nonbelievers. We are still believers, without our book.

Islam on the otherhand, is built around the "book". Hence, cutting out sharia, would destroy the religion, since Sharia is Islams "core" belief.

It is also the reason, that the only muslims who can conform to "western laws", are non-practicing, they have chosen to practice in a way not condoned by Islam or ex-muslims. To Islam, they both are apostates.

What is the actual percentage of Muslims who live by a code of their own? I am willing to bet the number is rather small.

Saturday, May 02, 2009 2:58:00 pm  
Blogger Pastorius said...

Epa,
Yep. As you probably know, many people called Jesus "Rabbi". He was a teacher of the Jewish scriptures after all.

Christians would do well to understand that they are studying the words of Jewish men who were living according to Jewish scripture and Jewish tradition (the Oral Torah).

I read somewhere that in the verse quoted above the reason the Pharisees let Jesus be was because his answer was consistent with the wisdom teaching of some other great Rabbi.

I'll try to find a reference on that.

Saturday, May 02, 2009 3:16:00 pm  
Blogger Pastorius said...

Christine,
My answer is going to sound flippant.

All I care about is the laws and the Constitution of the United States.

If Sharia law violates the Constitution and laws of the U.S. then it is illegal.

Period.

Let the Muslims figure out how to live as Muslims without it.

It's not our business.

All of you who are commenting posing the question, what is Islam without Sharia?

Who cares?

It isn't our business.

Our business is that we are a nation of laws protected by a Constitution.

Do you guys understand this, or are you like all our politicians who seem to have forgotten it?

Saturday, May 02, 2009 3:34:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pastorius -

I agree. If the Constitution must be violated (no equal protection, no freedom of speech, etc., because of the enforcement of Sharia), then no Sharia.

There are plenty of Muslims living in the US today who are not "benfitting" from the civil enforcement of Sharia law.

Likewise, Christians and Jews are not enforcing their "sabbath" on everyone else. Nor are they enforcing their blasphemy laws against anyone else. NO one is being stoned because they insulted G_d or Jesus.

So I do not see the Torah / Bible / Sharia analogy as a fair one.

Constitution is the base.

Ro

Saturday, May 02, 2009 4:13:00 pm  
Blogger Christine said...

Why? Because my answer is, Islam, NO!

Islam cannot be incorporated into our society. And all of the people who keep saying it can, are wrong.

Trying to stand up for Islam, while standing against Sharia, will defeat the point.

Saturday, May 02, 2009 4:27:00 pm  
Blogger Pastorius said...

Christine,
I don't think you are getting it.

WE CAN NOT VIOLATE OUR OWN LAWS OR CONSTITUTION.

We can't do it. If we do do it, we're idiots.

This is an ongoing problem. It is not a mater of torturing a person in the run up to a possible nuclear act of terror.

See Ro's comment.

You know what is amazing to me about this subject? The two sides are so fucking polarized. You have Wilders saying BAN THE KORAN, NO MOSQUES, ETC.

And, you have the other side acting as if Muslims, in general, are not a threat to our society.

But, you only have a few people actually talking about how to approach the problem from a legal perspective. Robert Spencer is one. He says, no more muslim immigration.

That's fine, but it doesn't take care of the problem here.

And when I interview him and talk about the idea of declaring Sharia to be Sedition, he says, he agrees that it is, but it would be almost impossible, given the current political climate, to get this done.

BULLSHIT!

We are a nation of laws protected by a Cosntitution. WE OWN THE GOVERNMENT. They must do what we tell them to do.

Sharia is opposite to our Constitution. Therefore, IT MUST BE BANNED.

It is ridiculous that people can't get this through their skulls.

Once again, we are a nation of laws.

If we don't respect our own laws, then we don't deserve to win this war.

By the way, I agree with Rusty over at Jawa; Geeet Wilders ideas about banning the Koran and outlawing Mosques

ARE FASCIST IDEAS.

That does not mean I am saying Wilders is a fascist. I'm saying he is wrong on those issues, even though he is safely within the European tradition no those ideas.

