But the fact that many Muslims are not fanatics is not as comforting as some might think.

Not any more comforting than the fact that not all Germans were Nazis.

ditto

The light goes on.

Maybe there's hope for the West after all. Maybe.

#3 Ward Cleaver

The word is spreading. I have had 3 very non-political leaning friends email me pictures of the anti-cartoon riots. The ones Charles linked to long ago.

People are finally starting to understand.

He's right, Islam cannot be reformed and it cannot be reconciled with democracy. Which also means that this project of "exporting democracy" to Iraq is a sidetrack that is wasting dangerous amounts of time and resources while the West is losing ground at home. It's rubbish, and Mr. Bush has no idea about what he's doing.

"The specific (and baleful) contribution of Islam is that, by attributing sovereignty solely to God, and by pretending in a philosophically primitive way that God’s will is knowable independently of human interpretation, and therefore of human interest and desire—in short by allowing nothing to human as against divine nature—it tries to abolish politics."

That's an interesting conclusion which I believe is the same comclusion which was reached last year by someone writing in a Vatican newspaper claiming it was the conclusion of the Pope. Anyone remember that? If so, could you give a link to it?

Truly excellent column, and I appreciate that he uses Hobsbawm as an example, it makes the argument stronger AND reveals the totalitarian frame of mind that islam and the subversives share.

But Christianity reformed! Therefore islam can evolve too!

/Thought I'd get it out of the way.

It cannot be reconciled with humanity as it tears the humanity out of every adherent,even in "private". It must be abolished plain and simple.

I thought as much.
The so called 'moderate' muslim will only be moderate when it suits him.
When the push comes to the shove, he'll choose for the strict islam.

If governments can be made to understand that islam is a political doctrine, could we make a law to forbid it?

#10 Roger

But Christianity reformed! Therefore islam can evolve too!

You got your moonbat talking points mixed up. According to them, Christians are raping and plundering and blowing things up.

Wether or not Muslims can be "moderate" is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether or not they respect the rights of others. Through thirteen centuries, their record is just slightly worse than crap.

From the thread above:

OT (Sorry) and Breaking - Car Swarm Watch.

I'm glad to see that LGF is back on track with postings on the very real threats that Islamofascists pose to the broad spectrum of Western society instead of the dubious one that an alleged Reuters employee had been making to Charles via email. IMO, those utlra-regular updates on the perps visits to this site were a strangely high-profile footnote that we hopefully won't have to read about again until the matter is fully resolved. It was beginning to mirror Andrew Sullivan's one-note obsession over the whole gay marriage issue.

The fundamental question is whether Islam as a private faith would still be Islam, or whether such privatization would spell its doom. I think it would spell its doom.

So where does this leave us?

It suggests a number of things to me:

1. Our leaders need to stop rushing to exonerate and praise Islam.

2. Our leaders need to politely but firmly explain that aspects of Islam encourage violence and are incompatible with democracy.

3. We should not invest too much in bringing democracy to Muslim countries. As the PA and Iran show, Muslims will simply use elections to elect terrorists and fascists.

4. We need to take a dimmer view of Islam in our own countries. If this causes most Muslims to leave, it's their choice.

5. We need to monitor Muslim organizations, mosques, and communities more aggressively.

6. We need to stop minimizing the seriousness of racism, anti-Americanism, and other Muslim pastimes.

7. We need to approach the pursuit of peace with Muslim countries differently. We need to remember who we are dealing with and speak to them in language they understand.

8. We need to educate our own societies about the true nature of jihad: Muslim imperialism, slavery, brutality, and institutionalized apartheid and discrimination.

9. I'm sure I can think of more...

OK, I found it:

"...And immediately, the Holy Father, in his beautiful calm but clear way, said well, there’s a fundamental problem with that, because he said in the Islamic tradition, God has given His word to Mohammed, but it’s an eternal word. It’s not Mohammed’s word. It’s there for eternity the way it is. There’s no possibility of adapting it or interpreting it, whereas in Christianity, and Judaism, the dynamism’s completely different, that God has worked through His creatures. And so, it is not just the word of God, it’s the word of Isaiah, not just the word of God, but the word of Mark. He’s used His human creatures, and inspired them to speak His word to the world, and therefore by establishing a Church in which he gives authority to His followers to carry on the tradition and interpret it, there’s an inner logic to the Christian Bible, which permits it and requires it to be adapted and applied to new situations. I was...I mean, Hugh, I wish I could say it as clearly and as beautifully as he did, but that’s why he’s Pope and I’m not, okay? That’s one of the reasons. One of others, but his seeing that distinction when the Koran, which is seen as something dropped out of Heaven, which cannot be adapted or applied, even, and the Bible, which is a word of God that comes through a human community, it was stunning..."

