A Viking funeral for Islam!

Right on! These Euros have the Viking spirit, are a breed apart. Plus Norway should never cater to Islamic troublemakers since they have no need for Arab oil.

woah! they can do that?! I wish we had a political party with balls like that

Maybe the rest of the EU should get a little more Viking spine. (If this story is true).

Well, I dont entirely agree, but I'd like to see how this turns out.

Wow. I can't see that going over well with the PC crowd, but the more I read the Koran and about Islam, the more I think we need to do the same.

One wonders why Muslims live in countries like Norway, Sweden or Denmark, given that Halal slaughter (of animals) is not permitted in those countries, and they are thus unable to abide by their religious beliefs.

Ummm...how do say Eau Du Fatwa in Norwegian?

Pretty ballsy words coming from way over yonder.

Also a little skeptical, but their stand should at least broaden the conversation about whether Islam is a threat, in and of itself.

What people who apologize for Islam's shortcomings fail to realize is that unless it is broadly rejected by civilized society, than the "good" Muslims will have no incentive to drive out the "bad" Islamists, or to reform their religion. The apologist position that "there's nothing wrong with Islam, but it needs to be reformed" is moronic.

Honor killing in Norway.

You have to know that "Honor Killing" = Islam to decipher this sanitized account. Note also that you aren't told where the perp is from. The neighbor is from Iran however.

Folks I lived three years in Stavanger, Norway. I don't think they have the guts to outlaw Islam.

How long do you suppose it will be till the LLL start moaning and whining about this.

My guess is we'll be seeing them wanting to place sanctions on Norway for their audacity.

Charles:

Thanks for the early posts.

#11 - Sean

Folks I lived three years in Stavanger, Norway. I don't think they have the guts to outlaw Islam.

Probably not... but they have the guts to bring it up, and most likely open a discussion about the negative impact the laws of Islam, and the teachings of the Koran, apparently has on many of it's followers... Which is significant, in my eyes.

The chances of it happening: zero.
The chances of it succeeding even if it did happen: zero
The chances of this loony idea actually contributing to the welfare of either native Norwegians or Muslim immigrants: zero

The world didn't endure 50 million dead in WWII so we could ban religion. In fact, it would be hard to think of an idea more antithetical to the values that we in the West cherish.

Leave the religion-banning business to the Saudis and other barbarians.

Wowwee wow wow! Good that they are discussing it.

In the right hand column, down from this story, there is a possible honor killing story listed. The perpetrator was of "foreign decent".

Too many headlines like that will have an effect on any civilized and tolerant culture.

Have you guys ever heard of this woman? :

The collision of Nordic social democracy with Muslim mores has seldom been a subject for debate, let alone jokes, in politically correct
Norway, whose politicians fear accusations of stirring racial hatred when broaching immigration.

But now Rehman, a 26-year-old of Pakistani origin, has sprung up. Her show has catapulted her to fame as a champion of liberal Muslim women aspiring to a Scandinavian lifestyle.

Female circumcision and the stoning of adulterous women are as much a target of her vitriolic wit as the willingness of “multiculturalists” to overlook abuse of women among Norway’s immigrant population. Rehman also jokes about suicide bombers and the amputation of thieves’ limbs.

Rehman’s mockery of the mullahs involves stripping off the burqa to parade in a revealing red cocktail dress. The routine includes fantasising about what the land of the Vikings would be like if subjected to the sharia code of punishment.

Some of her most pointed barbs are reserved for “halal hippies”, Norwegian “do-gooders” whose embrace of foreign cultures extends to ignoring their worst excesses. “If an Asian country dropped a nuclear bomb on Norway, these people would run to the nearest book store to buy a book about oriental culture,” she quips.

LMAO. I love it.

#11 Sean

There were some other interesting nuggets on the page that you posted...like this:

"Swedish" Guantanamo prisoner complains of being tortured by sex talk!

He doesn't look my stereotype of a typical Swede, though.

OT: Another sign that Mohammedans have reached critical mass in France

[Link: www.frontpagemag.org...]

"Show up in the clothes you choose to wear."

In a letter "to the Muslims of France", the Union of Islamic Organizations of France, is promising to support Muslim female students legally and educationally in case of expulsion, if they show up back at school this September wearing their banned head scarves. In a case that became famous worldwide, two Turkish girls attending a French public school were expelled last June for refusing to remove their scarves, causing a furor in France on both sides of the religious argument.

For its part, the UIOF is made up of about 200 Muslim associations and is described as being one of the principal pillars of the French Council of the Muslim Religion, the national Muslim umbrella organization for France. By its uncompromising stance, the UIOF is directly challenging the French government's commitment to keep French public schools secular. In response to this challenge, the French Education Minister, Francois Fillon, said in a recent television interview he will personally keep watch on the situation.

-snip-

The UIOF is planning to take the law to the European court for human rights. The French Council of the Muslim Religion is also protesting, saying the law violates "the right and liberty of young Muslims to exercise their religious freedoms."

A member of the FCMR's commission, Thomas Milcent, a French convert to Islam, is advising dissenters to take more direct action against the prohibition, which officially comes into effect in September. A French report says he has proposed on a popular Muslim website he runs that when a student is expelled for disobeying the law, all parents in that student's area, religious or not, should, in defense of "the rights of man", withdraw their children from their schools for a week to register their disapproval

-snip-

They are on point.
Their intolerence of all other religions and makes them dangerous.
No loss to norway if they deport them all.

I must caution that Carl I Hagen, the top leader of the PP nationally, did not support this view. But the mere fact that it is even voiced is still remarkable. Even Mr Hagen has recently been more critical of Islam:

[Link: www.norwaypost.no...]

I can see no similarity with the concept of moral and justice found in Christianity, Hagen said. Hagen also said that if Israel loses in the Middle East, Europe will succumb to Islam next, if Islamic fundamentalists have it their way. -That's why Israel must be defended, Hagen stated, while at the same time emphasizing that there are also good and decent Muslims. Thelogian at the University of Oslo, Oddbjoern Leirvik, says Hagen's speech may be compared to the agitation against the Jews in the 1930s.

Sean, you stole my thunder.
;p

Excellent news. If true.

Of course they will never succeed, or at least not in the next fifty years.

But the awareness of the danger is growing, the worldwide invasion begins to be seen for what it actually is and no longer as a migration of workers in need of income.

The muslim themselves will misbehave so grossly in the future that they will call for reallly heavy answers, now we are still dancing around and stretching, in the global war to defend Freedom, it's not yet the total war that it will be.

Way to go!!! Unfortunately, it'll never happen. I know that Norway has their version of the ACLU, and I am surprised that they haven't responded already!! That place is full of leftists!! I wonder when we are all going to wake up and realizec that Islam IS a religion of hate...it IS the one-world religion of Revelation, and it IS coming (with Jihad in hand) to a town near you...
The easy way to cure all of this is for some western modern day Einstein to come up with a safe efficient hydrogen fuel cell, so that we can send all of the Hajis back home broke to their camels and tents...the way to stop them is by stopping their income...fossil fuels!!
Thanks for letting me rant..

OT

The rotten fruits of Saudi Arabia

This is after all the country which allows no churches, no synagogues, nothing but mosques. Religious tolerance is something the Saudis have failed to preach, an omission that may now threaten the existence of the state.

A textbook for 6-year-olds published last year by the Saudi education ministry, and currently in use at the Virginia school, reads: "All religions other than Islam are false." A note for teachers says they should "ensure to explain" this point.

The Saudi political scientist says "It seems we are now reaping the bitter crop of a generation that was taught jihad by the religious zealots who hate the West and now equally threaten the nation of their birth, Saudi Arabia."

OT - French officials angry at Israeli leader

The president of France's National Assembly, the lower house of parliament, said Sharon "missed a good opportunity to keep quiet."

OT but pretty good.

Recently Kerry went to Western Wisconsin for photo ops. He dressed up in a fanel shirt and jeans to visit a farm.

I was in that area visiting my parents this weekend and noted a fine column about this in the Eau Claire paper.

The columnist quoted word-for-word what Kerry said about the satisfaction he used to get from plowing fields. It was a long quote full of goofy imagery. I should go to their website and see if it is on line.

The columnist then said "Kerry is the son of a weathly diplomat and grew up going to private schools in France and Switzerland". He basically said kerry is full of shxx.
It was pretty funny.

Amazing Derbyshire in NRO today about what causes him to lose sleep and what doesn't.

OT: Amnesty International slams Caterpillar country for it's role in pancakes.

I wish the Norwegians lots of luck. They sure are going to need it.

This takes away from freedom of religion. I understand the ban on headscarves, there are many hateful passages in the Koran, and militant Islam should be fought against, but you can't take it out on the whole religion of Islam. There are Muslims out there who aren't violent terrorists and just want to practice their religion while being integrated in European society. I understand that there are many violent Islamists in Europe who want to take it over.

But what I find really interesting is that Europeans are beginning to strongly respond to the threat of a Muslim takeover of Europe. Maybe they do reject dhimmitude after all.

whew I suddenly feel a whole lot better about the future of my Norwegian godson Erik.

As far as I can see it is not excellent news. It gives the Islamic fundamentalists another string to their sympathy bow. Banning religions is not only wrong but useless. It sounds like communist tactic to me and we all know how successful that was.

Islam needs to be exposed, disproved and deconstructed. Banning it merely makes their resolve stronger, their extremeist more extreme and its image more revolutionary.

The world didn't endure 50 million dead in WWII so we could ban religion. In fact, it would be hard to think of an idea more antithetical to the values that we in the West cherish.

On the other hand, various European countries have, within the last 10-15 years, banned Scientology and Jehovah's Witnesses -- both of which have some disturbing cultish qualities, yet neither of which encourages physical violence in the way that Islam does.

No chance of this happening... Yet.

But give the jihaddis some time and a bit more rope with which to hang themselves, and then we'll see. I have to believe that western civilization, while slow to react, is not so sick that it will allow itself to be destroyed without a fight.

#16 BPP

Hate philosophies such as Nazism are banned throughout much of western Europe. I do not necessarily agree with this practice either, but if we are going to ban the evil philosophy of Nazism, it would be a double-standard NOT to ban the equally evil philosophy of Islamofascism.

#17

One wonders why Muslims live in countries like Norway, Sweden or Denmark, given that Halal slaughter (of animals) is not permitted in those countries, and they are thus unable to abide by their religious beliefs.

How is it that they can't practice halal slaughter? I confess my total ignorance of the practice. I've seen halal stores for a long time (I live in Texas), but I've never read about halal.

I don't believe this to be a good idea. Banning a religion is not going to make matters better. Where would we stand if a European country decided to ban Judaism?

Something doesn't seem right to me.

Yeah Writermom,

He's some Swede! He's practicing Taqqiya in every aspect of his life.

There is a discussion going on about this over at Bjørn Stærk's place

#28 RWC

I wish Fwance would just shut up already. French foreign minister.

If Islam were just a religion, I would object to this idea in Norway or anywhere. But I do not see that Islam is just a religion. Islam is only part religion. The other part is a pure, political ideology that is every bit as evil and dangerous as Nazism. Thus, I would strike a balance. The practice of the religious aspects of Islam should be allowed freedom. The practice of the policital aspect of Islam should be criminalized.

#18, the Muslim comedienne in her own words, from Bjorn Staerk:

I hope it reaches the madrasas, and all other dark corners where people are held as slaves by authorities who by their titles, religious or not, rule with the aid of superstition, fear and prejudice.
In Sweden, men put up posters where they condemn liberated Kurdish women, and call them whores who should be beaten up. In Copenhagen a fundamentalist group recently handed out flyers that called for the murder of Jews. This week, there were more than 1000 people present at a fundamentalist Islamic hate meeting arranged by the same group. In England, the mullahs seek to gain power over Muslim youth by inciting them to violence. Muslims must struggle against this upgrowth of anti-human, anti-freedom fascism, Muslims who are free from the coercion of their community. That is why it's so blind of left-populists when they choose to despise precisely these people, and to violate their integrity by denouncing them as token immigrants.

#40 AG in Houston

I agree with you that banning a religion is totally unrealistic. I think that they are acutely aware that Islamicism can threaten the way of life that they are used to-which means it's probably better to limit Muslim immigration, and be much less tollerant of cultural cuteness such as honour killings, etc...

“It is about high time Norway and Europe make the ideology Islam and the practice of this, illegal and punishable in the same way as Nazism,” Udnaes said. “The prophet Muhammad urged them to kill everyone infidel.”

Shocking moment of clarity from a European. It will be interesting to see how this all pans out.

#16, BPP. The world lost 50 plus million people fighting the political cults of a Shinto Emporer and a Nazi Party patterned on Norse mythology. If you don't think the world can loose another 50 plus million people fighting a cult based on Mohammed you need to try another think at the problem. The culture war of Western civilization is just now being noticed the Western Civ's. Most liberals deny it has begun, they seem to be ignorant of things that are going on around them.

Carl I.Hagen said that he is surprised by the UN’s opinions regarding cultural freedom, "Are we going to accept that Somalis practice circumcision and other countries’ practice of forced marriages? This is just another idea from UN bureaucrat,» Hagen said to the Norwegian paper Dagsavisen. «I do not view it as my job to comment what the Crown Prince states in public. In my opinion the best long-term solution for Norway would be that all inhabitants gradually adapt to the main basis of our culture. After that there will of course be room for artistic expression, but some values have to apply for all."

