Friday, December 07, 2007

Gates of Vienna Requires a Correction From Charles Johnson

These smears have gone on long enough:

This image is symbolic of the entire argument of the pro-Vlaams Belang side in this controversy—because it’s incomplete and deceptive. What Gates of Vienna didn’t show you: the part of the image that was cropped out, which includes … again … the white supremacist symbol known as the Odin’s Cross:

In a post today on Little Green Footballs concerning my article about the black rat cartoon, I have been accused of withholding the full image of the black rat from its context of in larger image. I did nothing of the sort.

Youth ratI obtained this small rat image here at the Vlaamse Jongeren Westland (VJW) website, using the link provided by ProFlandria and the Flemish CVF team. I was totally unaware of the image posted today at Little Green Footballs. Whatever cropping that was done to the larger image must have been performed by VJW.

Included also in the above quote from LGF is the direct implication that the VJW rat has an association with Vlaams Belang. This is patently untrue.

This is very important: VJW has nothing whatsoever to do with Vlaams Belang, and there is an ample evidence on the public record to support this fact.

Whatever noxious things VJW might be accused of, they are an entirely different youth group, and their political philosophy is diametrically opposed to that of Vlaams Belang.

If Charles Johnson has any shred of decency left, he will post a retraction, a correction, and an apology on his blog in just as public a format as he used to smear me.

He has been rather hasty jumping to conclusions without having any facts to support them.

That he can get such a small and easily verifiable fact wrong can prompt but a single question:

Just how many more of his recent allegations are spun of the same faerie gossamer?


[ends here]

92 comments:

Ed Mahmoud said...

Good luck with that. I think the 'root cause' of all of this is a large and delicate ego on Johnson's part, which will not allow him to back down on something like this.

Lex said...

Baron, are you ever going to just stop this garbage? No one is going to apologize over these posts! Just move on (dot nothing). Or don't, actually, since I don't support your other activities. But do you seriously think that increasing your demands online with other bloggers will get anywhere, or is this just something else that will end up in an LGF post and drive up your traffic? Seriously, I'm finally just curious enough to ask.

Ed Mahmoud said...

Dennis the Peasant (and he is sort of impartial, as he seems not to like either LGF or GoV) weighs in on the Charles

Wimbledon Womble said...

The great and powerful Oz obsesses about and has to go after smaller sites, not being confident and comfortable in His own domain.

Charles Johnson is an obsessive-compulsive and bully. He needs medication.

Time to ignore this childish, insecure and clearly psychologically diseased individual. One can only wish he one day receives the professional help he needs.

CarnackiUK said...

Obviously the JVW cropped the image because the GUD original had French text and the JVW is a militant Flemish youth group that supports breaking away from French-speakers!

(Not exactly rocket science, lèzards.)

Here's a relevent quote from Jack Marchal, the French student activist who drew the offending Black Rat as a counter to Communist Youth propaganda post-'68student rebellion---
'Our enemies still take us for the SA of the Thirties, and so much the better, for one wouldn't exactly cheer if our adversaries suddenly developed intelligence.'
Spot on!

1389 said...

True, you won't ever convince CJ of anything, no matter how much evidence you have. But that's not the point!

Fact is, if you don't bother to deny and refute false accusations, onlookers will take your silence as a tacit admission of guilt.

Is it time to start suing CJ and his ilk for defamation?

AngleofRepose said...

I just don't get it. His tactics are obvious to anyone except the most obtuse, wilfully ignorant dullard in the universe who worships at the alter of His Lizardness.

He's a dishonest opponent in which one simply cannot trust his version of the "truth" about the VB.

He's presented a non-contextualized white supremacist painting of not only Dewinter, but an entire political class of people from non-contxtd pics that were, ironically, sourced by communists and or socialists.

Why they chose to lay wreaths on former Flemsih SS soldiers' graves?; answered and subsequently ignored.

Why they voted down that holocaust resolution? answered and ignored.

Why do three vehemently different organizations use the same rat and "white power" symbol? Simple, according to Jo-gic;

One is a whitesupremacistjewhatinganticapitalistneonaziscumthuggerist trying to sneak it's way into the C-J movement so they can buy themselves more time before the elimination of the Flemish Jews.

And what better way to go about it then flaunting you're WP and obvious neo-Nazi credentials for all to see. (sarcasm, for the slower hatchlings)

Anonymous said...

I definitely think he should apologize... but good luck with that, because I'm sure he won't.

Due to his absolutely ridiculous and wrong opinon on the Vlaams Belang, I always question the authenticity of anything he posts now. It's too bad, because I actually used to like Little Green Footballs!

AngleofRepose said...

dang.. your WP symbols..

Ed Mahmoud said...

Is it time to start suing CJ and his ilk for defamation?



Not likely to work, public opinion on blogs would seem, IMH and non legally educated opinion, to have a fair range of latitude, as free speech, and I believe defamation requires malicious intent and knowledge that what is being asserted isn't true.



Rebut, then ignore.

thx1138 said...

Tracking and collecting the apologies on the internet for these minor and trivial insults and inaccuracies on either side is self defeating and distasteful. Just present the facts and let people decide. If you make an error make a correction. The more organized and more accurate you are the less important the naysayers will seem.

Errors at LGF are failing to realize Celts were in Beligium long ago. Flanders historically has had a violent multinational past way before WWII. There was a time you had to be a Catholic to live there. Instead of criticizing VB for wanting to move into anti jihadsim it would be much more productive to criticize the far left for not moving into anti-jihadism. Just ignoring LGF will drive the point home.

Errors on the VB side. There are questions about the cross and the nazi collaborataion platform and the wreath laying. Why not just present those situation fully as they are. It is not going to change the current VB. Honesty is the best policy, sneakily trying to gloss over some defects puts a ceiling on what VB and it's supporters can do.

I do hope Flanders achieves separation. It seems significant to me.

john said...

At first, when all of this first began, I thought the exchanges would end soon, and the lgf blog owner and GoV would just ignore each other.
Was I ever wrong.
Each time GoV has responded to the insecure cyclist, he has gone to new lengths to prove he was correct in his assertions about...everything.
At this point, I say, keep poking him with a pointy-stick.
Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.
Napoleon Bonaparte

Anonymous said...

FWIW, Charles has been opening registration much more often than he used to, in order to replenish the thinning ranks of commenters. (High turnover due to management problems.)

John Sobieski said...

Charles Johnson is obsessed and irrational. I still visit his site, but rarely read the comments. Like a neocon, he cannot, will not change his mind.

Alexis said...

Of course Charles Johnson won't post an apology on his blog. After all, he still hasn't posted an apology for advocating torture.

Baron Bodissey and Dymphna, I would like to commend you for using restraint. Lizard-style rhetoric is best used for laughs. Imagine, for instance, the use of Charles Johnson's style of rhetoric to denounce Charles Johnson; it would probably sound like the following passage.


Charles Johnson would still like you to believe that the sky is green. He keeps on ranting with his tired old hackneyed phrases and his baseless claims, as if the relentless repetition of his lies made them any more true.

These tirades are symbolic of Charles Johnson's entire personality, for he seems to feel incomplete without finding new enemies every month. Apparently, making unflattering remarks about Muslims is not enough for him and opposing Islamic imperialism is not enough for him, so he begins a crusade against pro-Jewish political parties in Europe, presumably with the aim of depriving Jews of any allies other than himself.

Charles Johnson keeps on making diversionary defenses against charges of his own racism. What Charles Johnson doesn't show you is that members of his own so-called "lizard army" use a neo-Nazi symbol as part of their uniform. His diversionary tactics are intended to keep you from knowing that his own standard of proof would convict him of being a neo-Nazi.

Charles Johnson doesn't tell you that the State of Israel has had close relations with many unsavory regimes and many unsavory people, including the occasional neo-Nazi. That doesn't keep right-thinking people from supporting the State of Israel, but it may eventually keep Charles Johnson from supporting Israel because he is becoming more and more like Jimmy Carter and will probably become a Jew hater like him too.

Amid all of his chatter concerning his witch hunt to maintain the supposed ideological purity of his so-called "army of lizards", Charles Johnson refuses to answer the question of whether he should be held to the same standard to which he judges others. He dares not answer that question, for the clear answer is that he sees himself as the lord of an army of lizards, not as a mere mortal like the rest of humanity.



That passage reeks of Johnsonisms, doesn't it? If you had put all the classic lizard buzzwords onto a game card, you should have been able to call out Bingo! by now.

Here's an idea for a new book -- How to Write Lizard Style

Lex said...

1389--are you serious? Suing LGF for defamation? Against you guys, I'm assuming here? Tell me that's a joke. Please. If not, have fun with THAT counter-suit...ROFL.

I'm calling movie rights on this whole feud. The Coen Bros. should definitely direct.

I should unsub on this one, I was just wondering if Baron was ever going to answer to the absurdity of the post. Or challenge CJ to a duel, either way.

(These are just BLOGS people....)

Subvet said...

LGF increasingly reminds me of the Yippies at the 1968 Democratic Convention, i.e, more of a distraction than anything else. While the SDS and others were engaged in serious confrontations, that group of dingbats were running through the night waving sparklers and figuring how to dump LSD into the local reservoirs (and I've been told by chemists that would have resulted in absolutely NO effects on the population). Their leader, Abby Hoffman, was subsequently convicted with the rest of the Chicago Seven but that might just show how desperate the authorities were to find someone to blame.

CJ and his followers are a distraction, regardless of any good work they've done before now.

Ignore him to the best of your ability Baron. You've much more class/character than he.

Darrin Hodges said...

It is clear that Johnson has brought a new agenda and will ram it home at whatever the cost. While I thought it better to ignore the LGF propaganda, I understand GOV's POV on leaving what are serious allegations unanswered.

The tactics that Johnson is using are classic leftist tactics, that is, to distract and lead up the garden path anybody who apposes. When my group engages in activism, I always instruct them not to engage in futile arguments with those whose ideological position is clearly cemented in. I tell them that those types are only there to distract you from what you are doing, ie, handing out leaflets. All the public see are two people carrying on like pork chops, the public aren't interested in ideological turf wars.

Anyway, good work Baron and Dymphna, you have support from down under!.

cheers
Darrin.

Henrik said...

One question:

Why is LGF still on the GoV blogroll?

I think it's time to detach from this troublemonger and move on.

Holger said...

Brain tumors can cause normal people to act irrational... Maybe Mr. Johnson should get his head checked? Honestly. What's happening to that guy?

Chalons said...

At this point, I think I prefer the old method of just calling a duel and being done with it.

So my question is, 'Is GoV ever going to refocus on it's mission statement or is it game over for this site?'

Archonix said...

Holger, speculation of Charles's mental health is not constructive or particularly helpful at this point. I honestly don't see why I should even have to point this out... I mean, come on, people! Dropping ad-homs like that practically concedes the argument there and then!

Legal action should not even be considered, either. Lex is right, that would be a very silly thing to do.

Chalons, I am going to sound like the official GoV cheerleader here, now, but I think that the Baron is right to keep answering these arguments. It's also pretty obvious he and Dymphna don't want to have to keep answering these arguments but, as long as Charles and his minions are tossing decontextualised dung around, they have to be brought to account.

All of the above is naturally just my own opinion and should be seen as such. I have no personal beef with Johnson, I simply question his choice of targets at this particular junction.

Zonka said...

@1389,

Suing CJ and LGF would be counter-productive and tie up a lot of resources in a legal battle, that would really benefit none. Blogs are about opinions and sometimes opinions just clash... badly. And that is what is happening here, it's a battle of opinions and sometimes you just can't win such a battle.

The only thing you can do is to state your case and your side of the story and then let the public divide themselves on either side of the fault-line... Who do they believe most. You won't get everybody to believe your side of the story, however true it might be.

The greatest fallacy in this whole debate as I have seen it, is that it have centered on some really peripheral issues, like why does deWinter have a certain symbol on his bookshelf... Who effing cares? Up to this whole debate I wouldn't have thought a thing about it and certainly wouldn't have formed any connection to WS or fascist organizations based on such a symbol. And I'm a European, and should be used to finding nazis and their ilk under each bed and certainly hiding in every closet. The reality here in Europe is far different, although if you look at it with a certain brand of american glasses, it might seem very different, and though those glasses I might even be a nazi, because I fail to see them all around me! *sheesh*

The real issues have not been dealt with by LGF, and that is, if VB is a neo-nazi movement or sympathizers how does that show in their actions?

Well, they have met with unsavory types like Le Pen etc. Such meetings are a matter of politics, when in politics you meet unsavory types. But their track record doesn't show that they have given those groups their support, instead they have supported Israel and the jews. If you look through image archives of people who have met and shaken hands with say Yassir Arafat, how many of these people suddenly became PLO members?

