Tuesday, November 22, 2011

Islamophile Illusions

Fjordman

The following essay by Fjordman was published a few days ago in Dagbladet. Many thanks to Cecilie for the translation.


Islamophile Illusions
by Fjordman


I have challenged Marie Simonsen, commentator in Dagbladet, to provide some concrete examples of places where Muslims have lived peacefully with their non-Muslim neighbors over longer periods of time. Personally, I don’t think any such place exists, which means that the term Islamophobia, so frequently used by her newspaper and others, is completely meaningless.

In an essay of 27 October, Rune Berglund Steen, head of communications at the Centre against Racism, claims that one can turn my original question on its head and ask whether Christians are able to live in harmony with their neighbors.

I am sure that is possible, although it is striking to notice that the Centre against Racism doesn’t even attempt to answer the original question. Some would speculate that this is because they cannot answer it. Islam’s bloody borders with other peoples, from Thailand to the Middle East, are well-known and well-documented.

Thomas Hylland Eriksen from the University of Oslo points out that Han Chinese commit atrocities against Tibetans, whites against blacks and blacks against whites. “The list of groups who cannot always live peacefully together would be a long one,” according to him.

Islam is not a completely necessary ingredient for creating conflicts, which we can see in Northern Ireland and other places. I have never been foolish enough to claim that this is the case; I am merely pointing out that Islam will dramatically increase the likelihood of serious conflicts. I am currently halfway through an English language book about how Islam in my view cannot be reformed. I would be happy to publish an essay about this topic under my real name if any newspaper dares to print it, which is doubtful.

It is true that the potential for conflict exists between closely related European and Asian nations even when Islam is not present. What does that mean? Ironically, it means that Hylland Eriksen, perhaps the country’s most prominent Multicultural ideologue, and the Centre against Racism have themselves smashed the foundations of their own ideology, apparently without realizing it. World history shows, unfortunately, that ethnic diversity strongly increases the risk of serious conflicts.

The Nordic countries’ greatest advantage, historically speaking, has been an ethnically homogeneous population. Our greatest competitive advantage is now being destroyed by state-sponsored politics. As an analogy, let’s say you had a big pile of gold and professor Thomas Hylland Eriksen told you to flush half of the gold down the toilet because this was supposed to be economically beneficial.

Hylland Eriksen said in an interview in 2008 that “The most important ‘blank spot’ now consists of deconstructing the majority so thoroughly that it can never be called the majority again”. If he had said that Somalis or Pakistanis should be deconstructed, this would have triggered strong reactions. Why is it always white Europeans, and only them, who are to be deconstructed and have their countries and cultural history taken away from them?

The political scientist Øystein Hetland described me on 31 October as an extremist, among other reasons because I am very critical towards Islam, and ask what it takes to make a democratic society work. I wrote the following on Gates of Vienna on the occasion of my fifth anniversary as Fjordman: “Are Islamic teachings inherently violent? Yes. Can Islam be reformed? No. Can Islam be reconciled with our way of life? No. Is there such as thing as a moderate Islam? No. Can we continue to allow Muslims to settle in our countries? No.”

These few sentences contain all the information about Islam you will ever need. Do I regret writing this? No. One ought to tell the truth, even when it is unpleasant.


For a complete archive of Fjordman’s writings, see the multi-index listing in the Fjordman Files.

41 comments:

sundancekid said...

Looking forward to those books Fjordman. Someone's got to take on these caucasophobic ghouls. I'm more and more convinced that all these ideologies have their roots in the 'tabula rasa' idea of the 17th century - long since blown out of the water by genetics but still going strong in the 'soft' sciences.

it follows directly from this that Western success is entirely the result of either luck or exploitation, or some other kind of evil, and does indeed deserve to be subsumed by the less fortunate. That's the assumption these people are laboring under; if one could only get them to read The 10,000 Year Explosion, for example, their whole enterprise might collapse.

You New said...

For any society to maintain itself it will need Fjordman Realism. An anti-totalitarian philosophy would be one critical doctrine of a Muslim-immune state.

Anyone can see that Islam in isolation creates a retarded civilization. But as it emigrates into modern world it functions opportunistically, at first parasitically, simultaneously injecting ever increasing doses of it's poison in the hopes of eventually replacing it's host.

It's folks like Eriksen and Hetland who give daily hope to the parasites to keep the Islamic faith, to hold on, that society will continue to deteriorate, that their ancient shriah power play may come to pass.

Anonymous said...

Since the comment option was closed where you published this originally I shall bravely run the risk of being tagged by the police as a potential problem by posting here. This debate worries me. The mainstream media has tagged your thinking as extremist, on the other hand I find professor Eriksens ideas on 'deconstruction' disturbing. I have read a few of his books and it became quite clear that his project is in fact to wipe the stains of guilt off the west by eradicating ourselves culturally. I do not aggree with everything you say, but I must admit that I am quite a bit closer to your thinking than your opponents in Dagbladet. I do believe that it must be possible to admit the failure of multiculturalism and start correcting the policies in a decent and peaceful manner. Does this make me a threat to national security? Well, if so a third of the Norwegian population need to be 'deconstructed'. May the future bring a more rational reasoning with a lot less demonizing than the present. And do not stop raising the issue. - Coastguard

Homophobic Horse said...

"It is true that the potential for conflict exists between closely related European and Asian nations even when Islam is not present. What does that mean? Ironically, it means that Hylland Eriksen, perhaps the country’s most prominent Multicultural ideologue, and the Centre against Racism have themselves smashed the foundations of their own ideology, apparently without realizing it. World history shows, unfortunately, that ethnic diversity strongly increases the risk of serious conflicts."

If I was a arguing the multiculturalist position, I wouldn't know what to say to that.

Anonymous said...

I really look forward to reading this book also. It seems to be a common thread between the USA and Europe: Liberalism the mental disorder.
Anestis Canelidis

Anonymous said...

Why is it that even though I read Dagbladet every day, I never see these kinds of articles on the main page? And also, why the hell are the discussion option not there? seriously - we are allowed to read about it (barely) but no allowed an opinion on it? I am not a child. In addition, the eradication subject is terrifying as thoughts go, but it is not exactly news to me... what the hell do we do...

Anonymous said...

I can't believe we even have to have this discussion. These imbeciles are supposed to be "educated?" And why is someone from the "Centre against Racism" involved? What RACE is Islam? Please provide that answer, Mr. Steen, or close your mouth.

Professors and other authorities defending Islam in Norway are completely immoral sleazebags who seem incapable of seeing or speaking the truth.

SHAME ON THEM.

Daughters of Norway in particular should be reaming these sociopaths for allowing them to be RAPED in the streets of Oslo - here is your "tolerant" multicultural experiment with your revolting Islamopandering.

DISGUSTING. These "Norwegians" are traitors, while Fjordmann is a great patriot.

Very evil people, indee.

Chiu said...

I think that there is a danger in predicting that Islam can never be reformed or reconciled with "our way of life." It is true that, as long as Islam adheres to the fundamentalist, Koranic interpretation it now holds, it cannot ever be moderate or reformed.

