Anti-Muslim Sentiment In America: It’s Not Just About A Mosque Near “Ground Zero”
Protests against mosques aren't just limited to Manhattan. And that's a problem.
The New York Times notes today that protests against mosque construction in the United States aren’t just limited to a two block area near the site of the September 11th attacks:
While a high-profile battle rages over a mosque near ground zero in Manhattan, heated confrontations have also broken out in communities across the country where mosques are proposed for far less hallowed locations.
In Murfreesboro, Tenn., Republican candidates have denounced plans for a large Muslim center proposed near a subdivision, and hundreds of protesters have turned out for a march and a county meeting.
In late June, in Temecula, Calif., members of a local Tea Party group took dogs and picket signs to Friday prayers at a mosque that is seeking to build a new worship center on a vacant lot nearby.
In Sheboygan, Wis., a few Christian ministers led a noisy fight against a Muslim group that sought permission to open a mosque in a former health food store bought by a Muslim doctor.
At one time, neighbors who did not want mosques in their backyards said their concerns were over traffic, parking and noise — the same reasons they might object to a church or a synagogue. But now the gloves are off.
In all of the recent conflicts, opponents have said their problem is Islam itself. They quote passages from the Koran and argue that even the most Americanized Muslim secretly wants to replace the Constitution with Islamic Shariah law.
These local skirmishes make clear that there is now widespread debate about whether the best way to uphold America’s democratic values is to allow Muslims the same religious freedom enjoyed by other Americans, or to pull away the welcome mat from a faith seen as a singular threat.
“What’s different is the heat, the volume, the level of hostility,” said Ihsan Bagby, associate professor of Islamic studies at the University of Kentucky. “It’s one thing to oppose a mosque because traffic might increase, but it’s different when you say these mosques are going to be nurturing terrorist bombers, that Islam is invading, that civilization is being undermined by Muslims.”
Indeed it is, especially when there’s no evidence at all that the increased presence of mosques in the United States has led to an increase in support for extremist versions of Islam. In fact, the exact opposite seems to be the case:
There are about 1,900 mosques in the United States, which run the gamut from makeshift prayer rooms in storefronts and houses to large buildings with adjoining community centers, according to a preliminary survey by Mr. Bagby, who conducted a mosque study 10 years ago and is now undertaking another.
A two-year study by a group of academics on American Muslims and terrorism concluded that contemporary mosques are actually a deterrent to the spread of militant Islam and terrorism. The study was conducted by professors with Duke’s Sanford School of Public Policy and the University of North Carolina. It disclosed that many mosque leaders had put significant effort into countering extremism by building youth programs, sponsoring antiviolence forums and scrutinizing teachers and texts.
But this is not what the anti-mosque protesters — whether they’re in Manhattan, Staten Island, Florida, California, or Tennessee — believe. Instead, they’ve fed themselves on a steady diet of anti-Muslim paranoia by the likes of Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, reinforced at various times by Fox News hosts like Sean Hannity, politicians, and so-called “men of God,” who live in a world where every Muslim in the world holds the same extremist, murderous ideology as Osama bin Laden, Mohammed Atta, and others who would do us harm.
Not only is this demonstrably untrue, it’s an insult to the entire concept of religious liberty and religious tolerance, two of the principles upon which this nation, and the British Colonies that existed before it, was founded upon. More importantly, it seems rather apparent to me that if the United States becomes perceived as a country that is hostile to Islam, even when practiced by people who have been here for generations, it will do more to harm our image in the Muslim world than it will to protect us from the supposedly imminent danger of Sharia Law.
Michael Powell at The Liberty Papers lays out the dilemma that those pushing an anti-Muslim agenda are facing:
The fact that Muslims can set up shop freely in America shows how different we are. Would conservatives rather we be more like Saudi Arabia?
Ironically, this seems to be exactly what Newt Gingrich is saying when he says something like this:
There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia.
The difference, of course, is that this the United States, not Saudi Arabia. Preventing someone from building a house of worship because of their religion, which is clearly the motivation behind the protests popping up across the nation, is not only illegal, it’s also un-American.
Is it a shock that the Tea Party right are anti-Muslim bigots as well as several other sub-specie of bigot?