Hagen is a leader in a consevative party in Norway.

He at least "Gets It."

#8 #17

One wonders why Muslims live in countries like Norway, Sweden or Denmark, given that Halal slaughter (of animals) is not permitted in those countries, and they are thus unable to abide by their religious beliefs.

I'm guessing that they do what observant Jews do in places where there is no shochet to provide kosher meat - they either import it, or do without.

#33 smoot

Nice sentiment, but there is NO SUCH THING AS NON-VIOLENT Islam!!
The Koran itself states that infidels shall be either killed(beheaded...sound familiar?), converted or be slaves of Islam. I had plenty of time during The Gulf War to read it!!You've got to know your enemy!! If a person says that they don't believe that, they are not a true Muslim!! Don't kid yourself...Islam IS a religion of hate, and they are proud of it! "INFIDEL" is not a term of endearment!!

Europe has made another pact with a Satan. It can withdraw from it now, or pay with its soul later. (As for me, I don't hold out much hope for the European soul.)

The irradication of Islam in Europe within 20 years begins in Norway, InshAllah.

We don't want Nazis in Europe and we don't want Muslims either.
I just hope that we can win the interlectual war now against the Muslims so that our children will not have to slaughter them when the Muslims begin the conquest of Europe.

May Europe be a safe haven for Muslim apostates (those who are moderate and those who have left the religion completely).

Writermom

Exactly. Laws against a religion are unacceptable.

Laws against radicalization of a religion can be itterated but need to be very clear.

Scary thoughts.

Islam is not a religion, it's an historical enterprise, aimed at the conquest of the whole world. This is clearly stated in their books and it has been true throughout all of history.
The only way to defend a Country that does not want to be enslaved is to physically throw the muslims out.

It does not matter if we like this or not. It's true and there is no other way to cope with this problem.

If we let them in, as we are doing, on the assumption that ALL their books and teachings will not become an actual action, we are just killing ourselves.

The discussion here is flawed anyway, because THE MUSLIMS DO BAN OTHER RELIGIONS IN MANY OF THEIR COUNTRIES, so we can do the same or we can ask them to OPEN their countries to freedom of religion, absolute freedom of speech, etc etc.

As I use to say with my typical good taste: NO MOSQUES IN THE WEST UNTIL THERE ARE NO DISCOS WITH ESOTIC DANCERS IN SAUDI ARABIA.

Thanks.

/Pagans for the Crusades.

While it may be troubling to hear the call for a religion to be banned, it's high time Islam's position in the West was brought up for discussion. Kudos to the Progress Party for bringing this topic up for discussion. I suggest that Islam be treated the same way in the West that non-muslims are treated in Islamic fundamentalist countries or as the Koran prescribes they be treated. This should give the LLL's fits.

I have read in various places that Singapore (which is much closer geographically to Islamic fundamentalism than just about any other country) has placed tough restrictions on that religion-cult. Does anyone here have any more detailed knowledge about this?

AG in Houston,

Don't ban the religion. - Agreed

Force them to disavow Shariah, Dhimmi laws, Dar Ul Islam...

Live like my neighbors do. Be different. Just don't mess up my Representaive Republic, Bill of Rights, ...

55:

The irradication of Islam in Europe within 20 years begins in Norway, InshAllah

when are you going annex the Sudetenland? Sorry wrong religion, wrong country, wrong century...d'oh me! Just sounded eerily familiar.

# 52 Ben-Ami

Actually they tend to have illegal and unlicensed slaughterhouses operating outside the law.

The Muslims can practice their religion all they want

back in their Muslim homelands- if it is the greatest

system, why don't they show the world how it's done

right. There's no reason to live among us "infidels"-

Go home!

I smell a discrimination lawsuit coming at the ICJ.

THERE ARE NO DISCOS WITH ESOTIC DANCERS IN SAUDI ARABIA.

Poitiers-Lepanto is in the lead for a new entry into the "Rotating-Top-Label Sweepstakes!
;^)

62 #17

Actually they tend to have illegal and unlicensed slaughterhouses operating outside the law.

Well, if you knew the answer...

Lulululululululululululu!!!

Oh, FWIW, the name "Dagbladet" was as fun to read as was "Ffffhhgm!"

61 Dave Ray:

Waiting for you to condemn banning Nazism (which is already done in Norway and a lot of other western nations as well) as neo-Nazism, too.

Still waiting...

Poitiers-Lepanto

The discussion here is flawed anyway, because THE MUSLIMS DO BAN OTHER RELIGIONS IN MANY OF THEIR COUNTRIES, so we can do the same or we can ask them to OPEN their countries to freedom of religion, absolute freedom of speech, etc etc.

Where does it say that in the Constitution?

61 Dave Ray

when are you going annex the Sudetenland? Sorry wrong religion, wrong country, wrong century...d'oh me! Just sounded eerily familiar.

***
You're so clever I wish I was you.

Yeah let's not irradicate this Islamic ideology. Let's let this ideology irradicate us! Because it's not politically correct to want to get rid of a nasty ideology. It's better to wait and wait and wait until we cannot do anything at all. Then we can feel good that at least the reason they have conquered us cannot be due to anything we might have said to upset them.

Dimmy. Sorry, I meant to say Dhimmi.

The problem with this party, as well as similar parties in most European Countries (most notably Le Pen's party in France) is that they don't just hate Muslims. They also don't like Jews very much either.

They also tend to be a bit nutty. The Danish version of this party was led in the 1970's by Glistrup, a populist demagogue who wanted foreigners kicked out, but also had the following defense policy:

"Our entire defense budget should be put into the purchase of a ham radio which, if Denmark is attacked, should broadcast 'surrender, surrender, surrender' on all frequencies."

#58 AI

Why is it that people deny what they see with their eyes???

Cognitive dissonance.

Why is it the a person can say that ISLAM is PEACEFUL when one looks around anywhere in the world and that any conflict now has its origins in ISLAM???

Same as above.

Where is this OSTRICH LIKE behavior coming from???

Political correctness, moral equivalence, and moral relativism.

31

Maybe they can complain about these companies as well.

[Link: www.inc.com...]

They make perfectly legal explosives that pali scum use to kill unarmed civillians. But lets concern ourselves with property damage..

#70 ben-ami: Don't expect much logic from Mr. Poitiers-Lepanto.

I think banning Islam is going overboard. I think banning religion in general is overboard. The problems arise when people's religious beliefs start to incringe upon the publics freedom and safety. Crackdown on the mosque's preaching hate. Crack down on people plotting attacks. Crack down on people funnelling money to terrorist groups. Crack down on any general incitement to violence, which indeed there is alot of Islam.

Banning the religion entirely is a very bad way to deal with the problem, and I see no good can come of it.

Slightly OT

Yesterday in the Telegraph, in response to the dismal level of debate during the Leiscester South by-election, an editorial plea to the Tories:

Tories Must Confront Islam

Seems more of Europe is waking up to the threat.

Norwegian Kafir:

I take your point(s) well. From my idealist secularlist point of view, it is a pity that Carl I Hagen posits that defense of Israel is the bulwark for a defense against the overthrow of Europe itself.

Israel's few million Jews need unified world support of their sovereignty, precisely because [a] they're in a Claustwitzian sense defending their sovereignty, [b] they were encouraged to emmigrate by a Europe that invented anti-semitism, pining for false-atonement by spiriting their "problem" thousands of miles away, and [c] because under any notion of moral and ethical logis, any people deeply committed to coexistence, education, civil attainment and an indentifiable ethnic identity, deserve the right to exist.

That they should be defended as a front-line, or counter-charge against a perceived threat on Europe proper is a lovely nationalistic fip, but if Europe really believes in its lauded and vaunted secular principles, then it must defend the Jewish Ethno-religious community, for precisely the same transnational "group rights" theory as it does each and every amassed faction within Europe proper. They owe that much to their ejected and rejected former Jewish European citizens

But this argument wouldn't be pretty enough, politically correct enough, vapid enough to make it, would it?

___

Oddly / Sadly, I'm afraid the same argument also calls for tolerance to the population of Moslems that today inhabit Europe [well sort of ... they're not sovereign, nor would a 'state-within-a-state' be tolerated (rightly) within any European country]. But at least from an ethno-religious group perspective, their right to exist is no less strong than the Jews, or Copts, or ... any others. It is both reasonable and essentially required that "The State" (be that France, for example, or all of Europe) defend the right-of-existence of the ethilogically diverse peoples of Europe, and also that (somewhat antithetically) it quash internecine conflicts, aggressively. One's "right to exist" is not a "license to profess deep seated bigotry", or worse, to proselytise the dhimmification or extrajudicial "punishment" against those committed to beliefs outside the aggressor "PAC".

And there Europe seems to be "falling down" on its principles.

GoatGuy

I'm with Gordo on this one. Generally its good to take friends where you can find them, but I don't think this crowd of paleo-con euros is the way forward if we actually care about America's and Israel's security.

Nazism and neo-nazism is banned yes, and I fully support that ban as someone who's family suffered at the hands of the Nazi's. Nazism isn't a religion, that requires a belief in G-d or complete obedience to his law, it's a loose collection of various political theories muddled in with norse mythology. My point here is that if you ban a religion, a belief system, a way of life to these people their faith get's stronger. Unlike Nazism, Islamism is harder to define, monitor and control therefore banning it would drive it underground. Did thousands of years of persecution of the Jews destroy Judaism? Did the Roman ban on Christianity destroy the faith of Jesus? No, of course not it made them stronger. Do you want a stronger more suicidally inclined Islam? I know it's hard to believe but that's what would happen.

To fight Islam we need to expose it, disprove it and deconstruct it. Banning it would achieve this.

Gordon

The problem with this party, as well as similar parties in most European Countries (most notably Le Pen's party in France) is that they don't just hate Muslims. They also don't like Jews very much either.

Wow. Imagine that - a xenophobic far-right political party that wants to abolish freedom of religion is also anti-semitic. Who'd've thunk? :-)

#58,

The ostrich-like behavior is from an attempt to be seen as open-minded and tolerant. Who looks more tolerant than someone who defends a system that encourages folks to scream for your blood? It's a low-cost way to ordain oneself as open, liberal, etc. without requiring any analytical rigor.

#44, #50
I agree, islam is not just a religion but an ideology.

#66 American Infidel

I wonder if Saudi Arabia can house them all...Because many of the lands that Muslims occupy now and claim that are Muslim ARE NOT MUSLIM LANDS !

By that logic, you should be turning over your property any day now to Chief Running Water and the Papaloose tribe. Because we stole this land from the Indians long after the Muslims stole the Middle East, Turkey, Pakistan, Indonesia, etc.

American Infidel

BEN-AMI is either a DHIMMI or is practicing TAQQIYA, either way s/he will MUDDLE WATERS...

Smile when you say that, pardner. :-|

#3 dennisw-matamoros

This is the same "Viking spirit" that produced Vidkun Quisling. In a fight between Norwegian fascists and Muslims I'd rather not choose sides.

No one hates the "other" more than a European.

I have been arguing on this board for the past several years that eventually the Muslims would go too far in Europe, and, unconstrained by the moral sting of genocide, Europe would know what to do.

Europe has slaughtered in the name of its purity for thousands of years, and do not underestimate their reactionary response to Islamic encroachment. It will be bloody.

Being American and mostly unwanted in every country we ever lived in, I'm pretty sure I have some Norwegain in me. If not, I'd be glad to put a little Norwegian in someone else, if you know what I mean.

Gordon, there are many reasons why NOT to like the Progress Party, but they are NOT anti-Semitic. They have for a long time been perhaps the most pro-Israeli party in Norway, during a time when this country, as much of Europe elsewhere, has been agressively pro-Palestinian.

The Progress Party has the largest voter base of support, 29.5%.

Halvor Hulaas, Karina Udnaes

By the power vested in me, I hereby award you each the Free Speech Cross with laurels, and I hereby accept you as "Knights of the Virtual Crusade"

May God protect you from the mohammedan shitstorm that is coming your way.

Stay strong, there are more who are with you than you know.

Death to Islam
Freedom for the Muslims

FaithFreedom.org

#80 Dave Ray:

The fact that Islam calls itself a religion doesn't change its essence, any more than Nazism not calling itself a religion changed its essence. They remain the same--ideologies of hate and destruction. The fact that Islam seeks its justification for this from God rather than junk science and history is completely and utterly irrelevant. If one should be banned, then so should the other.

American Infidel 86

Usama has called for the resturn of Spain to Muslim hands...TWO CAN PLAY THAT GAME...

This is great - both champions of the Muslim hating CAP LOCK crowd think that because the Islamists do something immoral, we should be able to do it, too. Do we start sending in the suicide bombers before or after we ban Islam and deport all the Muslims? After all, two can play at that game...

One wonders why Muslims live in countries like Norway, Sweden or Denmark, given that Halal slaughter (of animals) is not permitted in those countries, and they are thus unable to abide by their religious beliefs.

Yeah, but they can get away with rape . . .

J Lichty,
I concur. The european response to these things is very collective, and as much as any other people they abhor the seemingly homogenous out-group (not that Islamofascists are any better)...

