Wednesday, January 12, 2011


Islam: “A supremacist totalitarian ideology using its peaceful followers as a shield to exploit religious freedom for political ends.”

The latest from Pat Condell:

Hat tip: DF.


Henrik R Clausen said...

Islam - as such?

He just might have read "Reliance of the Traveller".

joe six-pack said...

I really enjoyed his last statement: "Isn't reality a bitch?"

I would like to point out that many Muslim immigrants are comming from an environment where they where always treated as 'special', over and above all other "Non-believers". So it is only natural that many will expect the same treatment in other environments.

After all, that is how it SHOULD be. And if it is not, it is only natural that they are offended by the very idea that they are treated the same as everyone else.
That simply is not right. This is very much a cultural war as anything else.

goethechosemercy said...

Muslims believe that their religion and culture is holy and perfect.
From here it stands to reason that Muslims themselves are holy and perfect, more worthy of Western technology and social protections than the filthy Westerners are.
Yes, Islam is perfect.
Muslims are perfect.
A master race.
It's Nazism with a turban, Semitic Nazism!

Anonymous said...

joe six-pack: Your comment interests me. The Muslim relationship to the West is complicated by the fact that Muslims demand the adoption of Sharia Law which codifies a higher "special" status for Muslims while simultaneously demanding that all non-Muslims "are treated the same" as all Muslims with regard to what are substantial negatives for non-Muslims: being forced to listen to loudspeaker prayers, solicitations, and/or curses multiple times per day, being forced to veil, being forced to forgo food during the day for a month, being forced to submit to obscene blasphemy laws that prevent criticism of seventh century "moral behavior" edicts from a raving lunatic psychopath genocidal child rapist raider, etc.

The thought that struck me while I was listening to Pat Condell last night is that Pat Condell lives under a very restrictive speech code imposed by English Muslims. Therefore, Pat Condell must be more careful in the construction of his arguments and his actual expression than an American speaker would be.

After having researched Islam for a couple of years, I find it impossible to label practicing Muslims as "peaceful." To me, all practicing Muslims either use "quiet" violence or "noisy" violence to achieve the aim of the worldwide ummah which is to make all of humanity into slaves of Allah via Mohammed.

I would vehemently disagree that those who use "quiet" violence are any more "peaceful" than those who use "noisy" violence. Some examples are "quiet" violence include forced clitorectomies, forced child and teen marriages, forced cousin marriages, forced veiling, threat or use of honor violence in order to control behavior of family and Muslim community members, threat of violence to control non-Muslim community members, etc.

To be clear, as a free American woman, I do HATE any person and any religion that openly state a serious intention to enslave me, my family, my community, my country, and the entire world - even if that person and religion ostensibly use quiet "peaceful" methods like demographics and democracy to achieve their goals.

It is time for free people to STOP perpetrating the myth that any practicing Muslims are "peaceful." Indeed, all practicing Muslims openly advocate human slavery and participate in perpetual war on freedom - which is hardly "peaceful" unless we are all going to keep pretending about the true nature and goal of Islam which is human slavery.

Hesperado said...


I agree with your refusal to distinguish Muslims into any division where one of the halves (usually the "majority") is conceived in relatively harmless terms.

For your terms "noisy violence" and "quiet violence" I would just say that the former is "military violence" (or "paramilitary" when Muslims are too weak to mount an actual military invasion) and the latter is "non-military violence" -- the violence that Islam entails through its culture and ordinary laws -- its "civilian violence" so to speak. This type of violence, being "cultural" and being Third World (therefore "multi-cultural"), it comes under the protection of PC MC "respect for diversity".

And, as we have seen more and more in the past decade, when Islamic "culture" comes up against any other Third World culture, the non-Muslim culture is thrown under the bus, because Muslim culture has become the #1 Most Respected Culture in the world, according to PC MC (which remains dominant and mainstream throughout the West). The reasons for this are complex, but in a nutshell it is because of all non-Western non-white cultures, Islam has members worldwide who make the most violent threats, and who follow through with those threats the most. And when I say "the most", I don't of course mean just slightly more, but astronomically more so, such that all other cultures pale in comparison (including blacks, pun intended).

Robert said...

Rabbi Dov Lior rules that Jewish Law prohibits sterile couples from getting pregnant using non-Jewish man's sperm, as it causes adverse traits. On subject of single mothers he says, 'Child cannot be 100% normal',7340,L-4006385,00.html

Rabbi Dov Lior, a senior authority on Jewish law in the Religious Zionism movement, asserted recently that a Jewish woman should never get pregnant using sperm donated by a non-Jewish man – even if it is the last option available.