Is it a shock that GOP politicians like the execrable Mr. Gingrich will pander to that bigotry?
It is shocking that the disgraced Newt Gingrich is the spokesman for the Republican party.
Echo…Echo…Echo…
Shall we look at a few objective facts, and not frog-swelling retorts about the issues Islam raises as we have seen above?
Most Americans have not read the Koran, the Haddith, or Sharia law, which lays them open to both ignorance and suggestibility when it comes to Muslim practices.
When they do read the Koran, and a few commentaries on it, they are really shocked at the attitudes expressed about infidels (i.e. Christians and other unbelievers of Islam).
Examining the record further, the naive American discovers that the hideous prescriptions for good Muslims about infidels have not been revoked at all, but rather reaffirmed as the true teachings of Muhammad as recently as 2000. Some of these prescriptions include: you may lie, cheat, steal, and even murder an infidel without sanctions from Islam.
The American looks at his newspaper and reads of beheadings, honor killings, bombs blowing up both Americans and other Muslims in Islamic nations, and draws the obvious conclusion that Muslims are unstable to be around. He reads of how many American soldiers have died and been wounded by Muslim insurgents and terrorists, and forms a resentment that we must deal with such a seemingly bloodthirsty crowd at all. The he reads that there are an enormous number of Muslims right here in America. Some say from 2 to 12 million have found their way here; a bunch by way of our open borders, and others by legal immigration.
Now he asks the simple questions: Are these Muslims real Muslims as they are overseas? Are they as likely to try to promote Sharia here? Are some of them possibly sleeper cells awaiting orders to begin terrorist activities here? Do we really know much about them here?
Geller and Spencer tell it like it is from their perspective: we are being subjected to a silent takeover plan, and all of these Muslims can, given the right commands, become Jihadists, because it is their duty. They cite the progress in the UK, and on the EU continent that has seen early introduction of Sharia in the UK and parts of Islamicized Sweden.
Now the opposite propaganda begins. These are peaceful people and they are not here to take over at all.
Who does one believe about Islam, the apologists for Islam or Muhammad?
Doug, you are for equal rights for gays, right? You know what Muslims do with gays? You are for womens rights, right? Did you know Islam treats women as chattel? If you went to one of the tribal areas of Pakistan, Doug, they would slit your throat on sight. There are no other religions tolerated in the home of islam yet we are asked to allow them free rein. Doug, maybe you need to study the history of Islam. Do you know what the word Islam means? All I know is if something somewhere in the world blows up, for the past couple of decades there is probably a Muslim responsible. There is no Christian equivilant of al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbolla or the Taliban and that is just a short list of radical Muslim groups. I hope, Doug, you get to receive some Muslim kindness. Soon.
Let me ask you this, Manning. Consider these passages from the Old Testament:
Here we have sanctioned mass murder of a conquered population and the enslavement of young girls to be kept alive “for yourselves.” This is only one example from the Old Testament, a book, one could rightly say, certainly in its earlier chapters, drenched in blood. God commanding that those conquered by the Israelites be slain, men, women, and children. Wholesale destruction of cities and town, the vastation of conquered peoples and their lands. Commanded by God.
Would it be fair, in your opinion, for someone to point to these passages as grounds for the condemnation and shunning of the entire Jewish people? For objecting to building of a synagogue in an American town?
Manning:
Have you read the Bible? The first half is the story of God and his people murdering everyone who got in their way. Men, women, children and farm animals.
Then we have a pleasant interlude in which a savage, bloodthirsty and obviously indiscriminate God sends his own son to be tortured and killed in some psychotic whipping-boy fantasy.
And this lovely book ends with the ravings of a lunatic who anticipates the massacre of the entire human race.
The adherents of Christianity take a symbol of torture and death as their emblem. They believe that failure to accept a nonsensical canon will result in an eternity of agony. And they practice ritual vampirism — blood-drinking — and cannibalism. Sort of a zombie thing going on there.
The Christian religion was spread primarily by fiat from above, or by the slaughter of anyone who resisted conversion.
Someone — can’t quite recall who — said something about getting the beam out of your own eye before bitching about the speck in someone else’s.
It’s not just un-American, it’s anti-American, since it’s directly opposed to one of our founding principles, and it makes the US less secure by fostering the very clash of civilizations that Bin Laden wants.