But that does not mean that there is no moderate version of Islam. It is true that the moderate version of Islam embodies a religious form of existential despair posed by the riddle of asserting that Mohammad, with his many undeniable imperfections, was the best any man could be. A reformed Islam understands that the written Quran is an abomination, a desecration of Mohammad's command that his revelations not be written down, not become a scripture. A reformed Islam takes seriously the purpose of not making an image of Mohammad, so that he would not be set up as an object of worship.

If Islam is reformed in the sense of being returned closer to the fraught sense of unworthiness in Mohammad's last words, when he pleaded with his followers to reassure him that he had not committed the greatest sin possible against, then it would be a harmless religion (though probably a good deal less popular).

Such an Islam does exist, quietly and ineffectually. And if the militant form of Islam is throughly defeated in its aims of conquest, and those who seek to enforce it by the sword are punished as the murderous terrorists they are, there would be space for that more introspective strain of Islam which admits that, even if Mohammad was the best possible man, and the prophet of Allah, he wasn't particularly good as either.

The gravest error is not to think that Islam can be reformed, but to imagine that it can reform itself. The Muslim who examines his own conscience and the true history of his faith is in no spiritual condition to show the moral courage to oppose or even challenge the prevailing blind fanaticism of fundamentalist Islam. The Islam that comes of accepting the reality of Mohammad and his teachings is bereft of the essential components necessary to the task, a belief in a firm moral foundation, a hope of living in a justifiable manner.

I continue in the next post.

Chiu said...

As I was saying,

Thus the totalitarian Islam that is convinced of its own supreme correctness can only be challenged and defeated from without, whether by Christianity or some other moral philosophy with the courage of its convictions to say that the ways of Jihad written in the Quran are fundamentally wrong and must be punished as the crimes against humanity that they are.

The existence of a moderate Islam based on close introspection into the true history of Islam may seem like a trivial point. What is the difference between a Muslim who renounces the Quran as an abomination against Allah and an infidel? None whatsoever, as far as militant Islam is concerned. But I think that for the serious Christian or moral philosopher there must be such a distinction...along with a recognition of the significant similarities between a reformed Muslim and the outright apostate.

More important than the religious and theological question of what constitutes Islam and who should be counted as a Muslim is the principle of equality before the law. For the purpose of combating Jihad (whether violent or subversive), the question of nominal religion should be entirely irrelevant. The important thing (to those who would impose law) is not what the Quran teaches and who has read it, but what individual persons choose to do.

If there is a just case to be made that terrorism is mostly associated with militant, Koranic Islam, then there is no need to do anything other than identify the individuals engaged in terrorism and support of terrorists and reward them according to their acts, regardless of their beliefs. All we need do is hold Muslims to the same standards as we would hold anyone else. In immigration, make the Pakistani compete directly against the native citizen of the country in showing a respect for the laws and customs of the nation. In cases of crime, rape and forced prostitution or murder and violent robbery, identify the perpetrator and treat accomplices who try to shelter them as you would if they were white.

Is this easy? No, it is not. But the foundation of Europe's intellectual and economic heritage of innovation and wealth has always been founded on the practice (which has varied in degree over time but has always been remarkable in comparison with other nations) of holding individuals accountable for their own actions and rewarding them for their deeds rather than their birth or religion.

Chiu Chun-Ling.

Egghead said...

Chiu, I searched your name on the web and read some of your comments on The Tenth Amendment Center.

Stop being 'romantic' about Islam.

It is IRRELEVANT whether any one Muslim is good or not.

It is IMPRACTICAL to determine which one or another Muslim is good or not.

What is RELEVANT is that Islam is a supremacist criminal enterprise.

What is PRACTICAL is to stop all Muslim immigration into the West and stop all practice of Islam in the West: ban all mosques, copies of the Koran, and Muslim symbols including dress symbols like the burqa. Deport those who resist to the Muslim country of their choice.

To re-phrase your own argument on the Tenth Amendment Center, actions speak louder than words....

Candian in London said...

Fjordman - I have always enjoyed your essays. I was quite upset when you got dragged through the mud over Breivik and was sincerely worried no one would be able to read an essay of your's ever again. In fact what I think has happened is that this whole episode has given you a wider audience - for that I am ecstatic. Is my perception of increased readership correct in your experience, please say yes?

Anonymous said...

The biggest irony concerning Dagbladet is that their closing of the comments option and hiding this debate forces a shift in where the debate is being held. My political point of view is that we need to fight for a secular, democratic and man-made-rules based Europe. And that this was in fact the front towards the nazis in WWII, towards the communists in the cold war era and that the feudal ideas of Islam is a real and present threat to this right now. If for instance the Pope would suggest the introduction of the Bible as the foundation for the law, it would start an avalanche of opposition in the mainstream media. Regarding Islam there is no avalanche as Flemming Rose points out in his book. And no I do not believe that they are traitors or sociopaths those who fight for the multicultural idea, no more than the average Stasi employee. They do however hold ideas that undermine society as we know it and it should be perfectly acceptable to say just that. It is not however, hence the need to post here. - Coastguard

Jolie Rouge said...

The assertion that islam can be reformed into some kind of fizzy pop religion that the West can swallow without choking is almost as dangerous as the direct multikulti experience.

The counter-jihad has been competent in its direct challenge to islam, an area where it has not been so successful is in recognising and purging islamic influences from the historical record. The seeping of islam into (modern) Western political thinking of both the left and right is an area that urgently needs to be addressed and countered.

To think islam can be reformed demands the dilution and subversion of Western principles, to countenance such dilution is more dangerous than the direct incursion into the West via multiculturalism.

steve said...

The problem is not "Muslims" per se, it's Islam. Islam needs to reform drastically before it's adherents; Muslims, can live in peace with the rest of humanity.

I recently had a debate with someone about this very question. They claimed that not all Muslims (we were debating Islam in the USA specifically) were "extremists". I easily proved that, from recent investigations easily found on google, 80% of US mosques are run by Muslim Brotherhood linked "extremists".

She then, of course went on to use cultural relativism to claim that Christianity is violent etc. I asked what this has to do with the topic we're debating. I then asked if she would say that some Nazi's are good people? She said no. I very easily proved the extensive links between the Nazi party and the Muslim brotherhood eg the infamous wartime Mufti of Jersusalem (Arafat's relative) who helped instigate the Final Solution, recruited 2 Muslim SS divisions etc. I then could prove that 80% of US mosques are effectively run by Nazi's (or an Islamic offshoot of fascism closely linked to the National Socialist movement; I didn't even need to go into the various Nazi's that sought refuge after WW2 in Arab countries where they continued to train Arab armies to kill Jews). This is all provable fact. It doesn't mean all Muslims are bad people, the problem is that the leaders of Islam are almost all bad people; almost everyday a Sheikh or Imam is arrested for terrorism. Islam has a problem. It simply cannot survive modernity and is imploding. Muslims are the luddites of our era.

steve said...

The problem is not "Muslims" per se, it's Islam. Islam needs to reform drastically before it's adherents; Muslims, can live in peace with the rest of humanity.

I recently had a debate with someone about this very question. They claimed that not all Muslims (we were debating Islam in the USA specifically) were "extremists". I easily proved that, from recent investigations easily found on google, 80% of US mosques are run by Muslim Brotherhood linked "extremists".