[Link: www.littlegreenfootballs.com...]

#18 American Infidel

Yeah, if they understand it at all.

#13 Earth2moonbat

/hey! we moonbats aren't as well organized as yoose guys.

#19 ibrodsky, that's a good start!

#17 arch, LGF wasn't off track. There is more than one theme; and one is always looking at the MSM & employee's indiscretions.

Well, It took Dalrymple long enough to get there.

I don't mean to pass over the fact that he has been speaking out for a long time, and I don't mean to cast aspersions on his abilities, which far surpass mine. But at first he was confident that Islam would fall apart under the impact of "modernity":

The fanatics and the bombers do not represent a resurgence of unreformed, fundamentalist Islam, but its death rattle.

And then he was interpreting France's car-burning problems as being caused by bad economics - which is true up to a point, but only up to a point.

The current piece is far more pessimistic about Islam, about Islam's power to move men, and about Islam's staying power. It's his most realistic offering yet.

Thus Islam is inherently an unsettling and dangerous factor in world politics, independently of the actual conduct of many Muslims.

Sounds right.

I agree with Roger.

There's value in docmenting MSM idiotarians.

#6 Fjordman

He's right, Islam cannot be reformed and it cannot be reconciled with democracy. Which also means that this project of "exporting democracy" to Iraq is a sidetrack that is wasting dangerous amounts of time and resources while the West is losing ground at home. It's rubbish, and Mr. Bush has no idea about what he's doing.

A more generous interpretation: it was a noble experiment, but it failed.

I don't think Pres. Bush has no idea what he's doing. Sharansky made a compelling argument for the "sell them democracy" strategy. I think a lot of people were hoping that democracy would turn Muslim societies upside down. Instead, Muslims have distorted democracy for their own ends.

It wasn't a bad thing to try. Unfortunately, Bush can't afford to abandon that strategy now. If he did, he'd never be able to take any meaningful action against Iran. The President is not a dictator--he needs to build consensus.

A smarter strategy now would be to say that Iran is the Number One state sponsor of terrorism and an obstacle to success in Iraq.

#20 mj

Along with that, the koran claims to abrogate all prior revelations even though it uses the Torah, Psalms & Gospels for religious authentication. The koran & the Da Vinci Code are a series in that they both say the Bible is a complete untrustworthy Jewish distortion.

#28 ibrodsky, if the POTUS wants to preempt Iran's anti-US & anti-Israel plans, he has got to drive up the oil production in Iraq. Big time. The use of the US military must shift away from city patrolling and urban fights.

If there is enough room for interpretation in the Koran (and that is a matter of will, not fact), and if the Hadiths can be relegated to the role of traditions to be culled through at will, perhaps there is a chance that Islam can reform it’s self. Me, I don’t know
If reform is possible at all, it will be directly related to the non-Muslim world's willingness to resist, and the most visible evidence of that willingness today is in our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Whether or not regime change in Iraq was advisable or not (I have always been firmly behind it) is now immaterial. As the man said, failure of will is not an option.

@20 mj

No where in either the Old or New
Testaments has G-d authorized man
to change His laws or His direction
of how we should live as either
Jews or Christians.
The change in a date of day or year
and the advance of technology has not
given man the authority to change the
Word of G-d.
We are not authorized to abrogate
anything He has given to man to guide
from the get go.
G-d is Unchanging.

It is important, of course, to distinguish between Islam as a doctrine and Muslims as people.( This must be rammed home with a hammer...The Koran is Islam...The only true faith in God's sight is Islam.

Q 3:19 ...This book is not to be doubted... As for the unbelievers, it is the same whether or not you forewarn them; they will not have faith. God has set a seal upon their hearts and ears; their sight is dimmed and grievous punishment awaits them.

Q 2:2-6...
It is not for true believers men or women to take their choice in the affairs if God and His apostle decree otherwise. He that disobeys God and His apostle strays far indeed.

Q 33:36

#32
Quark2

What are you arguing? That there is no difference between between Chrisitaniy and Judaism versus Islam?