But, the fact remains that we don't want to follow European tradition, because while the Holocaust ought not be called European tradition, it is in fact an outgrowth of European Ethnic Nationalism, and therefore, things such as the Holocaust grow naturally out of European soil.

Fuck Wilders stupid-assed ideas.

We must adhere to our laws and our Constitution.

Saturday, May 02, 2009 5:05:00 pm  
Blogger Pastorius said...

Oh, and by the way, Christine. I don't care about standing up for Islam. That's not my point.

My point is, there are things that are legal and there are things which are illegal.

And the advocation of Sharia and Jihad ARE ALREADY ILLEGAL.

So, we must prosecute them.

Let the fucking Muslims sort out their own definition of what their religion is once we prosecute the parts of it which are illegal.

Saturday, May 02, 2009 5:11:00 pm  
Blogger Christine said...

I totally agree with your argument about our laws and constitution. And yes, those who advocate for sharia here, should be tried for treason.

But, sharia is nothing without Islam and vice versa. Without sharia, Islam is dead.

Islam cannot be rehabilitated, like christianity was.

So, I guess you and I are not in agreement here. Maybe I am more in line with both Wilders and Spencer.

You know I haven't always felt this way. This attitude has grown through time. Unlike Christians, Muslims as a whole are not willing to stand up for rehabilitating their religion. And how can it? It has not changed since it's inception. Rehabilitation is not allowed. Any question of Mohammed's belief's are treated as apostacy, with the very real possibility of death.

If Christians followed the bible, word for word today, were not allowed through history to question it's belief's, we would still be slaughtering people. Just like Islam is doing today.

Saturday, May 02, 2009 5:26:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The question of sharia-based or non-sharia based worship for Muslims - that is not our issue - it is the Muslims' issue. Far be it from me to tell them how to worship - but it is every bit my business if their "worship" necessarily contravenes the Constitution.

To Pasto's point about Wilder's suggestion to "ban mosques" - he is right - that is a complete non-starter in a country founded, largely, on the ability to worship as one pleases.

The only thing they cannot do is set up a parallel legal system that in any way, shape or form demands that certain classes of people are not equal before the law of the USA.

We have no need for a Constitution if that is allowed, and frankly, no state needs to obey such a federal mandate, if such is handed down.

So, let the Muslims sort out Islam - they just cannot have a civil sharia enforced by our courts.

Whether or not they can have any Islam is up to them. Seems that they have Islam now, and to my knowledge we don't have sharia court decisions being upheld by our court system (clear violation of the establishment clause to the extent any such decision violates the Constitution, IMO).


Ro

Saturday, May 02, 2009 6:35:00 pm  
Blogger Christine said...

Muslims are a patient bunch. With CAIR, ACLU and Obama on their side, the sharia courts will come.

Just like in Britain.

Saturday, May 02, 2009 6:39:00 pm  
Blogger midnight rider said...

Pasto I understand exactly what you are saying and agree. We've talked about this before.

If Muslims here want to live among us while practicing their Faith and living by their moral code that's fine as long as no one gets hurt and it doesn't violate our own laws. This country was colonized & founded on that very principle and we wrote it into our Constitution. The same would apply to ANY religion, not just Islam.

Is Islam Islam without Sharia? WHo knows, who cares? The point is not whether or not to permit Islam, but whether or not to permit Sharia.

If they want to call what's left of their religion with Sharia stripped out Islam so be it. They could call it Oreo Cookies for chrissake and I wouldn't care as long as Sharia was not a part of it.

I have often thought some of Wilders points to extreme though in his situation I understand why he makes them. I wouldn't ban mosques or the Koran. First of all it's contra to our own laws but more, there's no reason Muslims can't change or disavow parts of the Koran. We did it with the Bible (Jews don't still stone adulterers, do they? But it's in there).

Anyway, you're correct. How they deal with their religion while living among us and obeying our laws is their problem, not ours. Ours in making sure they obey our laws and that WE DO AS WELL.

Saturday, May 02, 2009 6:56:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oy,

quote: "If Muslims here want to live among us while practicing their Faith and living by their moral code that's fine."

