God Bless Daneland, wherever that is.
Or "Dania".
So long as it's not "Danistan".

It is very possible the Denmark could make the party illegal, Belgium made their second largest party illegal for saying similar things.

The EU's hate speech laws make it very difficult for political parties to take a stand against Muslim takeover of countries.

God bless Henriksen.

Finally, SOMEONE with the BALLS to name the enemy for what it is.

How come we have no similar heroes in America? The democrats are in full media-suck mode and even Bush and Condi are busy wiping off their chins of the politically correct dribble.

Islam has been at war with the west since 640AD. The US became the symbol of the west and our media thinks it can use PC fantasies to wish the problem away. Islam=murder; always has, always will.

Ship 'em back to North Africa and Arabia if they do not wish to assimilate into a democratic country!

"Warning against letting Muslims run for office in parliment and municipal councils."

Sorry, that's where these guys lost me. You want to crack down on fundamentalists who refuse to obey the laws of the land? Fine. You want to toss out the guys who preach murder and praise terrorists? Go for it. Not let Muslims run for democratic office? You got to be shitting me.

I'm all for fighting terrorism and encouraging integration of immigrants into the country, but I don't think that has anything at all to do with not letting them get elected to alderman or whatnot. Seems to me that that would keep them from being, you know, integrated into society just like everybody else. Seriously, what the fuck is up with Europeans that their two settings seem to be "Appeasement" and "Jackboots"?

Sorry, Tanker, that's how I roll.

Alex would allow Islamic politicians?

Must be clueless as to islam's history. Must be clueless as to CAIR's stated goal. Must be clueless as to how CAIR (the "bastion" of peaceful, "moderate" Islam) operates.

These kind of people, ignorant of the truth, are as dangerous to America as Islam.

"So long as it's not "Danistan"."

I think Danistan is where CBS lives.

Remember the pro-American pizza maker? I thought he was in Denmark.

Islam is the devil's answer to Christianity. The name tells you. In the 8th. century AD when Islam was created the "ligua franca" was latin. Backwards Islam spells MALSI. Which translated means EVILYES. Mal=Evil and SI=YES. The beginning of the two religions tells of their character. Christianity in its onset converted people by showing them the way to God. It was not until Islam showed up that christianity became beligerant. In contrast Islam from its inception was a religion that brought people into it by the fear of death. You either converted to Islam or you were killed. Even today that is the tenent of the religion. The bigest triumph of the devil is to have a mosque in the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. That was the place selected by God for His temple. It is written in the Koran that all "infidels" should be eliminated. Still, either you convert to Islam or they kill you. Islam is so insecure in itself that although muslims want to have mosquesaround the world, they are so afraid of Christianity that they cannot allow churches in their countries (Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc...). Not until Christianity open its eyes and realize the threat that Islam poses to the world and its stability and does something drastic about it, there will be instability and chaos in the world.

Interesting theory.

By "interesting," I mean "really, really dumb."

Whoa. That's a whole lotta crazy bundled up in a nice little package.

"Islam is the devil's answer to Christianity. The name tells you."

This kind of statement, and that following, deserves about as much credence as those web pages that use Hebrew numerology to show Bush is the anti-Christ. Except, you know, for the fact that Bush really is the anti-Christ.

The word comes from a semitic root, S-L-M, which means peace. It's not Latin, chief.

"In contrast Islam from its inception was a religion that brought people into it by the fear of death. You either converted to Islam or you were killed."

And this statement deserves as much credence as John Kerry's assertions that American soldiers were torturing innocent Vietnamese peasant a la Jingizz Khan. Historical ignorance is no way to make a convincing point.

"they are so afraid of Christianity that they cannot allow churches in their countries (Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc...)."

I guess that explains all those Christian churches and synagogues in Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq...

Honestly, where are you getting this stuff?

Whoa. That's a whole lotta crazy bundled up in a nice little package.

That's like C-4 intensity there. There was one guy ("grandpa on the porch?" I forget his name) who had enough fissionable crazy in one post to take out a good portion of the continental U.S.

Actually Sobek that line should have been

"All those burned out remains of Churches and Synagogues in Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq..."

As for the rest, I hated latin. You think I'm gonna waste my time and say it backwards? Islam is pure arabic.

Islam is a political system that pretends its a religion. On the other hand, Liberalism is a religion that pretends its a political system.

Alex would allow Islamic politicians?