@34 mj
What are you arguing? That Judaism and Christianity can be handled the same way the
Left handle our Constitution?
Times change so do the value and useage of words?
I in no way ever associate or compare either of the Abrahamic beliefs with islam. There is no
comparison or connection.
I also recognize the fact there are segments of our civilized who tend to bend the
knowledge and laws of G-d. The only thing that has changed since G-d handed down the 10 commandments to Moses is the way man uses language.

Why what does it matter that we replace Isaac with Ishmael?...Abraham and Ishmael built the House and dedicated it, saying . . . "Lord, make us submissive to You; make of our descendants a nation that will submit to You..."

Q 2:127

This is why the Koran...Can never work for Jews and Christians...GODS PROMISE is thru Isaac and Ishmael.

The Sunday (6-4-06) Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Weekly Review (Section E) had a wonderful expose about Islamist-Jihadist propaganda in Saudi Arabian schools. Two of the articles were written by Nina Shea, whom may work for the Washington Post (I haven't checked yet).

Ibrodsky 28

I don't think Pres. Bush has no idea what he's doing. Sharansky made a compelling argument for the "sell them democracy" strategy. I think a lot of people were hoping that democracy would turn Muslim societies upside down. Instead, Muslims have distorted democracy for their own ends.

It wasn't a bad thing to try. Unfortunately, Bush can't afford to abandon that strategy now. If he did, he'd never be able to take any meaningful action against Iran. The President is not a dictator--he needs to build consensus.

A smarter strategy now would be to say that Iran is the Number One state sponsor of terrorism and an obstacle to success in Iraq.

I think it had to be tried, and Sharansky made a compelling argument. If we could avoid all out war with Islam then this is one of the modern tests. I think these things have a natural progression. Almost as if there is an intelligent human race in Western Civilization, watching and learning. Perhaps.

But at some time it will all be seen as a failure (democratizing Islam) and the West will have to fight for its very existence. Nobody sane wants all out war, but Islam dictates that you must fight or submit, there is no co-existence. I think we are just beginning to see the awakening of the real intellectuals in the West.

All it takes is a couple of Western leaders to call it like it is, particularly an American President. Name the enemy, stop dancing around the obvious.

My #36thru Isaac notand Ishmael

#6 Fjordman

He's right, Islam cannot be reformed and it cannot be reconciled with democracy. Which also means that this project of "exporting democracy" to Iraq is a sidetrack that is wasting dangerous amounts of time and resources while the West is losing ground at home. It's rubbish, and Mr. Bush has no idea about what he's doing.

I agree. I believe Paul Belien and the Brussels Journal do a nice job consistantly of making the case that democracy divorced from Judeo-Christian morals does not work. Can we say Nazi. And now, yes, Iraq.

And as far as some of the excitement in other posts above, personally, I'm not getting real excited that this means the Euros are waking up.

Dalrymple has been very much awake for some time, this is just the latest (and a fine example). Not that many in Europe seem to be listening to his sharp witted insights.

Nice to see Dalrymple shaking a stick about this mess again though, he does an exceptional job of it.

To me, this is the most important message in the article:

In short, Islamic imperialism, in Karsh’s view, illustrates three transcendent political truths: the Nietzschean drive to power, Michels’ iron law of oligarchy, and Marx’s economic motor of history. Religious feeling, on this reading, is but an epiphenomenon, a mask for what is really going on.

If religious feelings are being used as an excuse for a political power we can do something to forbid islam.

Up until now we have the freedom of religion in our constitution.
If islam isn't a religion, other laws can be applied to it.

Embarrasing correction:

According to the Center for Religious Freedom, "Nina Shea is the Director of the Center for Religious Freedom, which she helped found in 1986 as the "Puebla Institute." A human rights lawyer, she has been an international religious freedom advocate for 18 years and is nationally known for her book on anti-Christian persecution, In the Lion's Den. Since 1999, she has served as a member of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, which was created by Congress to monitor religious persecution and recommend policy responses to the U.S. government. She represented the United States as a public delegate on the U.N. Commission on Human Rights in 1993 and in 2001. From 1997 to 1999, she served on the Advisory Committee on Religious Freedom Abroad to the U.S. Secretary of State. Newsweek magazine has credited Ms. Shea with making "Christian persecution Washington's hottest cause" for her role in building a national coalition of religious groups on foreign policy."

I should have looked before I posted.

filter 41

Up until now we have the freedom of religion in our constitution.
If islam isn't a religion, other laws can be applied to it.