I'm not saying that there might not be some racists/facists/nazis/idiots associated with VB, but on the whole the actions of the party have been in a completely different direction, and the direction is compatible with the Counter-Jihad movement. Should they alter course in the future, some solution must then be found, and this goes for all members of the Counter-Jihad movement members. Based on actual actions, words and deeds, not symbolism, dark omens, hearsay or some such.

And what matters here is not so much the issue of VB, SD and others and really never were. The crux of the matter is that CJ from day one have tried to discredit the Counter-Jihad movement, using the same rhetoric, tactics and strategy of the left. Smear tactics, guilt by association and stiffling dissenting voices on his website. He has shown himself to be a part of the problem, not part of the solution. This is why it is important to continue to refute his claims and accusations, in the same way as we have to do with the rest of the left and both the multiculti crowd as well as the PC crowd, be they nominally on the left, right or center... Doesn't matter, we cannot allow their opinions to stand alone without being opposed, as that is one of the reasons that we're here in the first place... For being to complacent about the defeat of socialism after the fall of the Wall, not noticing the left regrouped and resurfaced in other shapes and forms.

And as I've said before, this sort of thing was bound to happen, sooner or later, and I believe it is a good thing that it happened, since it is giving us a more focused view of who and what we're up against... It's not just the Jihadis and the left but it is also a chunk of the right, which we might otherwise have counted as an ally, but really never really wasn't much of an ally when it really counted.

So to all of those that think that the so-called fight against LGF is a sideshow and a distraction from the real fight, I say they are mistaken, the fight against the inaccuracies and the bias of LGF is a fight against a totalitarian mindset, that besets the left, the multicultis, many of the elite and also a sizeable chunk of the right, and they are the ones paving the way for the Jihadis. So it is important to take this fight.

How we fight though is very important, we need to fight intelligently, with arguments, with facts and most of all with reason. Not with kneejerk mudslinging back and forth, not with namecalling or other emotional attacks. But stating our case, countering false and questionable accusations with facts and reason, and taking the moral high ground. Cutting off the Jihadis support in the West is one of the most important tasks in the Counter-Jihad movement.

Baron Bodissey said...

Henrik --

LGF is on our blogroll because I refuse to fight by yanking people from our blogroll.

One of the hallmarks of all this crap is people delinking each other -- "I'm taking you off my blogroll, you bastard!"

Dr. Sanity even accused us of removing her from our blogroll, which of course we never did. I wrote her and asked her to correct that post, but she didn't (apparently a lot of people are unwilling to do corrections).

Well, anyway, I won't fight that way.

However, our blogroll is definitely way too long. In a few months, when all this mess has quieted down. I'll go through it and remove any sites that are defunct, inactive, or no longer accord with our mission.

Anonymous said...

GOD

Give us the serenity to accept things which cannot be changed;

Give us courage to change things which must be changed;

And the wisdom to distinguish one from the other.

Zonka said...

Interesting link from LGF a while back: No Jihad Street -- Where was the outrage of VB and Dewinter back then???

Russet Shadows said...

Once I would have taken the position of a mother among quarreling siblings, but my desire for that position faded soon after this debate began. CJ is definitely in the wrong but will not admit it. Further, he continues heaping up evidence against himself by arguing in bad faith, issuing ad hominems and so forth. These are the facts before us all. A period of temporary de-linking -- separation, not divorce -- might be the best path. Then, in a few months, check back to see if CJ persists in error. If he does, then sever ties at that point.

Zonka said...

As a followup to my long comment earlier today....

Another good reason to continue this fight against CJ and LGF, is that if LGF doesn't succeed in squashing the Counter-Jihad movement, somebody from the MSM and/or the left will pick up the fight using the writings from Charles and his followers as ammunition against the Counter-Jihad movement, painting LGF's view as the mainstream rightist view, and confirming their claim that everybody who is fighting the islamization of the West is Fascists, Neo-nazis, Racists or worse.

So in effect what Charles is doing is not just rattling on in his echo chamber, he is deliberately sabotaging the efforts of countering islamization.

His efforts have nothing to do with Vlams Belang, they were just a convenient target for his campaign. The proof of that is that he silently dropped the charges against SD, when it became apparent that he couldn't use them as a vehicle to smear the Counter-Jihad movement. If his main complaint had been the involvement of the Counter-Jihad movement with VB and SD, he would have stated openly that SD had been cleared or at least that there weren't sufficient charges against them to continue to oppose them into the Counter-Jihad movement. But no such statement have been made implicit or explicit. The conclusion thus must be that it was never about VB or SD, but to smear the Counter-Jihad movement with any means at his disposal.

John said...

As a frequent reader, but seldom a poster, both of Gates of Vienna and LGF, the current controversy has me somewhat distressed, as I know that essentially, both sides are in the same fight, and I would rather the focus be on that fight than between what should be arm-in-arm allies.

I have found Gates of Vienna, over several years, to be thoughtful and erudite, while LGF tends to be more visceral, both in tone and tactic. Hopefully, this dispute is simply a manifestation of LGF's more muscular approach and will soon fade.

As an American, I am gratified that Gates of Vienna shows me that Europe is not lost. At the same time, I am very much pro-Israel, also in the same fight, and have empirically, as I am not Jewish or Israeli, come down fully on the Jewish/Semitic side on the basis of events since the Six Day War. From that perspective, I have never noted an iota of anti-Semitic or anti-Zionist prejudice emitted from Gates of Vienna, and believe LGF's offense taken to be missplaced, and extraordinarily so. Therefore, I am on your side in this.

Please continue the struggle and don't be discouraged by these passing challenges. You reward me every time I return to your site, and I am grateful for your intellect, passion, and work at delivering the important message.

Ed Mahmoud said...

Zonka said...
Interesting link from LGF a while back: No Jihad Street -- Where was the outrage of VB and Dewinter back then???



Well, since Charles posted approvingly of VB and Filip DeWinter, and DeWinter has a Celtic Cross, which is proof of Nazi sympathies (even if it was a pre-WW2 symbol of Flemish nationalism), than by the Charles standards Charles is a Nazi, and should ban himself.

Holger Awakens said...

An interesting article on Europe's right to defend the homeland.

A great read.

http://gunslingersjournal.blogspot.com/2007/12/fundamental-racial-concerns-questions.html

Grimmy said...

I don't often comment here. I'm way to harsh and confrontational to be of any possible value to y'alls discussions.

But, I do want to chime in here, if I may.

I've been a long time, daily reader of this site and LGF. I've often appreciated LGF for bringing some fire onto issues I also viewed as important. I've always appreciated GoV for the insightful and calm analysis of events provided.

Since this started, I've learned a lot about VB. I've also slowed way down on my usual blather about Europe being a lost cause because of what I've learned about VB.

I know from simply paying attention for the last few decades, that anyone who opposes any part of the dogma, ideology or operations favored by the left are automatically branded as nazi/fascist/racist.

You'll be most very hard pressed to find any attempt at conversation with a hard leftist that does not contain those smears against any and all opposition.

Who or what I respect and/or why I respect them means nothing to anyone but me. But I have lost respect for LGF through this willingness of his to so easily be bent over and made into a punk for the leftist dogma on this issue.

And, I very much want to say thank you to the GoV folk for making the effort to help the rest of us keep our position on the shield wall by providing us with good info, and perspective.

Thank you.

Ad Triarios Redisse!
Semper Fi

Ed Mahmoud said...

Maybe a once a week rebuttal, or an expanded FAQ, but if you rebut every one of Chuckles the Dancing Clowns attacks, every other thread will be about LGF.


LGF traffic is slipping, it is becoming irrelevant.

Zonka said...

Ed Mahmoud wrote:
Maybe a once a week rebuttal, or an expanded FAQ, but if you rebut every one of Chuckles the Dancing Clowns attacks, every other thread will be about LGF.

It wouldn't do anybody any good to turn GoV into a rightist-lgf-watch, so what you're proposing is a good idea, or even a separate FAQ page, with a prominent link on the GoV frontpage, so that the information is readily available and in a condensed and quickly readable form, with relevant links to all the in-depth analysis and information.

lowandslow said...

Ed,
Maybe a once a week rebuttal, or an expanded FAQ, but if you rebut every one of Chuckles the Dancing Clowns attacks, every other thread will be about LGF.


But that would limit Lex's access to a forum where she can alternate between telling us how she's not going to comment any more and commenting on how much smarter she is then everyone else by using nothing more than ridicule. That stuff is like gold.

CarnackiUK said...

ed, I'd never heard of 'Dennis the Peasant' until you linked to his blog. He clearly loathes Charles (and Roger Simon) with such venom that I actually found myself feeling some sympathy for CJ for the first time since he kicked off the VB saga.

Following the trail from Dennis the unPleasant leads to such stories as: Charles Johnson Axed from Pajamas Media Management - Interesting details about the pro-Israel activist money behind far-right bloggers conglomerate Pajamas Media
Speculation is: a couple of investment tycoons sank at least $7M into Pajamas Media and CJ was subsequently pushed off the gravy train because of LGF's advertiser-unfriendly extremist image.
This puts a whole different spin on the bannings and CJ's ideological bunjee jump. Could he be trying to gain 'respectability' by purging the perceived far right from LGF and thereby worm his way back into favor with PJM's inner circle? Is this really just about filthy luchre after all?

Archonix said...

But that would limit Lex's access to a forum where she can alternate between telling us how she's not going to comment any more and commenting on how much smarter she is then everyone else by using nothing more than ridicule. That stuff is like gold.

Well there's a mirror moment if I ever saw one... wasn't there a spat on LGF between charles and Fjordmann along those lines?

Frankly I'm getting sick of this whole thing now. I stand by what I said - this behaviour needs to be decisively battled - but that doesn't mean I can't be thoroughly jaded by the whole affair.

CarnackiUK, my brief reading of This peasant person informs me that they're a rather odd bloke, not easy to categorise - which is refreshing, actually, because I hte categories. His disgust toward the entire anti-jihad movement is obvious. He does make some good points in this regard but they're so hidden behind invective and bile as to make them almost invisible.

Sounds familiar...

Anyway, interesting tidbit that. I find it even more interesting that "far-right" and "pro-israel" are used as cognates in that title. I suppose that makes sense if one subscribes to the idea that the jews are the new nazis and that nazis are right-wing in the first place...

Conservative Swede said...

Do you remember the photo of Tina Hallgren Bengtsson, the Hollywood Nazi?

'Hollywood' as in all superficial, and nothing behind. She's all dressed up as she was going to play a part in a costume movie.

People who want to warn us that there is a surge of neo-Nazism in Europe (such as CJ) hold up this photo before us to instill fear in us.

But if Tina Hallgren Bengtsson represents this Nazi threat, then there's not really much to it. She left politics altogether shortly after the picture was taken, and claims she was never much involved in the first place.

She's a paper tiger and has always been.

So this makes me think of Charles Johnson, who is from Los Angeles. The expression Hollywood anti-Jihadist comes to mind. Quite as for Tina Hallgren Bengtsson he's all superficial, and there's nothing behind. He never took the thing seriously in the first place, "never jumped on that band-wagon" as he would say himself. And once it became about real action, real resistance, he was quick to hop off. And he's not even a paper tiger, there's no paper involved in cyber media.

Tina Hallgren Bengtsson was once a member of the Sweden Democrats, but the result of her actions has been to sabotage for this party.

Charles Johnson was once part of the anti-Jihad movement, but the result of his actions has been to sabotage for this movement.

The world would have been a better place without these lousy Hollywood characters.

USorThem said...

The implications of choosing the side that CJ has decided to take will be exposed soon enough.

Lets take Wilder's movie that is to release in January. Wilders says Islam is THE problem. He wants to ban the Koran. He is going to try and prove that, among other things, with this movie.

CJ knows something is wrong with Islam. But his hope and faith in any solution is in the existance of the moderate muslim. That is why he and those like him believe that moderates will rescue Iraq and the U.S. involvement there. To him Islam is also interesting, entertaining and something to report on to keep his blog afloat.

He shows no indication of understanding the roots of Islamic supremacism or the basis of the Islamic jihadist imperative, other than what he reads in the articles he posts about and what he may read on other blogs. Would he dare say " ban the Koran" but "lets not deport any of them or intern any of them if they get too upset about it. They will have to adjust. And what's not to love about democracy, free from the chains of Islamic thought controls anyway".

When this movie comes out next month and if violent demonstrations break out will Charles cover it? I think so but look who he will be siding with if there is fighting in the streets and sides are taken. What side will he be on? Of course he will condemn THOSE muslims. But guess who he will be side by side with outside The Netherlands? Hmmm... the VB? Sweden's Democrats? What if even the hated and villified BNP have a thing or two to say about the whole potential mess and supports Wilder's. And what will CJ do? Dare he take the same side as BNP? VB? OMG!