According to Lior, a baby born through such an insemination will have the "negative genetic traits that characterize non-Jews." Instead, he advised sterile couples to adopt.
"Sefer HaChinuch (a book of Jewish law) states that the character traits of the father pass on to the son," he said in the lecture. "If the father in not Jewish, what character traits could he have? Traits of cruelty, of barbarism! These are not traits that characterize the people of Israel."
Lior added identified Jews as merciful, shy and charitable – qualities that he claimed could be inherited. "A person born to Jewish parents, even if they weren't raised on the Torah – there are things that are passed on (to him) in the blood, it's genetic," he explained. "If the father is a gentile, then the child is deprived of these things. ...

"If a child is born without a father, he cannot be 100% normal." He stated that rabbinical literature defines these kids as "criminals and subjects of other negative phenomena."

Watchful said...

It's not a fatwah. It's his opinion and Judaism allows for differences in opinion--even among Rabbis. :) He has his own biases. I doubt that his opinon will slow the rate of intermarriage.

Still, the whole question of the inheritance of behaviors and behavioral patterns is interesting. There are obviously inherited behaviors in animals. For example, an Australian sheepdog, even if he's never seen a sheep, might begin "herding" a group of small children, given the chance. We breed animals for certain behavioral characteristics. It would be unreasonable to assume that that no behavioral patterns exist among humans.

Anonymous said...

Fellow GoV readers: Unfortunately, you may get to know a lot more of "Robert" the Troll when I post to GoV. I sincerely believe that the poster "Robert" above may be the same as Robert4 on TypePad whose description is as follows:

"Everyone I follow is a bigot, a racist, and/or objectively pro-terror. They post their filth on Pamela Geller's blog Atlas Shrugs ( Words have meanings, ideas lead to actions. We can avoid evil but we cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding evil. Never forget."

Robert4 uses the "follower" option of TypePad to cyberstalk and harass over one hundred anti-jihad commenters. Although both Pamela Geller and I articulately complained to TypePad, the last that I heard, TypePad is TOTALLY OK with its "follower" option being used to cyberstalk and harass TypePad commenters. So much for the concept of a civil discourse among WILLING participants....

The TypePad problem with Robert4 is the reason that Pamela Geller changed her commenting process several months ago so that commenters could leave comments anonymously without being "followed" on TypePad. In point of fact, Robert4 is a dangerous individual who attempts to "out" anonymous anti-jihad commenters by real name if possible.

I also sincerely believe that Robert4 may still post as "Robert" on Atlas Shrugs if you see any comments by "Robert" posted there.

Hey Robert4, please STOP using TypePad to cyberstalk and harass me. Neither you nor I are going to change each other's opinions, so you are simply harassing me - as many Muslims worldwide harass non-Muslim infidels. I consider you to be an example of the type of "quiet" threatening Muslim violence that I mentioned above.

P.S. "Robert" on Atlas Shrugs whines like a stuck pig when I call him out about his specious reasoning and ideas. "Robert" on Atlas Shrugs claims that he is NOT a Muslim, but "Robert" is oh-so-familiar with the standard Muslim line of argument.

A word of warning to all here: BE VERY CAREFUL OF ROBERT.

goethechosemercy said...

Rabbi Dov Lior rules that Jewish Law prohibits sterile couples from getting pregnant using non-Jewish man's sperm,
end quote.

And this is topical because . . . because . . . ?

goethechosemercy said...

It is time for free people to STOP perpetrating the myth that any practicing Muslims are "peaceful."
end quote.

Let me just say here that I think a good number of Muslims are peaceful people. They would favor social and political stability over chaos, they want an economic order in which they may prosper.
In a violent society, you can't have those things--
cases in point: Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan.
All these countries are plagued with chaos, corruption and people frustrated all the time in their attempts to think long-term.
Is Islam itself the reason for all these problems?
I think Islam is a faith composed of violent beliefs and aggressive aspirations, and as such, it is part of the cause.
But Islam has a lot of help, particularly from despair, hopelessness, and a sense that the dream of conquest held out by Islam is the only direction in life for so many young people living in these societies.
In the West and in more developed countries, I have no doubt that the content of Islam is a more significant cause of terrorism and violence among Muslims. It is a violence of rejection, a violence of bigotry within the Muslim community, and it is the expression of more than a thousand years of hatred for the infidel West.
The closer the terrorist is to Western civilization, the more deep are the pretensions of Islam and the more firmly it can be established as a cause of terrorism.