Must be clueless as to islam's history. Must be clueless as to CAIR's stated goal. Must be clueless as to how CAIR (the "bastion" of peaceful, "moderate" Islam) operates.

These kind of people, ignorant of the truth, are as dangerous to America as Islam.

Jeez, chief, it can't be because, you know, political disenfranchisement of a religious minority is a pretty damn horrendous idea?

I don't like CAIR as much as the next guy, so long as the next guy really doesn't like CAIR, but every Muslim isn't a wild-eyed fanatic hell-bent on establishing Sharia law either. Let the man get on stage and give his spiel. If he is dedicating each speech to "His Main Man O-Dogg Infidelkiller", his ass won't get elected. If the man has good ideas and isn't for banning booze and female literacy, then elect him. Christ, I don't like making wild comparisons here, but it reminds me of the talk back when Kennedy was running for office and all those dark rumors about taking orders from the Pope.

"Actually Sobek that line should have been 'All those burned out remains of Churches and Synagogues in Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq...'"

A few years back I was in a cab in downtown Cairo, and I asked the driver what that building we just passed was, the one with all the stars of David on it. He said "it's a synagogue." During the time it took me to mentally translate his response into English, which he apparently interpreted as me being a dullard, he gave me a look like "dude, are you going to ask me what that building with the cross on top is, you moron?"

And for the record, I saw lots of buildings with crosses on top, too. There's a decent number of Coptic Christian churches in Cairo and elsewhere in Egypt. And no, they aren't a bunch of burned out husks.

And I agree with Alex_fs to the effect that marginalizing people by denying them the right to vote is not a good plan. I'm all in favor of cracking down on hardliners who preach death to America in their Friday services, but it doesn't follow that Muslims should be barred from office on the basis of religion.

Alex_fs:
Seriously, what the fuck is up with Europeans that their two settings seem to be "Appeasement" and "Jackboots"?

Tell me about it. And when they hear about American "right-wingers", they force it into the illiberal European political model and think we're all about the jackboots.

Hmmm... what to make of the hidden assets of the International Catholic Conspiracy then? Certainly Popeyes Chicken becomes Pope Yes once the secret code is unraveled. And What of RC Cola... they SAY it stands for 'Royal Crown'.. but I think it means something more sinister... if you dare to open your eyes to the conspiracy around you!

Or not... it's up to you.

Except, you know, for the fact that Bush really is the anti-Christ.

No you moron, Dick Cheney is the anti-Christ. Where have you been all weekend? : )

"No you moron, Dick Cheney is the anti-Christ. Where have you been all weekend? : )"

I was here, winning a contest. Ooh, that felt good.

Alex:

TAQIYYAH.

Once you understand it, no muslim politician could ever pass muster.

Yes, disenfranchise a MURDER CULT. That makes me extreme? Fine, I'm extreme.

Until we take the politically correct blinders off with all this feel-good inclusion crap that pretends we'll all hold hands and sing fucking kumbaya with murderers, they will continue to MURDER CHILDREN and get away with it.

Islam is not a legitimate religion.

Two questions for you, William:

1. Concerning Taqiyyah, it seems you are suggesting that nothing a Muslim says can be taken at face value, because they are commanded to conceal their true beliefs when in the presence of unbelievers. As a threshold matter, are you willing to concede that Muslim activities in Muslim states cannot be viewed as deceptive, under the taqiyyah rule? In other words, if I set forth facts about the Abassid empire in Baghdad, circa 1000 A.D., will you concede that there's no reason to believe that those Muslims, who governed the nation and therefore had no need to dissemble, were lying about their true beliefs? Or were they so crafty that they knew they had to lie about their beliefs so that Americans would be fooled 2000 years later?

2. "Islam is not a legitimate religion."

How are you defining whether a religion is legitimate or not?

Sunni and Shia lie to each other all the time, when they aren't killing each other.

Muhammed fabricated the Q'u'r'a'n' to justify his murderous political ambitions and military conquests. Of all of the "major" religions, only Islam preaches death to unbelievers. All other "major" religions preach a version of the golden rule.

The only golden rule in Islam only applies to other muslims.

Islam is a political movement couched in religious trappings.

"Sunni and Shia lie to each other all the time, when they aren't killing each other."

Without googling, what can you tell me about the relative populations of Sunnis versus Shi'as in Abassid Baghdad?

"Muhammed fabricated the Q'u'r'a'n' to justify his murderous political ambitions and military conquests."