And THAT is the debate that MUST take place in order for America, and Western Civilization to survive. Instead of the LLL's death-pact with the 1st amendment.

Islam gains all its power within our country by hiding under the 1st amendment. When truly Mosques ought to be viewed as beachheads and amphibious landings and recruiting stations for soldiers that have one goal...to destroy our civilization and replace it with their own. I long to see the day when Islam is de-certified as a religion and cast as the nihilistic hateful religio/political/economic system it really is. Instead taxpayers are funding the future subjugation of their own children.

#24, Roger

There is more than one theme; and one is always looking at the MSM & employee's indiscretions.

Back in 2004...

...harp flashback music...

"Man, I wish Charles would quit posting about Rather so much and get back to the war on terror."

sleipnir

at first he was confident that Islam would fall apart under the impact of "modernity":

It may yet. Depends on how confidently and effectively "modernity" advances. The current PC regime is all defensiveness and retreat.

Another most interesting article on the Islamic mind.

Bernard Lewis makes the same basic argument as Dalrymple in his small book 'The Crisis of islam'.

Here's an even better essay by Dalrymple:

When Islam Breaks Down

#35
Look Quark2, if you don't agree with what Pope had to say, then fine. If you don't agree with Dalrymple's conclusion, which, as I tried to point out by, was very similar to what the Pope had to say, then that's fine too. If you find their arguments to be different than what is theologically acceptable to you and your understanding and your religious convictions, then that's fine too. No one is forcing you to accept their theological understanding or, for that matter, to accept any notion of theology itself.

@48 mj
I'm not trying to be defensive or offensive, just stating the fact that no man including the Pope has the authority to change G-ds standing.
Darymple has been spot on about lots of the problems dealing with islam and its tenets for a very long time. I believe this Pope is a staunch defender of christianity in the face of coming enslaught of jihadism across all of europe.

mj 20

That is very good, that was this current Pope? One of the clearest distinctions about the mix of the human and Divine.

ringo

Yes, another great article.

An index of just how resolved the West is about defending itself would be the staging of "Romeo and Juliet" by the Royal Shakespeare Company at the Globe Theatre -- with Juliet as a Muslim girl and Romeo her infidel lover.

I'm not holding my breath.

jehu

That is very good, that was this current Pope?

Purportedly. Father Fessio was paraphrasing and has more recently apologized for presuming to speak on the Pope's behalf. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if Benedict said it that way. He probably said it better.

#50 jehu,

Yes, that is the current Pope. It's from a post Charles had up several months back. It seemed to me to be basically the same conclusion which Dalrymple came to which I highlighted in my post 7 on this thread.

#43 jehu

Islam gains all its power within our country by hiding under the 1st amendment.

Islam doesn't hide under the First Amendment, it blatantly destroys it. The right to speech ends at threats to others, and specifically, it ends when it violates others' rights. Muslims no more have the right to use speech to threaten others or make special demands, like who can and can't publish cartoons about Mohammed, or criticize Islam, than anyone else, which is none.

They use the tools of obfuscation, lies, bait and switch, guilt, equivocation, and moral and epistemological paralysis to undo Western civilization. As a military force, the jihad is pathetically weak. They only succeed to the degree we let them.

Lazarus 54

Yes my argument all along. Militarily we could line up every Muslim country and destroy one a month. It is our LLL culture, multiculturalism, and generally the abandonment of the Judeo/Christian moral foundations of our society that have left a spiritual vacumn that Islam rushes to fill.

The LLL's, acadamia, the Dem party, Hollywood, keep buying newer and bigger vacumn pumps, to rid our society of the last molecule of Christian expression. For as every LLL knows...that has always been the true enemy of liberal democracy.

Why it was the agnostics that led us out of the Dark Ages, wasn't it?

Since Islam is clearly a religious political movement, the US should revoke tax emempt status from all mosques and so called Islamic charities.

The Suburban Crusader

So...

Nothing has changed with Islam since we drove them away at the Gates of Vienna 350 years ago.

Why do we care about Islam? They pose no threat to us whatsoever if we simply behaved as a culture the way we always have in the past: threaten them with complete annihilation if they don't stop jihad against the West.

It isn't Islam which has changed. We already won that conflict in the 17th century.