Anonymous said...

Hesperado: Sorry about your blog disappearing. Keep us all posted about its status.

I particularly enjoy "corresponding" with you and Zenster among the other posters here. I found your recent explanation that - PC MC Western civilization must not be so vilified as to condone its disappearance - to be very insightful and thought-provoking.

The reason that I think of Muslim family and cultural violence as "quiet" is because such violence is easily overlooked and easily denied.

An example of easily overlooked violence is a forced clitorectomy that is easy to impose and hard to detect. To wit, a girl can walk around Western society with an undetected clitorectomy - whereas the signs of an honor beating might be more visible.

An example of easily denied violence is the constant male background threat of honor beatings and murder that greatly affect the behavior of women and children while being plausibly deniable. Thus, male family and community members quietly control Muslim women and children on behalf of the greater ummah by using the threat of violence.

It is the "plausible" deniability of "quiet" violence that gives practicing Muslims the veneer of being "peaceful" when practicing Muslims are committing personally invasive and violent crimes on a daily basis. While non-Muslims may also commit "quiet" violence, non-Muslims are acting off-script whereas Muslims are following the explicit example of their ideal man Mohammed and sanctified by Allah's Sharia Law.

Shhh. Don't tell anyone about the predictably high Muslim propensity for family rape and molestation - or the Danish government will "quietly" lock you up for hate speech against Muslims. Yeah, that's blasphemy under Sharia Law, but you'll be silenced in jail....

Anonymous said...

goethechosemercy: "Let me just say here that I think a good number of Muslims are peaceful people."

I hear you, but I totally disagree. I think that only non-practicing Muslim apostates are peaceful people.

I think that practicing Muslims - by the very clear and unambiguous definition of Islam and the eternally immutable edicts of Mohammed codified by Sharia Law - are extremely violent people although Muslim violence often flies under the radar because 1) Muslim family violence is all-pervasive and thus unremarkable to Muslims themselves, 2) Muslim family violence is hidden - perpetrated behind bedroom walls (temporary marriage - merely forced prostitution, child marriage, forced marriage, cousin marriage, polygamy, family rape, and gang rape) and burqas (babies born with rickets, honor beatings), and 3) Muslims - and non-Muslims (!) - are completely forbidden to talk about Muslim family violence or other forms of Muslim violence - without serious and compelling death threats being issued and acted upon around the world.

Perhaps you have been watching the 50,000 Muslims demonstrating in complete accord with blasphemy laws in Pakistan? Recently, I read an absolutely fascinating blog called A Myth in Creation by a Pakistani blogger named Awais Aftab whose blog and comments on the blog make it fairly clear that the vast majority of Pakistanis - even the educated and employed Pakistanis - are FULLY in favor of violently murdering anyone who disagrees with Islamic blasphemy laws - which every thinking person understands are used to frame, jail, and/or murder non-Muslims, more "moderate" Muslims, and Muslims who belong to minority sects in majority sect areas.

I highly recommend for everyone to visit Awais Aftab's blog for a great read.

"They (Muslims) would favor social and political stability over chaos, they want an economic order in which they may prosper."

I think that you are imposing your Western values on practicing Muslims. I think that practicing Muslims actually believe that the implementation of Sharia Law will bring Islamic social and political stability where Muslims will economically prosper over non-Muslims - which is the just and right order of the universe according to Allah, Mohammed, and Sharia Law.

I think that practicing Muslims believe that non-Muslims are the source of world chaos. Thus, per Mohammed, Muslims should eliminate non-Muslims using any method that is available or convenient to enslave all of humanity in the service of Allah and Mohammed under Sharia Law.

It is obvious to all that Sharia Law is inherently violent - thus reinforcing the basic premise that all practicing Muslims are also inherently violent.

Blogger said...

>it is because of all non-Western >non-white cultures, Islam has ...

What are you talking about? Islam is not a "non white culture"! There are just as many "white" muslims as there are Christians. In fact the ratio of black and white muslims and christians are equal. Also, arabs consider themselves as "white". Look at Syrians and Jordanians for a start. Islam has nothing to do with a person's skin colour at all. Remember that, outside of America, the majority of Christians are non white. You just don't see all those black african Christians or Asian Christians on TV yelling and screaming. Muslims WANT you Americans to mix race and Islam so that they can stifle debate. They WANT you to view muslims as "black" because they know your old guilt patterns about black slaves. But Islam has nothing to do with "black" except that the word "slave" and "black" are the same words in arabic and in the Quran. So, time to get "race" right outside of this debate.