And according to Celsus, the apostles fabricated the New Testament to justify Mary's promiscuity. But then again, I don't put much stock in Celsus, either.

"Of all of the 'major' religions, only Islam preaches death to unbelievers."

So what was the Spanish Inquisition? A secret Muslim cabal? You're right, those Muslims are a lot more wily than I suspected.

Finally, you didn't answer my second question. How do you define whether or not a religion is legitimate?

If Islam is all about peace and they're just itching to sing kumbaya with you, Alex, then certainly there must be hundreds, if not 1000s of pleas in the Islamic media for understanding and all that, right?

Millions, right?

I'm not sure how much I can fit in here, but the hate from Islam is staggering. Lemme try:

Hate
Hate
Taqiyyah
Taqiyyah
Hate
Hate
Hate
Hate
Hate
Hate
Hate
Hate

That took a long time and I'm wondering if this hasn't timed out. Aggravating if it has. By the way, these messages of "moderation" only go back to August of this year. There are hundreds for the year and I came across exactly 1 that wasn't hate - it was neutral.

There are no moderate muslims. The only idiots talking about "moderate" muslims are infidels.

I did so answer your "legitimacy" question.

Islam is the only major religion that preaches war on unbelievers. All the others contain golden rule applications and tolerance of other religions.

In Islam, there is no tolerance.

I can see by your idiotic Inquisition statement that you are an anti-western secularist who undoubtedly apologizes for Islam's atrocities. There is nothing I can say that will mean anything to you.

For the record, about the stupid Inquisition smear -

The Inquisition was a reaction to blasphemous doctrines. It was not a convert-or-die tactic used by the church against unbelievers. The Inquisition was used by the church against its own members to root out heresy.

But, if you knew anything about the Inquisition, instead of knee-jerk historical revisionism, you'd know that.

Again, I can already see that no amount of fact or evidence will mean anything to you. I only hope you remember your apologies when they're sawing off your head.

"I can see by your idiotic Inquisition statement that you are an anti-western secularist who undoubtedly apologizes for Islam's atrocities. There is nothing I can say that will mean anything to you."

I can see you haven't been reading this blog very long. Can you please explain for my benefit (given that I'm an idiot, I'd prefer small words) why it is that Catholics murdering Protestants for religious purposes is somehow different from, for example, Sunnis murdering Shi'ites for religious purposes. The only explanation I can think of rests on the assertion that only the corrupt, non-true-believer Catholics participated in the Inquisition, but if you're willing to make that kind of leap in favor of various Christian sects, then why not make it in favor of various Islamic sects?

Oh, right, because you don't like Islam. And your opinion is the sine qua non of religious authority.

Which might explain your definition of what makes a religion legitimate. What is the basis for your assertion that a variation of the Golden Rule makes a religion legitimate?

"In Islam, there is no tolerance."

History disagrees with you. I'm finishing up a book on the history of Southeast Asia right now. It's a very interesting read. It's fairly common knowledge that Indonesia is the largest Muslim country in the world, but do you know why it is so Muslim? It's because unlike the Portugese Christians, the Muslims came in and peacefully preached their message to the indigenous populations. In fact, Animism, Hinduism, two forms of Buddhism and Islam all swept through Southeast Asia, while Christianity was rejected in every nation but the Philippines, because Christianity is the only religion that people tried to force on the natives.

Interesting historical lesson, there.

Not that you seem to care about history, so much as assertion.

Actually WT, I'm on the MEMRI mailing list (as I assume you are) and they've provided numerous examples of moderate, liberalized, reformist Muslims. (Politicians, journalists, religious figures, etc.) since August. I'd be glad to dig thru the emails and find examples.

So I'm guessing you're not looking all that hard.

The problem is that the majority of Muslims don't speak up as forcefully as they should when acts of murder are commissioned in their religion's name. (That, and the fact that Islam is in need of modernization & reform.) That's a big, big problem - but it doesn't mean that they don't exist.

"The Inquisition was a reaction to blasphemous doctrines. It was not a convert-or-die tactic used by the church against unbelievers."

It was a repent-and-die-anyway tactic. That you seem to draw a distinction between murdering those of your own faith, and murdering those of other faiths, defies reason.

"I only hope you remember your apologies when they're sawing off your head."

I would consider it an honor to die for my faith. You don't seem as convinced.

Oh gee, RDub, I can't find my ass with either hand to find those "moderate" quotes. Gee, could you?