The world didn't endure 50 million dead in WWII so we could ban religion. In fact, it would be hard to think of an idea more antithetical to the values that we in the West cherish.

They're not advocating that religion be banned. They're advocating that a religion be banned. It would be harder to think of an idea more antithetical to the the values we in the West cherish than Islam itself. We fought in WWII to crush a violent, expansionistic, human-rights crushing, bigoted, genocidal ideology. BPP, how do you now say that we must protect the same thing just because it changed name-tags?

Honestly, a lot of you disappointed me in this thread already. Yes, without doubt, banning religion is wrong. As said, this isn't what they're doing. Should all religions be allowed? Should all behaviors? "Oh my gosh, they're passing laws against murder! That's the exact same thing as passing a law against chatting on the phone! Both are the exact same things, behaviors!"

Then someone up above apparently has an even bigger ego than I do: "Yes, we should allow and protect Islam, except they won't be allowed to believe in this part of Islam, that part, or the other."

Well, I've beat everyone over the head enough with my stance: Islam is a faith that people believe in, or they're not Muslims. Its foundation is the teachings and examples of Muhammed as laid out in the Koran. Same as Nazism is to Hitler and Mein Kampf. Playing theoretical games in an imaginary perfect world where everyone thinks like you, shares your values and plays by the rules at all time is fun. But those are real human beings we've lost to both ideologies, and I fully support banning them and/or evicting their practitioners.

Judge me how you will. I'm not stroking the hair of the guy sitting on top of a mountain of skulls.

#95 Maine's Michael

You racist! Don't you understand that these are disadvantaged, alienated youth, who have to somehow rid themselves of the pressures of their immigrant experience?

/very tight tin foil hat

93:

with respect, we're going to agree to disagree here. Nazism is rightly banned in many countries...Islam is not. I'm not arguing that one is worse than the other. My point is that banning Islam as an entire religion will drive it underground, make it's fundamentalist more suicidal, it's murderous rampage increased and it's sense of victimisation hightened.

As for the earlier poste labelling me a dhimmi, far from it...I just refrain from supporting such a ludicrous, fascistic idea...fighting Islam is very important to me but I'd rather do it in a way that would'nt give it a boost.

#82 American Infidel: Actually, I find ben-ami to be a breath of fresh air on LGF. Perhaps that's why you don't like him/her - you prefer the stale odor of Islamohatred.

Explain these facts, which refute your view of Islam as a monolithic monster:
In Malaysia:
[Link: news.bbc.co.uk...]
In Indonesia:
[Link: www.politinfo.com...]
In Tunisia:
[Link: www.internationalreports.net...]
In Algeria:
[Link: www.onwar.com...]

I think banning Islam is going overboard. I think banning religion in general is overboard.

That's just it, isn't that. Even the majority of us here on LGF, who fully (I hope) recognize the danger posed by Islam, tend to stop short of supporting the measures that would really make a difference.

That being said, I don't think that banning the practice of Islam outright (the practices infringing on public order, such the call to prayer, are a different matter) is going to work in this country -- for better of worse, the First Amendment is pretty unequivocal on the subject.

That's why, it's of paramount importance to cut off immigration from Dar-al-Islam (for starters) COMPLETELY, and implement no-holds-barred deportation of Muslim troublemakers -- with their families.

Sadly, neither of the homunculi running for the Chief Magistrate seems to be even remotely close to that realization.

#97 Model4

Amen

Someone please tell me why the title of the article describes this as a "right wing" activity. Why wouldn't this be left wing or centrist for that matter, the left wants an open society, which is against Islam. This gratuitous insertion verifies Ann Coulter's claim that liberals hate all religions, except Islam.

black_flag: You are right. I called the PP the "second or third largest", but on some opinion polls it has actually been the largest in the country. As I said, it is not a small and insignificant party.

Model4 97

Should all religions be allowed?

Absolutely. (The fact that a religion is allowed doesn't mean, however, that their followers don't have to obey the law.)

# 100 Gordon

Do you know where President Arafat was born ?

fighting Islam is very important to me but I'd rather do it in a way that would'nt give it a boost.

Hardly.

It's just a little push-back - putting them on notice that they've got to climb out of the year 600 and learn to take take the koran as a METAPHOR, and not as an instruction manual.

That's what these legislators are trying to say.

There are many ways to crack down on islamists and radicals without banning Islam outright.

I see some posters getting more and more deranged with hate against muslims, and this is not good at all.

100 Gordon

#82 American Infidel: Actually, I find ben-ami to be a breath of fresh air on LGF. Perhaps that's why you don't like him/her - you prefer the stale odor of Islamohatred

LOL. Thanks, Gordon, but I don't think that an endorsement by you is necessarily going to help my case on LGF!

107:

banning their religion instantly gives them the victim chic that they crave so badly! That's the boost that will help their hatred and their numbers grow. Banning is not the answer.

Islam is not, or not only, a religion. According to the Hadith and the Koran, where we find the messages Allah wishes Mohammed to convey to mankind, Islam is a supranational army and state. It is the only state to which Muslims may bear allegiance, and its purpose is to bring all men under its political sway.

A famous "moderate", Dr Zaki Badawi, the Egyptian director of the Muslim College in Ealing, has written: "Islam endeavours to expand in Britain . . . It hopes that one day the whole of mankind will be one Muslim community, the Umma."

a Muslim participant was disarmingly frank about the purpose of Islamic settlers in pluralistic Western societies. Addressing the Christian delegates from Europe, he allegedly said: "Because of our religion, we will invade you; because of your democracy, we will destroy you."

Are you listening Britain ???
Are you listening Europe ???
Are you Listening Canada ???
Are you listening America ???

It's Islam Calling.

#106-17: Cairo. What that has to do with anything on this particular thread I'm not sure. Also, just call him Yasser - he's not "President" of much now is he?

Perhaps you are referring to the fact that Yasser and the PLO were in Tunisia for a few years?

About banning Islam or not, I think I am against this, but mainly for tactical reasons. According to Norwegian folklore, trolls are big, bad and strong, but also quite stupid. And they can't stand the light of day. Exposed to sunlight, they will crack. Islam is the archetypical troll. It should be exposed in the light, not banned.

Apart from that, I don't consider Islam a religion at all, and thus wouldn't view it as an attack on "religion" if it were banned.

Right Brain 103

Here you go.

The idiotic troll has found a friend ???

No, don't expect much logic from me, troll, we are at war, not in an elegant restaurant discussing the fine details of your last masterwork.

And the other one who asks me about the Constitution...what Constitution ? We are at war, we are being invaded, these bastards build hundreds of mosques a day all over the world and attack with bombs from Africa to Asia, from America to Israel, from the North Pole to the South. We are in a bloody world war that will go on for decades...

Do you try the Constitution as a first medicine if you are diagnosed a cancer ???

WAR, babies, and your silly wormtongue arguments are worth NOTHING.

/I know I know, I sinned against the Prayer...again...

There is a big difference between banning a religion and not giving any one religion exemptions from laws that other religions obey.

For example --

No, you cannot wear a veil in your driver's license photo.

No, this city has a noise-abatement law and you cannot have a special exemption for your electronic muezzin call.

US public schools that will not allow a child to pause for a silent grace over a meal, and will not allow a student to read the Bible on a school bus, also should not have a special prayer room for Muslim students.

A simple determination to apply the same laws equitably to all -- without special exceptions -- cannot reasonably be deemed illegal or immoral. Non-PC maybe, but so what?

Sorry Gordon # 113 Spend a couple of minutes doing some research, and find out the answer. It isn't Tunis.

#92 Martel-
Amen on all counts!!

American Infidel 108

I am willing to do what is necessary in order to protect Western Civilization...

Including, evidently, transforming it into the mirror image of its enemies. Thanks, but no thanks.

What is this? I thought that Israel was the greatest threat to mankind.

BTW, Norway is noted for its strong anti-Israel position.

Model4 (#97):

I fully support banning them and/or evicting their practitioners.

Heh, it seems I (inadvertently) am being more "moderate" than you.

Actually, I, too, fully support the spirit of your position. To "cut off immigration from Dar-al-Islam (for starters) COMPLETELY, and implement no-holds-barred deportation of Muslim troublemakers -- with their families" is just a more practical way to go about doing what must be done.

122

The issues can be seperated.

These european countries will find their muslim problems growing, ultimately ending in violence.

They will not equate this with their policy towards Israel.

#103 Right Brain

Someone please tell me why the title of the article describes this as a "right wing" activity.

Because the party behind this is a right wing party. But you have a point. I can't think of a single instance where a reactionary government tried to suppress religion. On the other hand the Communists waged a savage war against religion (mainly Orthodox Christianity and Judaism, but also Islam) in the USSR until the beginning of WWII.

Poitiers-Lepanto

And the other one who asks me about the Constitution...what Constitution ?

So after you tear up the Constitution, and ban Islam, and deport all the Muslims, exactly who gets a say in how we runn things? Any of the inalienable rights you feel like letting us keep?

the stale odor of Islamohatred

We don't hate Islam because it's "Islam". We hate it because it's, in Model4's words, "a violent, expansionistic, human-rights crushing, bigoted, genocidal ideology".

Do you not consider any, or all, of those things, well, hateful?

#126 ben-ami

So after you tear up the Constitution, and ban Islam, and deport all the Muslims, exactly who gets a say in how we runn things? Any of the inalienable rights you feel like letting us keep?

I like the way you think. One must spin everything into the best and worst case scenarios to understand as best you can. Then, it helps to put things in perspective.

A political party in Norway has taken a position: that's point "A." Your statement is point "B."

How did we get from A to B? Or, "strawman."

125 AW

But you have a point. I can't think of a single instance where a reactionary government tried to suppress religion.

You must mean "supress all religion," right? Because I can think of a couple of reactionary governments that tried to surpress individual religions right off the top of my head.

128 American Infidel

Just as Jackson marched on Georgia...

Sheridan, perhaps?

Islam isn't a religion but a political ideology with a religion that sanctifies its politics.

This means neither can be "reformed" without questioning the basic tenets of the faith. It's an either/or ideology, with no possibility of englightened development. Any attempts to do so--such as Bahai, Sufi Islam--have been crushed by the majority of Moslems.

Which is why this imperialist religion must be defeated, starting with its banning in Western countries.

That a major Scandinavian party has publicly called for Islam's banning is the best sign yet that Euros are waking up. Ditto for the Daily Telegraph column calling upon British Conservatives to confront Islamic Fascism.

This year may be a turning point for the West.

ben-ami

what reactionary government (in modern times) tried to suppress a certain religion? I don't think the racism of the Nazis is a good example.

Damn, I meant Sherman.

US public schools that will not allow a child to pause for a silent grace over a meal

Um, has this actually happened, and if so, can you provide a supporting citation?

I am in agreement with most of the saner heads here in that banning a religion is a bad idea.

But banning Islamic immigration into Western countries may have a great deal of merit.

97 Model4

They're not advocating that religion be banned. They're advocating that a religion be banned.

I never said that they were advocating banning all religion. What I said was that we in the West purged ourselves of the ideology, through WWII, of banning religion and to resurrect that horrible spectre now is to basically say we've learned nothing.

We fought in WWII to crush a violent, expansionistic, human-rights crushing, bigoted, genocidal ideology. BPP, how do you now say that we must protect the same thing just because it changed name-tags?

That is a thorough misreading of what's going on. What you have in Europe, as elsewhere, are people who want to practice Islam in peace and others that want to advocate violence and confrontation through religion. When the PP says ban Islam, it is making no distinction between those who practice peacefully - the corner shop owner, the day laborer, the salesman, whatever - and the fiery radical. That is why it will never work and why it is an idiotic policy, the same as the German "banning" of neo-Nazi parties. Sure they can't parade around town, but does anyone really believe they disappear? Short of mass deportation (to where?) how are you going to stop Muslims from praying?

This is an unpopular view here at LGF, but Islam is NOT a death cult. It is a religion. With many variations and levels of observance and ideologies. It is not some monolith where everyone who believes is a bin Laden disciple. Even Daniel Pipes doesn't put support for radicals at any more than 10-15% of the Muslim population. You can call those radicals who want to blow things up death cultists, but you can't call all Muslims that. Sorry if that's too PC for everyone here, but I would have thought that would be a pretty uncontroversial thought.

Judge me how you will.

I judge you to be both frustrated and worried and looking for answers, like the rest of us. But let's debate solutions that actually have a chance of making a difference, not paranoid fantasies like banning Islam.

That said, I agree with those who say that while they oppose any banning, the fact that this is being discussed will probably influence the overall debate about the role of Muslims in European society, which is a good thing. I expect that, like in the immigration debate, the mainstream parties will shift rightward slightly on the subject of integration of Muslims. I think much more scrutiny is needed of mosques and more action is needed to control immigration.

130

Islamic actions can be banned. Islamic law, Islamic buildings, Islamic oppression of women, all federal recognition can be stopped.

Islam is disposable. It was kicked out of europe by force and will be again. Face facts, it does not co-exist with other forms of expression.

AW 133

what reactionary government (in modern times) tried to suppress a certain religion? I don't think the racism of the Nazis is a good example.

Salazar's Portugal, for one, and Franco's Spain.