Blogger said...

Cliterodectomies are NOT proscribed by Islamic writings. Only killing unbelievers and chopping off heads and torture etc is. We need to concentrate on the doctrines of Islam first and foremost.

Anonymous said...

Blogger: "Cliterodectomies are NOT proscribed by Islamic writings."

Oh really? Says who?

Saudi Muslims have been very effective at sponsoring United Nations' "studies" that "show" non-Muslims that clitorectomies are a mainly African cultural problem whereas the truth is that clitorectomies are inflicted upon the VAST majority of Muslim women worldwide in their early girlhood.

"The Islamic law says of circumcision and clitorectomy, 'It is an obligation for men and women to do it for themselves and their children, and if they neglect it, the Imam may force them to it for it is right and necessary.'"

Anonymous said...


"For Ms Neighbour’s edification I might mention that Islamic text, Mohammad, and Islam’s laws fully endorse clitoridectomy and the marriage of prepubescent children and virgins without their consent. Clitoridectomy permanently removes the female’s ability to have an orgasm –it’s equivalent to cutting the penis off a male. It’s against our law but we don’t prosecute because we don’t want to offend Muslims – who cares about girls anyway! Shamefully the medical profession has even been asked to perform this mutilation!

Australia’s Mufti Sheik Fehmi (Preston mosque) endorses clitoridectomy. Does Ms Neighbour suggest he knows nothing about Islam? Fehmi also supports polygamy and terrorist groups and the Preston mosque was associated with ‘educating’ Somalian males charged with terrorism.

Girls suffering the severe effects of clitoridectomies arrive at our hospitals all the time Ms Neighbour!! Do YOU support the absolute rights of girls to enjoy sex or the relativist, religious rights of Muslims to cut the clitoris off their daughters in accordance with Islamic text and laws where it’s either obligatory (Shafi law), sunnah (Hanbali) or a courtesy to the husband or noble act for other law schools (see Reliance of the Traveller –Law e 4.3 p 59 whose correct translation from the classical Arabic states circumcision is obligatory and circumcision of the female is by cutting out the clitoris).

Please READ the text and laws in Female Genital Mutilation - 18/04/07 also parts 2,3 and Clitoridectomy; Wikipedia; The Age and Islam - 18-07-08 etc as there is NO EXCUSE for such ‘ignorance.’

Is it racist Ms Neighbour to imply it’s a black African problem when in fact it is most common in the areas of Africa conquered by Islam where Islamic practices were forced onto others (Southern Sudanese Christians don’t practise it) and has travelled the world across the ME, ‘Asia’, India, Indonesia and Malaysia with ISLAM (and into the west!)."

Hesperado said...

"I think a good number of Muslims are peaceful people. They would favor social and political stability over chaos, they want an economic order in which they may prosper.
In a violent society, you can't have those things--..."

Egghead aptly responded:

"I totally disagree...

I think that practicing Muslims - by the very clear and unambiguous definition of Islam and the eternally immutable edicts of Mohammed codified by Sharia Law - are extremely violent people although Muslim violence often flies under the radar..."

Though I would add to Egghead's reasoning based on what I call Islam's "cultural" violence (various forms of family violence, but also lynching violence against immediate neighbors, as well as a violence not often mentioned -- violence against animals, including wanton torture of feral dogs and cats, which probably goes on all over the Muslim world, beginning when Muslims are children) -- I would also add the propensity toward violence that is in their culture which is based on the Sunna and the Koran and all the sociological apparatus related to that (sermons, public harangues, family indoctrination of Islamic values, peer pressure, etc.)

The rule of thumb for us should be to assume the worst about any given Muslim, and not to be fooled by a smiling face and Western affectations. I continue to be deeply dismayed by the high degree of naivete even among those who are in the anti-Islam movement (such as it is).

Zenster said...

Egghead, thank you for carrying the banner in opposition to FGM (Female Genital Mutilation). Even if it was possible to set aside Islamic terrorism for the moment (which it most clearly is NOT!), Islam's institutionalized abuse of women would still justify expunging it from the face of this earth.

FGM is closest akin to constant and endless rape.

There is no other way to put it. PERMANENTLY depriving a woman of all sexual satisfaction for her entire lifetime is the physical equivalent of raping her constantly and would produce the exact same psychological trauma.

Again, thank you for not allowing any casual dismissal of this hideous and repellent crime that is being waged against over 50% ofour planet's population.

Hesperado said...