There will be other incidents that occur in Europe that will get America's attention and will draw them away from the focus on Iraq. At some point they might even ask themselves, if democracy is so great and is much desired by muslims in Iraq, and if democracy is what we are fighting for in Iraq, why is it that muslims in Europe are doing all they can to destroy democratic Europe?

CJ will have to take a REAL side in the war against the global jihad soon enough. His reporting is mostly focused on events outside of Europe. But I think most GoVers know that a great fight against jihad will likely develop in Europe soon. When is does develop Americans will start to realize the dangers of Islam and the total misconception of Islam provided to them so far by politicians (shoeless George comes to mind), neo-cons from the unaccredited Democracy Solves Everything University, and commentators such as CJ.

CJ, like many other Americans is in a phase. Something is not quite right with Islam. Teddy bear demonstrations and 200 lashes for rape victims isn't fitting into the "Religion of Peace" picture presented. At some point those who detect a problem but just can't utter the words, will some day, after some very unfortunate and deadly events, come around to admit Islam is THE problem.

In the meantime they will dance around it and be defensive to any accusation that maybe they don't know as much as they should about Islam. If they keep paying attention though, they will.

I don't think seeking apologies or retractions is worthwhile. I like Robert Spencer's approach to rebuttals from whatever source. He addresses them with the proviso that not doing so may create the impression he agrees or approves what has been said be his silence. No apologies or retractions requested..

lowandslow said...

Archonix
Well there's a mirror moment if I ever saw one... wasn't there a spat on LGF between charles and Fjordmann along those lines?


No.
To equate Fjordmans attempts to explain Belgium politics to Charles and Lex's snide comments is disingenuous at best.

Archonix said...

disingenuous at best.

You're probably right. At the time I wasn't watching too hard, I just remember a lot of snarking about fjordman supposedly leaving multiple times. It just stuck out at me.

Lack of context strikes again. :D

AngleofRepose said...

Archonix is actually closer to the truth - there was alot of snark about Fjordude's declarations of imminent departure, mostly by the commenters.

Charles has updated his post - no apology.

*shock*

Ethelred said...

From an American:

Islam is evil. Muhammad was an evil man and created an evil religion.

Ali Sina is 100% on the money. I helped him by proof-reading his latest book (which surprisingly he cannot get published).

I was banned from LGF for saying the following:

1) It is not written that all religions are good
2) Islam, claiming to be a "complete way of life" is inherently political and says so
3) We (meaning Europeans here, but the West in general) has the right
to define what makes an acceptable religion and declare anything calling itself a religion to be not following our definition.
4) Therefore, we hereby declare that Islam does not follow the
guidelines of "protected religion" and is henceforth to be dealt with
as a political ideology.
5) A mosque is now not a "special place" and the Koran not a special
book.
6) The days of special treatment of Islam and Muslims are over
7) Muslims now have a choice: leave Islam and behave like a European
or remain a Muslim and leave the West.

Islam is using our "tolerant" natures against us and riding on the coattails of the "Abrahamic" faiths. If a religion cannot be banned, then legally declare it a political ideology and deal with it
legally.

This will still not be easy, but might be easier than trying to ban
Islam the religion.

I kept asking, "What can we actually do?" meaning beyond talk and I kept pounding and demanding an answer.

At one point I said something like, "Imagine all of the efforts of LGF and JW (to name two) are successful and the ENTIRE adult population of the US now knows what Islam is all about and how dangerous it is to the very concept of a free society. NOW WHAT?"

That freaked CJ out.

Charles took my the ideas below, and especially "Muslims have a choice" as 'deporting' talk, which, in his world, is forbidden.

In other words, let's talk about it forever and maybe they will just go away.

In the real world, I see blood in the streets in many European cities in not too many years. The latest Fjordman piece ties in to the El Ingles piece. Which side will the armies be on?

Ethelred

Ethelred said...

I meant

Charles took my ideas above,

Conservative Swede said...

Ethelred,

What you said is not very different from what an MP of the Swedish Liberal Party, Johan Pehrsson, said recently. Regarding the Vilks drawings: "Those who dislike the Muhammad drawings should maybe consider leaving the country".

While LGF is changing, so is Sweden too. Only much more slowly, but in the right direction. Mostly thanks to Lars Vilks.

Johan Pehrsson was not banned from his party for saying this. However, he surely would have been if he said the same thing at LGF. And remember then that his party, the Liberal Party, is slightly to the left of Hillary Clinton. This is where Charles Johnson is heading for. He looks less and less like a liberal, and more and more like a leftist.

As I have been telling people for years, the worst thing in Sweden is the suffocating climate where debate is stifled. But Sweden is at least more open than LGF. LGF is a nightmare of conformism and debate suffocation (and leftist witch hunts). Sweden is a breeze of fresh air compared to LGF.

Charlemagne said...

Ethelred,

I couldn't agree more regarding your "what now?" comment. I used to post more often here at LGF and elsewhere but I'm tired of discussions with the converted and faithful. I want to see some action. The ONLY way the vast majority of Europeans, and frankly all of the West, will pull their collective heads out of the sand is if Muslims cause much more trouble than they have thus far. I believe they need to be provoked to lash out at us before current demographic trends make it very difficult or impossible for the current path of Islamification to be changed or even reversed.
I enjoy reading of the latest outrage by the Leftists and Muslims but dammit, what do we do about it?

Ethelred said...

charlemagne,

Short of banning the religion, Islam must be dealt with as a political ideology, like is being done with CAIR here in the US.

Ban the burqa, ban Muslim hate speech (meaning Koran quoting), ban child brides, ban genital mutilation, ban wife beating, allow quoting of the Koran as a means of showing it is pure hatred, etc.

Make the West an uncomfortable place to be a "Muslim", which to me means a brainless parasite.

Charlemagne said...

Ethelred,

The odds of anything Islamic being banned in Europe are just about zero and creeping acceptance of Sharia is more likely.
My recommendation has a much higher chance of success than any attempt at banning anything Islamic.

1389 said...

Here I demonstrate that Charles and Leftist Green Footballs are perfectly okay with Nazism, provided that it is their Nazism:

Neo-Nazi Croatian Band Thompson to tour Melbourne Dec. 29, 2007

BTW, Thompson is busy riling up crowds to "kill Serbs" and has made buddy-buddy with the Muslims in the Balkans. He is bad news wherever he goes.

Rivenrock Gardens said...

I hate to say it, but there is meanness and pettiness on both sides of this LGF/GV debate. We are all on the same side. I've been quiet on this because I don't have the depth of thought of others, but it is like watching two beloved neighbors fighting over an issue I don't have full comprehension or knowledge of....I don't want to see the bickering, and I need both of the neighbors to ally with me when the trespassers come into the neighborhood. Please, folks on all sides, let's bring facts and the issues out into the open without resorting to bitter words of personal recrimination that cannot be easily taken back.
That said, I agree that alliances with persons of ill will such as racists are bad for our cause, it is just like the 'immigration reform’ people with their banners that are supplied by the Communist organizations…they are being used as dupes by the Commies, and they don’t even ‘get’ the association displayed on their own banners. I hate to think the same might be happening with the VB and others. These are questions that must be brought into the open, yet symbols alone do not show what is in the heart. The Celtic and Norse symbols shown on some of the photos I’ve seen are ancient and are in graveyards through Northern Europe. It is similar to the Swastika, a symbol that has been used by several peoples in the entire Northern Hemisphere for millennia. It was usurped by the Nazis, and now is seen as predominantly a Nazi symbol, yet I’ve seen a photo of Jackie Kennedy wearing a buckskin dress with that pattern on the breast as a kid and the Dalai Lama standing on a dais decorated with them, and the Buddhist Temple in Santa Barbara has a huge one on the gate. To me the Celtic Cross seems a symbol of Northern European acceptance of Christianity and a degree of hanging onto the old customs and ways of the old religions. To me it is not a racist symbol, but a symbol showing a cultural affiliation…but what does it mean to these groups? That is what Charles is trying to find out, yet I postulate that the mere showing of such does not in itself connote racist attitudes, any more than a person have a swastika shows they are Nazi, they might be Buddhist, Native American or some other culture that has no affiliation with nor affinity for Nazi ideology.
Friends and neighbors, we are all united by ideology ultimately, we must not split ourselves right now in this raucous debate, I don’t think this is an issue that cannot be settled over a weekend of beer drinking and eating tri-tip and salad. We all have to hang together, or we shall hang separately (to paraphrase an idol of mine).
If deep racial affiliations do exist, then they must be rooted out and left in the sun to dry and die. And if my neighbor has a noxious weed growing near the fence, it causes me concern, I must speak to him about this, and if he does not see the need for it's removal, I must go to others and all together we will petition him to let me remove it, if he refuses we must show him the harm that it will cause us all together. But it will alienate him if I call him names and get angry, I don't need him so angry at me that I have to worry whether he'll poison my well in the night, or be afraid to turn my back to him as he loads my rifle while I am shooting the bad guys with his (I have good aim). While not of the "can't we all just get along” crowd, I do wish to say that we can't be permanently split into camps that can be easily overrun. Hold to the center, and let's all man the barricades.
God help us all if we split and Balkanize.
This Season is about redemption, renewal and forgiveness. Please forgive me if I am erroneous, I'm just a fellow sitting up in the hills, gazing down into a valley that seems to be in turmoil, but I am watching from afar, and might not be seeing right.

Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah- may the Spirit of the Season come to us all.

Lex said...

Wow Ethel, you are not living up to your name. Banning child brides? Already illegal. Female circumcision? Illegal, I believe in most if not all states. Wife beating? Banned already. Ban quoting of a Holy text by members of its religion? Against the Constitution, good luck with that. Incitement to violence against people based on their religion/ethnicity? Also not very legal.

Some great reminders though. Charlemagne's readiness for action is, well, amusingly devious. So, what's the plan, Charlemagne? More cartoons? Going to Europe yourself?

Baron or Dymphna, any thoughts on these ideas?

Ethelred said...

Lex,

What I mean to say is that Islam its mentality is getting a free ride in the West due to us ACCEPTING it as a religion, meaning deserving the protections they are afforded.

We would NOT accept a religion that had human sacrifices as part of its ritual or preached that every green-eyed, red-haired woman be killed.

Striking Islam off the "acceptable religion" list while recognizing that it is political at its base would allow all sorts of things to happen.

The less comfortable this "total way of life" becomes the more chance that either Muslims openly revolt and Europe gets on with it, or they begin to leave, because the gravy train is over.

Also, from what I know, the laws that are on the books are not enforced many times for fear of "alienating the community."

Another tack might be that of "reciprocation" as in "you can have the freedom to practice your religion here when we see freedom of religion allowed in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran (pick your cesspool).

In another thread we spoke about, without really answering, what makes the West the West.

We are dealing with an alien and, I would say, inhuman and anti-human mentality. However it is done, drawing the line in the sand and saying NO to this cancer must be done sooner rather than later.

Am I being harsh? Yes! Am I in danger of alienating "moderate" Muslims (whatever that means)? Yes! Do I care? No!

Ed Mahmoud said...

I have been aware that on Chuckles the Dancing Clown's latest thread about GoV I've been mentioned by a poster. Someone wondered if I am happy to be hanging with all you Nazis.

I am happy, and no, I don’t feel like a Nazi. Actually, believe it or not, there may be a poster or two at GoV, that I shan’t name, that may indeed be racist and/or anti-Catholic, in their beliefs, and another couple that use ‘neocon’ enough that I wonder how they feel about Jews.

No, really. Out of dozens of posters, I can find a couple of (possible) bad apples. But the Baron doesn’t seem to condone their remarks, he just doesn’t delete comments (except for threats or obscenity). IE, unlike Chuckles the Dancing Clown, the Baron and Dymphna do not run an echo chamber, and maybe a few posters I don’t agree with are in the mix.

But I’ll tell you what. Better 100 smart, honest posters, and a couple of ignorant ones, debating topics, than a blog where everyone must agree with owner, or be mocked harshly by the owner and his ‘minions’. or banned, like Fjordman, if they are too eloquent in their own defense.

Lex said...

Ed, interesting to mention, I'll have to take a look at that thread. I don't know the ratio here of readers to commenters, and assume that there are many who are not commenting (especially considering the amount who posted in the 'welcoming the banned' post here). I think GoV's traffic is a bit above the amount of commenters, and that the ideas presented here do reach numerous people, whether or not the comments are to be considered "an echo chamber". Certainly I think debate shouldn't be stifled and that is partly why I weigh in or pose questions to the site owners. I am interested in the lack, though, of participation by Baron & Dymphna on occasion when certain ideas are raised, such as those by Charlemagne and Ethelred, which constitute calls for action beyond debate.