She then, of course went on to use cultural relativism to claim that Christianity is violent etc. I asked what this has to do with the topic we're debating. I then asked if she would say that some Nazi's are good people? She said no. I very easily proved the extensive links between the Nazi party and the Muslim brotherhood eg the infamous wartime Mufti of Jersusalem (Arafat's relative) who helped instigate the Final Solution, recruited 2 Muslim SS divisions etc. I then could prove that 80% of US mosques are effectively run by Nazi's (or an Islamic offshoot of fascism closely linked to the National Socialist movement; I didn't even need to go into the various Nazi's that sought refuge after WW2 in Arab countries where they continued to train Arab armies to kill Jews). This is all provable fact. It doesn't mean all Muslims are bad people, the problem is that the leaders of Islam are almost all bad people; almost everyday a Sheikh or Imam is arrested for terrorism. Islam has a problem. It simply cannot survive modernity and is imploding. Muslims are the luddites of our era.

skraelinger ga hjem said...

Yet another fantastic article by Fjordman! I particularly enjoyed the gold analogy. Did you know that comparison actually dates back to ancient Greece? Today this is known as Gresham's Law - bad (fiat) money when unleashed tends to drive out good money (gold). This law is inspired by Aristophanes' play "The Frogs" written in the year 405 B.C.. This play was written as a satire during the fall of Athens. Aristophanes' main point was that Athens was becoming increasingly populated with people who had no loyalty to the nation-state and had not earned the privilege of citizenship. THIS was the true cause of Athens' demise in Aristophanes' words:

The course our city runs is the same towards men and money.

She has true and worthy sons.

She has fine new gold and ancient silver,

Coins untouched with alloys, gold or silver,

Each well minted, tested each and ringing clear.

Yet we never use them!

Others pass from hand to hand,

Sorry brass just struck last week and branded with a wretched brand.

So with men we know for upright, blameless lives and noble names.
These we spurn for men of brass...

Dymphna said...

@steve-

The evidence is in re violence in Islam. See the Middle East Quarterly for a two-year study done by lawyer David Yerushalmi on mosques in America. This is the first of its kind.

Violence Taught in American Mosques

Some of the behaviors of the imams AND their followers wouldn't be understandable without the research these people did by infiltrating the mosques to gain information. Some of the things they discovered were surprising.

They also kind of answered the question re "moderate" Muslims. Turns out thaat *only* 80% or so of U.S. mosques preach jihad.

Actually it did kind of surprise me that they managed to find a peaceful 20%...

I urge readers to click on to that link. Two years of hard work by dedicated people.

ANTI-ISLAMIST said...

About the importance of whiteness in Scandinavia

Swedish scientific gender research in conjunction with importent research on white/non-white race and power ideas is advanced in Sweden. In Swedish, there is more about it here. Below you will find a brief excerpt from an authentic scholarly dissertation scrupulously translated by me!
----
Whiteness as the norm is created in relation to the race conception of the Other, so it is the 'We' as subject that constitutes whiteness. This is an important concern, but I would argue that it becomes particularly relevant but simultaniously especially problematic in the context of the Nordic countries, where whiteness until the post-colonial era has been a matter of course, to the point that it probably was not even a conscious category.
...
...whiteness is reproduced not as a terminology that helps us understand hegemonic norms and racified power relations, but rather as an integral, essential category that reproduces whiteness as a safe way to privileges,
(which whiteness does not constitute in all contexts, especially in intersection with class and gender). So it is in relation to the non-white bodies, the racified excluding bodies, the bodies that in this way becomes homeless, that whiteness - as in the imagined confession: "I am a white woman" - secures its privileges.

Chiu said...

I realize that the idea of personal accountability for one's actual actions is a difficult one, but it is the pillar on which every good of Western Civilization is supported. If you abandon it, you will fail.

By the way, regarding the comments on the Tenth Amendment Center page, I have in fact since then put my life on the line in opposing the illegal assaults of so-called "law enforcement". It was not pleasant. That I survived it is due to a miscalculation on the part of the police, they thought that mere lethal force could kill me. Well, they have learned better. I am still in the process of trying to bring those murderous oathbreakers to justice, but it is a slow one and I thus have free time to talk about other concerns.

And I must view with deep concern the evidence that the movements to resist the attack on the West by Islam are being lured into the destructive pit of identity politics and collective guilt. That those have been used to undermine the West is true, but the reason is specific to the strength of the West. You will find that it will be ineffective on the infiltration of your society by those determined to destroy you once you begin to rely on it.

You must hold all individuals personally accountable for their actions regardless of their race, religion, or office. All must be equal before the law, or the law is nothing but the whim of those who decide when it will apply. This is as true of my insistence that the police be subject to the law as it is to my insistence that Muslims should be subject to those same laws.

Is this difficult? Yes. Is is therefore IRRELEVANT which specific persons are guilty of crimes or IMPRACTICAL to discover and punish the actual criminals? Well, if it is, then all hope is lost. I don't give a damn what color you are, if you think that your culture is special because your race is so superior, you're headed directly for the same failed society as Islam has produced in every country it dominates.

When the social mechanism acts like individual differences in morality and ability are less important than group differences, it removes the tendency of intelligent, able, moral people to succeed and be imitated by the next generation. So you end up with a culture that accepts stupidity as equal to brilliance, cowardice as equal to courage, hate as equal to love...sound familiar?

If that's not what you want, then don't imitate the precise element that causes it.

Chiu Chun-Ling.

You New said...

Hi Chiu,

I have to agree with the Egg Woman that you don't quite get the picture. You have multiple misunderstandings on the topics and you seem to be having serious personal problems I'm sorry to see.

One mistake you make is to assume that racial purity is some sort of goal here. You say "because your race is so superior".

"I don't give a damn what color you are, if you think that your culture is special because your race is so superior, you're headed directly for the same failed society as Islam has produced in every country it dominates."

You got that wrong. It's my CULTURE that is superior. My culture can and should include some racial and cultural intermingling, but only so far that it's integrity may be maintained and no further. This has been Fjordman's stance too. GOV's stance.

Western Culture should be celebrated, especially because it is open to races, cultures and ideas. We are in a kind of battle against (mainly) an enemy from within, one that takes all cultures as an equal? Doesn't the enemy want the goods without the culture?

That's who we don't like. Now, where are those racists you were talking about, Chiu?

And you might want to rethink the infamous "collective guilt" theory but I'll save that one for another time. We are fighting against a collective power grab called socialism, start there...

Egghead said...

Chiu: I hope that you keep commenting, but my personal opinion is that you have a fundamental misunderstanding about how Islam operates.

Because Islam condones criminality in many areas, any person who is a self-identifying Muslim IS also a self-identifying criminal.

While Westerners are allowed to pick and choose which religious tenets to follow, the worldwide Muslim community imposes Sharia Law - a criminal enterprise - on individual Muslims.

In any case, do you really contend that Westerners owe Muslims the right to immigrate - or practice criminal Islam - in the West?

RonaldB said...

Chiu,

I very much agree with you on the desirability, rather necessity, of judging a person individually. I strongly disagree with those who argue that all Muslims should be deported and that Islam should be made illegal.