Blogger takes issue with my post:

"What are you talking about? Islam is not a "non white culture"! There are just as many "white" muslims as there are Christians. In fact the ratio of black and white muslims and christians are equal. Also, arabs consider themselves as "white". Look at Syrians and Jordanians for a start. Islam has nothing to do with a person's skin colour at all."

Blogger, as is typical of Leftists, packs in a lot of complexity, not entirely coherently unified, into a congealed glob that makes it tedious to try to unravel and respond to.

I will try later today to do so. For right now, I note his claim that white Muslims are numerically on a par with white Christians is based on his defining Arabs as white. However, the category "white" is not a scientific category, nor is it a category dependent upon the kinds of color and hue comparisons one makes at the paint store when shopping for the right kind of eggshell white or Spring beige for the kitchen cabinets.

Anyone who is candid and not trying to disingenuously tapdance around the subject (or who is not sincerely straitjacketed by his Leftist ideology) will readily concede that obviously Arabs look ethnic. What that means precisely is a complex, subtle and nuanced thing, but it is real. I remember another similar demurrer of mine who took me to task for my racial analyses -- and yet he himself told me that he could tell the difference between a Cypriot and a Greek. If he can tell that difference, then surely he could tell the difference between a Moroccan (for example) and an Italian.

Hesperado said...

Yes Zenster. And let us not forget that most of the FGM being done is being done by Muslim women.

That's another canard that needs to be laid to rest -- that Muslim women are somehow poor little "victims" of Islam, and not rather enthusiastic and deranged zealots, just as much as the men are.

Anonymous said...

Thanks, Zenster.

Zenster: I think that FGM is one of the primary reasons that supremacist Muslims want to pass international "hate" speech laws to prevent non-Muslims from publicizing and criticizing this indefensible female child abuse based on it being a "religious" practice. Just watch how fast this now Muslim-labeled "cultural" practice becomes a treasured required Muslim "religious" practice once international religious "hate" speech laws are adopted.

A similar situation would be the Danish government prosecution of public discussion of the high incidence of Muslim family rape based on religious "hate" speech laws. The Danish government should hang its head in shame over this bogus prosecution.

Anonymous said...

Thanks, too, Hesperado.

Hesperado: I believe that Arabs and other non-"black" Muslims consider themselves to be the original "white" supremacist slave owners/traders - until it is time for Arabs to receive affirmative action benefits in Western countries based on their being a "minority" - rather than a non-"white." I think that Arabs and other non-"black" Muslims envision themselves to be "white" based on their significant level of societal and personal prejudice directed at "black" people - historically labeled by Arab and other non-"white" Muslims as slaves.

Interestingly, "white" Britain labels Arabs and other non-"white" Muslims as "Asians" rather than as "whites." I believe that Britain is hiding the mental (lower than average IQs) and cultural (higher than average violent crimes) dysfunction of Muslims by assigning the Arab and other non-"white" Muslims to the Asian category where Asians are known for having a higher than average IQ and perpetrating less violent crimes than other cultures (other than when waging wars against other Asian countries).

To me, today, the only relevant modern-day distinction between human beings has been thrust upon all of humanity by Islam. Namely, is a person a practicing Muslim or not?

Any person who practices Islam is politically, religiously, culturally, intellectually, and morally suspect as an enemy who has declared ENDLESS WAR in pursuit of TOTAL SLAVERY to be imposed upon me and my family, country, culture, religion, and world.

As a non-Muslim woman, I believe that Muslim women must be held accountable for any free will female assistance in Muslim perfidy. For example, female suicide bombers are surely as morally culpable as male suicide bombers - any poor little "victim" female role notwithstanding serious non-Muslim scrutiny.

Sagunto said...

Who does Pat think he's talking to near the end? The imaginary "moderate" Muslim friend?

We hear so much about the Muslim Brotherhoodsters at CAIR and the like, but what about the ordinary Muslim people Pat Condell seems to address?

I'd like to know all there is to know about the proverbial "friendly Muslim neighbour next door", I want an in depth documentary called "Everything you always knew about Moderate Muslims, but where afraid to answer". I want every single little detail known about the mind of "the MM" and then ask the apologists how these shiny happy MM's are going to fight in our corner for freedom when the going gets tough. I want to read the epilogue of the forthcoming book the NY Times hates to put on its best-seller list, "The Quest for the Moderate Muslim", to find out that the only one Muslim who is really moderate is actually an apostate.

I think it is very important to explore this phenomenon of the terror of moderateness. To really expose the many different ways the peaceful and moderate Muslims pose a threat to our freedom.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,

Hesperado said...