What has changed is the emergence of the global Left since 1970, and especially since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Left has intentionally exposed us to the Islamic scorpion's sting via the multi-pronged attack on all aspects of our culture, history and traditions. This fifth column is huge and growing. It has entirely swallowed Europe, and threatens the existence of the US.

Dalrymple makes the point that Eric Hobsbawm was a mass-murdering monster who simply never had the opportunity. This applies to people like Kos and Michael Moore as well. They would intentionally take America down a path guaranteed to result in millions of deaths in an Islamic nuclear attack within 30 years.

Either the Left is defeated, or we die. Defeating Islamists is child's play--all you need is attack helicopters, or in an extreme case MIRV SLBMs. But how do you fight Kos and his followers? Is it even possible?

#3 Ward Cleaver

The light goes on.

Maybe there's hope for the West after all. Maybe.

I hope so, too. But I am a pessimist. It was only after he forcibly annexed all of Chechoslavakia did mnay realize what Hitler was. Even then, many refused to acknowledge what their eyes beheld. Chamberlain still harbored hopes that his policy of appeasment would work. Hell, he even dithered for two days in September 1939 while the Wehrmacht slaughtered the Poles, not wanting to face the reality that his belief system had failed utterly. Only when confronted with a coup of his ministers - led by ex-chief appeaser Sir Samuel Hoare, did Chamberlain finally agree to an ultimatum which led to the declaration of war on September 3, 1939.

There are many who, like Chamberlain, refuse to see the real threat. They cannot be disbused of the notion that since we are the lone superpower, we must be curbed. They are blind to the threat that once we are curbed (and we will be - it's inevitable) then the modern appeasers- the liberals, socialists, the politcally correct Gestapo, will be the first ones lined against the wall by their new Muslim overlords.

In the words of Dr. Evil, They just don't get it.

The Reformation was not pleasant, but a necessary step forward in Christianity.

Islam needs a similar internecine fight to establish the "moderate" Islam, and marginalize the Islamofascists.

It would be bloody, have fallout that affects everyone, but in the long term the only thing that will really work.

Whether islam reforms or not, we need to ask a few simple questions to ourselves

1. Is this threat going to increase with time and/or with increasing number of muslims in Britain?

2. Is the threat a short-lived one, and that in a decade or so, or even 50 years, the threat will pass for good?

3. Can all such threats be averted? Is it likely that muslims will cooperate to spy on their fellow muslims, who in their eyes are following islam to the letter?

What next?

#55 jehu

Sorry, I was a little nitpicky in making the distinction between hiding behind the First Amendment and destroying it. They do hide behind it, in that they use it as a blank check to say whatever they want and muzzle their critics. But their greater aim is not to keep it, so they can keep hiding behind it, but to destroy it, so they can realize the caliphate.

# 59

There will be no "reformation" in Islam, at least not in the way we in the West understand that term.

Islam understands "reformation" as returning to something purer. Whabbism IS the Reformation.

#57 Pro-Bush Canuck

So...

Nothing has changed with Islam since we drove them away at the Gates of Vienna 350 years ago.

Yes, we gave them power when we becamse dependent on their oil. The west gave them power when we let them do legally what they could not do by force of arms - immigrate and settle in our lands without any obligation on their part to assimilate.

threaten them with complete annihilation if they don't stop jihad against the West.

Threats do not work on them. They detest hollow threats. We've won every war against them, but we keep losing the peace. Frankly, Rome never had another problem with Carthage after the THIRD war. There's a lessson in that for all of us.

What has changed is the emergence of the global Left since 1970, and especially since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Left has intentionally exposed us to the Islamic scorpion's sting via the multi-pronged attack on all aspects of our culture, history and traditions. This fifth column is huge and growing. It has entirely swallowed Europe, and threatens the existence of the US.

Correct. But, the point it the same as an earlier post. We are facing modern appeasers who are as fanatical in their world view as the Muslims. They do not/will not realize that the Muslims hate them the most because they are weak and do not stand for anything.

Either the Left is defeated, or we die. ...But how do you fight Kos and his followers? Is it even possible?

Yes. I love GWB, but he does not keep up the message. It's a long war with no clear end. The left will lose, and continue to lose as long as people are constantly reminded what is at stake and the fact that the left will throw open the gates and let the barbarians in the first chance they get.

#57 Pro-Bush Canuck

Defeating Islamists is child's play--all you need is attack helicopters, or in an extreme case MIRV SLBMs. But how do you fight Kos and his followers? Is it even possible?