However, this applies to people already citizens. Do you think a society can survive, which allows immigration of large numbers of people opposed to its cultural and judicial roots? I argue that we should make group distinctions on potential citizens, and individual distinctions on actual citizens.

I noticed you didn't mention immigration at all. But, immigration is the key. In a democratic republic, politics is the lubricant that allows the machinery to operate. Politics allows factions with different interests to settle their differences peacefully.

But, allowing large numbers of Muslims to immigrate, they form influential political interest groups, blocking exactly the type of individual judging you advocate.

You hold out the possibility of transforming Islam into a religion which eschews the Koran. This seems a bit far-fetched to me, but it is possible. I agree with your assertion that the actions of individuals, rather than their beliefs, should be judged. But, I add, the number of such individuals needs to be small enough that they can be dealt with through judicial processes. Once you attain a certain size of deviant individuals forming a coherent sub-community, the dynamic changes, and you become less able to make individual judgments. And, I agree, this does indeed change the fundamental nature of the cultural processes we value.

Egghead said...

Ronald B: "I strongly disagree with those who argue that all Muslims should be deported and that Islam should be made illegal."

Islam condones a myriad of heinous crimes - the worst of which are the crimes against all women and children living in Muslim-owned Sharia compliant societies - temporary marriage (child prostitution), polygamy, forced marriage, cousin marriage, child marriage, child molestation of sons and daughters, gang rape of emotionally, physically, and legally defenseless women and children, wife beating, child beating, and forcible girlhood clitorectomies.

Muslims are self-identifying criminals who - often willingly - practice these crimes against women and children within the basic family unit insulated in larger Muslim no-go zones.

Anyone who believes that Islam should be legal IS excusing and minimizing the extreme criminality (Satanism, really) of Islam at its most fundamental definitional level.

And, why pray tell, should Western countries and their indigenous citizens tolerate extreme Muslim criminality that Muslims announce and intend to target non-Muslim Western infidels?!

Deport the "peaceful" Muslims so that they may help their fellow Muslims to evolve....

Chiu said...

Well, I don't have a problem with countries shutting off immigration entirely when they face a crisis of the magnitude that now confronts all the Western nations. There is a war, and it is going to get much worse before it gets better, and suspending all ordinary forms of immigration until the war is won is not a violation of anyone's rights at all. In fact, the failure to do so is a reckless endangerment of the lives and freedoms of the citizens of those nations who have upheld their governments in the expectation that those governments would at the very least provide for the common defense.

I argue forcefully for a complete disavowal of collectivist policies and identity politics because I believe it is compatible with the goals of resisting the current Jihad, not because I assume that anyone here is a racist or bigot, despite some comments which could be so construed and which are generally made in the haste that accompanies hasty generalizations. I would not bother telling any committed racist that racism is a doomed strategy, that would be pointless (also, it is not entirely true, racism seems to work quite well for Islamic Jihad, since they are only interested in destroying everything better than themselves rather than advancing as a civilization). But I also would not warn against falling into the appearance of such if there were not a real danger of such labels sticking and severely damaging the credibility and influence of the Counter-Jihad and its political organizations.

"Western Culture should be celebrated, especially because it is open to races, cultures and ideas." That's exactly the kind of sentiment that I should like to see reflected in every paragraph, a celebration of the virtues of Western Civilization and a demonstrated love of the principles on which it is built. Not just because such words generate warm fuzzy feelings in my breast (though I am not ashamed to admit that they do), but because they will be more powerful and persuasive in spreading the message that Western Civilization is worth defending than any amount of venting about the (admittedly real and severe) evils of Koranic Islam (and it is not to be forgotten that, while it those who do not study Islam closely may not realize it, the written Quran is itself an offense against original teachings of Islam worse than anything that can be done to a written Ouran, which is an apparently minor point but can be a very powerful argument in the right context).

I have thought over the "collective guilt" issue enough to be absolutely confident that a commitment to the principles of individual responsibility is always superior...but there is an important distinction I would like to offer. Equality before the Law does not imply that private actors must never be allowed to discriminate on the basis of their own tastes. People are actually different in their likes and dislikes, to prohibit some likes and dislikes makes for inequality in how the law treats those whose likes and dislikes are prohibited. You should be allowed, as a private person to dislike Islam, Arabs, or beards and there should be no penalty as long as you do not commit any overt crime (that would still be a crime if committed for any other reason against any other person).

The foundation of America is the Declaration of Independence, which not only condones the criminal act of rebellion against the existing government when it fails to uphold certain principles, it was in fact such an act of rebellion. Does this mean that all Americans or admirers of America should be treated as having committed a crime? To say, "Islam condones criminality in many areas, any person who is a self-identifying Muslim IS also a self-identifying criminal", is very dangerous. In a free society, you must give people the right to say that existing legislation or policies are wrong and should be changed. True, we do not want the imposition of Sharia necessary to make it so that Islam supports rather than subverts the laws.

Continued...

Chiu said...

But we need the right to say that the laws are wrong and should be different. That is why it is essential that we distinguish between an illegal act and the suggestion that such an act should not be illegal. I believe that the proper thing to do is for those interested in upholding the existing law to carefully scrutinize those who suggest it is wrong to see if they are matching deed to word. This is simple good sense. But to make the advocacy of a change in the laws itself a crime is to abolish one of the core mechanisms (though not absolutely as essential as some argue) which has advanced Western Civilization.

I do not think that any country owes anyone hailing from outside that country any "right" to immigrate, particularly if they are going to impose hardships on the existing citizens (which would be impairing their rights) but even if the immigration would be clearly beneficial to all. No amount of need or offered payment on your part gives you a right to what is mine until I agree. You have an absolute right to refuse to participate in a transaction no matter how much it might benefit anyone.

But, when a nation does allow immigration, it is destructive of the principle of individual rights and responsibility to make distinctions based on anything other than the actual merits of the individual case. It is important to realize that many people are moderate enough in their embrace of Islam to leave it as soon as they can do so without losing their head (in a very literal and gruesome manner). That of itself does not indicate any great worth as a potential new citizen of a Western nation, but it should certainly be the kind of distinction that we are able to make when allowing immigrants.

Remember, Islam permits Taquiya, the practice of pretending to adhere to a different religion (or the outright denial of Islam) as long as it is done to preserve or advance the interests of Islam. In light of this, do we really want to just rely on whether someone is a "Christian" or "Muslim" in regulating who is allowed to immigrate (presuming that it ever becomes prudent to allow it at all, given that any ordinary immigration would be foolish during a vast civilizational conflict which has already passed the usual thresholds of open war)?

I do not advocate taking so 'extreme' a position on immigration at once. It is enough to open the debate of whether all the immigration is helping and get a vigorous debate going on how much immigration is desirable before being too forceful that there may not be any pressing need to permit it at all in current circumstances. But what is immediately necessary is that the debate not be about Muslim immigration specifically. For one thing, it will do no good because Muslims are permitted and even commanded to 'officially' disavow their religion before infidels (pretty much all of us, I imagine). For another, it will provide the internal enemies of your nations with a brickbat to beat you about the head whenever you raise the subject. It may well be that you can still win the argument, but why impose such a pointless handicap on yourself?