Anti-Islamic bigots are the best friends that al-Qaeda could ever have…
Sam: glad someone around here actually knows their Bible (I dabble at it, as I have with the Koran)
Would it be fair, in your opinion, for someone to point to these passages as grounds for the condemnation and shunning of the entire Jewish people? For objecting to building of a synagogue in an American town?
I feel the need tho, to point out that Christains beleive the New Testament is just an addendum to the old Testament. The same objections could be pressed against any Christain Church.
What in God’s Heaven does this tirade about the Christian Bible have to do with Islam? Does it not simply show that all religions have lived by the sword early on? Not the Christian religion, however, and that is the difference. Not in many centuries have we Christians been so bloodthirsty over religious tenets!
We have gone far past the kind of violence written about in the Bible. But Islam has not. They still cut off hands, stone people to death over violations of religious tenets today. They behead people for breaking their sacred tenets today! They are believers in the destiny of Islam—to conquer the world and create a new Caliphate. The Word in Islam is from the Koran, and is the work of Muhammad, who declared himself the sole interface to Allah on earth. They blow up our buildings and try to sink our ships. We Christians left this kind of violence behind centuries ago, but, as I stated earlier, Mohammad and his Clerics have proclaimed that the first half of the Koran is abrogated in favor of the bloody second half, most recently in 2000. Hey, that is almost today!
You, some of you, are trying very hard to apologize for these Jihadists that would cut your throat today if they could. The big problem is, they are all Jihadists, the Muslims with true faith, when the chips are down–that is, when they are ordered by their religious authorities to perform their sacred obligation to Islam and Muhammad to fight the infidel to the death. Or else they are not really Muslims at all. Get it? (I doubt it)
Lacking such an order, they can be extremely nice and polite, hard-working, and family-oriented people, even humble in outlook. Their Haddith tells them how to act when in a foreign land—low-key, industrious, quiet and conforming–until they have enough power to begin the real push. Then they are ruthless.
Read it! Read the Haddith. Read what Sharia really means to infidels. There is a site you can access that details what Jihad means, and I believe it is simply jihad.com or close to that. I haven’t been there in a while, but it is worth the effort to understand what is meant. Read the Koran in more than a passing skim, and then read about the abrogation of the more peaceful writings later on in time, after Medina.
As for aiding OBL, what drivel! It is those who will not understand what Islam is all about that are aiding OBL and the Muslim Brotherhood, the Whabbists and countless others. That is what they are counting on as well; the apathy, the false adherance to religious freedom for Islam, which makes their program work, and work well. Our people even defend them! Defend those who have sworn an oath to destroy us, the infidel! Why, doesn’t that make them inadvertant traitors?
So tell me, O wise ones, do we allow a religion that has sworn to conquer us and to make us all Muslims or to kill us, or to allow us to exist in dhimmitude, to practice and grow in the US or not? THAT is the question. Your answers will be very, very informative. Be sure, however, to cite your references, and I hope you can read Arabic as well.
@ sam
Let me ask you this, Manning. Consider these passages from the Old Testament:
And right there you are already comparing apples to oranges. Your interpretation of a text written thousands of years ago, regardless of how accurate, is not an accurate comparison to the observable and common behavior of individuals that follow the tenets of the Muslim religion.
You want to point to any modern mainstream Christian pastors talking about and supporting the indiscriminate killing of men, women, and children for me? You can’t. But you want to equate the old testament writings of Judaism (bear in mind the five books of Moses, or Pentateuch, were not Christianity) to the modern day actions of those that strictly adhere to the Islamic faith.
This doesn’t even pass the smell test.
Ah, another liberal trying to protect fanatics from Americans defending themselves.
@Michael Reynolds
And they practice ritual vampirism — blood-drinking — and cannibalism.
“Presented for your inspection. The curious case of Michael Reynolds. A simple, confused man who, having no grounding in reality to provide perspective or foundation, finds himself in a precarious position indeed. So he struggles to make sense of it all, with one foot in reality and the other in…… the Twilight Zone.”
We’ve gone far past the violence written of in the Bible? Are you deaf, dumb and blind?