"The problem is that the majority of Muslims don't speak up as forcefully as they should when acts of murder are commissioned in their religion's name. "

Well, gosh, could it be because the Q'u'r'a'n' DEMANDS that they kill unbelievers? No, it just couldn't be that, could it?

Do you even know the term for the "modernization" that you talk of? It's not going to happen. Those that call for "reform" (they can't even utter the proper term) either get killed or go into hiding.

Assuming the kumbayas are going to be successful in Islam is like thinking that the ACLU can change the doctrines of the Christian church in America. Secularists cannot force change, and the few Imams calling for reform hold caveats for Jews.

The reason that there is no great outcry is because the Islamic religion condones murder. Wishing and hoping and crossing your fingers and fantasizing about American inclusiveness softening up Islam and all of us singing peace songs is ridiculous.

There are two kinds of muslims: those that murder and those that don't condemn it.

Show me a "moderate" muslim and I'll show you a muslim who is not versed in the Q'u'r'a'n'.

RDub,

"The problem is that the majority of Muslims don't speak up as forcefully as they should when acts of murder are commissioned in their religion's name."

That's exactly the problem. I don't read Arabic-language newspapers as much anymore, but if you look at ash-Sharq al-Awsat, for example, you'll find moderates and liberalizers.

More to the point, just because most newspapers aren't saying something doesn't necessarily mean anything. You'd think this would be obvious to a guy like Thrash, who devotes a significant section of his web page to deriding the American media, according to which a booming economy is a bad thing, and American soldiers torture Iraqi children for R&R breaks. Why is it that American media must, of neccessity, be viewed with a skeptical eye, but everything written in a Middle Eastern periodical be taken at face value and as representative of all Muslims everywhere?

Sobek, if you're so ready to die, great.

I, for one, will fight the murderers to the end.

Welcoming and facilitating murderers is about the stupidest societal madness you can engage in. Have fun.

Blame the Christians of several hundred years ago some more. It might make you feel good. While you're doing it, I'll be focusing on the Islamic murder that has never stopped.

"Show me a "moderate" muslim and I'll show you a muslim who is not versed in the Q'u'r'a'n'."

Unlike, say, you. Who we are to trust as an unbiased authority.

The problem is that when any religion is presented through the eyes of someone who hates that religion, you're going to get a skewed view. If I were a Muslim arguing with you, I would insist that every Christian everywhere is just one step away from a new Inquisition, that the Old Testament commandments concerning killing the unbelievers were of universal application, and that when Paul says "I am all things to all men," he's talking about taqiyyah, because he lies about who he really is.

None of the above is really academically honest. But it is an accurate parallel of what you're doing to Islam. You take the worst possible examples, ignore history when it doesn't support your thesis, and set yourself up as the infallible interpreter of the scriptures of someone else's religion. For all of which reasons I find it impossible to take much of anything you write very seriously.

Holy crap, I just scrolled up to a Sobek post I missed.

Sobek claims the Indonesian muslims are peaceful and wonderful? Holy hell and Hitler was a fucking saint who loved all the Jews under him.

What a total fruitcake. Islam is responsible for killing MILLIONS of asians, and you try to claim them as the KUMBAYAS of mankind? I am boggled anyone can be so deliberately obtuse. Your selective view of the world is truly stunning. Those Indonesian Christians that are getting beheaded because it is fun and Islamic don't count because they're Christian?

I don't fucking care how long you've been posting anywhere - you are one very sick person to defend Indonesian Islam.

How do you think the Religion of Peace will react to this opinion?

"How dare this infidel slander Islam saying it is based upon terrorism? A fatwah has been issued calling for his death for saying so!"

"Sobek, if you're so ready to die, great."

Of course I am ready, at any time, to meet my Lord. If you are not, then I suggest you re-evaluate your relationship with Christ. And of course I am not (contra your suggestion) advocating submission to murder with no thought of self-defense, I'm just pointing out that there are far worse things than death. Such as, for example, giving up your integrity in the assault on Islam.

"Blame the Christians of several hundred years ago some more."

I'm not blaming them for anything. I'm pointing out that history is as full of murder in the name of Christ as it is of anything else. Your response rather misses my point, which is that the history of Christianity is soaked with blood, but that doesn't justify jettisoning the whole of it. And if that applies to my own faith, then I'm willing (per the Golden Rule) to apply it to other faiths.