In addressing the concern of individual criminality...there is a need to widen the resources available to law enforcement without expanding the size of the public sector. In the near-term, this means arguing for the viability of neighborhood watches and similar mechanisms which are supplementary to the full-time police forces. In the long-term, it means arguing for reliance on what American tradition calls the posse and even the militia. These ideas are considered archaic and beyond merely reactionary even in America, but they should be considered carefully as you seek a means to gather and empower the forces necessary to uphold the law while avoiding the creation of a police state.

Continued...

Chiu said...

Incautious advocacy of such policies or ill-design in the mechanisms by which they will remain accountable to the laws will result in charges of vigilantism. And while vigilantism was one of the pillars of Rome, not everything about the Roman Empire was necessarily all that great. There should be a serious effort to do better.

"Islam condones a myriad of heinous crimes - the worst of which are the crimes against all women and children living in Muslim-owned Sharia compliant societies - temporary marriage (child prostitution), polygamy, forced marriage, cousin marriage, child marriage, child molestation of sons and daughters, gang rape of emotionally, physically, and legally defenseless women and children, wife beating, child beating, and forcible girlhood clitorectomies." This is certainly true, and should not be forgotten. But of more particular use is that Islamic clerics are often vocal in rehearsing these sentiments (and others that the Koran doesn't even mention, like how righteous it is to drink the blood of Jews and light Christians on fire in celebration of Islamic holidays). What matters is not whether something is in the Koran, but catching some individual repeating and advocating such horrors.

Not that there should be an attempt to ban such expressions. For one, it is not a tactic compatible with fully preserving the right of free speech (though I think that there should be some expressions disgusting enough that we put the values of human existence higher than the right to say anything whatsoever, the time for deciding that must be after the current crisis). For another, it is more tactically advantageous to expose such speech and highlight the speakers rather than attempt to silence it. As long as open, public radicalism can be maintained as a marker of "devout" Islam, it becomes much easier to track and combat. This applies to both focusing criminal investigation and to swaying public sentiment.

As I have said, moderate Muslims have less than no chance of reforming Islam from the inside (every execution of an apostate fuels the climate of fear essential to entrench the Koranic Islam...much more than the deaths of total infidels). This does not mean they must be allowed to stay in a nation if the citizens of that nation have particular reasons to want such an individual thrown out. It does mean that there should be some consideration given to how unhelpful it is to provide Islam with the sacrifices it needs to keep the vast majority of Muslims (who are just doing what they can to avoid being brutally murdered) in line.

Well, this post has rambled enough, and I have attempted to answer every serious point raised above. I would like to continue the discussion, though perhaps there will be plenty of other threads relevant to the issues involved.

Chiu Chun-Ling.

ANTI-ISLAMIST said...

"Transforming Islam into a religion which eschews the Koran - which seems a bit far-fetched to me,
but it is possible"...,

however, is obviously easier said than done.
- - - - -
Has no one here never reflected over today's common stupidity or even idiocy in society as a ground for the multiculti, culture relative, moslem apologetic, PC-fad that permeates academia, politics and dayly life. A functional and contagious idiocy disengaged from man's higher or lower IQ and spread all over the Western World, perhaps even over the whole planet = GLOBAL IDIOCY.

Knowing that Fjordman had interested himself for Caucasophobia and whiteness [Google: Fjordman "whiteness" -Breivik = 38000 hits] I tried with my diffident contribution above at 11/23 10:10 AM to awake interest for the idiocy-theme but no-one jumped at it. However, it might perhaps be a consolation to know that also very intelligent persons can be utterly stupid: see the controversy betwenn Linus Pauling and Dan Shechtman (Nobel Prize laureate in Chemistry 2011).

Let me fill in my assertion of the GLOBAL IDIOCY with another example - just one tiny one of the tens of thosand others - of customary unrestrained and barefaced functional stupudity.
Karl-Eirik Kval is cand. polit. with a degree in political science from the University of Oslo. He teaches social studies and Norwegian at Fagerborg high school. He has worked as a journalist and has conducted research on immigrants and voter participation (Institute for Social Research). On the 22.11.2011 he gets the folloeing article published in the Norwegian paper Dagbladet.no under the caption: CULTURE.
http://www.dagbladet.no/2011/11/22/kultur/debatt/kronikk/fjordman/islam/19120102/

Crusade against Islam
Fjordman's writings suggest that he knows very little about Islam and how the religion is practiced in various countries.
DEBATE ENTRY
Under the title "Islamofile illusions" Peder Jensen, alias Fjordman, continues his crusade against Islam. Jensen pretends to be an expert on Islam. His writings, however, suggest the opposite, that he may know very little about Islam and how the religion is practiced in various countries.
Many years ago I had the pleasure of staying one year in Lebanon, as UN soldier. Lebanon is a country with a large majority of Muslims. The Muslims I met there were people who had greater tolerance, greater knowledge and greater respect for other religions than are found in most Christian movements in Norway.
Everything suggests that Jensen bases his knowledge on what he saw in Cairo in 2001 when he studied there. To conclude about Islamic practice based on some experiences from Cairo, is like drawing conclusions about how Christianity is practiced in the world, based on an occasional sojourn in Brooklyn, New York
I have also traveled to other Muslim countries such as Kosovo, where I met a very different Islam than the one Jensen believes is the only one and which "can not be reconciled with our way of life." There are more than one billion Muslims in this world.
Judging everything alike, as Jensen does, is not only stupid, it is brutalizing.
- - - - -
PS Would not GLOBAL IDIOCY be a wishful theme for Fjordman and/or the Baron to immerse themselves in?

ANTI-ISLAMIST said...

MORE FROM THE SCENE OF 'GLOBAL IDIOCY'

The Eurabia Theory is probabely mankind's most disliked theory since the days of Galileo and Copernicus. Norway is still in crisis, no one knows when it will end or when a new one starts and Anders Behring Breivik is capitalized to the last crumb.

Here a debate in English at the University of Oslo with Hege Storhaug, Lars Gule, Fadel Soliman at the platform. Male muslim voice: "You, Hege Storhaug, [and Fjodman & all the rest] are the ones who plant the seeds in their hearths [Anders Breivik's et al.] that make them explode..."
http://islamnet.no/nyheter/in/2154-breivik-hrs-statsstotte

Video: 4:28 minutes in, Lars Gule, academian, secular humanist and philosopher, has the folowing to declare:
"...but I do not share the conspiracy theories you find in Hege Storhaugs organisation, because..., you have presented..., you have used..., you have employed Bruce Bawer..., you have posted long tracts presenting the Eurabia Theory , which is pure conspiracy theory and Islamophobia".

Chiu said...

"The Muslims I met there were people who had greater tolerance, greater knowledge and greater respect for other religions than are found in most Christian movements in Norway."

A wonderful example of comparing apples and oranges. You can compare nominal Muslims with nominal Christians, or you can compare Islamic movements with Christian movements. But comparing nominal Muslims to Christian movements is obviously going to show a greater commitment to the given religious cause on the part of the movement.