The only countries I can think of where something akin to what the PP is proposing was carried out are the USSR, Communist countries in Asia, and Iran.

not to mention Saudi Arabia.

The acceleration of attacks by Moslems against Jews, Christians, Hindus and Buddhists around the world will soon render moot intellectual debates such as this, for the response by states will be not just banning but physical destruction.

The speed at which this will take place will astonish all those who think they can "nuance" a response to Islamic Fascism. There is no nuanced response to barbarism.

133

Nazis are an exact match. A mass of people, Germans, were infected with a destructive structure of beliefs that led to the death of millions.

Muslims are the flesh that the cancer of radical islam grows on. If you can not cure the cancer, remove its host. Their worming their way into French society and insistance on changing it is their method of destruction.

Islamic thought is a parasite.

For all those saying Islam should be allowed, provided it follows our laws, please put your money where your mouth is. Stop the incitement to murder and advocacy of the violent overthrow of our government in all Islamic teaching and literature. Act as if you actually believe in your stated principles and make this come about. At that point in time, I'll happily re-evaluate my stance.

Odd though that most of you with these views are perfectly willing to tell the rest of us we have to put up with constant illegal mortal threats to our lives and nations, and yet expect Islam as-is to be welcomed, coddled and shielded.

#111 Dave Ray: What's the address of the Church of Quetzlcoatl in your neighborhood? Because that faith just surged in popularity when it was opposed forcefully, right? Sorry, that "If you ever lift a finger against your enemy it only makes him stronger" has been shown false too many times for us to pretend it binds our hands.

#123 Q:

Heh, it seems I (inadvertently) am being more "moderate" than you.

Well, I'll look the other way for now. Next time though, it goes in your permanent record!

Flippant remark of the day:

Speak the truth and shoot anyone who orders you to shut up.

In 1999, the Vatican hosted a conference of Muslim and Christian leaders, attended by the Titular Archbishop of Smyrna. He reports that a Muslim participant was disarmingly frank about the purpose of Islamic settlers in pluralistic Western societies. Addressing the Christian delegates from Europe, he allegedly said: "Because of our religion, we will invade you; because of your democracy, we will destroy you."

The above from the Telegraphartcicle someone linked to yesterday.

Anyone viewing Islam as just another religion plays right into the hands of the Islamist who desire to establish sharia wherever they might live. They do use democratic freedoms to advance their very undemocratic goals. This Norwegian party's adovacacy that Islam be banned might seem extreme, and it's probaby impossible anyway, but at least their grappling with the reality that Islam is not just another religion.

Also, as others have said, it would seem that the first logical step to slowing the spread of Islam into Europe and the US would be to decrease or end immigration by Muslims. Until that step is seriously considered, everything else seems like a lot of sophomoric bull sessions.

133

The Kazakhs and their neighbors while tolerating muslims, destroy those who threaten the goverment, or pander the idea of an islamic takeover.

The US should adopt a similar policy. Attempting to overthrow the government should be treated as a capitol crime. The laws exist. Free speech is not unlimited.

The constitution is not a death warrant but a living document that can be changed. In the event of more deadly muslim attacks like 9/11 there is no reason not to do so.

#140 ben-ami

I was not aware that Franco cracked down on Protestants. You got a point. Still, nothing can be compared to what the Bolsheviks did to the Russian Orthodox Church in the 1930s. Not to mention what they did to Jewish religious and educational institutions.

the Bruce

I agree Islamism, like the other -isms -- Nazism, Communism -- is a political ideology rather than a religion. Inherently dangerous and destructive to a free society, its adherents should be closely monitored by law-enforcement and intelligence agencies for attempts to commit crimes and subvert the Constitution. That's essentially what the Patriot Act is facilitating under the guise of fighting "terrorism". However, even Nazism and Communism -- for all the destruction they have wrought through history -- have not been banned in the US. If idiots want to dress up in brownshirts and jackboots and sing "Horst Wessel Lied" every Saturday night, so be it. As public awareness of Islamic doctrine grows, Islam will be shunned, isolated, and ultimately consigned to the same loony bin as followers of the KKK.

145 Model4

Odd though that most of you with these views are perfectly willing to tell the rest of us we have to put up with constant illegal mortal threats to our lives and nations, and yet expect Islam as-is to be welcomed, coddled and shielded.

A classic distortion. Because I don't believe Islam should be banned, it also means I think it shouldn't be subject to any scrutiny. Of course it's utter nonsense. Nowhere on this thread does anyone say Islam should be "coddled".

Ironically, I read these two news articles this morning:

Anti-Muslim remarks rock the boat originally from 7/14/04.

Hagen's outbursts came during a speech he made at a Christian festival in Bergen on Tuesday.

"The Islamic fundamentalists, along the same lines as Hitler, made it clear a long time ago that their long-term plan is to 'Islamify' the world," Hagen claimed. "They're well underway, they've come far in Africa and are on their way into Europe, and then we have to fight it."

Hagen also talked about children being used as suicide bombers. "We Christians are very concerned about children, 'Let the children come to me,' said Jesus," Hagen declared. "I can't see Mohammed saying the same."

Hagen may attend course on Islam originally from 7/15/04.

Two Muslims from Pakistan, now living in Oslo, told newspaper Dagbladet, meanwhile, that they have filed police charges against Hagen for allegedly violating Norway's law against blasphemy.

"We can't accept an attack of this calibre," Ashfaq Sadiq told the paper. "We will fight for a clear line in society that defends political and religious freedom."

Hagen retorted that Norway also protects freedom of speech, adding that his remarks applied to fundamentalists, "not all Muslims."

#138 BPP: You're reading an understandable mistake into what I've been saying. I have never said that there are no Muslims who are good, just, peaceful and loving people. Islam however, in it's own words, in black and white, is a hateful, bigoted, human-rights crushing genocidal ideology.

To be sure, there were plenty of fine Germans who considered themselves loyal Nazis and sent their children off to join the Hitler Youth out of a sense of patriotism and a blinkered view about what they were actually supporting. Does that mean they were the same as those who were willfully committing atrocities? Nope. Does it absolve the ideology? Nope. Do you see the difference?

You were probably writing as I made the last post, but is my test fair? Can you find a Muslim flock that doesn't give their children the "Word of Allah" that says that Infidels cannot be their friends, are inferior, and must be conquered, enslaved, converted or killed? That teaches other than that the End of Time won't come until Muslims kill every last Jew? You seem quite firm in confronting my views, and yet theirs, illegal and immoral, must be allowed. Do we all not get judged by the same standard in your eyes?

I can happily live with Athiests, agnostics, Hindus, Bhuddists, Sikhs, Jews, Christians, etc. Why? Because they can happily live with me. They don't teach their children that "God wants you to kill Model4 if he won't join up, here it is in writing. But we're not saying that in public now." I really think your heart is in the right place, but at the end of the day, you're protecting a cruel and inhumane ideology that has no place in the civilized world.

#126 Ben-Ami

Can you keep all the Constituional rights you want when you have been defeated in a war that aims at the total destruction of Freedom and Democracy ?
The invaders will ban your religion or not religion, and yourself too.
Unless you are muslim of course.

Well, it's not personal but I don't believe any longer in the good faith of people who discuss like this.

I agree with all the posts of The Bruce, as always.

The enemy is already inside the castle anyway, the future will be terrible.

At the Gate:

I agree Islamism, like the other -isms -- Nazism, Communism -- is a political ideology rather than a religion.

That wasn't my point at all.

I wrote: "Islam isn't a religion but a political ideology with a religion that sanctifies its politics."

In other words, Islam is an ideology AND a religion, with the latter fixing the nature of its politics for all time because of its sacred status.

This is the insidious nature of Islam, in that we in the West are allowing it freedom to operate politically because of its dual nature as a religion.

As others have noted on previous posts, this is the first time we in the US and in Europe have confronted a religious war in three centuries. We are having a difficult time reconciling the unique nature of Islam's integration of religious and political rules and philosophy.

But this week has generated public recognition of it in serious ways--the essay by David Warren on July 16 (Jihad as a Whole; see [Link: www.davidwarrenonline.com...] as well as the Daily Telegraph column and statements from Norway all signify the first recognition of what we face.

Bush will not be able to run from a national debate on naming the enemy and his objectives in this presidential election.

# 155 The Bruce:

I may be wrong, but I think another of your points is that, because "Islam isn't a religion but a political ideology with a religion that sanctifies its politics," there can be no constructive debate as to its political theories. To do so, one is branded a racist; to not do so, one is branded a dhimmi.

For those that say "end Islamic immigration," well, that's a practical step. But how are you going to justify it in a way that doesn't scream out loud that Islam itself shouldnt' be allowed? The "Are you a jihadi?" test doesn't quite cut it. What will the justification be for stopping immigration on the basis that it's from an Islamic nation? Of course that will mean plenty of peaceful people will be denied entry too, including those who aren't Muslim in the first place. And what about the Saudi who immigrates to a Western country who then wants to immigrate elsewhere in the US?

At some point everyone will realize "Well, we can't know what's in everyone's heart and mind, and the fact is that the threat to us all coming from people who believe in Islam is just too much to accept!"

And then someone will be there saying "So how do you justify the presence of Muslims here now?" Logically we can't implement one without the other. But we may pretend we can, and it would be helpful at least.

#151 BPP: Fair enough. I'd still like to know what you think we should do when Muslims preach, in word or in writing, that our government must be overthrown and our people killed.

Rick Z:

I think another of your points is that, because "Islam isn't a religion but a political ideology with a religion that sanctifies its politics," there can be no constructive debate as to its political theories. To do so, one is branded a racist; to not do so, one is branded a dhimmi.

Exactly. There is no middle ground with a totalitarian ideology that's also a religion--which has eradicated all attempts at internal reform since its founding.

Notice that no American or European politician has dared named the enemy yet. It's either "terrorism" or "totalitarian ideology." If the enemy were not Islamic in nature, our leadership would have described the enemy and his beliefs in great detail.

But I think this is the year we turn that corner, given the Islamofascist counter-offensive no public official has the courage to acknowledge.

#153 Model 4

Well put. Very well put!!! No matter what we say about "moderate Islam" or "Good Muslims", the writings in the Koran are unambiguos, and easy to understand...there is NO room for tolerance of ANY other world religion. They want to be the ONE world religion (sound familiar, fellow Christians?)

#138 BPP

What I said was that we in the West purged ourselves of the ideology, through WWII, of banning religion and to resurrect that horrible spectre now is to basically say we've learned nothing.

The Nazis destroyed the Jews because of their racial "ineferiority", not because they had a religion. Yes, the Nazis were against Christianity too, but only because it was an alternative to Nazism.

When the PP says ban Islam, it is making no distinction between those who practice peacefully - the corner shop owner, the day laborer, the salesman, whatever - and the fiery radical.

The radical cannot exist without the peaceful Muslims who, by the way, have many more kids than most. They might not be bad people (their silence suggests they aren't good people, either), but their presence is what makes the jihad in Europe possible.

But let's debate solutions that actually have a chance of making a difference, not paranoid fantasies like banning Islam.

That said, I agree with those who say that while they oppose any banning, the fact that this is being discussed will probably influence the overall debate about the role of Muslims in European society, which is a good thing.

So let's not talk about extreme options, except talking about extreme options provokes a wider discussion "which is a good thing"? Those strike me as mutually exclusive.

#153: Model4

To be sure, there were plenty of fine Germans who considered themselves loyal Nazis and sent their children off to join the Hitler Youth out of a sense of patriotism and a blinkered view about what they were actually supporting. Does that mean they were the same as those who were willfully committing atrocities? Nope. Does it absolve the ideology? Nope. Do you see the difference?

Indeed. I know Muslims who are perfectly secular, but have a strong inclination, a reflex-like impulse to disagree with everything Israel does or is or will ever be. Which has largely cooled down my interest in them and their ways.

I think it all boils down to the question whether Islam in its current state is compatible with Western ideology or not. What will be left of Islam if we tear out the ulcers of anti-Semitism that IS wide-spread, honor killings, disgust of the West? Are we over-generalizing when we perceive all of Islam to be anti-West or are there the "good" Muslims who believe in freedom and democracy but pray to Allah? I think there are, but I think they are a small minority, to be honest; it's all a question of their proportions within the body of the Ummah. It's all a question of when Muslims will be able to judge on rational grounds - which they don't want, because Enlightenment swept over europe since the 17th century, leaving Arabia in the dark and maybe forever.

So, in a practical sense, how might sovereign nations go about the process of:

1) ensuring no new muslim migrants get into their nation
2) repatriating existing muslims, who may be citizens of that nation, and/or born there.

The prospect of sending a muslim born in Cleveland, Ohio back 'home' (to wherever) is going to be rather difficult when he claims his constitutional rights.

Of course, we could just classify muslims as untermensch and put them in freight containers and ship them to some convenient islamic location, where we release them 'into the wild'.

#162 hans ze beeman: How the Hell you been man? Missed you around here.

Hmm.

The moonbat //moonbat tags got lost somewhere.

#162 hans ze beeman

Good to hear from you :-)

I know Muslims who are perfectly secular, but have a strong inclination, a reflex-like impulse to disagree with everything Israel does or is or will ever be.