Oy, oy yoy!

Do tell, exactly which moral code of theirs is acceptable to your neck? Practicing their faith involves drawing lines between dar al-islam and dar al-harb . . . a point which is absolutely antithetical to our 'equal rights'.

Which part of their "moral code" is congruent with our Constitution and Bill of Rights?

This nonsense of equal rights to practice a faith based on hatred and supremacy is going to get generations more killed. Insert Santayana quote here. FEH.

Saturday, May 02, 2009 9:24:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bat Ye'or has a new book out, as noted at GoV:

How “European Islam” Will Complete the Global Muslim Caliphate

Commenting to Paul Giniewski during an interview published in the journal Midstream from February/March 1994, Bat Ye’or had already observed that European Islam (pdf) was adhering to its traditional supremacist orthodoxy making no effort to eliminate doctrines incompatible with true ecumenism and core Western Enlightenment values:

I do not see serious signs of a Europeanization of Islam anywhere, a move that would be expressed in a relativization of religion, a self-critical view of the history of Islamic imperialism…we are light years away from such a development…On the contrary, I think that we are participating in the Islamization of Europe, reflected both in daily occurrences and in our way of thinking…All the racist fanaticism that permeates the Arab countries and Iran has been manifested in Europe in recent years…

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

It is to our detriment to continue the fairy tale that somehow Islam can be tamed anywhere, under any circumstances on this planet.

Saturday, May 02, 2009 9:36:00 pm  
Blogger midnight rider said...

Anonymous "Oy" -- try reading everything Pasto & I said before shooting off your mouth.

If Sharia can be removed. If the hatred is removed.

How fucking hard is that to read?

We've no illusions that it's going to happen. But the possibility is always there.

As long as that possibility is there, as long as Islam could conform to U.S. Constitutional law then we have no reason NOT to accept it AT THAT POINT, other than blind & unjustified hatred. And then we're no fucking better than Islam is now.

Is that so fucking hard to grasp?

Or do you just get off on blind hatred as well?

Saturday, May 02, 2009 10:38:00 pm  
Blogger Pastorius said...

Anonymous clearly did not read what I wrote, and he clearly did not read what you wrote, MR.

I am blown away by people's lack of willingness to understand that we are a nation, and really a civilization, based upon the idea that no one is above the law, and that individuals own themselves as property, and have the right to do with their property as they please, and long as they do not violate other people's property.

The other thing people are not getting is it is up to US TO GOVERN BY OUR LAWS,

and

IT IT UP TO MUSLIMS TO DEFINE THEIR RELIGION after we have defended ourself against it ACCORDING TO OUR LAW.

It is never up to us to define Islam.

Who gives a fuck?

Stop asking me what Islam is if there is no Sharia. I don't give a fuck. That's up to Muslims to decide.

Don't you fucking get it?

Saturday, May 02, 2009 10:56:00 pm  
Blogger Christine said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

Saturday, May 02, 2009 11:01:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

as they do not violate other people's property. . .

Exactly how does the doctrine of Islam fit with this?

Saturday, May 02, 2009 11:45:00 pm  
Blogger Pastorius said...

(Sigh)

I give up.

On second thought, don't bother reading what I wrote in this comments section, ok?

Sunday, May 03, 2009 12:25:00 am  
Blogger midnight rider said...

Pastorius -- they're not reading it.

Sunday, May 03, 2009 12:35:00 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

U simply cannot grant people the right the practice a system of destruction.

Sunday, May 03, 2009 3:28:00 am  
Blogger midnight rider said...

Ohmy god. What the fuck is so hard about two fucking letters?

IF


IF


IF -- a conjunction used to indicate the circumstances that would have to exist in order for an event to happen

IF Islam would shed Sharia and it's violent aspects

IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF

not allow ISlam as it is. That's stupid. But IF it sheds its' violent aspects THEN as long as it adhered to U.S. law there's no problem.


WHAT IN THE FUCK IS SO HARD ABOUT UNDERSTANDING IF/THEN STATEMENTS?