If you compare nominal Muslims to nominal Christians, then you'll find that the nominal Christians are so tolerant as to be a vice rather than a virtue, while even nominal Muslims need to be pushed a bit further in the direction of opposing the murder of infidels. And if you compare Islamic movements to Christian movements...well. I can but wish there were an Islamic movement sufficiently "tolerant" to only call for beheading infidels in Muslim countries. Whereas a Christian movement is considered extremist if they object to Christians being beheaded for their religion.

I am, in some important senses, neutral on the question of whether it is a good thing for Christians to be beheaded for their religion. But it is very clear that it is the moral responsibility of everyone to at least object to the practice.

Chiu Chun-Ling.

Egghead said...

Anti-Islamist: It IS maddening how intentionally stupid most people are....

Egghead said...

Chiu: I am happy to keep corresponding with you on this back channel until the Baron kicks us off...

You would really enjoy reading and corresponding with The Hesperado who hung around here until he got mad and stomped off into the sunset....

Hesperado believes that the Western PC MC goal is based on fundamentally good motivations. Hesperado also believes that the West must cease all Muslim immigration because it is impossible for the West to tell who is good and bad - and also irrelevant to the larger goal of Western survival.

In response to your comments:

1. Islam is NOT a race. Islam is a supremacist idea practiced by people of many different races. To call someone a racist for criticizing Islam is ridiculous.

2. To call someone a bigot for criticizing Islam stretches credulity in the same way that it would for calling someone a bigot for criticizing Nazism. At some point, people must be able to have standards to discern evil entities - which both Islam and Nazism are - along with Marxism.

3. Islamophiles - native and not - are going to use the labels of racist and bigot irrespective of any anti-Jihad actions.

4. Relying on good PR to make the case for the West is ridiculous. Islam is Satanism. Islam could care less about the warm fuzzies. Islam is all about submission - by everyone everywhere to Islam.

Egghead said...

5. There should be inequality in how the law treats those who 'like' Islam. The practice of Islam is a criminal enterprise.

6. There is a distinct difference between rebellion against government and rebellion against God and those natural rights given by God to all people. See Natural Rights.

7. Sharia Law is Satanic in every sense. A comparison of word to deed is irrelevant when Sharia Law allows men to marry four women and marry six year old girls and marry girls in temporary marriages, etc. The words match the deeds - and both words and deeds are evil.

8. When individuals self-identify as Muslims - knowing that ALL Muslims overtly or discreetly follow the goal to overthrow non-Muslim rule in favor of Satanic Sharia Law, then Westerners who deny entry to Muslims ARE making an individual assessment of every Muslim who, as an individual self-identifying as Muslim, is doing Westerners the favor of declaring adherence to a goal subversive to the West.

9. Taqiyya is irrelevant in this context because I believe that all outward symbols of Islam must be banned to include Western no go zones, mosques, Korans, Muslim propaganda (especially on computers), and burqas. So, if an individual wants to immigrate and omit to practice Islam in any discernable way....

10. I would prefer that real police handle real criminals.

11. The Koran and related documents matter very much because said documents are used as the model for Muslim behavior - behavior which is criminal.

12. The right to free speech is far from absolute. The West must consider Islam to be criminal incitement under Western law. See Incitement.

Chiu said...

I would hope that I did not apply the appellation of "racist" to opposition against Islam. However, the identification of the indigenous races of Europe as the key to the success of Western Civilization is racist in the completely literal sense of the term. I personally do not intend any pejorative meaning to "racist" in this positive sense of being in favor of a race (particularly one's own) other than that inherent in the irrationality of elevating a relatively base instinct as some kind of principle.

And in particular, even if there are elements of the European genetic heritage that are particularly felicitous to Western Civilization (which would be difficult to refute or confirm scientifically), embracing a racial theory of why Western Civilization has prospered runs contrary to many of the most cherished ideals of the West. My own analysis is that it also runs contrary to the principle of individual responsibility and equality before the law which are the true source of the West's remarkable achievements.

I have never called anyone a bigot for criticism of Islam. But uncritical disparagement of "Islam" as a monolithic and unalterable whole rather than specific features mostly associated with Koranic Islam (none of which are entirely unheard of outside of Islam) is clearly bigoted (in the classical and modern sense). I have no difficulty at all with pointing out what teachings of Islam are wrong and must not be accepted, in fact I highly encourage it. I do have a problem with statements that suggest that Islam is wrong simply because it is "Islam". I don't necessarily disagree..."Islam" (submission) could be considered a stupid concept around which to base a religion. But I will split the hair of saying that a religion should have a better name is still criticism of a specific point for a given reason as opposed to blind hostility towards the entire faith.

It is true that nobody who is in love with Koranic Islam is ever going to accept the behavior of those opposed to it as being correct. But it is a mistake to say that they will never stop using given terms that could be applied as derogatory. One notes that the Counter-Jihad is rarely called 'homophobic', for example, despite that being a popular term of abuse for those opposing leftism. Why? Because the accusation develops no traction with the undecided in the West.

If you're goal is to persuade the advocates of Koranic Islam to stop trying to overthrow the West, then there is no point in talking at all. You are trying to persuade those who hold Western values (even if they don't know it) and are looking about to see who best represents those values. You may not be able to absolutely prevent Islamophiles from hurling charges of racism and bigotry, but you can keep those charges from sticking by making it clear that you don't have a racial agenda (and I seriously recommend throwing away such if you do) and your opposition is not to "Islam" but specific practices and ideas that are clearly incompatible with Western Civilization.

Look at it this way...if Islam really is inherently irredeemable, then simply eradicating the atrocities it commits will be sufficient to eliminate the religion entirely. There is no need to make total removal of Islam your explicit goal if your reasons are valid. If the evil is intrinsic to Islam, then fighting the evils is fighting Islam. But there is no need to give the enemy additional ammo by being the one to declare that you intend to wipe out Islam entirely. If you keep saying "we just want an end to the atrocity parts, we have no problem with Islam per se", then they are forced to be the ones that say "these atrocities are the very soul of our religion, we cannot show submission to Allah without them!"

That puts you on the winning side of the debate, don't you think?

Continued...

Chiu said...

I am in no way suggesting that you should try to dissuade thieves, robbers, murderers, and oath-breakers with words. But I do suggest that it is helpful to gather support from those around you who are not any of these things before you go into battle. And, if it can be accomplished, after the battle has been joined. As it stands, I could not lend my full support to the Counter-Jihad because it appears to despise some principles that I've put my life on the line to defend. You might consider that a small loss...and you might be right. But I'm willing to bet that there are millions of others who will hesitate to associate themselves with an organization that seems open to the charges of racism and bigotry hurled against it.

I believe that there are two criteria that need to be met with regards to lethal force (and thus--implicitly--all government actions, since government is always ultimately backed with the threat or actual use of lethal force). First, it must be lawful. That is to say, you must only use lethal force against a person that has already committed a crime. Second, it must be moral. Meaning that you should only take a life in order to save lives.

In the second consideration, whether an exercise in force is moral, it does matter why someone has committed a crime that makes them lawfully subject to a potential lethal response. It is common to recognize that a crime committed for "unique" reasons could make it immoral to apply the full penalty justified by the law. But the law itself should only be concerned with the first criteria, what actual actions were committed.