"It might make you feel good."

Knowing that the Portugese killed Asians in the name of Christ does not make me feel good. At all.

"While you're doing it, I'll be focusing on the Islamic murder that has never stopped."

This kind of falsehood is why I continually refer to history, and why I've asked you about the Abassid Caliphate. It was a marvellous thing, in its prime. Baghdad was the intellectual center of the world, making advances in medicine, science, history, art, architecture ... and during that period, the caliphs invited scholars of renown, of all faiths, to build and develop that Golden Age.

Islam is no longer in a golden age. It's not even in a silver or bronze age. But it did have a golden age, and your apparent ignorance of that fact doesn't make it go away. And during that golden age, your whole thesis -- that Islam necessarily means forced conversion or death -- simply did not apply. And keep in mind, this was the one time in history when Muslims were best equipped to exterminate the unbelievers in their midst.

The news search on Indonesian atrocities are stuffed with example after example of Islamic murder.

But Sobek soberly claims that the Indonesian muslims are fascinating models of tolerance and inclusion.

Hell, even SALON.COM (the liberal apology site) places the blame where it belongs.

(shakes head)

"Sobek claims the Indonesian muslims are peaceful and wonderful?"

What a difference verb tense makes. What I actually said was "It's because unlike the Portugese Christians, the Muslims came in and peacefully preached their message to the indigenous populations."

Yes, that would be the past tense.

Oh... yes, let's quote the Abassid Caliphate...

100 years of "peace" after (and while) getting their asses kicked out of half the countries they murdered through.

"100 years of 'peace' after (and while) getting their asses kicked out of half the countries they murdered through."

Well, more specifically I was referring to Baghdad, the center of the caliphate. As was clear, if you had bothered to read what I wrote.

Your sneering charicature of the Islamic conquests reminds me of liberal descriptions of American conquering the Indians, and of Jews in Israel. Again, it's pretty dishonest.

Sobek, you accuse me of being one-sided and focused on only half the story.

Yet you do exactly the same in a much more senseless way.

You quote over and over a small percentage of a 2000 year Christian history that was bloody to its own members and claim they're stained.

However, at every opportunity you ignore almost 1400 years of murder and bloodshed on a scale not matched by any other religion in the world to focus on a misniscule percentage of peace to claim their virtue.

Your narrow-minded view smacks of bigotry. Yes, bigotry. You are apparently unable to cope with history without discarding the scale of contrast.

Do you even know why the "golden age" didn't last? ... why am I even bothering to talk to you considering you can't handle the contrast of history?

I must be an idiot.

I'm going to answer my own question because talking to you with fact makes no progress. The golden age didn't last because science is not fostered by Islam. Allah's will is "inscrutable." Therefore, science (the attempt to determine Allah's work) is evil.

That's why there is no longer any "golden age." That's why there will never be any kind of age, except dark, in Islam ever again.

Also, it's a quibble, but I don't think it's possible to "quote" the Abassid caliphate. Several hundred years of history can't exactly be quoted, really.

William, I want to be clear with you. I'm not trying to defend Islam, or blame America (or any western nation) for Muslim fanatics. Those who choose to kill on the basis of religion need no apology. And I'm not going to disagree with you that Muslim history is soaked in blood. That's clearly not the case.

All I am saying is that you go too far in insisting that Islam is not a legitimate religion, and that all Muslims who understand the Qu'ran want to kill non-Muslims. And to establish that premise, you've done the following:

1. Ad hominem attacks. For example, "I can see by your idiotic Inquisition statement that you are an anti-western secularist who undoubtedly apologizes for Islam's atrocities;" and my personal favorite, "What a total fruitcake... you are one very sick person..."

Whether or not I am an anti-Western, secularist, sick fruitcake, your misrepresentations of history are inexcusable.

2. Straw man arguments. Most recently, "But Sobek soberly claims that the Indonesian muslims are fascinating models of tolerance and inclusion."

I most certainly did not claim that. I pointed out that Southeast Asians (including, for example, Malays, Thais and Burmese) accepted Islam fairly easily because it was peacefully preached to them, and largely rejected Christianity (except for the Philippines) because the Portugese "missionaries" were perfectly happy to kill the recalcitrant in the name of Christ. And that was hundreds of years ago. I'm well aware of the recent beheadings, and the attacks in Bali. Neither of these examples refutes my actual point (as opposed to the point you try to attribute to me) that history shows that Islam is not inherently murderous.