In any case, I am a dissenter here, though I am thick-skinned enough to not mind harsh treatment. That I've not been banned at LGF is certainly interesting, as I obviously do not agree with much there either, and certain folks there were kind enough to cut & paste comments from both my blog and LGFWatch, so Charles obviously knows that I am, while still very much against the jihadis, no longer of the opinion that Islam is not a religion but merely a "political ideology".

Which leads to Ethelred's response to my comment. While I agree with the "gravy train" mentality that goes on in Europe, I see it as largely a problem to do with waning European demographics and the socialism that has created an attitude of entitlement for pretty much everyone in Western European countries. This is one major point on which the platform of the LPF (Lijst Pim Fortuyn) was based. This is a problem I see though not in terms of "toleration" of the Muslims in Europe, and I am still unclear as to whether these earlier calls for a more active stance of being "unwelcoming" to Muslims in the West were aimed as much at Europe.

I do realize that Europe was noted in Charl's comment, but both his and Ethel's profiles give the U.S. as locations. So what are Americans then advocating in terms of wanting action if not living in Europe? You two, specifically? The action part. Helping European non-Muslims to incite violence by Muslims there in Europe? Doing so here and hoping that it just catches on in Europe? It is exceedingly difficult to get a real feel for what any movement politically is like when not actually there, on the ground. This became the crux of an argument I had with one poster here, a Dutchman, regarding the differences involved. The distaste that many have for VB, for instance, due to the more scummy elements hanging onto the VB edges and comments I have heard from many there that if a politician such as Fortuyn were to show up in Belgium offering something similar but more respectable that the support might shift significantly. Many Europeans also are unable to get a feel for American political movements, as it is difficult to see who you're dealing with when not there. Few here would ally themselves with certain crowds even if they agree with much of the sentiment (call it the "trailer trash" factor, snobbish as that seems).

Ethel--you really do not believe that there are people out there, Muslims, who view Islam as, yes, a way of life, but mainly that, a comforting religion which acts as a religion? A religion, which is to say that it is a system of beliefs which answer and fulfill the believers' basic questions about life, the afterlife, God(s) the universe, etc.? This is an unbelievably narrow view in my opinion, no offense. Even if there are many who do accept this narrow view, how do you think that the majority of people will stand with your decision to have Islam "stricken" from the list of "acceptable religions", and do we even want such a list?

I am aware that laws are circumvented, even in the U.S., to allow for female children to be 'circumcised'. This was a major issue in feminist groups at my University, actually. The laws, however, are on the books, and many who are not in essence "anti-Islam" are trying to make sure they are enforced. Santeria practices break many laws as well, and though practiced mainly regionally here, Santerians do cause plenty of scuffles with the law. Most neo-pagan religions would cause even more problems if not modified by those who have "revived" them so that they don't involve things such as human sacrifice.

Reciprocity is of the utmost importance IMHO. But I doubt there will be any lack of suspicion on the part of Muslims while there are people posting on blogs and saying the things you say about Islam, especially Muslims living in the West. I do not think that "the West" is such a very difficult thing to define, and began blogging to write about this subject and the protection of it. Some of those writings survive still.

I would say though, one thing that is very Western is our measure of compassion, which is considered by many a weakness. I still believe that our lack of confidence in our own culture has weakened us significantly just in terms of our own general view of ourselves. I do think that if that view were restored in a way much less reactionary than stating that others are "alien" to it (and by that implication will always be alien, no possibility of assimilation or becoming Western, that IS what you are getting at, correct?).

My ancestors considered America so uncivilized when they landed in San Francisco that they called the inhabitants barbarians. But then they were quite typically snobby Greeks, even if from Asia Minor. Dymphna here has posted on the differences between the Irish and Americans. What hoops did your ancestors have to jump to become less "alien" seeming, I always wonder, when I read comments like this? And is there anything inherently more "dangerous" or even "anti-human" about Muslim immigrants to the West (or, as some people's arguments go, Hispanics) than anyone else in the past, or is it Western modern weakness that is the real problem? The bunch of passive-aggressive whiners that we've become?

Amillennialist said...

You really need to reconcile. Posted a moment ago at LGF:

Fjordman is right that Islam seeks to dominate all mankind (including Europe):

"Allah's Apostle said: 'I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle . . . '" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

Charles is right that allying with racists is immoral and counter-productive.

Dooyork is right that Islam has been warring against Europe since it first exploded out of Arabia and into Spain, Byzantium, Greece, Sicily, Eastern Europe, Russia, etc., after Mohammed's death.

That we were unaware of the threat until 9/11 reflects only Islam's recent impotence (relative to European military superiority) and our self-centered ignorance of our own history dealing with jihad and the contemporary suffering of non-Western peoples under the tyranny of Allah.

As for numbers, one estimate I read of Hindus slaughtered by the jihad in India alone was 70-80 million. This does not account for the millions of Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, animists, and pagans of the Middle East, Europe, Africa, and Asia butchered or enslaved by Islam.

Amillennialist said...

Lex,

The West's self-loathing and etiolation and Islam's "divine" mandate to rule over all mankind are not mutually-exclusive.

While it is true that decent, rational, moral Muslims exist, Islam itself is none of those things.

Who defines "Islam"? Its god and prophet. What do Allah and Mohammed command? What did the apostle of Allah practice?

Qur'an, Sira, and Hadith reveal a god that demands the conversion, subjugation and humiliation, or death of all mankind:

"the Messenger of Allah . . . would say: 'Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war. . . . When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. . . . Invite them to (accept) Islam . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya . . . If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them . . .'" (Muslim Book 19, Number 4294).

"fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) . . . " (Qur’an 9:5).

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Qur'an 9:29).

"Allah's Apostle said: 'I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle . . . '" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

"Allah's Apostle was asked, 'What is the best deed?' He replied, 'To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad).' The questioner then asked, 'What is the next (in goodness)?' He replied, 'To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah's Cause.'" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 25).

“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror. The treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand’” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220).

So, Lex, is your hope that Muslims never discover -- or discover but reject -- the clear will of their god and the practice of their prophet, a man Allah calls a "beautiful pattern of conduct for those who want to please" him?

If so, your hope is in the ignorance and apostasy of a billion people.

How do you distinguish between Muslims who will never support in any way the subjugation and oppression or death of non-Muslims and those working for it through any means necessary -- including misinformation, litigation, economics, demographics, and violence?

Lex said...

amillenialist--you are preaching to the formerly converted. Consider me an apostate from your own belief system. I know all of these quotes and used to use them myself in similar arguments. These are not, however, the passages that define the Faith of over a billion people however, merely the examples most offensive to non-Muslims and ones occasionally used by Muslim terrorists and extremists. Most Muslims either don't know their Holy Texts that well, just as most Christians don't know the Bible backwards and forwards, or accept the theological idea that these verses either applied to the time of Muhammad or are abrogated by other verses.

Do you really see all Muslims as thinking constantly of these verses and plotting to make them reality, even as they sit at their desks working jobs in Western countries and such?

Regardless, you have rather turned my question of concern back into similar question. I will pose it back: How do YOU plan to distinguish between Muslims who support the ideas you seem to think they all support between those whom many "counterjihadi" bloggers would lump in with every Muslim on the planet and advocate the destruction of? Has the dehumanization of all Muslims really reached such levels in these quadrants of the web?

Ethelred said...

Lex,

Regardless of whether any individual Muslim is a raving jihadi or not, the ideology of Islam as stated in the Koran, which is true for all time - past, present and future and the codified behavior of Muhammad which is the example of how to live according to the will of Allah remains the same.

That Muslim sitting at his desk could get laid off, go to a mosque on Friday, here the Koran preached and leave desiring to kill his Jew so he is ensured of entering Paradise.

If not him, then his children or his grandchildren, because the message is always there.

Perhaps Islam can reform (do you think it needs to?) but it is not up to us to make that happen. You are applying our morality to an ideology that does not accept it in the slightest.

As an experiment, try talking about the "nasty bits" of the Koran or Muhammad's career with a "moderate" Muslim and see what happens.

Ethelred said...

hear the Koran - duh

Lex said...

Ethel--generally I don't go into comparisons of the Qu'ran to the Bible, but this is one case in which I find such a comparison relevant. What you stated about the Qu'ran is indeed also true for what is laid out for Christians. The Old Testament contains blood-curdling tales of violence and dictates for rules that no Christians hold up as exemplary, even those who believe that the Bible is the absolute and unerring Word of God. They are supposed to live by it, all of it, yet most pick and choose (even from the New Testament) in accordance with more modern beliefs and to fit into a modern, Western way of life.

Many Muslims in the West apply this logic to Islam. I have talked to Muslims who are quite friendly and (yes) moderate. In person, actually, and not in accusatory tones on the web. I've not thrown "softballs" either in my queries. The response is almost always the same as that of most any more moderate modern assimilated Americans of any religion. Those assimilating into our culture DO apply our morality to the traditions and beliefs of their heritage. Do you really think that all Muslims born and raised in the U.S. are trying not to fit into our society? If so, you must not get out much, no offense. Perhaps you see them out and assume that they are Hindu, or Christian Arabs, or perhaps Israelis, who knows. But there is a huge population of younger more modern people here who self-identify as Muslim, many who don't know nearly as much of the Qu'ran as you or I do. Heaven knows I've surprised enough Muslims with certain passages that they were shocked to discover to be part of either the Qu'ran or Sunnah.

I used to believe as you do, that these potential threats were everywhere, that we needed to be outraged at every aspect of Islam. I really did, as if Islam deserved special attention and as if religions do not just naturally co-exist in the world despite theological differences. The thing is, they do. We are seeing a very reactionary period in extremist Muslim theology, just as the world once saw many bloody wars fought over some rather nit-picky aspects of Christian theology.

I have, however, continued my research and concluded different things as time has gone on. But I once believed and wrote of things that now make me quite ashamed of myself for buying into much of this anti-Islamic propaganda. Here is one example from my days writing more from your POV, which I offer up only to show how much I have changed through experience in life, as well as to show that I really did once believe as you do now.

I'll have to leave you with this one, as I won't be back for quite a while.

Archonix said...

Lex, there's a qualitative difference. Many of the verses that people consider when making these comparisons actually deal with specific instances. They have a distinct and absolute termination point beyond which the violence enacted within them is no longer required - indeed is actively opposed.

There are two issues. The first is the use of violence in judicial and corporal punishment, which was largely rendered unnecessary by the words of Jesus when he stated "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Entire swatches of Hebraic juris prudence were swept away with that single statement. By that point much of the old violent law was already being abandoned by the Jewish leadership. The influential Hilel school was behind that movement, and it's the continuation of that movement that saw the complete abandonment of violent punishments for anything other than murder within Jewish society. And even then...

So that point is moot. The new covenent preached by Christians, using the words of Chris himself, wipes away the use of execution for just about everything.

The second issue is the wider issue of warfare. This has to be considered in the context of what Israel was facing at the time, and can be split in to three issues: the nation of Esau, the Ammorites (also Hittites) and unwarranted opposition.

First, Esau. When Israel was travelling up to the land of Canaan they sent messnegers ahead preparing the way, asking other kingdoms to let them pass through peacefully. Esau which, as you will know, was descended from the brother of Jacob, heard these messengers and ignored them. On top of that the tribe not only didn't allow Israel to pass, but actually upped sticks and moved their entire army down to meet Israel in order to fight them. In teh fae of that israel naturally spent a fair bit of time defeating them.

The ammorites are a different matter. It would be unwise of me to go in to the history of these peoples but they were raiders, by and large, and had existed since well before the time of Abraham. They invaded the land of canaan some thousand years prior to hebrews and wiped out the previous inhabitants, a kingdom called Ebla, a highly urbanised and civlised nation well on its way to adopting a semi-monotheisti faith. It was rich, fairly just as we measure such things and traded widely. The Ammorites invaded this kingdom and reduced it from an urbanite society to a pastoral, village-based society within half a century. They went in and literally destroyed cities, reducing them to rubble. All of this is on the archaeological record.

Israel, according to scripture, was sent as a punishment against the Ammorites and Hitites for wiping out Ebla, which God had apparently quite liked because their religious rites were quite clean. The Subsequent ammorites, who inabited Canaan at the time of the Israeli conquest, could be best described as deviant. The bible records no objection to their polytheism but, instead, to their use of ritual murder of first-born children, sexual rites, incest, bestiality and so on and so forth in worship of their gods. On top of which, the Ammorites constantly sent out raiding parties against Israel while they were a-wanderin in the desert, to pick off their stragglers. They were a violent and depraved people, and God decided to punish them for it by sending in Israel.

I'm trying to keep this short. More reading on this very subject can be found here.

The point is that a superficial comparison between the bible and the koran might make them appear to have similar motivations but if you dig in to the detail of it, the bible is quite clear about the limited scope of these violent acts. They were against specific, named nations and once those nations were beaten back the violence became unnecessary. The Koran has no such clarification and names no nations, rather merely demands death or subjugation of "the infidel".