This is a fundamental principle of law, and a fundamental distinction between law and morality. In morality, we might give forgiveness (a positive good) to one that the law has condemned. In law, we administer punishment (the law is capable of nothing else) to those that transgress. Morality concerns itself with doing good to others, law with when we are justified in doing evil to them. These two fundamentally different systems need to be kept distinct.

Well, that is overly philosophical. The point about equality before the law can be made much more simply if we consider that it is impossible to absolutely know the secret heart of another person. Of particular significance, in Islam it is perfectly acceptable for "good Muslims" to deny their own faith before infidels as a way of evading "persecution".

And I have to say, prosecuting people differently based on their religious profession is a form of persecution that doesn't even need scare quotes.

I may think that Christianity is the best opposition to Islam (I'm actually undecided on the point, for certain definitions of "best"). But I don't really favor bringing in religious arguments for a number of pragmatic reasons. One of which is that using Christianity as a cultural weapon to obliterate other religions isn't exactly Christian. Christ and His disciples taught that membership in the kingdom was for those willing to sacrifice all else for it. While it is not any cause for rejoicing that some cannot give away all else for Christ, there is no virtue in forced conversion (which is one of the notable differences between Islam and Christianity, Islam inherently grants that forced conversions do have value even if it admits that value to be less than free conversion).

Continued...

Chiu said...

I have already pointed this out before, but when you start punishing self-identified Muslims then the rest will simply invoke the rule of Taqiya and stop publicly identifying themselves as Muslim. There might be some short-term benefits to this, but in the long run it will greatly complicate the task of identifying and tracking potential terrorists. Koranic Islam currently teaches that Muslims are allowed to commit any form of sin so long as it is 'necessary' to advance Islam, particularly if they martyr themselves. I agree with tactics like making it harder to find halal food and tracking attendance at radical mosques, but you'll find these tools utterly useless once you cross the line of trying to criminalize Islam itself.

If Islam becomes entirely the religion of the 'martyr', so that the only time you ever have an indication that someone was a Muslim is upon finding their manifesto after they've committed a terrorist attack, what exactly are you gaining? I don't know. Certainly you are creating a greatly increased incentive for those who hold Islam in their hearts to believe that their only path to salvation is martyrdom. I'm not inclined to regard that as much of a gain.

In the matter of creating a distinction between police and citizens, I have irrevocably thrown in my lot against it. The reason the police attempted to murder me in my home was because I made statements that the police must be accountable to the laws they claim to enforce on others. In fact, such statements are not yet a crime in this country. Nevertheless I am not the first person to suffer jeopardy of life for saying it. Nor will I be the last, nor is there any easy way of knowing how many have been successfully erased, their deaths considered "accidental". If the choice is made to make the imposition of a police state an essential part of the Counter-Jihad, then I'm afraid that I must go from reservations about lending my full support to a position of impacable hostility.

Sorry, that's just the way it is. My opposition to Islam is because of its totalitarian tendencies. If the alternative is just totalitarianism under different management, I shall do my best to stand aside and let you fight each other, always rooting for the weaker side of course in the hope that both can be worn down to nothing.

Chiu Chun-Ling.

Egghead said...

Chiu: You are a wonderful writer, BUT you have a lot to learn about Islam. Luckily, you have stumbled upon the correct site to do so.

Sometimes your opinions reveal a subtle lack of knowledge about Islam.

For example, the one sure way to salvation for Muslims is violent jihad. This is the reason that some 'sinful' Muslims become violent jihadists. Committing jihad is equivalent to buying a Catholic indulgence.

---

Many here, including myself, have commented that the one world government movement is using the Muslims to force the world into one big international police state.

---

I cannot even imagine having my 'insert swear word here' neighbors enacting their perverted version of justice under the guise of law enforcement. They'd be the first people to happily murder me - and my family.

---

You often write from the vantage point of a Westerner. This battle requires empathy where Westerners MUST learn to think like Muslims in order to defeat Muslims.

You MUST become familiar with the Muslim definitions of the three greatest Muslims sins: hypocrisy, blasphemy and apostacy. Muslims will NOT change Islam and become Westernized because of the above sins and their death sentences - which may be imposed by any Muslim worldwide on any other Muslim - at will.

---

You talk about persecuting people based on their religion - which again defines Islam as a religion whereas Islam is a totalitarian system of government ruled by a dead psychopath. The West MUST stop calling Islam a religion.

---

We can ban Islam without referring to Christianity - or any other religion.

---

I personally hate when people start claiming that Christianity is the ultimate expression of pacifism as if I must roll over and die a painful death (or life under Islam) in order to 'prove' my bona fides as a Christian.

If none of us are to fight anyway, then we might as well give up now and spare everyone WWIII. Hmmm.

---

It also drives me crazy when you start talking about Muslims who hold Western values - especially without knowing it. There are two types of Muslim immigrants - those who immigrated years ago to escape Islam and those who immigrate now to further Islam. Those who seek to further Islam are implacable - with very rare exception - too rare to be practical - that rare change is important for those few individual Muslims - but less useful to besieged Westerners.

Chiu said...

I realize that the Koranic teachings promote violent bigotry and sexism, be they Wahhabist or some other strain. My point is that there is a desire among some in the Muslim community to reform Islam by rejecting the authority if the Quran, and this is a reformist strain insofar as the Qura were never supposed to be treated as scripture.

If we want to resist the systematic violence of Koranic Islam, I would seriously question accepting anything they posit. If they say that the sky is blue, I'll check to see if it has turned some other color. If a young Muslim tells me she doesnt' want to live under Sharia, I'll believe her despite the fact that her Immam says there is no such thing as a Muslim who does not long for the imposition of Sharia.

Unfortunately, you don't have much of a choice about your 'neighbors' being the ones that decide what version of justice is going to be enacted on you. Whether they pay someone else against whom you cannot plausibly defend yourself, or face you on equal terms.

Another of my specific points is that learning to think as Koranic Muslims do is the exactly wrong response. If you think like them, you will come to speak and behave as they do. This may be a valid strategy for tearing down civilization, but it is not an adequate basis for defending it. You must understand what they do and the beliefs that motivate them, but it is better to leave the question of how they think alone. I personally would go so far as to suggest agnosticism on whether they even think (in the sense of truly deliberative intellectual activity) at all. It is not a question that really needs to be answered about your enemies if you are determined on fighting them rather than writing a novel from their point of view.

I'm not particularly fond of those who pervert Christ's teaching in any way. Still, I generally decline to hate them over it. I reserve that energy for those who commit some kind of atrocity, simple errors of belief aren't really worthy of the same response. Regardless, I don't see what inane comments about the innate pacifism of Christianity have to do with this conversation.

As for Muslims who hold Western values...I'm not sure I know what you mean. Or rather, I'm fairly confident that I don't know what you're talking about.

I suppose you might mean that there are some Muslims who value not having their heads cut off. I would frankly need a lot of evidence and theory to explain how it is possible that there aren't any Muslims who don't want their heads cut off. And in either case I'm not really ready to accept it as a Western value...most humans in all ages and cultures have valued not having their heads cut off. In fact, if we ever learn to interview animals in their own tongue, and ask them if they like having their heads cut off, I'm almost certain the answer will generally be "no".

Chiu Chun-Ling.

Egghead said...

Chiu: You are really giving the impression of an educated person who is uneducated about Islam - just giving uninformed opinions.