I've experienced the same thing. It leads me to believe that antisemitism is by no means limited to the jihadis.

What will be left of Islam if we tear out the ulcers of anti-Semitism that IS wide-spread, honor killings, disgust of the West?

Kebabs.

Model4 #158

And then someone will be there saying "So how do you justify the presence of Muslims here now?" Logically we can't implement one without the other. But we may pretend we can, and it would be helpful at least.

Several times in our history we have changed our immigration laws, both increasing and decreasing quotas, as well as specifying what nations immigrants can come from. Ending quotas for a specific group would be very un-PC today, but it could be done. It'd take another large terrorist attack, or many small ones, but I believe the US could decide to end Muslim immigration.

We've never deported an entire identifiable group, and I doubt it'll ever happen unless under conditions never before experienced in the US. But a halt to Muslim immigration would be a very strong signal that the expansionist beliefs of Islam are not wanted in the US, and will not be tolerated except to the extent allowed by free speech (if that).

I think it's a mistake to consider a halt to immigration and the possibility of deportations together. One could be done, but I doubt the other unless all hell broke loose.

Paranoid Brit -

Lose the lame irony. To draw ANY kind of equivalency between the "untermensch" Jews, Slavs etc and the Islamo fascists is to utter a moral profanity.

The Jews did not wish to dominate Germany.

The Slavs wanted to be left alone.

The Moslems intend to rule the world.

So explain to me the equivalency?

Oh, and as far as the Moslem in Cleveland - - let's assume he or she is true to his faith, and throws in with the Jihadis. That is what police are for. That is why there are prisons. Not a problem.

163

If NYC or LA incinerate that would be the best outcome for all involved. Any person Muslim or otherwise involved with undermining the US goverment should be deported or jailed. Our Constitution can be ammended and Habeus Corpus can be suspended.

You have it easier in the UK. All it would take is a parlimentary vote, no right free speech for subjects of the crown exist in writing. Your proposed religous hatred act would make salman rushdie a criminal and the Ayatollahs the victim.

Don't preach to us brother. They still plotting your demise at the Fennbury Mosque or have you guys grown some balls and raided the place.

#164: Model4

Preparing publications :)
I have a new job, and learned new statistical methods that afford pratically all grey cells left that have not been knocked out by... Lizard beer! (Yes it is tequila flavored) Hope you and the other true LGFers (plus the Massster) have been fine too :)

You can't ban Muslim immigration, but you can ban immigration from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Jordan -- you get the idea.

Well I go off to do some chores, and come back to find the thread corrupted and hijacked.

Where's steve miller?

Folks this is huge...even if this is a small political party, it is still a start!!

This takes freakin guts!! It gives me hope in the Western World that we are waking up!!!

Kudos to Norway!!

Devon

158 Model4

I'd still like to know what you think we should do when Muslims preach, in word or in writing, that our government must be overthrown and our people killed.

I think we should do what we do when anyone advocates violence, which is to shut down the forum through which they are speaking. I am by no means a free speech absolutist. I also think that if the person is not a citizen, they should be deported which is, funnily enough, the strategy that the French are now trying.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Europe or the US should just sit back and wait for stuff to happen. There needs to be very vigorous law enforement and intelligence gathering. And there needs to be a radical reduction in immigration, although I'm not sure that immigration levels are at the same level they were at a few years ago.

But to answer your other question, there are plenty of mosques that don't preach hatred, that don't advocate the overthrow of the government. These people must be allowed to get on with their lives. It's simply a myth that moderate Muslims protect the radicals. Most of the intelligence on radicals in the West in fact comes from community tipoffs. Could they do more? Sure. But don't assume they do nothing.

The bottom line is this: there is no surer recruiting tool for the radicals than a call to ban Islam.

161 Colt

So let's not talk about extreme options, except talking about extreme options provokes a wider discussion "which is a good thing"? Those strike me as mutually exclusive.

This is a fair point I suppose. I guess what I mean is that now that the idea has been introduced, it will provoke further fruitful discussion, but the idea itself is not worth discussing. In other words, let's quickly move on from it.

The Moslems are truly guilty of just about every sociopolitical crime the Nazis falsely accused the Jews of.

There is no comparison.

Hans Ze Beeman!!!

Be well!!

WE don't classify them as 'untermenchen'...THEY EXHIBIT THE MORALS AND BEHAVIOR OF FILTY SCUM UNTERMENCHEN..

!

# 168 a.k.a. Will:

We've never deported an entire identifiable group, and I doubt it'll ever happen unless under conditions never before experienced in the US.

One wonders if those conditions never having been experienced you mention, allowing for mass deportation of an identifiable group, would include nuclear detonations within US territorial borders? That nightmare scenario is not so far-fetched as one might hope.

154 Poitiers-Lepanto

Can you keep all the Constituional rights you want when you have been defeated in a war that aims at the total destruction of Freedom and Democracy ?

You're concerned about the destruction of Freedom and Democracy, but you want to abolish freedom of religion and deport a whole group of people based on their religion? Freaky.

RickZ #182

A nuclear detonation within the US would fall under my "unless all hell broke loose" category.

They are what they Claim other's to be.( need I say more)

#100 Gordon:

You miss the point. REgarding your Tunisia link, the gains that the women have made is in spite of Islam, not because of Islam.

There's a discussion over Hagen's comments and a separate posting for this on Bjorn Staerk's blog.

Bjorn is Norweigan.

[Link: bearstrong.net...]

Islam is problematic for all of the reasons described above. It is intollerant; it has utterly failed to keep pace with modernity and its practitioners are locked in a byzantine box of its scripture.

Banning a religion is dangerous. It opens the gates of hell. Conversely, standing up to Islamic intollerance and facing down the Wahabist influence now, while Islam in the west is comparatively weak, makes good sense.

Wahabism/Islamism is a bad meme; it can be defeated precisely because all it has is advocating a system that has already failed. The west works, democracy and commerce are the better idea. People pick up the trash and anyone can open or buy a store.

The Iraqi government, if it succeeds, is more the answer than standing the principles of western democracy upsidedown under the unproven assumption that Islam cannot be reformed. We have not even tried.

It is right to fear using government power to destroy a religion; it is wrong to not see Islam's rise in Europe as a threat. But before just banning it, reformation must be tried.

Most immigrants come to the west to escape the very system the Islamists are trying to build here. They come, products of the education and knowledgebase that created bin Laden, some do come for Jihad, but most just come to get away from the daily oppression of life in the Islamic world. Educate them to see they will lose the benefits of the west if Islamism wins without destroyiung their faith; you will get Muslim citizens fighting for their right to be free of these creatures. Islamic women have the most to lose if they win; women's rights is the winning issue. Defeat the ideas of their system, prevent them from ever gaining power, encourage the silent to speak out, teach women they don't have to be slaves and we can win this thing with far less bloodshed. This is the bigger victory.

We owe it to ourselves to win; we are so strong and the war we are fighting is not a normal war. It is a mind war of ideas and will; Islam has no ideas, we must break the Islamist's will by breaking their support among their own people. We are on the brink of winning with the shi'ites. Let Iraq become democratic and Iran AND Saudi will be challenged to justify themselves to their people.

We must be more messianic about democracy than they are about Islam.

Fight the good fight and win the greater victory.

It's interesting that I received scant response on the practicalities of ensuring the US' safety. Living as I do in the US, and for that matter, working in NYC among a large number of LLLs, I still feel I'm in a safer place than in Tony Blair's Conflicted Socialist Utopia.

FWIW, I don't think that closing the borders to people of particular nations would be effective. All an enterprising muslim needs to do is to make his way to an unaligned nation and obtain a passport illegally.

I've seen some comments here recognizing that some proportion of the world's muslims may not, in fact, be frothing jihadis bent on world domination. Of course, we all agree that in being moderate, they're not following the Quran. Some of these 'moderate muslims' may live in the US. Maybe evey muslim in the US is a moderate, but I contend that even here in the US, with a lower percentage of muslims than Europe, we have plenty to worry about with our home-grown jihadis. What are we going to do about them? Put 'em all under surveillance?

Which returns to my previous comment, which (as subsequently noted, lost my '/moonbat' tags).

1) How would currently non-Islamic states effectively close down their borders to exploding activist migrants?

2) What will nations like the US (theoretically civilized) do about their current incumbent population?

I'm genuinely looking for a reasoned discourse and suggestions. I personally believe that there will have to be mass segregation of populations, because the alternatives, some years later, are even more terrible to contemplate.

I note with satisfaction that in the time it took to type #189, that I got some reasonable comments

I despair at some of the comments here

183

Muslim immigration should stop tomorrow.
In the event of another muslim attack they can be treated as enemy combatantants and removed, jailed, or shot. Just like the Japaneese in WW2. Apologize 50 years later, current problem solved.

The leaders of the mainstream muslim groups here advocate the islamic overthrow of the US. No one has taken this seriously and put a needle in their arm.

[Link: www.anti-cair-net.org...]

Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth." - Omar Ahmad

Ibrahim Hooper
CAIR Spokesperson
(Click Photo)

" I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like
the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future

These men and their ilk are a clear and present danger to my rights to free speech and practice of religion. They are the enemy. Regretfully it will take further, larger loss of life for this to be realized and these men, their supporters, and their religion, if necessary to be rendered harmless by any means. Including, jail, deportation, or execution under sedition laws.

#178 BPP:

But to answer your other question, there are plenty of mosques that don't preach hatred, that don't advocate the overthrow of the government.

I'd be interested in knowing of one that doesn't promote the binding moral authority of the Koran and teachings and examples of Muhammed to the congregation.

Or is it going to be a case of "Well, that's different. If it were you or I passing out the literature, then yes it's a crime. When it's Muslims, then it's ok."

#189
Want to name names, Dave?

I recommend reading a relevant article: How the British broke the Thugs of India and how to apply those methods against terrorists

"...of course, we are aware of what these mosques are used for."

I'll say! Religion is only ONE of their uses. Others are storing guns and ammo and giving refuge to outlaws wanted by the police.

Radian 192

" I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future

But there are Christian groups in the US that want the same thing for their own religious ideology. Are you in favor of deporting them, too?

#16 - BPP

You're getting sucked into that "all religions are equal and good" mentality.

Naziism was also a religion... Just because they talk about some god or other doesn't automatically qualify it as a religion that we want to have around (such as, perhaps, Buddhism) - at least in its present state.

From what you say there's nothing (aside from a little charisma) to stop me starting and spreading a religion called Moonbat whose main tenet is that we should kill all those with blue eyes. I could cook up a good name for our "god" and come up with a few interesting conspiracy theories, and BLAM!!! I have a religion... and the folks out there had better not touch me or my followers.

#170 Radian

You have it easier in the UK. All it would take is a parlimentary vote, no right free speech for subjects of the crown exist in writing.

The UK has signed the European Declaration of Human Rights. To render that void, the UK would have to pull out of the EU. Though, by the time Brit politicians are willing to start banning Islam, the EU probably won't look quite so attractive.

#178 BPP

In other words, let's quickly move on from it.

Agree to disagree, then.

197

The goverment is based on christian laws.
A real argument on church and state can be made that seperation was aimed at the church of rome. The founders were afraid of foreign interference, not of their own christian beliefs. The United States was built by Christians and its laws reflect that. The founders did not set up this goverment to be overrun by a foreign religion who will impose its beliefs on us infadels.

I think the goverment should destroy any person or group who breaks the laws and challenges its authority. Wackos who shoot Doctors who perform abortions should die, those who fund them should be destroyed with RICOH laws. Same for the islamic institutions. Revoke their tax status, remove their federal holidays, and sieze their bank accounts. Jail their leaders in millitary prisons as state enemies.

The US must kill those who try to bring it down, both foreign AND domestic.

#174 quark2: Yeah, I feel for you. It's a real pisser when pure Islamophobia gets corrupted by common sense, doesn't it? And occasionally, common sense breaks out on an LGF thread. Bummer, man.

#175 Ploome: Wow, in attacking Paranoid Brit you actually agreed with his mock proposal!

Look in a mirror, babe. Genocide does not become you.

I'm really surprised that on LGF of all places there are people who still think Islam is a religion. Folks, get a grip. The very notion of "a religion" is a Western concept that we've applied as a label to something outside our framework. There is no such thing as "religion" in Islamic thought. Islam, by its own definition and by the definition of its leading scholars, is an all-encompassing social, political, spiritual, personal and intellectual worldview that does not leave room for or even allow any other lifestyles. Period. This has been discussed many times here and a solid concensus was reached, with ample evidence.

The mere act of Muslims saying "We are a religion -- you must accord us the same rights as all religions in your society" is itself a cynical PC ploy to use our laws and customs against us. They know it's a ploy, and are amazed we go along with it.

Banning Islam is no different from banning Nazism or any other odious ideology. As pointed out here multiple times, Islam's own stated goal is to exterminate all other belief systems. And now some of you -- even LGF regulars -- are claiming that we have to kowtow to this genocidal mass movement for fear of offending people's delicate sensibilities?

C'mon LGFers: WAKE UP!

The founders were afraid of foreign interference, not of their own christian beliefs. The United States was built by Christians and its laws reflect that. The founders did not set up this goverment to be overrun by a foreign religion who will impose its beliefs on us infadels.