Tell me: who fought the two bloodiest wars in human history within just the last 20 years? Muslims? Please. They were wars of Lutherans and Baptists and Orthodox Christians.
Which nation, of which dominant religious faith is the only one to exterminate the civilian population of a city with a singel bomb?
Jesus, Manning, get your head out of your ass. In terms of genocide, mass rape, slaughter and pillage the Muslims don’t even rate an honorable mention. People with baptismal water sprinkled on their heads are far and away the greatest mass-murders of human history. Only the Chinese and Mongols — with a hell of a lot longer history, and a hell of a lot larger population to kill have even challenged us in this area.
And the Chinese, bless ’em, have only committed genocide on a single continent. Is there a continent where Christians have not enslaved or obliterated entire nations of people? We live on land taken from Indians who had been weakened by western disease and then massacred in successive waves of appalling slaughter.
I know you’re a conservative and therefore required to be blind to history’s little unpleasantnesses, but seriously. You sound like an idiot.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Themes/jihad_passages.html
This is the reference I was talking about analyzing the Koran for Jihad statements. It is informative, and it points out that the Jihad statements have not been abrogated as I said.
One good starting point of many!
Henceforth, please do not try to bring Christianity into the argument of Islamic Jihad. That befouls Christianity and doesn’t bear on the problem of today’s Jihad and Islam in America.
A bigoted, narrow-minded and frankly stupid position.
None of which would matter much if you were not actually doing Bin Laden’s work for him. Contemptible.
MR–you are mixing up oranges, potatoes pears and apples. I clearly cited religious tenet violations as the sort of violence not seen in Christianity for centuries. I did not enter into the many wars that have been fought, not even stopping the hordes at Vienna, because they were fought over many other motivating factors, and not solely Christianity. And, yes, it is obvious that we possess and have used atomic weapons, and may well use them again if the need arises. When it comes down to thee versus me in a fight for survival, thee is in deep, deep trouble!
Your vulgar references are noted, which puts you in that special category of poster. Once, I had thought a bit better of you, but I see that I was wrong.
Juneau:
Dude: read the Bible before you decide to argue it with me.
So I take away your only real try at an argument, and you resort to name calling. Typical Leftist tactics, and quite contemptible all by itself! It is the advocates for Muslims that are aiding the enemy here, and that is not me! Your stance says that we should go down to dhimmitude singing of religious freedom, which doesn’t exist under Islam, Sir.
MR—Did you get it? THERE IS NO RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AS WE KNOW IT UNDER ISLAM.
@Michael Reynolds
Tell me: who fought the two bloodiest wars in human history within just the last 20 years? Muslims? Please. They were wars of Lutherans and Baptists and Orthodox Christians.
This is absolutely the worst form of non-sequiter argument possible, and completely dishonest. WW1 and WW2 were not religious wars. To state that, simply because the parties in a conflict are of one faith or another the conflict itself was created and driven by their religious faith, is devoid of any semblance logical construction. The only relational cause and effect in your example is derived solely from your pathetic attempt to make the connection in support of your argument.
There is a vast difference between conflict which has a religious belief as the root cause and a conflict where the participants adhere to a religious belief. The difference is obvious and a child could understand it.
Please. Really, you know better and so do we.
Manning,
But there is in the United States, which is all that matters to me. If Muslim-Americans wish to practice their faith and build houses of worship, that is their right.
And you don’t think maybe, MAYBE there’s more than religion at play with Jihadist terrorism? You don’t think maybe it has a wee bit to do with corrupt and undemocratic regimes in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the homes of Bin Laden and Al Zawahiri respectively? You don’t think maybe it’s the rage of life’s losers as we move into the 21st century? You don’t think MAYBE it has to do with western forces in Saudi and American money in Egypt and American culture everywhere?
It doesn’t occur to you somewhere down inside your calcified brain that Bin Laden uses religious justifications in just the same way Christians have used the words of the Bible to justify their evil deeds?
You’re so blinded by your own narrow-mindedness you’ll invent rationales for every Christian madness and deny any complexity whatsoever to Muslims.
And you’re such a bigot that you judge a billion people by the actions of a handful and by religious texts which are not substantively different from Christian scripture when it comes to savagery and dreams of conquest.