What YOU or I think about Islam is irrelevant. What the majority of Muslims think about Islam IS relevant. Therefore, we must learn what motivates Muslims.

Islam is set in stone without the chance for reform. Various sects fight for dominance within Islam, but the major sects agree on the basic tenets of Islam.

Hypocrisy is the greatest sin in Islam and is the act whereby any Muslim attempts to reform Islam.

By the way, Islam is based on the Koran, sura, and hadith - rather than just the Koran.

The idea that Islam might reject the Koran as scripture is both incomplete and unrealistic.

You are the one who brought up Muslims who hold Western values, so read your own email above to clarify your thoughts.

Who died and made you the expert on Christianity and its proper response to Islam?

I gather that Muslims figure that they will be the ones cutting off other people's heads. Who ever said that Muslims (humans really) were required to make sense?

Chiu said...

I'm generally disinclined to regard my thoughts as being less relevant than the thoughts of anyone else, particularly the thoughts of any majority, let alone the Islamic majority. And the majority of Muslims is still not all Muslims...even if it is a real majority, which I frankly doubt given that they have to keep brutally executing Muslims who disagree with them. I think it's important to be aware of the behavior of this "majority" (which may well simply be a violent minority), but I can't see any value in trying to understand their motives. It's not like I'm open to giving them what they demand once I understand why they want it.

They're evil. Justice demands that they die for the atrocities they've already committed, Mercy agrees they must be killed to stop them from committing more. End of story, nothing left to say. I don't care what sob story they present about their motives.

Start consistently killing those that commit these horrific crimes and you'll soon see how little support they have. Start with those that are actually in your own borders, preying on your own people. And if I'm wrong, if Islam really is set in stone...then eventually you will run out of Muslims just by taking a firm stand against those that engage in anti-civilizational violence.

On the technical point of the sura and hadith, I do not hold that stories of Mohammad's life and times are necessarily good for general dissemination. But if the scriptural authority of the revelations can be dismissed as the blasphemous innovation which it is, there is room for a school of interpretation that does not seek to justify the crimes Mohammad committed. The Muslims make a point about how they do not claim Mohammad was perfect...well, give those willing to abide by the laws of civilization a chance to prove they can see his flaws.

Your continued assertion that I have said anything about Muslims who hold Western values has prompted me to go over my other posts to see if I said any such thing. The closest thing I can discover is the following quote.

Continued...hehehe...

Chiu said...

"It is important to realize that many people are moderate enough in their embrace of Islam to leave it as soon as they can do so without losing their head (in a very literal and gruesome manner). That of itself does not indicate any great worth as a potential new citizen of a Western nation, but it should certainly be the kind of distinction that we are able to make when allowing immigrants."

I believe I here specifically say that simply being a Muslim out of fear is not itself a qualification for citizenship in a Western nation (understanding that truly holding Western values would be a qualification). Or you could be referring to my identification of reformist Islam as expressing a certain existential despair. I hope you'll forgive me for not having previously clarified that existential despair is neither a central Western value nor one unique to the West. I simply didn't think anyone would need that comment given the context.

I could answer your question about who died and, by His death, gave me greater insight into the fundamental meaning of Christianity. But it would sound flip and disrespectful in view of the colloquial implications of the wording you used. So I will decline to answer that particular question. I will instead appeal to the teachings of Christ found in the primary collection of source material that has come down to us, the New Testamant.

Christ's teachings on the subject of the position His disciples will endure with respect to all forms of worldly authority is very clearly stated multiple times and expounded upon at some length (at least relative to how concise He is on most subjects) in the Sermon on the Mount. He does not at all suggest pacifism in this, Christ is certainly a heroic figure of the first rank when it comes to opposing injustice. But the fundamental nature of the battle to conquer evil by Christian methods is internal rather than external, spiritual rather than physical. Love overcoming fear, peace and the assurance of salvation overcoming anger and hate.

I am sorry if this is not familiar to you. I find it a fascinating subject, and one that does bear relevance to the sources of personal moral courage that are necessary in resisting Jihad. I am more evil aligned, so I sometimes forget that others may need a positive spiritual source of strength. But if you are subject to anxieties about suffering pain and death, the solemn yet gentle promises of Christ's atonement can overcome them.

Or so I've been told. I use them mostly to endure the indignity of life, myself.

Chiu Chun-Ling.

Edvrd said...

"Why is it always white Europeans, and only them, who are to be deconstructed and have their countries and cultural history taken away from them?"

Well, Fjordman, maybe it´s a good idea to go to the Begining, as Albert Einstein said,
"Problems cannot be solved at the same level of awareness that created them."

"And command thou the people, saying, Ye are to pass through the border of your brethren the children of Esau, that dwell in Seir; and they will be afraid of you: take ye good heed unto yourselves therefore; contend not with them; for I will not give you of their land, no, not so much as for the sole of the foot to tread on; because I have given mount Seir unto Esau for a possession. Ye shall purchase food of them for money, that ye may eat; and ye shall also buy water of them for money, that ye may drink."
Deuteronomy 2:4-6

"And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of the one was Peleg; because in his days the earth was divided: and his brother's name was Joktan."
1 Chronicles 1:16

"The Nordic countries’ greatest advantage, historically speaking, has been an ethnically homogeneous population.",
maybe, as people, since the time when each one of Jacob-Israel´s sons procreate two or more children, except; "And the sons of Dan; Hushim." Genesis 46:23.
Then, what these people saw?, that Allah-Lucifer wants them "to be deconstructed and have their countries and cultural history taken away from them?", they were witness, with their brothers, at Mount Sinai.
Do you remember Rachel and Leah´s father?, Laban means white.

"Therefore the Lord was very angry with Israel, and removed them out of his sight: there was none left but the tribe of Judah only."
2 Kings 17:18
"Until the Lord removed Israel out of his sight, as he had said by all his servants the prophets. So was Israel carried away out of their own land to Assyria unto this day."
2 Kings 17:23
"And the king of Assyria did carry away Israel unto Assyria, and put them in Halah and in Habor by the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes: Because they obeyed not the voice of the Lord their God, but transgressed his covenant, and all that Moses the servant of the Lord commanded, and would not hear them, nor do them."
2 Kings 18:11-12

I was lucky to hear, some years ago, in shortwave radio, to late Dr. Gene Scott and his teachings about The Ten Northern Tribes.

Genesis 49, Deuteronomy 32, Deuteronomy 33.


Baron Bodissey, Dymphna, I know you avoid to many links, but maybe you like to share these approachs by email with Fjordman and Vlad Tepes.
See you later.

הרב אמנון יצחק: הוכחות למעמד הר סיני \ יציאת מצרים
http://youtu.be/-qiaxCBXwjI

מבראשית הרב אמנון יצחק קלטת88 חלק15 מתוך20
http://youtu.be/g0MY6ROZy3A

http://youtu.be/496V7OR35vs

http://youtu.be/AWdiQtp9LFo

http://www.thecaseforacreator.com/clips.php

The Pitfalls of Radiocarbon Dating
http://www.varchive.org/ce/c14.htm

New Evidence for Ages in Chaos
http://www.varchive.org/ce/newev.htm