Most of the founders were Deists, and not Christian in the sense you're probably thinking of. And the United States was built by lots of other people besides Christians.

Paranoid Brit:

Do I need to name names? Just pick any comment that's further right of Ghengis Khan and I despair. I may be the whinger of the thread...it's my role (I am British) but at least I'm not advocating a totalitarian state, mass epulsion of a religious group and/or mass murder. Hence me despairing.

#203

OMG. The humiliation. Recognition by Gordon!

I really must get used to this user interface. Not being able to insert sarcasm tags where I want them and have them appear is really cramping what little style I have.

200

How do they plan to enforce their new gag law?

This would have to be judged in a British court.

I'm surprised the UK even signed up.

The Religious Sources of Islamic Terrorism by Shmuel Bar in the June-July edition of Policy Review published by the Hoover Institution

[Link: www.policyreview.org...]

The article is completely on point for this thread

Overreaching- and ultimately counterproductive.

What they should be doing is enforcing incitement laws that (I presume) must be on the books in Norway, and deporting those who are not NOrwegian citizens, and imprisioning those who are.

Radian:

Regretfully it will take further, larger loss of life for this to be realized and these men, their supporters, and their religion, if necessary to be rendered harmless by any means. Including, jail, deportation, or execution under sedition laws.

All too true. W and the rest of America's civilian leadership didn't think we were strong enough to identify our enemies three years ago. However, that mistake will make our response to further Marxist-Islamic agression in the future all the more violent.

When Congress approves a revived set of Alien and Sedition Acts in the near future, all this babble about a civilized response to barbarism will be dropped by everyone but the morally insane.

@Colt, AG in Houston

Thanks! Hope you've been fine as well! :)

#209: Motti

Thanks for that article! Intersting points in the last paragraph:

A strategy to cope with radical Islamic ideology cannot take shape without a reinterpretation of Western concepts of the boundaries of the freedoms of religion and speech, definitions of religious incitement, and criminal culpability of religious leaders for the acts of their flock as a result of their spiritual influence. Such a reinterpretation impinges on basic principles of Western civilization and law. Under the circumstances, it is the lesser evil.

205

furr-furr-fa-furr, you lose.

Witherspoon was a presby minister,
Adams was a christian

Samuel Adams said, "The rights of the colonists may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutes of the great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament."

On the day that he signed the Declaration of Independence he said, "We have this day restored the Sovereign to whom all men ought to be obedient. He reigns in Heaven, and from the rising to the setting of the sun, let His kingdom come."

Franklin:
Franklin rose and said, "I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that 'except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.' ... I therefore beg leave to move that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service."

Locke was a Christian.

You are wrong. This country was founded by men who believed in God almighty and Jesus Christ. That is a historical fact.

I neversaid they did it all by themselves, but the US has a solid Christian foundation.
These men would see Islam ans they did Rome, a potential threat to their structure of government.

Read up and come back.

Zombie:

Banning Islam is no different from banning Nazism or any other odious ideology. As pointed out here multiple times, Islam's own stated goal is to exterminate all other belief systems. And now some of you -- even LGF regulars -- are claiming that we have to kowtow to this genocidal mass movement for fear of offending people's delicate sensibilities?

Because we've lost the intellectual resources as a nation to recognize the ways in which barbarism can advance its objectives.

Because too many are still afraid of acknowledging the consequences of identifying Islam as the enemy--a world war.

#138 BPP

You would encourage people to practice islam in peace."

Would you also encourage them to practice 'religious bigotry' or 'sedition' or 'mysogyny' as long as they do it 'peacefully.'

This is moral spinelessness and compromise with evil.

Allowing the meme-set "islam" to propagate will inevitably lead to violence against anything and everything that is not itself.

Does 1500 years of documented bloodshed and strife mean nothing to you??

Do you think that your unconditional love for the heathen devils will save you from the fate of the rest of us ?

You are mistaken.

The Alien and Sedition Acts?

Wooonderful. :-|

#16 -
Matter of definition. Islam isn't a "religion." It's a crime against humanity.

Basically, we need to stick up for our laws & standards. FGM is a crime. Murder is a crime. Rape is a crime. Incitement to riot is a crime. Immigration-law violations are crimes. Carrying a concealed weapon is a crime. Identification photos, including driver's license photos, must show the full face unobscured by hats, veils, etc. Firearms must be registered, and certain persons such as felons are not eligible to purchase/possess them. "Religion," "philosophy," "culture" are not excuses for disobeying the law. Convict them of their crimes.

Radian

You are wrong. This country was founded by men who believed in God almighty and Jesus Christ. That is a historical fact.

Or not.

Wisdon from the North!

# 221 Pitiricus:

It took me a minute to realize just what you were saying. At first, I thought you meant Canada!

#31 WriterMom -
Any indication that Amnesty Int'l condemns makers of shirts terrorists wear to hide their bomb vests? Any indication that Amnesty Int'l condemns makers of cars/trucks terrorists use to make car bombs? Any indication that Amnesty Int'l condemns bottle-makers for the glass shards some Muslims use to mutilate their little daughters? Any indication of rational intelligence among members of Amnesty Int'L?

Gordon and friends,

Having a self-declared and proven deadly enemy intertwined in a religion requires us to confront our long cherished protections for the sanctity of religious freedom. Understandably this brings resistance and, unfortunately, some fuzzy thinking.

Many here would seemingly shelter any crime if it were carried out under the veil of a religion. Were Hitler to have declared himself a god and had temples like Caesar did, I worry at the number of defenders he might have gained among those unequipped to clearly weigh what seem like the conflicting public interests of religious freedom and freedom from crimes of mass death. Crimes are not extinguished by robes and incense. And the Koran’s fulfilled mandates of bloodlust are not cleansed by its rosiest aspects

To try and reconcile our dilemma by simply saying we have to wait until these religious adherents recognizably commit their crimes of violence before stopping the source of their action is ineffective. Societies developed the crimes of conspiracy and accessory levels of guilt to criminal activity, involving nuanced degrees of plotting and sheltering criminal plots, exactly because waiting for the most serious plotting criminals to prove their guilt is to allow their crimes to take terrible bites out of the lives of too many innocent people before we can even begin to act against them. With WMD’s now in the equation, it is certain mass-suicide to wait for smoking guns.

Islam falls into the category of both a religion and a conspiracy to commit genocide in every Muslim who submits to the Koran. So, presumably, the class members of each group correlate 100%, unless you wish to wait for waves of Koran-denouncing Muslims, who are able to survive apostasy, coming to our rescue. I think 1,400 years is bordering on a no-show.

True that not all Muslims actually carry the arms in this war. But their conspiracy to abet and advance the Koran’s illegal aims only better obscures from us the identities of the most overt perpetrators in the genocide they, who aren’t denouncing or exiting, are thereby all intentionally assisting in.

Even were there a segment of Islam that disavowed all the violent crime the Koran orders, enough to escape any guilty intent, I would argue that even these people faced such violent mandatory retaliation for persisting in their condemnable deviation from Islam’s commands that they would still pose an unacceptable threat of succumbing to the Koran’s plots against us, in this time of declared war on our people.

All Muslims are therefore a mortal danger to be allowed to operate freely in this avowed war of cataclysmic lethality against us and our allies.

We rounded up WWII Japanese-Americans, legally, for far less: Not to condemn to punitive prisons for their race, but to protect ourselves by interning them in very unprison-like family confinements during an incredibly vulnerable period of the war when their loyalties had to be questioned because of their hereditary and family ties with our enemy.

Muslims all choose daily to tell us of their ties to the Koran, which makes them about as monolithic an enemy as we are ever apt to see in this world. That any criminal or conspiracy has moments of non-lethal activity which can be pointed out, establishes nothing, except to those wedded to deliberately blinding themselves to Islam’s unmistakable, proudly published and regularly demonstrated criminal goals.

Nobody should mistake chosen instances of lack of opportunity as justification for giving his promised killers ample opportunity to advance their unrelenting trail of death to his and his neighbor’s doors.

220

I'm sure the article about the bible belt choking the south and assisted suicide:man, not god, has rights are equally enlightning.

The quotes are out of context. My quotes were given at the convention, in the fuucking room.

example of context.
“The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”

How many religions are no longer practiced and lost too antiquity?

Other quotes support that the laws apply to all creeds.
That does not negate the fact that the founding fathers were church goers. A presby minister is not quite a diest. My source is common historical knowledge found and supported by historical bodies. Yours is a wacko website that asserts "“Faith” is merely someone’s assertion (without evidence) that something is true."

Nice job. Try harder.

Kudos, Rufus.

Here is a good historically NON-BIASED source.

[Link: www.amazon.com...]

Containing such things as source notation and evaluation of contectual meaning.

#227
You mean its dogma meshes well with yours?

:)

Radian

My source is common historical knowledge found and supported by historical bodies. Yours is a wacko website that asserts "“Faith” is merely someone’s assertion (without evidence) that something is true."

I'm no great fan of the Objectivists, but the quotes seem quite all right. Denying the argument because of the website itself (and not the quotes) is ad hominem. But since you don't like those quotes, how about these?

Now, just in case you don't like these quotes (and I'm sure you won't), there yet be another source for you to use besides your "common historical knowledge" and unnamed "historical bodies". It's called Google, and you might find it interesting. Enjoy.

228

You mean its dogma meshes well with yours?

I think that's exactly what he means. John Eidsmoe is the author of other "unbiased" books as "Columbus and Cortez: Conquerers for Christ" and "Christ in the Classroom: The Christian Teacher and the Public School."

@207 Paranoid Brit

Oh not to worry, it's all bark and NO bite. Nodrog is a toothless L3 that Charles allows to run loose on the threads. The only bites he gets are the ones landed on his MM ass by other LGfers. :)
Just keep a keep a flyswatter closeby for the annoying bzzzt.

229

I'll assume you wrote your post before mine posted. I can link to historical books all day.

My point is that the people who teach history agree with me. The framers were Christian. They were not nihlists.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them... (Call the ACLU they said God, thats right God)

And the Senate is led in Prayer when it opens..

Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names, (Note year of our Lord)

To be clear I am stating that the Dec of Independence and Constitution were formed by Christians. Not that because of this the US should only be accessable to Christians or that Christians get special privs.

Accept the Truth. In God We Trust.

I have mixed feelings about this post. I am heartened to see a European political party leveling what I believe to be valid criticisms of Islam:

1. Retrograde and barbaric religious practices straight out of the seventh century, like honor killings
2. The radical and violent ideology of Islamism that takes shelter within the religion at large, and
3. The implied use of mosques to plan and fund terror.

However, banning Islam is neither possible nor desirable, and, I think, misses the point. It is a reminder that the civil liberties that undergird freedom in the U.S. may grow in thinner soil in other democratic nations -- the notion that rights devolve on individuals with the permission and by leave of the state survived the transfer from monarchy to democracy. It is also a sign that Western liberal apologists for Islam who can't stand to see it criticized must wake up and realize that if it is exempted from criticism, then resentment will build to have it banned, expelled, etc.

PC types who are afraid of a mythical creature called "lslamophobia" need to realize that, just as Islam has the right to exist, non-Muslims have the right to criticize it relentlessly until it vomits up the murderous movement it is sheltering within itself. Note that their first instinct is always to counterattack the critic, then to deny (the terrorists cannot be Islamic because Islam is a RoP), then to deploy "but-clauses" or "all forms of terror" arguments. If some critics, myself included, paint the target a little too broadly, it is because many of us are periodically frustrated by the lack of accountability and criticism of the extremism coming from the so called mainstream of the religion. If they would pick up the stick of criticism, I would comfortably sign off on President Bush, Bernard Lewis' and Daniel Pipes' theory that our enemy is a radical minority and the majority is a RoP.

When I argue this issue in my circle, one of the first parries I typically get is "all religions have their extremists" Let's accept that for a second (and not get into quantitative analysis). A Christian extremist murders a physician who performs abortions. What do you hear from the denominational leaders and the rank and file alike? Unqualified horror, and "no but clause" condemnations, even from staunch anti-abortion advocates. A true fringe minority will give you but clauses and weasel words, but the mainstream rightfully does not couple in its condemnation with a but clause about abortion being its own form of murder, etc.

I want to hear that outrage when a murderer says Allah Akbar. This is what I want the norm to be. The post here dated Thursday July 15 is what I would like to hear in deafening cascades.

Radian

My point is that the people who teach history agree with me. The framers were Christian. They were not nihlists.

You are obviously laboring under a serious delusions as to just what Deists believe(d).

Here's nihilism. And here's Deism. Enjoy your reading.

Now, I reallly have to go and do some of my own work.

There is a legitimate debating point re: How much of Islam is incompatible with Western Civilization. (All, Most, Some, None).

But beyond that is the real issue: Why should the compatible elements of Islam (if there are any) be compelled to purge the incompatible elements if there is no penalty for not doing so? As long as Western apologists are willing to tolerate Islam's "extreme" elements, why should we expect Islam's "moderates" to behave any different.

Of course, how they would react is another questions. Republican moderates repudiate their party's extremists (David Duke) in response to criticism, for example. Criticism only seems to strengthen the bonds between democrats and left-wing whackos (Al Sharpton, Michael Moore), however.