Ethelred said...

Lex,

Archonix is much more knowledgeable and eloquent than I on Biblical matters, besides Robert Spencer.

But you said, "We are seeing a very reactionary period in extremist Muslim theology... as if what we are observing is some minor inconvenience.

The name of this blog is important. The defeat of the Muslims at the Gates of Vienna marked the beginning of the decline of power of the Islamic armies coinciding with the rise in strength of the West.

Islam went to sleep for 300 years, and now it is awake. The fact it CAN awaken is because the original message which was behind the conquering, subjugating and enslaving of most of the world from Algeria, through Spain and on to India remains the same.

Furthermore, that a Muslim is shocked at being shown this or that in the Koran or the Hadith only shows the extent of the brainwashing that says, "Do not question anything." They must be ignoring every news item on every channel and in every newspaper that has the word Islam in it. One more reason not to allow Muslims as the embodiment of Islam into the West.

Imagine, if you can, if you belong to say, the Methodist Church. All over the world Methodists are killing men, women and children in the name of Methodist Church.

Would you not question your religion? If you found that the words quoted by the killers were "in there," what would you do, ignore them or leave?

Ali Sina want to destroy Islam by shining a light on Muhammad and his demonic creation, both to save Muslims from Islam and to spare the world the death and destruction which will occur if Islam's legitimacy is not challenged.

Ethelred said...

Oh, also:

I found nothing to be ashamed of in the link you mentioned.

Furthermore, I would think it would be the responsibility of these "moderate" Muslims to attempt to purge Islam of the so-called radicals (who are really the true believers), and those parts of Islam that promote that behavior.

The fact that they might be afraid to speak up only proves my point.

Ethelred

Lex said...

Ali Sina's tactics are indeed interesting, and I used his words actually to start a site I no longer am associated with, The Ultimate Insult. My original post there summed up my intentions there, and it grew into something I no longer agreed with, namely mocking the religious heritage of others while my own were being mocked and the hypocrisy of that stance. Sina, however, is also a man with a grudge, like many apostates from many religions, and while I wouldn't discount him for this, it must be taken into account. Actually, I believe his site still features the article I wrote to which I earlier linked.

Archonix, I don't think the point is moot nor the differences merely qualitative if you look at the fact instead that parts of both books are discounted by believers in both religions. According to Protestants, entire books are considered non-canonical. I am, however, reading much on the subject at present, including the numerous references in the Gospels made by Christ Himself to various OT books. Jews, I might add, do not accept the New Covenant. This is superficial to my original questioning regardless, since I managed to go off on quite a few tangents myself.

I was originally questioning Charlemagne's desire to provoke the Muslims in the West to violence in order to create a non-Muslim backlash, as well as Ethelred's comment on this stating that Islam should be no longer accepted as an "acceptable religion". What is the wisdom of this course, and do any of you really want the resulting blood on your hands? Is such a course really commendable in your eyes? I have already argued all that you now argue in terms of differentiating Islam from Christianity all over the web over a span of years now. I even advocated action and hoped that the further provokation of Muslims during the Cartoonifada would lead to more action from non-Muslims. Been there. This was all purely debate and conjecture at that time, though. Now there is the CVF and what amounts to more than mere debate on sites like this one, namely incitement to a violence that I really wonder if people are truly comfortable with if they play out the scenarios to their logical end.

This is what I am asking, for all my bad habit of getting off track. That and if 1389 truly thinks that LGFers are left-wing, because I find that idea comically absurd, though 1389 is also the one who pondered whether or not suing LGF for defamation was a good course of action. My questions do get at the heart of why the LGF side of this debate remains rather against this site, regardless of the self-destructive battle of egos going on between the site owners.

USorThem said...

Lex's comments illustrate again where the differences between CJ & LGFers versus GoV and the Anti-Jihad Europa lie.

The LGF side is conservative, and represents the majority view of U.S. conservatives. But their hope in winning the anti-jihad battle lies in the existence and triumph of the moderate muslim.

This is also why CJ and LGFers fully support the war in Iraq.

I will go out on a limb and speculate that Lex also supports the Iraq war. I will also guess that the Baron, Paul Belian CS and many, if not all others that have come down on the side of anti-jihad europa and against CJ-LGF see that Iraq as a mistake becuase "Victory" in Iraq depends on the existence of the "moderate" muslim that remain in Iraq after western forces leave will practice some form of western style democracy. (I know from reading that Fjordman and Spencer do not agree with "Project Democracy").

Belief in the moderate muslim is why CJ bans all discussion of issues such as deportation or internment. He believes that the solution lies in pointing out the evils of jihad and dhimmitude will cause mainstream moderate muslims to rise up and revolt and join the rest of western civilization to embrace true freedom and democracy.

I wonder in all of Lex's contacts with muslims he has ever asked the moderate ones what they think of sharia? It does not matter how much you pray to Mecca or whether you attend Friday prayers. It matters whether you believe in whether Allah's law are supreme or man made laws are supreme and IF you had to decide between one set of laws over the other, which ones would you chose? And if you chose man made law would you be willing to sacrifice your life so that other can live in freedom?

I think Lex belives that once given the opportunity most, if not all, so called moderate muslims would naturally chose man made laws. I disagree.

This is why Iraq is important. It tells us which way those given the choice decide. They decided against man made law when they insisted in having sharia in their constitution (the successful and temporary "surge" notwithstanding).

Over time, and, unfortunately, after many deaths, the myth of the moderate muslim will be revealed to CJ and the rest of the conservative majority, including the politicians and pundits who continue to only condemn the "hijackers" (Bush), "Islamo-fascists" (Hannity), "fundamentalists" (Romney), "terrorists (Guiliani), "extremists" (Limbaugh), and my favorite the "irreconciliable right wing of Islamic radicals" (Gingrich), instead of condemning Islam.

The enemy is Islam. No adjectives, no prefix required.

If you can't say it then get out of the way so people willing to fight this scourge can save the rest of humanity from it.

Lex said...

Ethel--also, regarding moderate and even non-pious Muslims and this assumption that they do not "speak out", I will note one of the Muslim bloggers who does, "The Sphinx", who has asked repeatedly if he and every Muslim he knows must stand on street-corners daily and yell their condemnation of extremism and terrorism done in the name of their religion to finally dispel this myth.

Most anti-jihadi bloggers are fairly anti-Islam as well, and are much less likely to have any moderate Muslims ever bother with commenting on blogs such as this one. If you read on blogs that your religious heritage was "inhuman" would you even really bother talking to the people asserting such claims? Or that it shouldn't even count "as an acceptable religion"? When most minorities read these dehumanizing sentiments aimed at them, they/we tend to be a bit shocked (go figure) and run screaming. If a moderate, furthermore, spoke out here (for example) would they not end up attacked and questioned about all of the surahs quoted above?

I had this debate with Pamela/Atlas at one point, who begged me to get her links or things to run on Atlas when I told her of the moderate Muslims I know. First of all, none of them blog, but second of all none of them would ever let their pieces be published on a site so filled with so much anti-Muslim sentiment. Nor on my site as it once was.

More people are speaking out though, it's quite the rage on YouTube it seems. Lots of videos, especially lately, on the subject. I ran one series by a Turkish Kemalist friend on my blog, actually, user "conmech"s "What is Going on in Turkey" series. Don't expect to agree with all he has to say if you watch them, but remember, this is a Muslim, a secularist, complaining about the extremists. Much that people here wouldn't agree with also, it should be remembered, are his opinions regarding what is and should happen in his own country, Turkey, and not about Western countries.

As for many I know though, they just won't even bother with blogs, especially ones like this or LGF, but many are refugees from Iran and VERY happy to be here, and very secular. Many are also gay. Either that or my good judge of character has been completely destroyed by taqiyya and they're all in sleeper cells. No offense, but I'm just not that stupid.

Lex said...

US--your assumptions are rather hilariously wrong, but I like the Wyatt Earp/OK Corral ending to the comment.

I've never been that into LGF, for many reasons. When I wrote on the "counter-jihadi" side, I was writing with the Infidel Bloggers Alliance alongside bloggers such as Baron & Dymphna, actually. I was also harboring a major grudge against liberals, and was rather involved in both criticizing the hypocrisies I had grown sick of in the liberals I'd been around my entire life as well as making extremely stark distinctions that there could be no moderates in Islam based on every aspect of it from the Shahada on down to the modern statements of the jihadis and more radical elements within the ummah today. I was so annoyingly persistent in fighting CAIR that my attacks led to an "anti hate bloggers" press release, in fact. Ahmed Bedier got so ticked off at me that he called me "Mr Pimp" in a childish attempt to slur my "nom de guerre", Pim's Ghost, as well as a humorous inability to tell that I am female (on YouTube that is a bit more obvious).

I do not support the Iraq war, nor the Bush administration, never have. I think the assumptions you name regarding democracy in Iraq and attempts to spread democracy by force are fundamentally flawed, in many cases for the same reasons you name. I really needn't justify myself however, but do so mainly for one reason.

I have come full circle in my beliefs. I always stated on my blog that I was ready to criticize both 'conservatives' and 'liberals' though I find these classifications outdated and the two-party system in this country to be at the core of our problems in large part, as well as the driving force of the divisiveness that has stunted any political discourse to the levels we now find ourselves mired in. But I never made any pretenses that I wasn't capable of turning my bow and arrow on those more on the right, especially on social issues. I never stopped promoting gay rights either, which rather confused many bloggers but was tolerated as long as I continued to toe the line regarding Islam.

I have elaborated on this too much already on my own main blog (What Would Charles Martel Do?) to repeat here. Suffice it to say that chickens came home to roost, and I am not so stubborn or foolish to concede that I have been wrong about Islam and how it is actually practiced by Muslims of all walks of life, and that Muslims are not in fact a monolithic group.

I tried to keep writing sticking to my former assumption about Islam, as well as without bashing certain ideas promoted by the right. I finally just had to strike at many on the "right", and having gotten my left-bashing out of my system also realized how more to the left I myself am.

For all the talk that this is not an "echo-chamber", I still expect to be bashed for my liberal leanings. But honestly, I cannot deal with this persistent nonsense of "the myth of moderate Muslims". I have asked, BTW, the questions and many more of Muslims that I both know and those I interviewed prior to blogging. The only obstacle I found in terms of political belief with many Muslims is the issue of Israel/Palestinians. I support Israel and am not willing to sell the Jews down the river no matter what people on various sides say.

I do not know any Muslims, though I have seen a few online claim to desire sharia, who actually prefer Islamic Law to the laws of this country. Especially as many are from Iran and fully appreciate the freedoms of living in this country. Heaven forbid, many of them are even (GASP!) patriotic. The gay Muslims I know certainly do not want to live under sharia, nor under the beliefs of many conservative non-Muslims. Enough though, I have followed links to read the thoughts of others and the same can be done with my blog. Actually, as my link remains here, you needn't even go to my profile, perhaps one reason for the large amount of traffic I get from this site.

But US, there is a difference regarding your final comments. I am seeing a surge in racist sentiment and action even in this country against non-whites. I am seeing bigotry and flat out racism being revived. I see now the bigotry in attacking Muslims for their cultural heritage when they themselves are not extremists, and I also see some very radicalized versions of people I once blogged with. I helped create a monster. I wrote things that are still on sites instilling sentiments such as yours into people. I was the scourge, or rather part of it. So I do have a fight, and I will continue it. Whether it is against the real jihadis threatening this country and others, or against the bigots who attack my own race(s) and religion, I am more determined to take them down than I was writing and making videos for this narrow-minded side of things.

Ideas which have been expressed here (not all, but enough) remind me of those who constantly attacked immigrants to this country in the past. They also have changed from a position of desiring debate to desiring action, advocating mass deportations based on religion (some on race, as many anti-Hispanic comments have been made here as well) here and in Europe, especially Europe. I want to know how serious these comments are.

So back to my earlier question: how serious was Charlemagne's call for action and agreement of that sentiment here? Dymphna mocked me for finding the idea of supporting mass deportations to be something that "freaked me out", though it seemed more an attempt to revel in the shock value than anything else on her part. Still, though, no solid answers. How serious are some of you here?

Ethelred said...

Lex,

I did not say that Islam was not "an acceptable religion," but rather that we are under no obligation to place it within the realm of those religions that are protected.

While I am completely with usorthem as far as what he wrote, I must ask this:

You have some person before you calling himself a Muslim, but denies jihadism. What, exactly does he actually believe? Does he deny the validity of the verses in the Koran, does he deny the actions of Muhammad? Does he deny the perfection of the Koran or of Muhammad? Does he deny Allah revealing his law to Muhammad in the form of the uncreated Koran?