3. Unwarranted generalizations. As I noted above, you point out lack of media condemnation to murders by Muslims, and extrapolate from that the conclusion that all Muslims (or at least the well-informed ones) favor the murder of non-Muslims. That's a logical fallacy, and it's also an untenable double-standard, given your criticisms of American media. If you're willing to allow that American news outlets are not necessarily representative of public opinion, why not allow the same for Muslims? Oh, because you're trying to crap on Islam. Well, the ends justifies the means, right? And I'm sure you're comfortable with me associating that line with you, considering that you favorably quote Benito freakin' Mussolini on your web page.

3. You ignore bloody Christian history, and non-violent Islamic history. The simple fact is that people have been murdered in the name of Christ (a few examples: Protestants v. Catholics in Ireland, the Spanish Inquisition, the Portugese in Southeast Asia, Western Europeans in the Americas, the Reformation and Counter-reformation...). If we're being intellectually honest, none of these examples proves that Christianity is inherently violent, only that violence has been done in the name of Christianity.

And the same is true for Islam. Muslims have murdered Christians for centuries. They have waged war against Hindus in India, Buddhists in Southeast Asia generally, Christians in Spain, Christians in Sudan, Zoroastrians in Iran, and Jews pretty much everywhere, just to give a few examples. But if you end the story there, without acknowledging the non-violent parts of Islamic history, you are dishonestly warping the facts to fit your world-view.

Eh, I've seen this all before. I can't imagine I'm going to convince you of anything, so unless you typed something noteworthy while I was working on this magnum opus, I think I'll let this thread go.

Okay, you did put out this gem:

"The golden age didn't last because science is not fostered by Islam."

Having personally studied Islamic scientific texts from the Umayyad and Abassid periods, I can categorically tell you that you are full of crap. Oh, and the science was all state-sponsored.

The Abassids collapsed for pretty much the same reason every other civilization collapses: apathy, decadence, corruption, and the advent of another group with energy and creativity.

No wonder they could travel all around in their open boats and live in places like ICELAND and GREENLAND and reach the area in NEW FOUNDLAND and kicked but with the french

Let me play Devil's Advocate.

*Enter the persona of al-Hajj Muhammad 'Abdullah Saifuddin Fathullah al-Awashqi* [1]

THE religion of Allaah, Islaam, was established by Allaah for all people to obey. Allaah is the supreme creator, and His Word is immutable and unassailable. His Word cannot change, and we mere humans, who were created to be but slaves to Almighty Allaah, can in no way go against His Will as revealed in Islam through the Prophet Muhammad Mustafa (peace and blessings upon him).

WITH the passage of time in Daar al-Islaam, the revealed Will of Allaah has been neglected. Muslim states have rejected the sovereignty of Allaah and the Muslim peoples are either ignorant of Islaam or wilfully rebel against Allaah. They even had the audacity to abolish the caliphate, which the Beloved Prophet (peace and blessings upon him) established! May Allaah have mercy on us Muslims!

WITH the blessings and grace of Almighty Allaah, al-Sheikh al-Islaam Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Wahhaab (may Allaah have mercy on him) was born in the Holy Land of Arabia. He was well-learned and was disgusted with the corruption of Islaam around him. He established a vibrant movement, Salafiyyah, to purify Islaam. With Aal al-Sa'uud, he was able to purify Islam throughout Arabia. His teachings spread far and wide, and his students now seek to purify Islaam throughout the world and to make Allaah's Word supreme throughout the world, as Allaah has commanded. May Allaah be praised!

AS Muslims, it is our duty to correct our wayward brothers and sisters. They must be brough back to the True Religion, to obey Allaah by obeying Islaam. Those Muslims who refuse to repent of their sins, to learn about Islaam, and to obey Islaam correctly are guilty of intentionally rebelling against Allaah. They are the munaafiquun (hypocrites). To intentionally reject Allaah is kufr, and Allaah's Word commands us to slay all kaafiriin (may Allaah's curse be upon them!). Those who provoke other Muslims to reject Allaah and Islaam are spreading fitnah and they must also be slayed for the sake of Allaah and His diin.