And by demonizing a billion people — 99.999% of whom have nothing whatever to do with terrorism, you are actively helping forward Bin Laden’s narrative. You are piling up American bodies for the sole reason of sticking to a narrative so goddamned ignorant that only a Republican or a Jihadist would buy into it.
Jesus Tapdancing Christ. NO war is entirely religious. Even religious wars aren’t entirely religious. It’s always about power. And the same is true in other people’s religions. No see if you can follow that through to the obvious conclusion.
Here, I’ll help: If Christians fight wars, and those wars are justified using the bible, but those wars are not necessarily about religion, then do you think it’s just possible that Muslims do the same?
You think maybe Bin Laden isn’t really a religious leader but a power hungry megalomaniac with delusions of grandeur who uses his religion to rationalize what he does?
And if all Christians are not guilty for wars fought by Christians, and rationalized using Christian scripture, then maybe all Muslims are not guilty for wars fought by Muslims and rationalized using Muslim scriptures.
Duh.
@Michael Reynolds
Dude: read the Bible before you decide to argue it with me.
Ha! Funny – as if you had desire to gain an understanding of exactly what the complete context is of the passages that you quote. Ever heard of symbolism….. Dude ? Or do you have this secret conviction that Christians gather together every Sunday, slice their palms in a frenzied ritual, and then drink the blood from a golden chalice?
Nuff’ said.
Juneau:
Did you see the bit about transubstantiation? I don’t know what denomination you are (guessing some weird-ass snake handling cult) but in Roman Catholic, Anglican and Lutheran theology it is NOT symbolic. It is actual blood and actual flesh. (Possibly other denoms as well, I don’t know them all.)
And no matter what denomination you are, there are a hell of a lot more Catholics. So, yeah, Christians believe in divine cannibalism. Literal eating of literal flesh.
@Michael Reynolds
And if all Christians are not guilty for wars fought by Christians, and rationalized using Christian scripture…
You can not cite a single war that America has fought, including the Civil War, that has been “rationalized” using Christian scripture. Period.
You are flailing badly because, in the case of Christians, you are making a non-existent connection between two completely unrelated things; the root causes of a conflict, compared to the personal faith and religion of those involved in it (which includes their desire to call upon their God for favor and victory in the midst of the conflict.)
The same can not be said of the Muslim religion.
Juneau:
There’s a reason I included you as one of los tres pinheados. You know nothing.
The Christian slaughter of Indians was justified on the grounds that we were bringing the true faith to heathen. The Civil War was justified by biblical references supporting slavery. The Spanish War was justified by citing the evils of Roman Catholicism and the opportunity to bring true (Protestant) religion to Cuba and the Philippines. World War 2 was justified under the jus in bello doctrine (correctly.)
That’s off the top of my head.
And please, please, please tell me there are no biblical quotes that support war and slaughter.
Manning and Juneau:
Here’s a suggestion for the future: don’t bring Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh B.S. into an environment where you’re going to be challenged. That crap disintegrates like papier mache in a rainstorm. Beck and Limbaugh and the rest are liars. I’d say they’re ignoramuses, but I suspect they know better and just feed lies to credulous ninnies who have no idea how badly their ideas will fare under the slightest intellectual pressure.
Manning, you’re talking the nonsense of the un-examined assumption. You lack the capacity — and most conservatives do — to imagine. So you can’t step back, look at a situation objectively, and ask obvious questions.
Juneau? You’re just an ignoramus. I don’t think you’re as stupid as Zelsdorf, but your knowledge of history and your capacity for analysis is stuck at the Dittohead level. You can’t even guess what the counterarguments might be and raise a protective shield. You don’t know enough to know how little you know.
@ Michael Reynolds:
The Christian slaughter of Indians was justified on the grounds that we were bringing the true faith to heathen.
You know, there is one thing that progressive liberal fascists are famous for, and you excel at it. You take the disagreeable or improper actions and words of some few involved in anything you disagree with, and ascribe those motives to the entire body of people involved. You amplify the disagreeable and insist it is the norm, rather than the exception. If I used your pathetic logic and miserly reasoning faculties, I could state any bald-faced lie to you with perfect equanimity, believing that, by simply stating accurately the actions of the few, I can righteously judge the motives of the many.