DO YOU PREFER BLIND HATRED OVER RATIONAL THINKING?

BECAUSE IF YOU DO, AND YOU ADVOCATE THE EXTERMINATION OF ALL MUSLIMS JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE MUSLIM REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEY ACTUALLY BELIEVE, THEN YOU ARE AS GUILTY AS A CERTAIN MID-20TH CENTURY EUROPEAN TYRANT.

And yet you'd be the same type to call Obama (who I have NO love for) a Nazi.


Pastorius -- this may be hopeless.

Sunday, May 03, 2009 3:46:00 am  
Blogger Pastorius said...

We'll just have to start at the beginning.

Children, now we are going to learn the ABC's.

Repeat after me ...

Sunday, May 03, 2009 7:40:00 am  
Blogger The_Editrix said...

"Let the Muslims figure out how to live as Muslims without it.

It's not our business."

I don't know whether this implies what I think it does, namely: "I just want to be left alone by Islam and its followers." If it does: It doesn't work that way. They won't leave you alone and you have to learn a lot about them and their ways to be warned. I am thinking of the seemingly assimilated Muslims who oh-so-subtly dye their hair with henna, those who do not wear a tie, which is easily overlooked in our age of "informality", those who won't shake the hand of a woman, which is easily overlooked in a society that is less and less into shaking hands due to the influence from overseas (and which I consider basically a good thing). All that doesn't mean that a Muslim who does NOT dye his hair with a touch of henna, who DOES wear a tie or who DOES shake hands with women is above board (remember taqqiya!), but knowledge about those things helps.

I recently listened to a discussion on the radio about the re-introduction of religious instructions to Berlin schools. It was, mind you, about CHRISTIAN religious instructions. Jewish instructions are negligible because of the negligible number of Jewish children, and Islam doesn't count because there are no university-trained religious teachers with a degree in "theology" as required by the law. Tellingly, they had still invited a Muslima (but no Jew) to join the panel and in no time the entire discussion was about Islam and Islam only, when it ought to have been about "ethics"- versus religious Christian instructions. That woman is the daughter of a mixed German-Turkish marriage, she speaks (of course) German like I do, she was linguistically savvy (and vocal) and she knew her lines. The other panelists didn't have the chance of an icecube in hell against her, nor had the moderator.

That is Islam. If you allow it near you, whether in its unadulterated form or whether in an "acceptable", seemingly modern, seemingly westernized form, it will gobble you up. It is important to know how they proceed, how they think, WHO THEY ARE.

Just my two Eurocents!

Sunday, May 03, 2009 8:43:00 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"If" . .. it all boils down to 'if'?

OK. "IF" you can demonstrate proof of the existence over 1400 years where the limitations of your 'if' works - continuously, dependably - with Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, Hindus,etc. living as equals . . .then I will consider your point a possibility.

You'll have to help me dream up such an example.

Nor can I agree with your sentiments that our Constitution and Bill of Rights 'can' extend to Islam.

Once you set limitations for "if" scenarios, then you are no longer extending 'equal rights' to 'freely' practice anything.

Despite your insisting it is up to Muslims to decide - your 'if' limitations forces your values on their beliefs, which effectively has 'if' rewriting their system - which is not acceptable to Islam . . .so Muslims are not 'free' to 'practice' their beliefs as you would like to insist.

Generations over 1400 years dreamt of 'if' possibilities, hoping against all hope that Islam can be brought out of the dark age - only to suffer the consequences of the reality of Islam. Islam cannot- will not - be tamed from without or within - not for long - not long enough.

Ask the Malasian Ahmadiyyas or stroll back through recent recordings online - like Ariel Sellouk of Texas, Christian school girls Ida Yarni Sambue (15), Theresia Morangke (15), and Alfita Poliwo (19) beheaded in moderate Indonesia, 14 year old Christian Assyrian boy Ayad Tariq, from Baqouba was decapitated at his work place, of Ilan Halimi, 23 year old French Jew, Delara Derabi, Moroccan Sol Hachuel, and the list goes on and on through cultures and nations all ignoring the past and insisting they could somehow tame Islam - only 'if'. . . It's just a matter of time before 'if' will fail you too.