Yes Egghead, that seems to be part of the mythos of Islam, as there is a hadith (or several perhaps) extolling Mohammed as "white" (which, incidentally, shows that Arabs are not as white as "Blogger" would like us to think -- else they wouldn't have made such a big deal about Mohammed's whiteness as though it were a contrast to the norm). And as we know, all of Islam, and all Muslims, revolve around Mohammed: his sayings and doings are the very heart of what it means to be a Muslim.

As for my blog, thanks for asking; it looks like it was removed, probably for reasons of content related to perceived "hate speech" on my part. But Google/Blogspot says in their terms of service that they don't make a habit of checking the content of the millions of their blogs out there. So it was likely that someone reported me to them. It seems odd timing that this would happen now (especially since I've been writing "hate" on there for nearly six years without incident), after the big rehashing recently in a Jihad Watch comment thread of the issue of me and a Jihad Watch reader "awake" and his veiled death threat against me, as well as his anger management issues and his obvious anger against me over the years (as expressed in numerous comments full of personal insults and declarations that I was betraying Robert Spencer and doing dangerous damage to the Jihad Watch missions). If "awake" could never make good on his veiled death threat in any real sense, perhaps he achieved some sort of satisfaction in the virtual death of The Hesperado.

In the meantime, I discovered that I can recover most or maybe all of my Hesperado essays by Googling them, then clicking on "cache" which shows a photographic copy. I will copy-paste these into one massive Word file, then deposit them in some blog I will create to archive them.

I've also begun a new blog, on which I will continue to be myself, come hell or high water. I've only written one essay there for now, but I hope to get the engine going soon:


Hesperado said...

Yes Sagunto, quite right about Pat Condell's slip here.

Some other reader above tries to explain this as Condell's need to be careful, given the UK's hypersensitivity about such issues.

Does that explain it? Or does Condell really believe in the viable existence of the "moderate Muslim"? These same questions have been asked about Robert Spencer, who in other ways shows various soft spots for Islam (he refuses to condemn "Islam" and refuses to proudly own the description of being "anti-Islam") and for Muslims. And the same defenses and explanations are trotted out for him as well: he's really as tough as we are, but he can't say it outright, he has to watch himself, or the PC MC Thought Police will shut him down; etc. (I also recall similar explanations by which to save George "Islam is a great religion of peace" Bush.)

I don't buy these explanations. And it's ironic that Spencer, who makes such a big deal about people who remain cowardly in their fear of speaking the unvarnished truth, would then go skulking about intimidated himself by what the PC MC could do to his mission, and his reputation.

Plus, by the mere fact of perpetuating these presentations that tend to reinforce the idea that Islam itself is not dangerous, and that Muslims qua Muslims are not dangerous, we thereby reinforce the PC MC paradigm -- which in turn serves to slow down the progress by which we are helping to wake people up to the actual problem -- as opposed to some holographic reduction of the problem that is out of touch with the horrible reality of Muslims and their Islam.

Blogger said...

Jesus would have had the same skin, eye and hair color as Muhammad, yet "Christian" is not considered "an ethnic group" or "non white". Both Islam and Christianity are ideologies that anyone can adhere to - even if you were a green alien. Funny that I was called a "Leftist" on this comment page, just because I pointed out that "muslim" is not a "race". I usually get called a "Right Wing Bigot" for criticising Islam - the ideology. That is the first time I"ve been called a "leftie". Frankly I consider myself in the middle of L and R. As for women's rights etc, in Islam, one poster here was correct in saying that it is more often the women who impose subjugation on each other, than men to women. I say that from direct experience as my ex was a muslim male. Male and female culture are almost totally separate in muslim society, with mostly the mother as head of the household. When my then husband told me that more wives beat their husbands than husbands wives, it wasn't until I went there myself when I saw it with my own eyes. The women are mostly enormous and very tough, and the husbands thin, emotional and under the thumb. It is mostly mothers who lead the family in how religious they are going to be. It is the women who push other women into wearing headscarves.

Hesperado said...

Blogger wrote:

Jesus would have had the same skin, eye and hair color as Muhammad, yet "Christian" is not considered "an ethnic group" or "non white".

Neither do I consider "Muslim" per se an ethnic group. I simply pointed out the fact that when we look at Muslims, 9 times out of 10 we see a person who looks ethnic (and on a slightly lesser order, also has the added spice of wearing garb that looks fashionably Third Worldish).

Blogger goes on to write:

"Both Islam and Christianity are ideologies that anyone can adhere to - even if you were a green alien."

