Monday, January 23, 2006

Attention All Ibloga Contributors!

Recently I (and some other contributors) have noticed that a few of the posts on the site have crossed the boundary of criticism of radical Muslims, to what comes accross as general hatred towards all Muslims.

The Ibloga was originally set up to shine light on the activities of extremist Islam as well as a discussion forum on how radical Islam could be defeated, rather than aiming to alienate and provoke all Muslims.

In future, any posts that are deemed to have stepped over the line of the sites aims will
be censored or deleted without warning.

Please consider this when posting in future and contact me if you have any issues or questions.


The Anti-Jihadist said...

My argument is, and will continue to be, that Islam itself is inherently 'extremist'. A literal interpretation of the Quran (which, as the perfect word of Allah, does not allow for reformation or revision) calls for violence and intolerance towards all things non Muslim.

Islam does not wish to be merely one religion of many, but (in accordance with its core teachings) explicitly seeks to be at the top of the food chain. Islam hold for itself the right to acquire recruits from any other religion but not the other way round. Islam may defend itself from other religions but other religions must not defend themselves against Islam. Any attempts to do so would be an insult to Islam, and therefore rigorous actions must be undertaken by Islam to stop this, be it Jihad or whatever necessary.

I fight the ideology of Islam itself. My adversaries are not Muslims per se, as Muslims are the first and foremost victims of Islam's radical, aggressive, and intolerant vision for the world.

I hope you don't delete this comment. I am very passionate about my views, and I know I am right--the preponderence of evidence supports my viewpoints. Censorship is not the answer--please hear me out on this blog! Thank you.

Kiddo said...

I know I'm no contributor, but I do like posting here. I just want to know that if we are considering the doctrine/belief/practice in islam of al-Taqiyya, how do we know who we are even to speak ill of in the first place?

Just an honest question. This is referenced doctrine, and we have no idea the extent to which it is practiced. Add to this that al-Taqiyya is utterly frightening.

Pastorius said...

Anti-Jihadist, we wouldn't delete an intelligently raised question such as yours. The post in question was actually an accurate description, in the form of a painting, of Jihadi Islam, as it stands today, and, unfortunately, has always stood.

However, its point was not framed as an argument against Jihadi Islam, but looked to be, instead, a nuclear attack on all of Islam, in the opinion of the Administrators of this blog.

The thing is, we need to let the average enslaved Muslim have a gracious exit in negotiation. They need to be able to say, "Ok, so your problem is with those Muslims who want to kill you, and enslave women. Ok, I do not want to do that, so I can work with you."

This is one of the tactics of war. Lincoln did this during the Civil War. You have to allow your enemy an out. He needs to feel that he has some choice in the matter of his changing to fit your demands.

Do you understand?

I hope so. We love your work. And, in fact, we love the work of the contributor who posted the painting as well. And, we hope he continues contributing.

Pastorius said...

Pim's Ghost,

We are all aware, here, that Muslims lie, and obfuscate, when it suits them. We are aware of the Hudna, as well.

Our objection was not to the post itself, but to the fact that there was no framed argument. Images are particularly dangerous when their is no additional framing intellectual content.

Actually, I know that the poster of the painting is a fan of the writer Neil Postman, so I think he would understand the distinction between argument from image, and arguement from print.

Pastorius said...

By the way, Anti-Jihadist, I meant to write, "an intelligently-raised point." Not question.

Sorry bout that.

Epaminondas said...

Mr. Devereaux should be considered Cox & Forkum cubed.

While a painting, there can be no doubt his work is under "political cartoon"

Thought provoking

A perusal of his site shows this.
Jyllens-Posten to the very edge.
But a comment to describe would have been more ameliorating

The problem we all face is that (IMHO) .. if there are muslims whose conscience rejects the acts of mass murder and terror we see around us, and the PROCESSES described from Ibn Tamiyya >> Qutb >> KSA >> OBL (alikes), can these muslims find religious backing in the Quran to excoriate and ostracize both the actors and teachers. Can they authoritatively religiously reject the racism, supremacism, and imperialism which have seemed to dominate teachings?

If the answer is yes, then fine, but if not then what we fear to post uncommented is the fact of the situation.

I DON'T KNOW as yet what the answer is.

Anonymous said...

I was going to do a long eloquent post, but instead I'll just agree with Pastorius.

Women under strict Shar'ia law can get a very harsh deal. Yet they are still Muslims, and would desribe themselves as such.

I lend my hand of friendship to all those oppressed Muslims all over the world. And save my wrath for those who attempt to oppress.

Anonymous said...

There are problems with Islam. However you need to ask what is your goal here? If it's to offend Muslims, then that's an easy path, no doubt!

The real challenge is to encourage independent & free thinking individuals within the Islamic world.

I totally agree with the right to offend, and would even support that, but that's not quite what we intended here!

Oscar in Kansas said...

Thanks. I've noticed that too. Thanks for watching out.

Anonymous said...

Have you had any muslims come with open minds visiting your site?

Not that I'm aware of. However I have come across a progressive site which is a real breath of fresh air.

I think I will make a post about these guys...