NOW, Allaah has commanded us to defend Islaam. In all the world, we can see the hated Jews and Christians attacking Islaam and Muslims, hating Allaah and seeking to destroy Allaah's Word. They do do this not only directly with their states and armies, who are spread throughout the whole Islaamic peoples, but indirectly by indoctrinating the Muslims with anti-Islaamic ideologies that Islaam rejects completely. Socialism, capitalism, democracy, nationalism, nation-states, states - all of these are the inventions of kaafiriin and must be rejected by all Muslims. It is Allaah's Will, especially as stated through His Messenger (peace and blessings upon him), that the world of Islaam be united in one empire under one leader (caliph or khaliifah) with one law (the law of Islaam or sharii'ah). Allaah commands us that this empire embrace all the peoples, to span the whole world. Allaah says in the Qur'aan that non-believers such as the Jews and Christians are free to practice their religion as long as they pay the jizyah tax and live under Islaam's laws. If they rebel against Allaah's laws and agitate against Islaam, they must be prosecuted if not put to death (especially if they do blasphemy).

AS soon as Muslims abandoned Allaah Almighty, Allaah punished the Muslims by withdrawing His favor from us and by using the kaafiriin to punish us. The only way we Muslims will be able to succeed and prevail is by adhering scrupulously to Islaam. Then Allaah with be with us, and lead us to victory over the kaafiriin and munaafiqiin. Allaah be praised!

THROUGHOUT the Qur'aan and ahadiith and sunnah, Allaah has taught us that we must dedicated everything to Allaah and to the mission of Islaam. Every Muslim, however he/she may, is supposed to strive incessantly to spread Islaam. Some may do it by preaching Islaam and converting people to the Truth. Some may do it by defending Islaam against kaafiriin (non-believers). Some may do it by teaching Muslims about Islaam. Some may do it by fighting against oppressive kaafiriin and munaafiqiin who fight against Allaah and Islaam. Some may do it by encouraging their countries to pass laws to forbid what Allaah has forbidden and to permit what Allaah has permitted. However it is done, it is a duty on all Muslims. He/she who dies in the Path of Allah (fi sabiilillaah) will be welcomed by the angels in Heaven. The best way to serve Allaah is to fight for Islaam and Allaah and Muslims and against the kaafiriin (non-believers) and munaafiqiin (hypocrites). This way, a Muslim is devoting his/her all to Allaah and will attain a big reward in Heaven however he/she dies. Allaah be praised!

SOME Muslims are being led astray by the laws and ideas of kaafiriin (non-believers) and munaafiqiin (hypocrites). Muslims must always remember that the laws and Will of Allaah, revealed in Islaam, are always superior to those of men. The ideas and laws of men are nothing, they are dust before Almighty Allaah. The only law that should be obeyed is Allaah's law, because this is why He created us. To obey the laws or ideas of anyone or anything else is shirk, which makes a Muslim a kaafir! Allaah have mercy on us Muslims!

IT is therefore incumbent upon all Muslims to reject the corruptions in Islaam, especially today, to return to pure Islaam, to become Salafiyyuun, and to fight for Islaam. This is Allaah's Word and Will, praised be Allaah! haadha hunna kalimatu wa mashii'atu-llaahi; alHamdu lillaahi wa subHaanahu!

*exit al-Hajj Muhammad 'Abdullah Saifuddin Fathullah al-Awashqi*

[1] Props to who can figure out how I came up with "Awashqi".

Most of the comments above I have heard at one point or another so far. Also, it's kind of scary how easy it was to write this. *shudder*

Muslihoon, that is kind of scary. I actually wondered about half-way through whether you were quoting from something; your liberal use of Arabic words makes it look pretty darn authentic.

I've been meaning to ask you about your screen name, and why you chose it. (I'm assuming it's "peacemaker," with a 'saad,' rather than "bird droppings" with a 'siin').

Arguing the virtues or lack thereof of Islam is beside the point.

The whole basis of American civilization is that as long as someody doesn't do anything criminal, they are free to think what they want to think and worship what they want to worship. This includes the KKK, the Scientologists, all of us, and, yes, people who call themselves muslims.

William, you made a proposal that runs directly contrary to this principle, and that's the reason everybody objects to what you're saying.

I'm no apologist for Islam. I know about Mohammed, and the Islamic conquest. But none of that changes the principles upon which this country was founded. We can win this war and still be American.

Sobek: thanks for the comments.

Indeed, it is with a saad rather than siin. I had no idea with a siin it meant bird droppings. That is amusing. :-)

I chose "Muslihoon" as a sort of obscure chastisement of militant Islamists and partly to describe how I feel in the Islamic community. It comes from Surat al-Baqarah (2), verses 11-12.