What does he truly believe? If he can deny those things, then why stay in a religion that is so "misunderstood" by its practitioners?

This is all part of the "What To Do" question. The jihadis hide among the passive Muslims. The fact that new jihadis can be recruited means that the message is there to be heard.

The problem is Islam itself. It has been the scourge of the world since its inception. It IS a religion, but, however, it is one of hate, death and enslavement.

The question "What do we do about Islam?" implies "What do we do about Muslims?"

Assume, for argument's sake that European welfare was cut off for Muslims. Would they keep having children at the same rate? Women are baby machines to a male Muslim. Allah knows if this particular coupling will end up in a conception.

The Muslim mind includes a sense of superiority coupled with the obligation of the "other" to take care of them, by force or by welfare. Muslims do not even care for each other (i.e. the tsunami or the Pakistan earthquake) - why should we care for them?

As for Ali Sina's "grudge," he came from the inside of the cult and knows EXACTLY what the message is - better than any of us possibly can.

But, back to "What to do." The full message of Islam means the destruction of Europe from within. Allowing Islam to remain inevitably invites the true believers (meaning the real Muslims) who hide among the others. Forcing Islam out solves the problem until THEY create something out of Islam that is not violent at its core.

I am not holding my breath.

Alexis said...

I don't think Little Green Footballs is any more representative of American conservatism than People's Temple was representative of American liberalism thirty years ago. I don't think it represents neoconservatism. It isn't even representative of American Jewish conservatism. I think Little Green Footballs does appeal strongly to unassimilated naturalized Americans who hate Islam and can only see America as an idea because they do not relate to American culture. Little Green Footballs also appeals to those who want to think they are the only people in the world who support the State of Israel.

Yet, even Charles Johnson's support for Israel is an illusion. He may support the idea of Israel. He may oppose Palestinian atrocities. But would he support the State of Israel if its associations were more unsavory than any association Filip Dewinter ever had? A true friend is aware of your flaws and your weaknesses, and likes you anyway. If Charles Johnson's past behavior is any guide to his future, he will likely become a bitter enemy of Israel.

Although it may be tempting to suggest that little green footballs are the result of an elephant eating fodder laced with green food coloring and letting nature take its course, Little Green Footballs should be considered to be an early twenty-first century cultural phenomenon whose time has come and gone.

Amillennialist said...

Lex,

You're confusing categories and employing logical fallacies to such an extent that it calls into question whether such intellectual dishonesty is unavoidable or intended.

Whether none, one, or a billion Muslims act upon the numerous Verses of Offensive Warfare to Make the World Islam (or Death for Apostasy, or Beating One's Wife, or Child Rape, or Slavery, or Dhimma, etc.) does nothing to change the fact that Allah commands and Mohammed -- whose example defines proper Islamic behavior -- practiced them.

The fact that so many Muslims support such action against non-Muslims makes it all the more urgent for the non-Muslim world to acknowledge this and to act accordingly.

"These are not, however, the passages that define the Faith of over a billion people"

Who has the right to define Islam? Does not Allah? Does not Mohammed? Who are you to define a religion by its ignorant, apostates, and heretics?

"Muslims either don't know their Holy Texts that well"

And what happens when they do?

"or accept the theological idea that these verses either applied to the time of Muhammad or are abrogated by other verses."

Which, of course, is heresy. That gets you killed in Islam, for Mohammed willed it so.

"Do you really see all Muslims as thinking constantly of these verses and plotting to make them reality"

You have some numbers? Why do you withhold them from the rest of humanity? Tell us specifically who is and who is not planning to obey Allah and his apostle.

Again, you're betting on the disobedient and the ignorant.

That doesn't seem wise.

"How do YOU plan to distinguish between Muslims who support the ideas you seem to think they all support"

Several factual and logical errors in one brief statement.

First, I've never spoken of "all Muslims." That's your language. Second, what I think matters not. It is what Allah commands, Mohammed practiced, and Muslims believe that matters. Third, you're dodging the question.

Again, since Mohammed declared and practiced, "War is deceit," how do you propose that we distinguish between all those Muslims whom you say would never do a non-Muslim any harm and those seeking to obey their god and prophet?

"between those whom many "counterjihadi" bloggers would lump in with every Muslim on the planet and advocate the destruction of?"

What some bloggers think has no bearing on what the faithful Muslim is expected by Allah and Mohammed to believe, support, and do. That's an ad hominem, a non-sequitur, and a red herring.

How does reporting that Allah kills make Allah kill?

Please be honest.

"Has the dehumanization of all Muslims really reached such levels in these quadrants of the web?"

Another logical fallacy. How is it "dehumanizing" a person to state what his god and "Ideal Man" require?

Are you unable or unwilling to write truthfully on this subject?

PRCalDude said...

Ideas which have been expressed here (not all, but enough) remind me of those who constantly attacked immigrants to this country in the past. They also have changed from a position of desiring debate to desiring action, advocating mass deportations based on religion (some on race, as many anti-Hispanic comments have been made here as well) here and in Europe, especially Europe. I want to know how serious these comments are.
I'm confused, do you identify as a hispanic or an American?

I noticed a definite antipathy towards non-ethnic whites, evangelicals, and/or white evangelicals on your blog. Perhaps you should pull the plank out of your own eye so you can be freer to see the speck in ours.

Heaven forfend that anyone would object to vast tracts of their country being taken over by a group of people (Hispanics) that use a disproportionate amount of social welfare, have an illegitimacy rate approaching 50% and commit crimes at 3-4 times the national average, and refuse to speak English on top of it all. Your answer to my first question will be a strong indicator as to your reasons for glossing over these obvious pathologies.

Lex said...

PRCal--do you identify as a bigot, or just a jerk? I identify as an American, personally. At least you came jumping in when referred to...LOL...by all means stop by my blog sometime to discuss these problems you have with my attacking certain American evangelical groups. I keep an open house, and allow the "f bomb" anytime you want to drop it. How you expect to not be responded to by even someone like me, only 1/4 Spanish and very patriotic, with a big "*&$^ you" to some of your comments is beyond me. You as well, apparently. But do stop by.

amillenial--
"How does reporting that Allah kills make Allah kill?"

Wow, talk about an odd stretch of logic. Allah kills being the assumption here. "Reporting" does nothing of the sort, incitement and insults phrased as if they are unbiased truths lead to further division and hatred among Westerners themselves. The damage is done, and then furthered, by this absurd "left vs. right" squabbling. You may not have noticed, but right now there is a spat going on that has divided to the point of making irrelevant to the debate these very blogs who are doing the "reporting". I heartily approve, as the discrediting being done within this fight to this entire online movement is going to free a lot more people who had previously not wanted to appear as part of this movement to start realistically damning the Muslim terrorism and extremist sects. People are already less willing to hold back in criticizing the extremists on less traditionally conservative blogs all the while people have been arguing over the true meaning and minutiae surrounding a cartoon rat.

As for dodging questions, that's been this entire thread since I began questioning just a few comments in it. I have an entire blog outlining many of my current beliefs on the subject. I needn't keep elaborating here. Besides, I have a new blog I should be posting on.

Ethel--"Striking Islam off the "acceptable religion" list while recognizing that it is political at its base would allow all sorts of things to happen." Somehow I took that to mean that you don't see Islam as "an acceptable religion" combined with your other comments. Wacky.

I'm just too sleepy to go on with this, honestly, tonight. I know, I know, I'm letting my fans down. All apologies. Seriously though, I care nothing for blog traffic and am not trying to increase mine, I really meant that it would be easier to see comments questioning some of my posts already written than for me to simply explain these things again and again.

My question really does remain. The CVF makes statements as does this site and commenters here implying that Muslims in the West are unwelcome by their standards, and that some course of action should be taken. "Sodra" already stood by her/his preference for "forced deportations". So I'll ask again here: what action do you seek Charlemagne, regarding your earlier comment, and what do those in agreement think of that stance, calling for action and incitement of sorts rather than the blogging standard of debate? I apologize for getting so tangental as to obscure my one real question, but I've now repeated it again. I want to know what is being advocated. Ethel, if you're with Sina I think I understand more where you're coming from if based more on his ideas (and no, I'm not being sarcastic, I really have read much of his work).

For now, nighty night Gatekeepers.

Amillennialist said...

Lex,

"I don't go into comparisons of the Qu'ran to the Bible, but"

The tyranny of "but."

So much for your intellectual integrity, as here's comes a false moral equivalence and tu quoque in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . .

"this is one case in which I find such a comparison relevant. What you stated about the Qu'ran is indeed also true for what is laid out for Christians."

Right on schedule.

"The Old Testament contains blood-curdling tales of violence and dictates for rules that no Christians hold up as exemplary"

Of course, those "tales of violence" are reports, not commands for offensive warfare to make the world Israel, which is what Allah and his prophet from hell demand.

(Even the command for Israel under Joshua to wipe out certain Canaanite nations -- as horrible as it was -- was limited to only that time, place, and target.)

What you call "un-exemplary" rules were the laws for Israel under the Mosaic Covenant, not mandates to rape, enslave, and slaughter others for their refusing to submit to YHWH and Moses.

"even those who believe that the Bible is the absolute and unerring Word of God. They are supposed to live by it, all of it, yet most pick and choose (even from the New Testament) in accordance with more modern beliefs and to fit into a modern, Western way of life."

The laws of the Mosaic Covenant were for the people of Israel only (which you would know having read the texts, right?).

Christ established a New and better Covenant in His blood.

The faithful Christian will not "pick and choose."

"Many Muslims in the West apply this logic to Islam. I have talked to Muslims who are quite friendly and (yes) moderate."

What's "many." Two?

"In person, actually, and not in accusatory tones on the web."

The implication being that those who criticize Islam argue from ignorance and intolerance, right?

Another ad hominem.

"Those assimilating into our culture DO apply our morality to the traditions and beliefs of their heritage. Do you really think that all Muslims born and raised in the U.S. are trying not to fit into our society?"

"All" do reject jihad, Shari'a, and the rule of Islam?

Muslims in the U.S. are working to replace the Constitution with Islamic law using all non-violent means at their disposal. CAIR, MPAC, UCI's MSU, are a few.

Of course, someone as expert in Islam as you knows that as long as some of the faithful wage martial jihad against "unbelievers," others are allowed to support them by other means.

How many of your "moderate" Muslims actually reject Qur'an as the perfect word of Allah? How many reject Mohammed as a "beautiful pattern of conduct"? How many of them would do so under the rule of Islam?

Go to the U.K. I hear Muslims there are all about moderation. Especially when an imam's daughter leaves Islam.

"If so, you must not get out much, no offense. Perhaps you see them out and assume that they are Hindu, or Christian Arabs, or perhaps Israelis, who knows."

Yes, Islam is peace because we are ignorant.

"I used to believe as you do, that these potential threats were everywhere, that we needed to be outraged at every aspect of Islam."

"Divinely"-mandated slavery, rape, and slaughter. Only an Islamophobe would be bothered by that.

"as if religions do not just naturally co-exist in the world despite theological differences. The thing is, they do."

Obviously, you know nothing of Islam's history.

The Religion of Death didn't sweep across Africa, into Europe, and through Asia by means of charity and sweet reason.

"We are seeing a very reactionary period in extremist Muslim theology, just as the world once saw many bloody wars fought over some rather nit-picky aspects of Christian theology."

More false moral equivalence.

The wars Christians waged against each other over theology were abominations because they violated the commands of Christ.

The wars Muslims wage to subjugate the world to the tyranny of Allah are ongoing and in fulfillment of his revealed will.

"this anti-Islamic propaganda."

You're calling Qur'an, Sira, and Hadith "propaganda"?

Allah will not be pleased.

"your POV"

Which is a preference for Liberty, protecting one's nine-year-old daughters from becoming sex slaves to fifty-plus-year-old child rapists, and keeping one's head attached firmly to one's body.

Amillennialist said...

Lex,

"I don't think the point is moot nor the differences merely qualitative if you look at the fact instead that parts of both books are discounted by believers in both religions. According to Protestants, entire books are considered non-canonical."

This is a gross misrepresentation of the texts.

Qur'an is a compilation of revelations sent by Allah over a period of years to Mohammed. Sira is Mohammed's biography and Hadith are his sayings.

No faithful Muslim rejects Qur'an, Sira, or the ahadith generally considered reliable.

The Bible is a collection of writings by various authors over a span of almost two millennia who wrote as the Spirit of God moved them. Those books you mention as non-canonical (Apocrypha) were never considered by Christians (nor the Jews from whom they were received) as inspired, though they were very highly-regarded.

It was only until Luther challenged the church's heresies that the Roman Catholic Church declared them Scripture.