Good question. You're right about defeating Islamofascism. Smash them until they capitulate and wouldn't even dream of threatening us.

You can defeat the Left, and fundamentally, you do it the same way that you defeat the jihad. You root your culture in a philosophy of objective reality, the independent mind, objectively definable morality, rights, reason, science, productive achievement, and the other values brought about by the Enlightenment. If the Left has to fight these values at every level of our culture, and is completely blocked from undermining individual rights, then they will vanish from history in a generation.

Traditional American values are the only ones that can sustain a society. As with Islamofascism, the Left is only able to succeed to the degree they are tolerated.

God created the "Children of Ishmael", the "wild beasts", that is to say, the mad Moslems, with "their hand raised against every man, and every man's hand raised against them" to become the lunatic instigators of Armageddon.

It's just a question of time. And it cannot be stopped.

#47 Ringo the Gringo

Bernard Lewis makes the same basic argument as Dalrymple in his small book 'The Crisis of islam'.

Would you kindly refer me to the page in his book where he allegedly makes this argument? I have the book, and I would like to check. Are you saying that Lewis predicts that Islam is not really reformable? That Islam minus its political mandates wouldn't be Islam? That Islam minus its political mandates would shrivel up and die?

Here is some material from the last chapter of this book by Bernard Lewis, The Crisis of Islam:

For Usama bin Ladin, his declaration of war against the United States marks the resumption of the struggle for religious dominance of the world that began in the seventh century. For him and his followers, this is a moment of opportunity. Today [2003], America exemplifies the civilization and embodies the leadership of the House of War, and like Rome and Byzantium, it has become degenerate and demoralized, ready to be overthrown...

Well, we are familiar with the radical Islamist way of thinking. But what about others? Are there others?

But there are others for whom America offers a different kind of temptation -- theh promise of human rights, of free institutuions, and of a responsible and representative government. There are a growing number of individuals and even some movements that have undertaken the complex task of introducing such institutions in their own countries. It is not easy. Similar attempts, as noted, led to many of today's corrupt regimes. OF the fifty-seven member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, only one, the Turkish Republic, has operated democratic institutions over a long period of time and, despite difficult and ongoing problems, has made progress in establishing a liberal economy and a free society and political order.

Is Lewis opposed to trying for reform? I think not.

In two countries, Iraq and Iran [this has 2003 copyright], where the regimes are strongly anti-American, there are democratic oppositions capable of taking over and forming governments. We, in what we like to call the free world, could do much to help them, and have done little. In most other countries in the region, there are people who share our values, sympathize with us, and would like to share our way of life. They understand freedom and want to enjoy it at home. It is more difficult for us to help those people, but at least we should not hinder them. If they cuceed, we shall have friends and allies in the true, not just the diplomatic, sense of these words.

And he writes finally of the battle we are in and the grave stakes.

Meanwhile, there is a more urgent problem. If the leaders of Al-Qa'ida can persuade the world of Islam to accept their views and their leadership, then a long and bitter struggle slies ahead, and not only for America. Europe, more particularly Western Europe, is now home to a large and rapidly growing Muslim community, and many Europeans are beginning to see its presence as a problem, for some even a threat. Sooner or later, Al-Qaida and related groups will clash with the other neighbors of Islam -- Russia, China, India -- who may prove less squeamish than the Americans in using their power against Muslims and their sanctities. If the fundamentalists are correct in their calculations and succeed in their war, then a dark future awaits the world, especially the part of it that embraces Islam.

#66 blackelkspeaks

The angel of the Lord said to her further,
"Behold, you are with child
And shall bear a son;
You shall call him Ishmael,
For the Lord has paid heed to your suffering.
He shall be a wild ass of a man;
His hand against everyone,
And everyone's hand against him;
He shall dwell alongside of all his kinsmen.
~ Genesis 16:11/12

Basically the enemy is born of Sarai's fear and unbelief, and Abraham's willingness to follow that, instead of the promise of God.

Fear IS unbelief, and it belongs to the womb of darkness.

#68 Babbazee

"Basically the enemy is born of Sarai's fear and unbelief, and Abraham's willingness to follow that, instead of the promise of God."

Thank You

jcm 59

The Reformation was not pleasant, but a necessary step forward in Christianity.

Islam needs a similar internecine fight to establish the "moderate" Islam, and marginalize the Islamofascists.

It would be bloody, have fallout that affects everyone, but in the long term the only thing that will really work.