227 Radian

Since when is Amazon.com cited as an "unbiased" source of imformation...obviously, you've read none of their "I really didn't read it butt..." book reviews!!!

230

Fact is Fact, don't attack the source. I'm not quoting snippets bus asserting a commonly held historical fact upheld by modern historians, christian and otherwise. This fact is taught as part of every states basic education and in Liberal Arts schools around the country.

[Link: www.amazon.com...]

He doesn't look like he is a christian with a cause..

As for Spanish explorers:
Uh..I'm pretty sure they were Catholic. Now what was the official practiced religion in Spain? Ever notice there are bunches of catholics where they went..

The Royal Navy "rigged church" on its warships for hundreds of years.

I have never met a history professor who states nevermind teaches that the US was not created by Christian men.

Revisionist trash may suggest otherwise but the truth is carved in stone in the Supreme Court, our currency, and paralells between biblical and us law.

#237 Radian:

I'll have to find the source for this, but an interesting historcal aside : the original U.S. currency read not "In god We Trust" but rather "Mind Your Business."

236

I had to read that book as part of an undergrad minor in history. It did not take sides or preach. It formed coherent ideas and cited original documents as sources. Not quotations. I hate revisionist trash that smears history.

You guys think who founded the country? They weren't Muslims, buddists, spiritualists, or jews. Although Judeo-Christian law is the basis for our country.

Get a grip Christians founded the country. Which Lord and God are those documents discussing? Allah, umm maybe they were Jahova's witnesses, or really early Mormons.

237 radian
I agree with your premise, but the fact remains that most of the works Amazon endorses is revisionism, so even if it is indeed factual, their past history holds even the most factual of works with the microscope of skepticism...

238

CAM

Civil war era change..Another fun historical topic revisionists love to fuck up.

I was discussing stuff with ben-ami in a polite form. You are welcome to join in..

240

I agree amazon is not a great source for good history of you do not know what to look for.

University Libraries are better, and free. Takling to professors is also a good way to get info.

My posts aren't anti anyone. Only stating commonly accepted positions within the Historical community.

#241 Radian:

You mean that it was changed to "In God We Trust" during the Civil War? I'm not trying to be revisionist here, just curious. I'm still looking for the link where I first read that.

In an official statement, the U.K. (Ummah Kingdom) has condemned the “progressive party” of Norway. It said the comments of “progressive party” could hurt the feelings of Briton’s 1.5 million Muslims. The government of U.K. has also threatened with force to shutdown the progressive party of Norway if they were to keep their fascist policy against innocent Muslims.

Good Grief, Charley Brown

Anyone who considers Amazon Sales blurbs might want to email me. I have a great deal on some land in the Florida Back Country.

The reader reviews are similarly written for the most part by a self-selected sample who tend to be either fanboys (fanpersons?) or rabid detractors.

There's no doubt in my mind that the Constitution was framed based on a fundamental Judaeo-Christian moral framework. Whether Christians or Deists were the perpretrators seems to matter little to me.

Neither belief system is evangelical and/or crazy enough to spawn a death-cult, and arguably, they are equally ill-equipped to really understand one.

Radian:

In 1787 the Continental Congress of the Confederation commissioned the first penny. Designed by Ben Franklin, the front featured the sun rising over a sun dial. The word "Fugio," Latin for "I fly," sat next to the sundial, reminding everyone that tempus fugit. But most importantly, at least as far as this article is concerned, was the motto under the sundial, which admonished everyone to "Mind Your Business." Some scholars believe that this was intended as advice to business owners, but if they're correct it blows the whole premise of this article, so we'll brush that

Linkage

245

Agreed, but I read the book. And others that basically support the facts I stated.

But back to the topic. The framers would never have accepted Islam threatning the stability of the goverment and using the Constitution to do it. Not because they were Christians, but because the Islamos threaten everyones right (non christians as well)to coexist by trying to institute their on laws that spout out of their collections of beliefs that poeple call a religion.

The constitution and goverment founded under it requires the population to act to prevent this from happening.

243

Yep
[Link: www.ustreas.gov...]

Again, Islam is a Religion of Peace ONLY IF YOU ARE A MUSLIM. That's the fine-print disclaimer the Muslims always leave out when exhorting the " peaceful" nature of their religion. House of Islam / House of War.

European Muslims all live in the House of War. Even Muslims who do not engage in radical violent behavior must admit this.

The Quran tells them to wait until they are strong enough to wage war. They are still a minority in Europe but that will change in the near future.

#248 Radian:

LOL. I had just found that link and was about to post it when you posted it first. Cheers.

#139 is right. The buildings, geneital mutilations, dress, etc. can be banned. These are symptoms of a death cult. As for banning such a cult, the Spanish did it to the Aztecs.

OT

OMG I was listening to Hannity, and the topic of Kerry not being allowed to take communion because he was pro-choice came up, and some whack caller just told Sean he should be denied communion because he supports the war and that's murder too...wow...moral relativism at it's finest...I think I'm gonna hypertventilate!

hanz, about time you're back. I haven't checked your site lately.

How have you been?

16 BPP

The world didn't endure 50 million dead in WWII so we could ban religion. In fact, it would be hard to think of an idea more antithetical to the values that we in the West cherish.

We fought the Nazis and the Italian and Japanese Fascists to preserve democracy and to ensure not being taken over by ideologies with ideas of world dominance, taking over countires, murdering those who didn't "fit the program", robbing their belongings, or enslaving them. Sound familiar?

Take away the notions of ethnic dominance (Aryan supremacy) and the advanced technology and tight organization of the Germans, and Islam is seen to be very similar.

It is the only major religion right now that calls for:
1) taking "back" every country it used to have, taking over new countries, in fact, taking over the world,
2) Replacing other countries' legal systems with Sharia (Islamic law)
3) Enforcing the agenda violently by bloodshed of combatants and noncombatants,
4) Forcing conversions where people cannot be missionized,
5) Legitimating lying and theft in and toward other countires since the Dar El Harb (everyone else, the "world of war), is the enemy, and thus the Islamists make up their own rules and feel totally justified in flouting everyone else's, such as the Geneva Conventions.

You can call it a religion, or you can call it Swiss Cheese, but when an entity calls for the undermining of a constituted government by supporting and funding terrorists in "religious" institutions, when it's adherents refuse to act according to the law of the land and use external laws to rape, rob, and murder, I think there's a lot of justificaiton to outlawing the religion.

Put simply, if the religion puts itself above the law of the land to the extent of acts of assault and murder, there is a good case for banning it.

It is not a good thing to ban any religion or political viewpoint due to mere disagreement. But we ban nazism - it is a crime to invoke nazism and its founder in Germany, and western democracies are replete with race hate legislation. The question is whether islam 'as practised today' is the equivalent of nazism.

As a Jew, I have to answer that islam is generally the equivalent of nazism. I listen to what is preached in mosques and peddled internationally by arabs and islam (more often than not they are one and the same) and I really cannpt see a difference between what muslims and nazis advocate, except that the former don't even pretend that they are not seeking a Jewish genocide.

I believe that until the west does start abnning islam for its excesses, then the new nazi threat to the world will increase and worsen. If the west allows millions of muslims to impregnate its societies and culture prior to insisting that those societies change to suit islam, then the west will disappear as we know it.

Islam is a threat to freedom and democracy. It is a threat to Jews and Christians. If muslim countries want to remain muslim without threatening other countries then that is their choice. It need not be ours. Yet.

#97 Model4
Thank you for the superb posting. Beautifully written, incredibly lucid. You are a magnificent writer.

#204 zombie
#224 Rufus Lee K
I especially enjoyed and agree with your posts as well.

The powerful arguments for outlawing Islam articulated within this thread need to be more widely disseminated.

Charles, thank you for providing the best blog and forum on the net.

Apologies if this has already been posted here, I don't have time to scroll this long thread.

I just came across this at Israpundit. It begins with that passage from Winston Churchill's book where he talks about "Mohammedanism" that Charles posted recently.

What would present day Europe say to this? Well, we have an indication. A little while back readers of Israpundit were informed of a pro-Israel critical of Islam speech given by the leader Norway's Progress Party and reported by Bjorn Staerk . Here it is as Staerk translated it:

Pastor Enevald Flåten and I have another thing in common. We have both been made victims of the journalistic tactic that if something negative can be said, if there is one sentence that can be taken out of context, then it is done. I have experienced this, I will experience it again, and so will you. But I believe that someone must have the courage to stand up against what is politically acceptable, academically acceptable, theologically acceptable. Someone must dare to hold their own against the massive majority in Norway who obeys the emperor's new clothes. There are many who are afraid to speak their minds. [applause]

Many have asked me: Why such a strong involvement with Israel. Some say I'm just trying to gather votes, that it's a typical cynical Hagen trick to get voters in Christian communities. [laughter] But my involvement follows naturally from simply being an active citizen, from seeing how a small country has given democracy a chance, even though it is surrounded by enemies, who in their programs and manifests declare their intent to remove Israel from the face of the earth. Despite all this, Israel has stuck with a democratic government. You might think that what they need is one strong man with total power. But no - they have accepted the risks of democracy. Trusted their own citizens.

Read it all, its the bee's knees!

256 transferthem

But we ban nazism - it is a crime to invoke nazism and its founder in Germany, and western democracies are replete with race hate legislation.

Hate crime legislation is wrong, too.

Instead of the unrealistic goal of outlawing Islam and deporting whole groups of law-abiding citizens, what's wrong with just enforcing the laws that are already on the books?

#259 ben-ami

Just applying the existing laws won't do anything to stem the demographic threat of Islam.

260 Dr Phibes

Just applying the existing laws won't do anything to stem the demographic threat of Islam.

And enforcing the existing laws and restricting Arab/Indonesian/Iranian immigration (as distasteful as that may be in itself)?

Muck: Aw, thanks.

#259 ben-ami:

Instead of the unrealistic goal of outlawing Islam ... what's wrong with just enforcing the laws that are already on the books?

Long thread, forgive me if you've answered and I've forgotten, but would you enforce the laws that say you can't advocate the violent overthrow of the government? Would you enforce the laws that say you can't incite others to murder? Everyone teaching Islam from the Koran and the teachings and examples of Muhammed is doing both those things. Adding your recommendations together, it would amount to outlawing Islam.

Now your posts have been thoughtful, so don't take it personally, but allow me a hypothetical guess: If I as an Infidel-American were trying to get others to do those things, you would promptly dial the authorities and report me, and feel justice was done for the greater good when the judge sentenced me. But when Muslims in America do the same thing, you will find an excuse to say "But that's different. That should not only be accepted, but protected." Classes of citizens that are "more equal than others" can't be good for us at all. Where do I get my exemption voucher? Or is there something "special" about me that makes me more accountable under the law than my neighbor?

(Yeah, I agree, "hate crime" laws are as wrong as wrong can be)

Instead of the unrealistic goal of outlawing Islam and deporting whole groups of law-abiding citizens, what's wrong with just enforcing the laws that are already on the books?

I take it you don't find agreeing to kill and mutilate infidels everywhere as law abiding. Or do you mean we should wait until they accomplish their promised crimes piece by piece before we admit to knowing who will be commiting these crimes and how?

I would prefer to prevent the deaths and the religious persecutions they guarantee us in writing, and in daily submission to the writing, are coming. Incapacitating every person who has clearly affirmned the Koran recently by keeping them in a humane, secure place until individual propensities for loyalty and assistance to our country's security can be ascertained is perfectly rational, civil and fair behavior. Mere deportation or making their belief some criminal infraction is not effective enough at this point, considering the extent of irrational, uncivil and unfair acts they have already agreed to do against us and the means to do it they demonstrate daily.

Waiting until American Hiroshimas transpire before grasping any recognition that this self-admitted undercover army, and its domestic support system needs to be taken out of action, is reckless to our security and morally derelict to the innocents who will suffer by them.

My comment is that no democratic society can outlaw an entire religion. Leave it to the Norwegians, self professed to be so liberal and open-minded, to come up with this. The struggle to conduct an open democracy and deal with terror is something Israel has been grappling with for years and we are beginning to do so in the US. Leave it to the Europeans to try to bypass the democracy thing and go right to enacting laws. Never mind getting government to stop dealing with tyrants and despots! Once their fascism re-emerges, (like the character in the Kubrick film who couldn't help giving a Heil Hilter salute), the Europeans may also start the deportation trains rolling.

Once again folks, SCRATCH A EUROPEAN AND YOU GET A FASCIST! I beginning to wonder if this also includes intellectual liberals.

#261 ben-ami

And enforcing the existing laws and restricting Arab/Indonesian/Iranian immigration (as distasteful as that may be in itself)?

I think that would be the absolute bare minimum required in order to have a chance of survival, certainly for smaller countries like Norway and Denmark.

262 Model4

Would you enforce the laws that say you can't incite others to murder? Everyone teaching Islam from the Koran and the teachings and examples of Muhammed is doing both those things.

I'm not quite sure that you can make that claim stick. Yes, the sources may say "Kill infidels," but it depends on the spin that the religion's teachers put on it. The Bible, for example, orders us not to allow witches to live (Ex. 22:18 - and yeah, there's disagreement about the noun used here, but the KJV uses "witch", so let it stand) and to kill the descendents of Amalek (Deut 25:19). But Christians and Jews aren't arrested on for conspiracy to murder because they teach the Bible because we don't take these verses as applicable under ordinary circumstances. In Ephesians 6:5, the Christian advice to slaves is to obey their masters. But people teaching the NT aren't arrested for being accomplices to slavery because modern Christians don't take the verse at face value. As I've stated before, what a religious text says is irrelevant - what's important is the interpretation that the religion puts on it.