Sunday, May 03, 2009 1:02:00 pm  
Blogger Pastorius said...

Anonymous at 1:02 PM

Why don't you try addressing some of the points I made in my many comments in this thread?

All you're doing is saying "non", like a god damned Frenchman.

it reminds me of the Monty Python skit "I'd like to buy an argument." ---


Man : (knocks)

Other Man: Come in.
Man: Is this the where I come for an argument?
Other Man:(pause) I've told you once.
Man: No you haven't!
Other Man: Yes I have.
M: When?
O: Just now.
M: No, you didn't!
O: Yes I did!
M: Didn't!
O: Did!
M: Didn't!
O: I'm telling you, I did!
M: You did NOT!
O: Oh I'm sorry, is this a five minute or the full half hour?
M: (Confused) (Pauses) Oh, Just the five minute one. (Closes door and sits down.)
O: Oh, a five. Thank you.
O: Anyway, I did.
M: You most certainly did not!
O: Now let's get one thing perfectly clear: I most definitely told you!
M: You did not.
O: Yes I did.
M: You did not.
O: Yes I did.
M: Didn't!
O: Yes I did!
M: Didn't!
O: Yes I did!
M: Look, this isn't an argument!
O: Yes it is.
M: No it isn't! It's just contradiction!
O: No it isn't!
M: Yes, it is!
O: It is NOT!
M: It IS! You just contradicted me!
O: No, I didn't!
M: Oh, you DID!
O: oh, no, no, nonono!
M: You did just then!
O: No, no, nonsense!
M: (exasperated) Oh, this is futile!!
O: No, it isn't!
M: I came here for a good argument!
O: No, you didn't. You came here for an argument!
M: Well, an argument is not the same thing as contradiction.
O: (Pauses) It CAN be!
M: No, it can't! An argument is a connecting series of statements to establish a
proposition.
O: No, it isn't!
M: Yes it is! 'tisn't just contradiction.
O: Look, if I *argue* with you, I must take up a contrary position!
M: Yes but it isn't just saying "No it isn't".
O: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't! (Pauses and looks away, slightly confused)
M: (Continuing) Arguments are an intellectual process. Contradiction is just an automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.
O: (pause) No, it isn't.
M: Yes, it is!
O: Not at all!

Sunday, May 03, 2009 5:06:00 pm  
Blogger Pastorius said...

MR,
I'll bet you Anonymous will not read or respond to that comment either.

Sunday, May 03, 2009 5:06:00 pm  
Blogger Pastorius said...

Editrix,
You are correct in pointing out the tremendous sophistication of Taqiyya-masters. You are also right in pointing out that hardcore Muslims find it easy to live in an acceptable disguise here in the Western world, because we do not adhere to traditions much anymore.

I am not, however, saying that "I just want to be left alone by Islam an it's followers."

I am saying that we need to actively hunt down, try and prosecute all Muslims in Western nations who violate our respective laws and Constitutions.

And, according to the American Constitution, and according to American laws, Muslims who advocate Sharia and Jihad are guilty of sedition. Additionally, Muslims who practice their religion at, for instance, Saudi-funded Mosques are guilty of Racketeering crimes, which are prosecutable under what are known as the RICO Statutes.

We have the laws to destroy these people. We just need to use them.

We the people own the government. Our laws are OUR laws.

We get the government we deserve.

if we are not using our own laws and Constitution to defend ourselves, then it is our own fault.

Sunday, May 03, 2009 5:15:00 pm  
Blogger midnight rider said...

Unless he's just coming for an argument :)

Sunday, May 03, 2009 5:15:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When you open the gates to sedition and are surprised at the resistence to police it, yes, you get the government you deserve .

bravo.

Monday, May 04, 2009 1:52:00 am  
Blogger Pastorius said...

Sorry, for some reason, I don't think I'm understanding your point. Could you elaborate please?

Monday, May 04, 2009 3:26:00 am  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home