By definition Islam cannot "reform." People forget the mideval church was a perversion of orginal Christianty. Reformation started with access to the founding documents of the Chruch (Gospels and Epistles)

If Islam returns to its original documents, it becomes even worse than it is now, and that seems impossible. But it could only get worse, not better.

BlackElkSpeaks:
You are most welcome. BTW... if you get a chance, compare Black Elk's vision (that he had in Europe) in Black Elk Speaks to the vsions in Revelations (if you haven't done so already)

Jehu
People forget the midieval church was a perversion of orginal Christianty.

100% correct
and we are STILL overrun with perverse churches, IMO.

[Link: www.tscpulpitseries.org...]

[Link: www.faithfreedom.org...]
Yes This is About Islam
By Salman Rushdie

see you all later

the mideval church was a perversion of orginal Christianty

Yes, apostlic successon, st. Tomas Aquinis, all that nonsense.

#19 ibrodsky

10. We need to kick Muslims out of our country.

#24 Roger

I understand fully that there's much more than just one theme being discussed at anytime on LGF. My point was that it was both excessive and distracting to see 11 separate updates in the course of only a few days about the alleged perp's visits to this site. The initial story about a Reuters employee possibily emailing a death threat to Charles - or anyone - is absolutely newsworthy; the number and nature of his/her subsequent visits to LGF, however, is not.

#63 American Infidel

30-40 yrs islam shall be mulled over in the history books...The road traveled shall be full of grief & death...

Either that, or we'll be mulled over in the history books in 30-40 years if the LLLs and MSM get their way.

I am of the opinion that there are observant Muslims and former Muslims. The former take orders from Allah-who encourages them to slaugher infidels, and who will never condemn any act of violence perpetrated by Muslims without a "we condemn ALL acts of terror against ALL people" statement, or 'there are extremists on all sides' statement.

The latter no longer take their marching orders from Mohammad, Allah et al-and then you can have a civilized conversation. There is no such thing as the ellusive "moderate Muslim". I believe this is a figment of the leftist establishment's imagination. It comforts them to nurse this fantasy instead of looking at reality in the face.

#78 WriterMom

you mention two types

1) observant

2) former

You describe former and latter. These are the same? The second sentence was meant to be?

The formerobservant take orders from Allah

#76 arch, I'm understanding your point. Just consider though, lll journalist types take advantage of the passage of time and almost always get away with everything. They are slippery bastards and you really need to hold their feet to the fire[may no Geneva Convention guru read this wrong] to get them to feel the heat.

On the Dan Ra^ther crash and burn, Mary Mapes is still out there writing books claiming she was right and the bloggers wrong.

ploomie #81

Ishmael had his own future, but his place was not with Isaac

Ishmael would never have been born if Abraham AND Sarah had more faith. Being way past childbearing age, and Abraham past 100, they tried to work out God's plan by helping Him. Sarah gives Abraham her young maid, Hagar. Ishmael is born. Then when Sarah demands he be sent away (she saw him mocking Issac) Abraham goes out and prays "let Ishmael live in your sight."

The worst prayer in history. Contrast that to Abraham's obedience to take Issac and sacrifice him. By then he had greater faith, and did not plead with God, out of fear and unbelief. Just obeyed. It is not the Devil that is to be most be feared, it is that produced by righteous men in their unbelief. For it still retains a blessing, even a right, to exist before God.

#81 ploome hineni, I agree with your take on the passage. That is if I'm understanding correctly. One thing I found interesting recently is that Isaac & Ishmael met and buried their father together. And there are passages where the Ishmaelites helped the Israelites.

islam started ~600 AD and descendants of Ishmael who are caught into islam are now in bondage and missing out on G-d's blessing given to Ishmael. But what can free them I don't know.

#49 Quark2

I think a helpful way to think of the distinction between Islam and the other Abrahamic faiths is that the Human element (God used Humans to get His word written) makes it acceptable to apply the Scripture to Modern problems/situations by discerning which elements of a given passage were applicable to the culture at the time, or 'cultural,' and which elements are 'eternal,' or unchanging. The difference that people outside the faith(s) do not see is that there really is an Author who will 'come alongside' while you are sincerely seeking to understand His word, and help you to understand what He means by it.

Of course, it doesn't work if God doesn't exist, so if you deny that, the whole of Christianity and Judaism come tumbling down.