#266 ben-ami: The comparison can't be that direct. It's interesting that when people (not meaning you) want to equate Islam to Christianity, they start quoting from the Old Testament and ignore how Some Guy came along and changed many of the rules. It's like saying the Pittsburg Steelers are the current SuperBowl champs because, well, they were in the past.

Advice for slaves isn't exactly advocacy of the practice though. I could advocate certain behaviors for people taken hostage, which doesn't mean that I endorse kidnapping.

As for Judaism, I can't answer that, though it would seem to apply on the surface. Casual observation would show there's nothing to worry about from them, and my understanding is that millenia of Jewish law and tradition clarify and augment what's found in those scriptures, giving us the extremely benign faith we have had for ages.

The simple truth is that millions upon millions of Muslims firmly believe that they are commanded to exterminate all Jews, and to conquer by force (at bare minimum) the rest of the world (all non-Muslim lands are known as the "House of War"). All non-believers are at best to be treated as inferiors at all times. There is not one school of Islam of any size or consequence that rejects these teachings, instead all pass them on to every person. How much they are stressed varies, but they are always there, and the usual penalty for renouncing these teachings is death by Muslim hands. Now that's serious belief. Dangerous, unacceptable belief.

Down the road, feel free to show me something that calls itself Islam that formally, publically, unashamedly and authoritatively has erased or over-ruled these teachings, and we've got something I can live with. Until then, do understand that when they tell the smallest child to the oldest adult that their god wants me converted, enslaved or killed, I'm going to give them the human respect of taking them at their word.

The end times will see all religions come together. It is already starting with the mantra: "unconditional love".

The longer we can prevent that from happening, the better.
(^-^)

Model4

The simple truth is that millions upon millions of Muslims firmly believe that they are commanded to exterminate all Jews, and to conquer by force (at bare minimum) the rest of the world (all non-Muslim lands are known as the "House of War").

Well, there are over a billion Muslims worldwide, AFAIK, so "millions upon millions" wouldn't seem to be an indictment of the entire group.

Personally, I think that most Muslims are probably like most Christians. Christians are commanded to preach the gospel to the ends of the earth, but somehow the nuts and bolts of everyday living seem to take up all their time.* I just don't but the argument that because a "sacred text" says to do something that all the members of a religion that follows that text can be condemned for it.

*I NOT equating violent jihad with evangelization here - just pointing out that a "universal commandment" isn't necessarily wholeheartedly followed by even a majority of a religion's followers.

Who cares what the Progress Party says! They have zero credibility as they have worked to spread intolerance and hate.

This is humbling. This is my first post at LGF in February of 2003. I was wrong.

#217 ben-ami:

I'm probably farther to the right then some, I'm also pretty libertarian about quite a few things. Meh. The Alien and Sedition acts are good and useful but distateful in themseleves, they are required when you have a known and proven enemy working against you from within a country. And an external enemy trying to penetrate the country in order to influence it.

The fear in the original act was: France would try and 'fix' the elections, influence trade and external relations; damage and destroy the internal infastructure of the States and weaken it to a point where they could seize control. These were *known* tactics of the french.

The problem as it sits now, we have a silent group on the inside which does not speak out against those on the outside. We do not know if they will act for or against an external enemy if the time comes and they make a push against us. If that external enemy decides to use 'our' systems against us and try to infiltrate the US to gain control of the federal system we'll be limited to stop it.

We can argue back and forth on it really, if terror attacks become a common thing in the US I expect that the old Alien and Sedition act will come back into force to ensure that registered citizens can vote. Non-allied citizens can not go near major or important installations and whatnot. Which really was it's original purpose.

People will quote the founding fathers, say the son's of liberty, and everything else. But they were willing to use the most extreme measures available to make sure that the 'dream' of a free and protected society existed from external penetration by foreign nationals and their governments.

#269 ben-ami:

just pointing out that a "universal commandment" isn't necessarily wholeheartedly followed by even a majority of a religion's followers

I never claimed the actions would be carried out by a majority of the followers. Whether one or millions of Christians follow the commands to spread the faith, it won't hurt me. Just one Muslim who follows the commands to wield the sword against the Infidel can end my life. That's why the puzzling argument that not every Muslim will attempt to kill me doesn't sound very convincing.

Those are real innocent human beings being murdered out there because Muslims are following the teachings of Islam. To me, this is unacceptable. To you (assuming from your silence on the matter), Islam's formal rejection of violence and bigotry isn't even an option. I've no idea who you think this benefits, though I can't think of a soul, and that includes the Muslim victims of Islamic violence. Whatever higher good you're serving by sheltering the blood-soaked nucleus of all this misery must be beyond my grasp.

#266 Ben

Okay nuancy-boy, interpret me this:

“Believers, when you go abroad to fight wars in the Cause of Allah, investigate carefully, and say not to any one who offers you peace: ‘You are not a believer,’ seeking and coveting the chance profits of this life (so that you may despoil them). With Allah are abundant profits, plentiful spoils and booty.” Lucifer is announcing by way of his prophet:”

or, this:

““When he went out, Abd Allah bin Ubayy [the man who had advised against leaving town] came back with 300 men, saying, ‘We do not know why we should get ourselves killed here.’ So he went back to Medina with the Hypocrites [peaceful Muslims] and doubters who followed him. Abd Allah bin Amr said, ‘Allah curse you, enemies of Allah. Allah will let us manage without you.’”

or this:

“When Muhammad saw Hamzah he said, ‘If Allah gives me victory over the Quraysh at any time, I shall mutilate thirty of their men!’ When the Muslims saw the rage of the Prophet they said, ‘By Allah, if we are victorious over them, we shall mutilate them in a way which no Arab has ever mutilated anybody.”

or this:

“The day of Uhud was a day of trial, calamity, and heart-searching on which Allah tested the believers. He put the hypocrites [peaceful Muslims] on trial, those who professed faith with their tongue and hid unbelief in their hearts. And it was a day in which Allah honored with martyrdom those whom He willed.”

“He it is Who has sent down to you the Book. In it are entirely clear verses, decisive, or fundamental (with established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are unclear or allegorical. As for those who are perverse, they follow the part that is not entirely clear, trying (to cause) dissension by seeking to explain it and searching for hidden meanings. But no one knows its explanation or meaning except Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: ‘We believe in the Book; the whole of it (clear and unclear) is from our Lord.’ None will grasp the Message except men of understanding.”

“As for those who deny [Islam], neither their wealth nor their children will help them in the least against Allah. They shall be faggots for the fire of Hell.

I could go on, and on and on, and guess what? It dosen't get better, it gets nastier.

Yeah, I'd have to say it's all pretty ambiguous, . .

/*dumbass

How about these lovely and uplifting tidbits:

Tabari IX:69 “Killing disbelievers is a small matter to us.”

Tabari VIII:141 “The battle cry of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah that night was: ‘Kill! Kill! Kill!’”

Ishaq:489 “Do the bastards think that we are not their equal in fighting? We are men who think that there is no shame in killing.”

Bukhari:V4B52N270 “Allah’s Messenger said, ‘Who is ready to kill Ashraf? He has said injurious things about Allah and His Apostle.’ Maslama got up saying, ‘Would you like me to kill him?’ The Prophet proclaimed, ‘Yes.’ Maslama said, ‘Then allow me to lie so that I will be able to deceive him.’ Muhammad said, ‘You may do so.’”

Bukhari:V1B1N6 “Just issue orders to kill every Jew in the country.”

Tabari VIII:180 “Also among those eliminated were Ikrimah bin Abu Jahl and Sarah, a slave of one of Abd Muttalib’s sons. She taunted Muhammad while he was in Mecca.”

Ishaq:308/Tabari VII:65 “When the Apostle was in Safra, Nadr was assassinated. When Muhammad reached Irq al-Zabyah he killed Uqbah. When the Prophet ordered him to be killed, Uqbah said, ‘Who will look after my children, Muhammad?’ “Hellfire,’ the Apostle replied, and he was killed.”

Oh, but MS, these quotes are "out of context" they are just allegorical, oh goodness don't be so JUDGMENTAL.

Bite my Ass. If you are too dense to understand that mean to do the same EVERYWHERE on the Earth, then you deserve the ultimate Darwin Award.

As for me, I believe that they believe this unholy garbage, but wait, I'm not finished, not by a longshot.

I don't mean to piss on your parade, oops, wait, . . . actually, yes I do. I DO mean to piss on your parade :)

More "divine" joyous, life affirming and inspired verses:

Tabari VII:100 “Every time I opened a door, I shut it behind me from the inside, saying to myself, ‘If they become aware, they will not have time to stop me from killing him.’ When I reached Rafi, he was in a dark room with his family. As I did not know where he was in the room, I said, ‘O Abu Rafi.’ When he replied, I proceeded toward the voice and gave him a blow with my sword. He shouted and I came back, pretending to be a helper. I said, ‘O Abu,’ changing the tone of my voice. He asked me, ‘I don’t know who came to strike me with his sword.’ Then I drove my sword into his belly and pushed it forcibly till it touched the bone. I hit him again and covered him with wounds, but I could not kill him, so I thrust the point of my sword into his stomach until it came out through his back. At that, I knew that I had killed him [in front of his wife and children]. I came out, filled with puzzlement, and went towards a ladder in order to get down but I fell into a moonlit night and sprained my foot. I bound it with my turban and moved on. I came to my companions and said, ‘By Allah, I will not leave till I hear the wailing of their women.’ So, I did not move till I heard them crying for the Jewish merchant. I said, ‘Deliverance! Allah has killed Abu Rafi.’ I got up, feeling no ailment, and proceeded till we came upon the Prophet and informed him.”

Tabari VII:149 “I went into a cave with my bow and arrows. While I was in it, a one-eyed man from the Banu Bakr came in driving some sheep. He said, ‘Who’s there?’ I said [lied], ‘I’m a Banu Bakr.’ ‘So am I.’ Then he laid down next to me, and raised his voice in song: ‘I will not believe in the faith of the Muslims.’ I said, ‘You will soon see!’ Before long the Bedouin went to sleep and started snoring. So I killed him in the most dreadful way that anybody has ever killed. I leant over him, struck the end of my bow into his good eye, and thrust it down until it came out the back of his neck. After that I rushed out like a wild beast and took flight. I came to the village of Naqi and recognized two Meccan spies. I called for them to surrender. They said no so I shot and arrow and killed one, and then I tied the other up and took him to Muhammad.”

Ishaq:464 “The Jews were made to come down, and Allah’s Messenger imprisoned them. Then the Prophet went out into the marketplace of Medina, and he had trenches dug in it. He sent for the Jewish men and had them beheaded in those trenches. They were brought out to him in batches. They numbered 800 to 900 boys and men.”

I could go all night, but seriously, this is a criminal waste of bandwidth. Read it all yourself. If you can take it.

Ben-Ami, are you really that morally compromised that you can't recognize evil even when it's right in your backyard? How about in your face then ?

During an attack on the village of Disa in June last year, Arab women accompanied the attackers and sang songs praising the government and scorning the black villagers.

According to an African chief quoted in the report, the singers said: "The blood of the blacks runs like water, we take their goods and we chase them from our area and our cattle will be in their land. The power of [Sudanese president Omer Hassan] al-Bashir belongs to the Arabs and we will kill you until the end, you blacks, we have killed your God."

The chief said that the Arab women also racially insulted women from the village: "You are gorillas, you are black, and you are badly dressed."

The Janjaweed have abducted women for use as sex slaves, in some cases breaking their limbs to prevent them escaping, as well as carrying out rapes in their home villages, the report said.

The militiamen "are happy when they rape. They sing when they rape and they tell that we are just slaves and that they can do with us how they wish", a 37-year-old victim, identified as A, is quoted as saying in the report, which was based onmore than 100 testimonies from women in the refugee camps in neighbouring Chad.

Just another day under Islam

At least none of us that I know of have to look these women in the eye, nor live under that kind of persecution, right? So what if Islam explicitly condones and advocates rape, robbery, murder, torture, genocide and bigotry. In the abstract, and that's what's important, we must ensure this faith is be protected and enshrined alongside all others. The best thing we can do is make these "victims" understand that it's a worthwhile price to pay to make sure Islam is welcomed and nurtured in every nation.

#270 barco

Yay! Let's all hold hands and create a better world! Don't steal any soap or towels from hotels though, or your neighbour will have to hold your stump instead.

273 Model4

To you (assuming from your silence on the matter), Islam's formal rejection of violence and bigotry isn't even an option.

Sorry, I was away from the computer for a while. You say you're looking for Muslims who have renounced violence and bigotry? I haven't looked at every article at this site, but it looks promising.

Martel-Sobieski

Bite my Ass. If you are too dense to understand that mean to do the same EVERYWHERE on the Earth, then you deserve the ultimate Darwin Award.

LOL. Right, MS, that really makes me want to discuss the issue with you (although "nuancy-boy" was good). :-)