A slightly more detailed explanation is here. I'm impressed someone here knows Arabic. I've just started learning it.

I wouldn't say I know Arabic very well. I had to look it up (I would have done it sooner, but Arabic has two letters for 's' and like 50 for 'h'), and that's how I found out about the bird droppings bit. That's not really a vocabulary word I take pains to learn in foreign languages.

WWDCD: "William, you made a proposal that runs directly contrary to this principle, and that's the reason everybody objects to what you're saying."

You think I might, maybe, ... "hate" America? Is that it? Or is it that I'm just deluded?

Our forefathers picked up guns to declare independence over what issue? Murder? Rape? Political Incorrectness? Vote fraud? WMDs?

We picked up guns and died over TAXES. Would we do the same today? I know not a single sheep that would.

Lincoln (damn his dark federalist soul) launched the bloodiest war this nation has ever been in over what? Murder? Rape? Political Incorrectness? Vote fraud? WMDs? Howard Dean?

Lincoln launched the Civil War over the question of how the states related to the federal structure.

Point of the two examples: American men of character fought for ideals, not for perceived crimes.

Quick change of direction here, but hang onto the thought. Judeo Christian America has fostered the most inclusive, open society this world has ever known. As your comments indicate, this is something inimic to our national character. I wholeheartedly support what America is and stands for, period.

Does that make me a hypocrite? Surely Sobek - he who swallows the camels but strains at the gnats - thinks so.

But consider this: Islam considers our system not only evil but something to be destroyed. Islam considers secularism to be the character of Satan himself. Islam considers a free and open society contrary to everything Allah demands. With CAIR cramming taqiyyah up our asses as hard as they can and America happily bending over and pulling apart our cheeks for it, the inclusion of a political murder cult into the democratic process is democratically suicidal.

CAIR does not want to "co-exist" with America as it stands. They want to get in and replace the constitution with sharia law. Islam in America will destroy exactly that inclusion you so generously offer them. Islam in America will remove all of your freedoms you currently enjoy.

Sharia law in America would not be pretty.

So yes, I advocate removing a democratically suicidal element from the American democratic process. America will not survive Islam by inviting it in and hugging it. Islam is a political movement bent on world domination. When communism was surging, we fought against it. Wasn't that a position you decry me for now? When naziism was surging, did we welcome the nazi party into our ranks? When Imperial Japan was surging, did we offer them seats in congress?

I think you know the answer.

Pretending that Islam is all well and good and wonderful for political anal destruction is about as cowed as I could ever imagine the American character to be. Our forefathers didn't fight the Barbary wars by "loving" the muslims. They didn't invite them over here to partake in our democracy.

Democracy is for those who desire it. Not for those who would destroy it.

In general, I am sickened by the apparent flippant attitude toward the murder that Islam is re-awakening to.

Americans think that everything is unchangeable and that after putting down such firebrands as me that they'll forever be able to return to Monday night football and the latest episode of Law and Order.

You sheep sure are comfortable. If the posters here are indicative of what this site is, then you sheep will deserve the sharia that takes it all away.

Go ahead, keep defending the "religion" that murders its way to domination. My conscience is clear.

Americans think that everything is unchangeable

Then what do you think American soldiers are doing in Iraq? Picnicking?

You sheep sure are comfortable. If the posters here are indicative of what this site is, then you sheep will deserve the sharia that takes it all away.

Dude, you really need to unwind. The people here are quite supportive of the war against radical Islam.

What you're proposing is throwing out the 1st ammendment. Most people here think America can win without doing so.

America is not Europe. We don't have their demographics, we don't have their passivity (despite what you seem to think). Seriously, come out of the fallout shelter and relax, man.

The crux of the problem is not Islam but religions in general and gullability/irrationality of humans. Fundamentalist Christians are not that different from fundamentalist Islamists. The US is just lucky to have European culture that prevents large-scale religious barbarism.

If an average IQ of people of the world was just 20 points higher all this religious non-sense would be studied in the history of mythologies book, but alas. I practically pray everyday that God finally removes the plague from humanity called religions but he is apparently def.

God is Mos Def.

If an average IQ of people of the world was just 20 points higher all this religious non-sense would be studied in the history of mythologies book, but alas. I practically pray everyday that God finally removes the plague from humanity called religions but he is apparently def.

ROFLMAO! This is the greatest parody I've ever read.