Yes, but the vast majority of Muslims in the world are non-whites, while the vast majority of whites in the West are either Christians or Jews, or are whites in various stages of agnostic or atheist decomposition from the West's Judaeo-Christian heritage. There's a historical reason for this: Islam's main expansion was throughout what later became called "Third World" regions -- stretching from the Philippines, across central Asia, in the Middle East, and across N. Africa and into parts of central Africa (the exceptions being the Iberian peninsula, which they later lost, and the Byzantine Empire, which by the 20th century became severely truncated).

And speaking of the aforementioned decomposition, it is a psycho-sociocultural decomposition which has been a far broader and deeper process in the West than it has been in the Muslim world (due in great part to the superiority of Judaeo-Christianity over Islam, in that the former has been able to "decompose" -- i.e., evolve, even if the "progress" involved has not been entirely 100% unproblematically rosy).

Blogger also took umbrage at my label Leftist. It was just an educated guess on my part. I'm all too painfully aware of the fact that many (probably the majority) of Centrists and those on the Right are also PC MC about various social issues, including Islam. If Blogger herself has slightly transcended the PC MC paradigm to begin to dip her toes into tentatively criticizing Islam more than, for example, George "Islam is a great religion of peace" Bush does, I suppose that's a good sign; though I've grown weary of waiting for otherwise intelligent people to advance on the learning curve toward a little more realism than the Daniel Pipes Dream (slightly better than Bush, but still intolerably rose-colored about the problem).

(The insights into Muslim females in Muslim cultures was interesting; though I'm not sure what conclusions we can draw from that -- certainly none that would mitigate our wariness of the dangers which Muslim men pose to our societies.)

Anonymous said...

"As for women's rights etc, in Islam, one poster here was correct in saying that it is more often the women who impose subjugation on each other, than men to women."

Blogger: I think that the situation is far more nuanced than you describe, and I disagree that Muslim women impose subjugation on each other MORE than Muslim men. However, I do believe that Muslim women are responsible for their share of Muslim perfidy - mostly in the home but also in society.

All of Sharia Law is codified for men to suppress women. Only men are the Muslim imams who preach, interpret, and societally enforce Sharia Law. Thus, while women act as home-based enforcers of Sharia Law, men call the shots enabling:

1) men to rape and molest women and male and female children without legal ramifications or moral approbation,

2) men to require female genital mutilation as a condition of marriage (Traditionally, imams overrule any man or woman who attempts to omit this requirement.),

3) men to marry little girls,

4) men to marry four wives,

5) men to participate in temporary marriages that equate to forced child prostitution,

6) men to vote (while excluding women from voting), etc.

Blogger said...

>when we look at Muslims, 9 times out of 10 we see a person who looks ethnic ..... the vast majority of Muslims in the world are non-whites

The vast majority of christians in the world are also "non white". Africa has 482 million Christians alone, 530 million in South America, 269 million North America (though a reasonable percentage of Americans are "ethnic", as you call it) 278 million in Asia, 365 million in the middel east. Europe 550 million, which includes also Mediterranean people and Eastern europeans, which you might also consider "ethnic".
So, in all, we can say that there are approximately 400 million Christians in the world that you would consider "non ethnic", which makes more than 3/4 of Christians either black or "ethnic". Hardly a "white" - "no ethnci" - religion!

>If Blogger herself has slightly transcended the PC MC paradigm to begin to dip her toes into tentatively criticizing Islam

I am utterly against Islam and that pedophile murderer Mo, and I have been debating with muslims for 10 years. But we have to be intelligent and thoughtful how we debate. Bringing in the "race" card only hinders debate. Islam is a way of thought, nothing, I mean NOTHING, to do with skin color. It is essential to get to the nuts and bolts of Islam, ie what the Quran says, firstly, Muhammad's deeds, what the Hadithes say, and what Sharia looks like. Everything else is a waste of time.

Blogger said...

It is the women who enforce genital mutilation, not men, and once again please find me the written law for GM in Islamic doctrine.

>6) men to vote

Women had the right to vote in Islam before Europe.

I am in no way defending Islam - it is a backward and harmful religion that needs to be openly debated and criticised. But unless we have the true facts, we cannot win this debate. It is like when a muslim tries to say that Christianity is evil because of the Crusades, and therefore Islam must be OK. Christian doctrine does not support warfare and crusading, or forgiveness of sin thru martyrdom - it was the Catholic Church in 1000AD who invented. So, their argument is fallacious. The same with GM and Islam. So, you see? We cannot win a debate unless we are consistent.

Anonymous said...