But once you agree that God is who He says He is in the Bible, then there is no problem with interpreting the Bible because the Author has promised to help you (And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart. Jer 29:13).

I find it amazing, not that there are so many differences of beliefs within Christianity, but that there are so few. It points to a constant influence over the centuries that has kept those who truly seek, true to the faith.

Example of 'Cultural' versus 'Eternal' principles:
In Deut 25, The idea is that if a man dies, his brother will take his widow for his wife to continue the family line; if a man does not want to do so, it was considered a grave dishonor, hence the 'punishment' of having your left shoe taken off and being spat upon by the widow.

Deut 25: 8 - 10
"But if he stands firm and says, 'I do not want to take her,' then his brother's wife shall come to him in the presence of the elders, remove his sandal from his foot, spit in his face, and answer and say, 'So shall it be done to the man who will not build up his brother's house.' And his name shall be called in Israel, 'The house of him who had his sandal removed.'

But by the time of Ruth, it had apparently lost all social stigma and had been broadened to include 'redeeming and exchanging' and had become known merely as an ancient 'custom.'

Ruth 4:7 "Now this was the custom in former times in Israel concerning redeeming and exchanging, to confirm anything: one man took off his sandal and gave it to the other, and this was a confirmation in Israel."

So, within the Old Testament we have an example of people adapting to changing cultures while keeping the 'eternal' aspects unchanging (Boaz really did redeem Ruth).

Islam has NO SUCH THING. They are not promised any help. They cannot ever adapt because their faith is in The Book of the Lord - Not, as with Christianity - in The Lord of the Book.

That is why in everything (except, curiously enough, weaponry) they want to go back to the 7th century.

#82

Check the sarcastic finger wagging. You sound like a Kos Kid.

Ploomie @ 81
#83 jehu
says what I would have said.
I'll e-mail you my long discourse on it, LOL!

88 ploome hineni

I find it odd, that the arabs decided 2000 yrs after Abraham, that they were from Ishmael

I think it took that long to figure out what "wild ass of a man" meant.

Roger-I meant the first group...the way you corrected that sentence.

#90 BabbaZee

Well Abraham was easily convinced. Hagar must have been phat.

Ploome
also see Amalek
[Link: headheeb.blogmosis.com...]
I'll mail you my thoughts on Ishmael and Amalek sometime this week.

Roger,
Phat!
Hagar, the biblical mother of ghetto "culture?" LOL! You mah baby's daddy!
It is also my opinion that Hagar is one of the major doctrinal reasons Jewish law recognizes you as Jewish only through the mother - (outside of the obvious reasons of course)

This is great, I hope I'm the first one to notice this, that

From the first, Islam was a religion of pillage...

Gives a new meaning to ROP.

I absolutely do not believe in absolutes, but what's even worse, is people who absolutely do believe in absolutes, and for them I might make an exception.

I have to agree with those who say that a "moderate" Moslem doesn't really exist, that there are just "observant" and "lax" Moslems. Any Moslem who takes his religion seriously is going to want to follow the allegedly Allah-given dictates of the Koran - and there is nothing moderate about those!
Likewise, and for the same reason, looking for a "Moslem Reformation" on the pattern of the Christian Reformation is a huge mistake. Our Reformation was a "back-to-basics" movement - "back to the Bible," in fact. A Moslem movement on the same pattern would be "back to the Koran" - and we all know what's in the Koran!

I will go so far as to say that we should not be thinking about merely "containing" Islam, except as an interim measure. Our goal should be the obliteration of this wretched, vile death-cult. As long as there is a religion on Earth which looks to the Koran, with its jihad verses, its head-chopping verses and its Jew-killing verses, as the very words of its god, there will always be a threat to the rest of us. That threat will not vanish until the last Moslem exclaims "What a religion for losers!" and nails the last Koran to his outhouse wall.

Finally! Maybe ther is hope.

#98 Edward

Exactly. Christianity did not reform. Christianity restituted. Well except for the churches of Laodicea.

#89

Oh, brother. Get this:

"...and you sound like a narcissistic, spoiled brat

go away

:-P

start you own 'better' blog

you are sooo intelligent, see if you can get over 100,000 visits a day on your blog"

Narcissistic, spoiled brat, huh? Pot, meet kettle. Could you be any more juvenile? BTW, you forgot the obligatory 'nyah nyahs' at the end, my widdle biddy fwend.

I bet you dot your i's with hearts.