(That the Apocryphal texts were revered is clear from two facts: First, that they were included in the Septuagint, the Bible commonly used at the time of Christ; and second, that Martin Luther included these documents in an appendix to his translation of the Bible into German, noting their value to believers.)

Amillennialist said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Amillennialist said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Amillennialist said...

Lex,

"I was originally questioning Charlemagne's desire to provoke the Muslims in the West to violence in order to create a non-Muslim backlash"

Wasn't 9/11 enough? What will it take for the West to wake up and defend itself?

"as well as Ethelred's comment on this stating that Islam should be no longer accepted as an 'acceptable religion'"

What about Islam's god and prophet's commanding your conversion, subjugation and humiliation, or death do you find "acceptable"?

"What is the wisdom of this course, and do any of you really want the resulting blood on your hands?"

So, Infidels disapproving of Allah's bloodlust is the cause of Allah's bloodlust?

I do not agree that we should provoke Muslim violence.

Unfortunately, cartoons, teddy bears, and five-hundred-year-old quotes from emperors whose kingdoms are about to be raped, pillaged, and beheaded by Islam are enough to do so.

The bloody hands are Mohammed's. They belong also to those who obey his commands for offensive warfare to make the world Islam and to those ignorant and gullible Infidels who obfuscate for jihad.

The violence comes because Allah and his apostle require it.

Stop blaming the victim.

Amillennialist said...

USorThem, Ethelred, Archonix,

Excellent comments all!

Amillennialist said...

Lex,

"'The Sphinx' . . . has asked repeatedly if he and every Muslim he knows must stand on street-corners daily and yell their condemnation of extremism and terrorism done in the name of their religion . . . ."

All three of them?

They can and should, but they'd better watch their backs. There's a crowd a thousand strong on the next block shouting, "Behead those who insult Islam!"

They don't look too happy.

(Why is it that the chance to kill teachers and apostates for Allah draws thousands of Muslims into the streets, but protests against such violence do not exist?)

"Most anti-jihadi bloggers are fairly anti-Islam as well"

Perhaps that's because Islam requires jihad.

"If you read on blogs that your religious heritage was 'inhuman'"

If that religious heritage stops enslaving, raping, and slaughtering non-Muslims, non-Muslims will stop calling it "inhuman."

"When most minorities read these dehumanizing sentiments"

"Minorities"? Over a billion people constitutes a "minority"?

Surely you don't mean a racial minority. Islam is a set of beliefs, not a race.

Muslims decapitate Christian schoolgirls for Allah, but Muslims are the victims?

Of "sentiments"?

Have you no shame?

"aimed at them, they/we tend to be a bit shocked (go figure) and run screaming."

You're so sympathetic, so compassionate, so tolerant.

So, your Muslim friends (co-religionists?) are shocked that non-Muslims find their god and prophet hellish and depraved?

Why are not they instead shocked at their god and prophet's words and deeds and the atrocities committed daily around the world at their behest?

"If a moderate, furthermore, spoke out here (for example) would they not end up attacked and questioned about all of the surahs quoted above?"

Weak and foolish argument.

If a Muslim is truly "moderate" ("moderate" does not mean that they are not now, at this moment, going to behead you), would he or she not argue as vigorously as we against the malevolence of Allah? Would they not reject such insanity?

What decent, moral, humane person can discover the words of Allah and the example of Mohammed and still be a Muslim?

"the moderate Muslims I know. First of all, none of them blog"

Muslims Against Shari'a.

"I ran one series by a Turkish Kemalist friend on my blog, actually, user "conmech"s . . . this is a Muslim, a secularist, complaining about the extremists."

Interesting you'd bring up Turkey.

Why has it been a secular state for decades? Because Ataturk crushed the expression of political Islam (just "Islam") with military might.

The people have been gradually moving the state toward Shari'a using democracy, which illustrates why the President's hope in Muslims anywhere voting for Liberty and equal rights for all is foolish.

"many are refugees from Iran and VERY happy to be here, and very secular."

Then they're not Muslim.

"Either that or my good judge of character has been completely destroyed by taqiyya and they're all in sleeper cells. No offense, but I'm just not that stupid."

You're right. Muslims never lie:

"War is deceit" (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 268).

"Allah's Apostle said, 'Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?' Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, 'O Allah's Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?' The Prophet said, 'Yes,' Muhammad bin Maslama said, 'Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab).' The Prophet said, 'You may say it' (Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 369).

"Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah" (Qur'an 3:28).

Amillennialist said...

Lex,

"I have been wrong about Islam and how it is actually practiced by Muslims of all walks of life"

Again, confusing categories.

That because of ignorance, indifference, cowardice, or unbelief few, some, many, or most Muslims do not actually aid jihad says nothing about Islam itself.

The fact that Allah and his apostle require the faithful to convert, subjugate and humiliate, and kill non-Muslims to make the world Islam stands. It also illustrates the great danger posed to the non-Muslim world by a billion people claiming featly to such a god.

"and that Muslims are not in fact a monolithic group."

On jihad, the supremacy of Islam, and the subjugation of non-Muslims, all major schools of Islam agree.

"the myth of moderate Muslims"

"There are moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate."

"with many Muslims is the issue of Israel/Palestinians."

Allah hates Jews, and their land was once under Islamic control.

Once under the dominion of Allah, always under the dominion of Allah.

"I am seeing a surge in racist sentiment"

Islam is not a race.

"I see now the bigotry in attacking Muslims for their cultural heritage"

Only the ignorant and hateful attack Muslims for their cultural heritages.

Only the vile and wretched defend Allah and Mohammed's actual, murderous, blood-soaked bigotry.

"They also have changed from a position of desiring debate to desiring action, advocating mass deportations based on religion"

No, it's based on Allah's demanding that the faithful enslave, rape, and kill non-Muslims "until all religion is for Allah."

What is typically done with those who advocate and agitate for the overthrow of a nation's constitution and the end of its citizens' Life and Liberty?

Amillennialist said...

Lex,

"Wow, talk about an odd stretch of logic."

That was your "odd logic."

Rather than condemning Allah's command and Mohammed's example, you were complaining about bloggers.

"Allah kills being the assumption here."

Are you defending Allah?

It is no assumption, it is a statement of fact:

"Allah's Apostle said: 'I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle . . . '" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

"incitement and insults phrased as if they are unbiased truths lead to further division and hatred among Westerners themselves."

To call the reporting of facts about the will of Allah and the example of Mohammed (which are "unbiased truths") "incitement" and "insults" is pure evil and exactly the rhetoric of jihad's apologists.

Reporting those unpalatable truths does not lead to "division and hatred among Westerners themselves." Ignorance, cowardice, and the lust for partisan power does.

What does it do to Muslims who rage over a teddy bear?

In truth, reporting a fact is nothing more than reporting a fact. The responsibility for bloodshed lies with those advocating and causing it: Allah and his faithful.

"You may not have noticed, but right now there is a spat going on"

My first comment on this article addressed (briefly) that.

Jihad wins.

Too bad about your conversion.

Ethelred said...

With all due respect to Amillenialist's impressive words, it is easy to argue when the facts are on your side and mere emotions are on the other.

The construction of Islam is extremely logical, but based on premises which we MUST reject in toto.

E.g.: but of course an apostate must be killed (yeah, yeah, after three days of asking him to 'repent' - that is compassionate, right?) since he is rejecting Allah and thus becomes Allah's enemy - hence, kill him. QED

I am simply amazed when someone who can read and think stares directly into the eyes of evil, and then proceeds to try and convince himself (and others) that what is in front of us is either a cute lamb and innocent or a vicious hound of hell BECAUSE WE MADE IT SO.

The poor Muslims, I feel so bad for them; we must understand their plight and help them to assimilate , etc, etc.

Amillenialist, UsOrThem, Achronix - I salute you!

And now, back to the issue of what to do with this cancer that has invaded our body.....

Lex said...

Wow amillenn--you dodged the question by throwing out every argument that I've already heard a million times. You keep missing the target, furthermore, despite the applause that your rantings gains from those in the midst of anti-Islamic fervor. Actually, that slew of comments reminded me of the tag-team commenting we used to do over at the "Hannity Forum", "we" being those from "Kafir Nation". I won't bother arguing your points on Islam since, as I've said, I've made them all too many times already myself. And NO, I am not trying to squeeze out of argument, but I don't prefer debate with those who refuse to answer questions and instead turn my words around to the point that you do. At least not on this particular thread anymore. I'm sure you'll offer something up in another thread, so never fear, you'll still get to debate me.

I do find your attack on the Apocrypha and your defense of Luther. Luther, it is often said by my Priest, is one of the best things to ever happen to the Church, as he forced us to clean house and brought on the counter-reformation. The bulk of my reading and debate at this time actually centers on the rejection of the Traditions (not so much by Luther, though) but by most Protestants in increasing vehemence down the years. But if you want to debate such things, I don't want to add to this thread, there are plenty at my blog. Even in email, though you don't get to show off for your buddies there.

For the record, my total in interviewed Muslims is now at 68, not just a "few". And yes, there are a great many points on which I will never agree aside from theology with most Muslims. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be fighting the groups you mentioned who ARE trying to spread the fundamentalism of wahhabism (whether through their work in the groups you mentioned, the efforts to convert those in our prisons as well as the much bragged about huge effort to try and convert almost every Mexican in S. Cal.). I fully agree.

My question, however, was about the comment by Charlemagne, who has conveniently never returned to answer. He said he wants "action". Actually, this seems to be a sentiment more common in the 'counter-jihad' blogs these days. I want to know about this, about which course of taking "action" people are wanting to take. Plenty of bloggers, myself included, have taken some forms of action against groups such as CAIR, against particular bits of legislation, working in protest of the Flight 93 "crescent memorial", etc. What change in "action" is being sought so eagerly now?

I think I can easily glean this from the current posts here and at CVF without your answer, but I tried nevertheless.

Last note, my reference to "minorities" was in regards to all minorities and aimed at PRCal. I do get the feeling that he doesn't particularly like people who at least don't look 'anglo', but his playing victim was amusing yet again.

Ah well, back to chronicling this amusing little spat.

Amillennialist said...

Lex,

The only question directed to me by you was how to distinguish those Muslims who would never harm an Infidel fly from those who covertly seek to establish the tyranny of Allah.

If I recall correctly, I asked you that question first. Your reply was to ask me my own question.

So, it appears your accusation of dodging the question is actually a bit of projection.

Clearly, my "throwing out" every argument you've heard a "million times" was no dodge, it was an attempt to point out to you what you claim you used to know:

The word of Allah and the example of Mohammed demand the conversion, subjugation and humiliation, or death of all non-Muslims to make the world Islam, despite what some ignorant, apostate, or deceptive Muslims in the West might want you to believe.

(Why is it that you accept as representative of Islam the testimony of only those who fit your "Islam is moderate" paradigm? There have been many opportunities for you to go to any other nation on Earth with a significant Muslim population to ask about Islam.

In fact, just recently there was a particularly moderate mob following a teacher and a teddy bear down Main Street in Khartoum.)

Seems like selective perception.

Do you now recant those "points on Islam" you've argued "too many times"? If so, why? If not, why do you appear to be defending traditional, historical, Islam-Like-Mohammed-Did-It Islam?

Is your point only that in defending ourselves against the tyranny of Allah, we should avoid doing harm to truly innocent Muslims? If so, why not say that?

I was reminded of your recent comments today while reading about the Shari'a Council of Nigeria and the Islamophobia conference in Constantinople.

Both groups denounce those who speak of Islam's utter depravity rather than those who practice it.

I think you call that, "odd logic." Mohammed calls it, "Islam."

Where have I turned your words around? You chastise those who want something to be done to defend against a movement that has for nearly fourteen hundred years enslaved, raped, and slaughtered non-Muslims for Allah.

As for Christian theology, I was not "attacking the Apocrypha," I was attacking the false assertion that Protestantism's rejection of it as canonical is hypocrisy or "picking and choosing." This understanding of Scripture has been the Church's since the time of Christ.

Luther's only goal was to have the Church of Rome "clean house." He was a Roman Catholic priest defending the clear testimony of Scripture. He never sought to start his own denomination (you can thank the Pope's murderous death sentence against Luther for that).

Luther would have said -- just as Christ says -- that man-made traditions contrary to His Word are refuse. Luther rejected only those doctrines that made God a liar.

Traditions which were beneficial and adiaphora -- neither commanded nor forbidden by Scripture -- were kept.

It appears you may be right about much of Protestantism today. It claims to be "Bible-believing," but much of its doctrine opposes the clear Word of God.

As for "showing off for my buddies," that is not my intent.

I have written in response to your comments in the hope that even if you will not be persuaded, others who might have been misled by your words will be innoculated.

When you write, "there are a great many points on which I will never agree aside from theology with most Muslims," does that mean that you do agree with Islamic theology or that there are many points "in addition to" their theology with which you have a problem?