"There is none so blind as those who will NOT see."

Islamic Scholars on Female Genital Mutilation

"Islamic scholars disagree on FGM: some say no obligatory rules exist while others refer to the mention of female circumcision in the Hadith. According to Sami A. Aldeeb Abu Sahlieh, a Palestinian-Swiss specialist in Islamic law:

The most often mentioned narration reports a debate between Muhammed and Um Habibah (or Um 'Atiyyah). This woman, known as an exciser of female slaves, was one of a group of women who had immigrated with Muhammed. Having seen her, Muhammad asked her if she kept practicing her profession. She answered affirmatively, adding: "unless it is forbidden, and you order me to stop doing it." Muhammed replied: "Yes, it is allowed. Come closer so I can teach you: if you cut, do not overdo it, because it brings more radiance to the face, and it is more pleasant for the husband."[38]

Abu Sahlieh further cited Muhammad as saying, "Circumcision is a sunna (tradition) for the men and makruma (honorable deed) for the women."[39]

While some clerics say circumcision is not obligatory for women, others say it is. "Islam condones the sunna circumcision … What is forbidden in Islam is the pharaonic circumcision,"[40] one religious leader explained. Others, such as the late rector of Al-Azhar University, Sheikh Gad al-Haq, said that since the Prophet did not ban female circumcision, it was permissible and, at the very least, could not be banned.[41]

In short, some clerics condemn FGM as an archaic practice, some accept it, and still others believe it to be obligatory. It is the job of clerics to interpret religious literature; it is not the job of FGM researchers and activists. There is a certain tendency to confuse a liberal interpretation of Islam with the reality women face in many predominately Islamic regions. To counter FGM as a practice, it is necessary to accept that Islam is more than just a written text. It is not the book that cuts the clitoris, but its interpretations aid and abet the mutilation."

Anonymous said...

Blogger: You make me tired....

Neither of us having been present during the time of Mohammed, do you REALLY truly think that the genocidal mass murdering pedophile rapist Mohammed and his followers allowed women to vote freely when Mohammed refused to allow Muslim and non-Muslim women decide their own husbands and practice their own religion?

Sure, Mohammed "said" a lot of high-minded stuff - all of which he totally contradicted by his EVIL actions. I have the distinct impression that women got to vote in this way, "You women (and by women, I mean six year old girls) DO agree with me that my Muslim men and I get to 'marry' you, right? Great! You all voted 'Yes.'"

"Smart choice - because my men and I would have raped - and murdered - you even more violently if you disagreed with me. After all, you saw how we just violently murdered the whole rest of your tribe including all of your fathers and brothers. It's good that you were all reasonable. You are war booty after all...."

Hesperado said...

In response to my statement --

...the vast majority of Muslims in the world are non-whites, while the vast majority of whites in the West are either Christians or Jews, or are whites in various stages of agnostic or atheist decomposition from the West's Judaeo-Christian heritage

-- Blogger wrote:

The vast majority of christians in the world are also "non white"...

Can anyone spot the logical fallacy? A free "Islam is the problem: Moderate Muslims are the solution" t-shirt to the first reader who can!

Aside from that elementary fallacy in Blogger's response, there is the broader problem that seems to be implicit in it -- namely the unprecedented inundation of non-Western immigration into the West in the last 60 years, now with the added (and worse) problem attending it: namely, the seeming preference for Muslim immigrants over non-Western non-Muslim victims of Islam.


Blogger said...

Hey guys, I am on YOUR side! It's ironic because this is the first time I have ever been attacked on an anti Islam forum, and I have been an FFI forum member since it started. LOL As I have already said I am utterly against the religion of Islam. I do not believe in the "moderate Islam" rhetoric!

Hesperado said...


I'm not attacking you, I'm critiquing what I perceive to be flaws in your reasoning.

Anonymous said...

Blogger: Ditto to Hesperado's last comment to you.

Faulty reasoning deserves to be corrected to keep it from being repeated.

If you perceive our discussion with you to be an attack, then you need to remember that it was YOU who 1) questioningly asked me for a specific Islamic citation about mandatory Islamic female genital mutilation which I provided twice - although you could have googled the topic as easily as I could, and 2) cited the instance of women achieving the vote in Islam prior to Western women - apparently without ever having really thought to QUESTION the legitimacy of that claim - despite the fact that Mohammed - and also his Muslim followers who view him as the ideal man - are well-known liars and prevaricators.

Blogger said...

Thanks for educating me! That's what we're all here for :-)

Anonymous said...

Thanks for being so gracious! :)