When you write of "the fundamentalism of Wahhabism," you sound like Hugh Hewitt.

Such language defines Islam in terms of its apostates and heretics, rather than by its god and founder.

To answer your question to Charles the Great, all non-Muslim peoples should take every action necessary to defend themselves against a virulent, hell-spawned ideology bent on their destruction.

Would you have argued for the greatness of Nazism during World War II? Would you have protested against those who called it an "unacceptable ideology"? Would you have lamented the hurt feelings of "moderate" Nazis? Would you have condemned as ignorant and intolerant Winston Churchill? Would you have extolled the beauty of Mein Kampf? How many members of the SS would you have interviewed? Would you have written about "fundamentalist Nazism"? Would you have held up truly innocent Nazis in America as proof that this whole "Holocaust/Czechoslovakia/France Stuff" was just some Naziphobic propaganda? Would you have cried, "Germanophobia!" knowing that Nazism is an ideology, not a race?

I do not advocate harming truly innocent, peace-loving Muslims who reject jihad, Shari'a, the Caliphate, Islamic supremacism, Dhimma, a literal understanding of Qur'an, and the life of Mohammed as exemplary.

So, Lex, how do you distinguish?

Lex said...

amillenialist--the distinguishing between the innocent and the camp of vilifying them all and advocating harm to all Muslims in the West is what most of the rifts on blogs lately seems to hinge. I am glad that you answered that you do not, in fact, advocate the violence that has been spoken of by many here. This is my main question and concern. My criticism of those Muslims who are extreme and active in their attacks on the West stands, for all that I haven't written as much about them myself lately.

Part of the distinguishing on my part does lie in the fact that there is also an opposing current within Muslims in the West (especially America) that is similar to many people in newer immigrant populations. Many desire to live a more reformed and modernized interpretation of Islam in a similar attempt at assimilation as many other 1st, 2nd and beyond members of immigrant communities.

My main concern is this sea change in the "counterjihad" blogging movement towards radicalization. When I began and especially once I had joined the IBA, occasionally someone would show up expressing ideas such as "Sodra Djavul"'s or Charlemagne's back there, or just expressing desires for action against all Muslims and extremely racist sentiments frequently as well. They were always told that they were unwelcome (note, Baron & Dymphna were also at the IBA at this time).

This new crop of bloggers/commenters are not familiar to me at all, though I never dug into other blogs as much as some. You mention Hugh Hewitt, who I am only familiar from the "mock the 'wingnuts'" liberal blogs. I had never heard of "Foehammer's Anvil" until recently either, so perhaps I was just sticking to one end of these blogs. It is interesting to see so many people suddenly show up here at GoV who are of a more radical bent in general (the comment by Sodra yesterday for instance that he/she/it views Huckabee as "too liberal", or really almost any comment by Sodra "deport the Muslims" Djavul. This, in addition to the actual posts here and the creation of the CVF are extremely different from the atmosphere of the "counterjihad" that I used to know, and some of the people are in fact the same, just with a more radical bent. The others I assume from comments were roaming around and posting at LGF until banned there, is this the case?

As for the comments on Christian theology, very refreshing! I am reading mostly on this subject lately and have had quite interesting fun with some of the very anti-Catholic sites aimed at (oddly enough) trying to convert Catholics, whom these people insist are not "Christians". PRCal lets this fun I've had feed into his obsession that people such as himself are under attack, but to answer that question, I do tend to identify by organization or church the evangelicals I do attack based on their own words, and am well aware that many if not most evangelicals (self-identified) are not the danger that the more separatist camps are, nor do many agree with the "Jesus Camp Mentality", as it can be called. I define who I mean in my posts on such things, such as "Reaching Catholics for Christ" as a specific ministry, though I have occasionally defined a movement that I can only really call "separatist anti-Catholic/anti-secular evangelicals".

As far as distinguishing between Muslim groups, I generally do the same now, though occasionally I have to, as with evangelicals, define these groups as including all who agree and/or support. During the 'cartoonifada' many such people were sporting signs making it a bit easier to identify them, and my danceable manifesto on them remains, though I'm uneasy about leaving it up in many ways (I mainly do so for Islam-Watch where it is featured). My former dismissal of the moderates is clearly stated in this video though, much more in line with your opinions I think. Maybe I should just give it to you...LOL.

No, my main question, and what I was driving at initially was if people truly want to incite violence, and your answer is appreciated. I have had this discussion with Pastorius, and the subject (regarding the U.S.) of sedition did come up. I think the legalities of starting to prosecute for sedition here would lead to a huge mess and end up affecting far too many people who have nothing to do with Islam. However, I would definitely distinguish between those at NYC's "Islamic Thinkers Society", who write and carry signs which are inciteful, which state a goal of destroying the U.S. as well as Shi'a Muslims (among others) as people who should be considered a hate group (though their video of their painfully bad attempt to light a Danish mock-up flag on fire is almost a comedy classic). The contrast between their rhetoric and protests vs. non-political Muslims here is pretty obvious.

I will continue to question the radicalization of this site in particular in a different thread, perhaps, if here at all.

Ethelred said...

This, from aMillenialist is the core of the issue:

I do not advocate harming truly innocent, peace-loving Muslims who reject jihad, Shari'a, the Caliphate, Islamic supremacism, Dhimma, a literal understanding of Qur'an, and the life of Mohammed as exemplary.

I would add "reject the idea of women as nothing more than brood sows and pack mules."

That kind of Muslim is actually NOT a Muslim, and every time he repeats the shehada (sp?) he is lying to himself.

And he is lying to us. He is saying, "I believe in Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger," but not REALLY. Trust me.

The fact that he feels fear in speaking out only proves the point of the lie.

But he might have children who take up the REAL, FULL message and then we have a problem (again).

Islam cannot be changed without being broken first. It is a self-contained, circularly supported system of hate, death and destruction.

I am all for an Islamic Reformation, but it is NOT our job to do it or promote. We must protect ourselves first from Islam. When faced with a firm No! from the West Muslims will have to make a choice: Do I care more about Islam and its demands, beliefs and rituals or what everyone says I came here for - a 'better life'.

Let Muslims in Islamic lands reform Islam. Lex sounds as if Muslims have the RIGHT to demand that the West keeps bending over until it breaks.

Violence is inherent in the Islamic ideology. Islam destroys everything with which it comes in contact. We must protect ourselves from this evil.

Saying No! to Islam is within our rights and reason and self-interest. That the response to No! is going to be violence is exactly the reason for the No!

Islam itself is an insult to Christianity and Judaism. It demeans and perverts both faiths by its very doctrines. Insulting Islam is not only needed but is required.

PRCalDude said...

As for the comments on Christian theology, very refreshing! I am reading mostly on this subject lately and have had quite interesting fun with some of the very anti-Catholic sites aimed at (oddly enough) trying to convert Catholics, whom these people insist are not "Christians". PRCal lets this fun I've had feed into his obsession that people such as himself are under attack, but to answer that question, I do tend to identify by organization or church the evangelicals I do attack based on their own words, and am well aware that many if not most evangelicals (self-identified) are not the danger that the more separatist camps are, nor do many agree with the "Jesus Camp Mentality", as it can be called. I define who I mean in my posts on such things, such as "Reaching Catholics for Christ" as a specific ministry, though I have occasionally defined a movement that I can only really call "separatist anti-Catholic/anti-secular evangelicals".


What, in your estimation, is the Roman Catholic doctrine of justification? In other words, how does a Roman Catholic believe he becomes right with God?

Ed Mahmoud said...

Roman Catholics, as I understand, being one, believe that one is saved by faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God. The whole works vs faith is a canard, which some Baptists, like Bill Clinton (I have read this theorized)and other Protestants, believe that a single assertation of faith in Christ is all that is required for salvation, and Clinton can sleep with as many women as he wants, and lie about all nature of things, and he is saved because of a single confession, seesm rather wrong. Works without faith don't save, however, a claim of faith without an expression of love, without treating others as they'd treat Jesus ('when were you hungry and I fed you'), is a dead faith.


There were serious problems in the church during the time of Luther, and things such as the selling of indulgences were wrong and certainly not Biblical, but it is an ignorant assertion that Catholics are not Christians.

Lex said...

PRCal--what Ed said, actually. Right now I'm conflicted with my own doctrine of not needing to justify myself to you. Ask Dymphna though. She's Catholic, and she probably even likes you.

PRCalDude said...

Lex,

Surely you have some doctrinal reason for being offended that evangelicals feel the need to evangelize you, don't you?

We can ignore one another, if you'd like. I don't think you're capable. You've already denounced Dymphna once and for all (several times) on your blog, yet here you still are.

Ed,
I'd say Romans 3:23 is the summary of the doctrine of justification. I'd agree with you and James, that faith without works is dead faith, however it is not works that justify (Romans 3:20, 28, Gal 2:16, 3:10). I'm not sitting here defending the doctrine of postmodern evangelicalism, if that's what you think.

Amillennialist said...

Luther said that we are saved by faith alone, but not by faith that is alone.

In other words, we are saved by God's grace through faith in Christ, but this real, saving faith (as opposed to the "faith" of demons who know the Son of God but despise and fear Him) -- which is the gift of God -- will produce good works (as circumstances allow).

The issue of Justification was and is a central sticking point between Roman Catholicism and Luther.

If we are saved by grace alone through faith alone (as the Scriptures teach), then the individual plays no part in his own salvation.

We are not saved by God's grace (even there the Roman Catholic definition differs from Luther's) and man's work.

Certainly, someone will here bring up James's being saved by works.

Either James contradicted the other Apostles and the Prophets, or he meant what they meant.

If you look at his example of Abraham, was Abraham declared righteous because of his works or because of faith?

"Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."

James is making the distinction between a false, empty, spoken faith and a faith the demonstrates itself in obedience to Christ:

"I'll show you my faith by what I do."

Amillennialist said...

Lex,

You are right to want to spare innocent people from harm.

The difficulty that you face with regard to Islam is that its god and exemplar require without exception the death of all who refuse to submit to its rule either as convert or slave.

There is an essential distinction between Muslim immigrants and all others -- Islam.

You refer to Muslims in America as evidence of Islam's ability to assimilate, but this population is not indicative of Islam around the world. Every nation on Earth where the Muslim population hits critical mass suffers increased political, economic, litigious, and security pressures.

Relying on those who would have you a slave or corpse to wear signs advertising their intentions is absurd. In quite a few cases involving Americans, the impulse to jihad manifested itself with little or no warning, the jihadists waging their own personal war in malls, on university campuses, and at airports.

Certainly, many Muslims in the United States have fled Islamic tyranny and are Muslim in name only. In spite of this, jihad by the pen and purse progresses in America.

You have not answered yet my question to you: How do you distinguish between the Muslim who forever supports the non-Muslim system of government under which they live and the full and permanent equality of rights of all people (regardless of religion and gender), versus the Muslim who strives to obey Allah and his apostle?

How do you distinguish from the truly moderate Muslim the one waiting for the right time and opportunity to "fight in Allah's cause"? What of those who smile to your face, but in their hearts curse you? What of those using our own institutions, laws, and good will to intimidate and subjugate us in our own lands? How do you identify those Muslims who will, under the right life stressors, turn to Islam -- and all that implies -- for consolation and direction?

In making this distinction, you'll find no help approaching this in terms of groups of Muslims, for all orthodox schools of Islam adhere to those doctrines derived from Qur'an and Sunnah most deplorable to non-Muslims, apostates, and women.

Even Sufis, often touted as "moderate" Muslims, are no exception to this. Al-Ghazali, considered a pioneer of Sufi mysticism, declared the need for jihad and the subjugation and humiliation of non-Muslims under dhimma.

Again, no orthodox school of Islam -- no orthodox scholar -- explicitly rejects jihad, dhimma, or the need to establish the tyranny of Allah over all mankind.

Finally, how is it that the professed ideology of over one billion people sanctifies the enslavement, rape, and murder of non-Muslims, but you describe those seeking to defend themselves against it as "radical"?

What action is beyond consideration when the Life and Liberty of entire civilizations are at stake? How much more valuable are your sensibilities than the rights of our wives and daughters to be free from Muslim oppression, abuse, and rape? Why should the feelings of adherents of the most evil, perverse, and sadistic ideology in the history of Man trump any Infidel's God-given rights to Life and Liberty?

Why should Americans tolerate anyone advocating the replacement of the United States Constitution with Shari'a? Do not Americans have both the right and responsibility to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic? Why should Americans permit those who would enslave or murder them and theirs to preach their sedition and incitement to violence? Why should Americans allow to this enemy within bases for the dissemination of their hateful propaganda?

Self-defense is not "radicalization."

(And Huckabee is no conservative. He is GWB II, a man who professes faith in Christ but enacts big government, socialist, internationalist policies.)