The only thing you “know” is the liberal propagandist bullspit you were either taught in college by your equally liberal professor, or by some other stupendously stupid person who’s first lesson for you was probably to repeat 500 times, “western civilization is bad.”
Off the top of your head is right. What utter nonsense.
Manning,
Most majority-Muslim countries recognize freedom of religion, including, but not limited to: Turkey, Kazakhstan, Mali, Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria, and Malaysia.
Oh dear. Let me rewrite this for you, in a way that is completely and utterly accurate.
Most Muslims have not read the Bible, theological works, or Ecclesiastical/Canon law, which lays them open to both ignorance and suggestibility when it comes to Christian practices.
When they do read the Bible, and a few commentaries on it, they are really shocked at the attitudes expressed about infidels (i.e. Muslims and other unbelievers of Christianity).
Wow. That naive American clearly knows next to nothing about Islam, because that naive American appears to be under the impression that (a) there is a central, organized Islam with a single, clerical hierarchy when there isn’t, and (b) that Taqiyya is a majority view among Muslims and is unlimited, when in fact it is (1) a small minority view and (2) even among that minority, quite limited in scope.
Once again, this can be easily rewritten as:
The American looks at his newspaper and reads of executions of gays in Uganda, forced conversions of Hindus in northeast India, bombs blowing up abortion clinics, the troubles in Northern Ireland and draws the obvious conclusion that Christians are unstable to be around.
It’s immoral and unjust to draw conclusions about followers of a religion based on the actions of a few fanatics. Period.
Believing that all Muslims share the beliefs of the nutjobs in al-Qaeda shows a gross misunderstanding of the history and complexity of Islam. Ascribing the views of al-Qaeda to American Muslims is a slander against your fellow citizens. However, the First Amendment protects your right to offer such vile lies. And there are over 15,000 Muslims serving in our Armed Forces willing to lay down their lives for that right. With the full approval of Muslim clerics, I might add.
Juneau:
Good God, you’re retarded.
Which is what you did to Muslims, you imbecile.
@Michael Reynolds
Here’s a suggestion for the future: don’t bring Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh B.S. into an environment where you’re going to be challenged.
Seriously. You’re joking , right? You haven’t challenged a single stinking thing that’s been said. You’ve just created these great looping arguments based on your completely subjective statements, which you pass off as some sort of verifiable fact. You’re claiming victory over the fact that you offer nothing of substance and therefore can not be refuted. I can argue that I’m the King of France, and if the only proof I require is that I believe it to be true, rest assured I will win every argument about the issue.
You couldn’t debate your way out a wet paper sack.
Yes. Yes, you’re a genius. I think we can all see that. Your intellectual powers have once again dominated all around you. You’re kind of a god, really, Juneau, and absolutely not a clueless idiot living in a crazy-man cabin in Asshat Alaska.
@ Michael Reynolds
Which is what you did to Muslims, you imbecile.
Referencing my previous: You take the disagreeable or improper actions and words of some few involved in anything you disagree with, and ascribe those motives to the entire body of people involved.
Really, Reynolds? So how many rabid muslims equals a “few” in your mind? 10,000? 1 million?
Please, tell me EXACTLY how many radical muslims there need to be, killing people for simply not agreeing with them, before you can agree that it is not a few?
This is getting nowhere. You generalize without providing examples. In contrast, I reference observable examples which can be drawn from headlines in the newspapers of today – and you claim I am generalizing.
Whatever.
You take the disagreeable or improper actions and words of some few involved
So the long series of genocidal wars waged by Christians against the Indigenous peoples of the Americas were “disagreeable” actions, taken by “some few”? Ye gods, you really are an idiot studying to be a moron. And failing to make the leap.
who’s first lesson for you was probably to repeat 500 times, “western civilization is bad.”
Sort of like how you have been told, “Muslims are bad”. And you bought it. Hook, line and sinker.
Here is a clue for you, not that you know what to do with clues. Human beings do evil. As individuals. In small groups. In large groups. As nations. If you don’t believe that western civilization can do evil on a vast scale, I refer you to Nazi Germany. Or we can you the “disagreeable” slaughter of Indians – men, women and children. Eastern civilization is similarly guilty of evil, both small and great. And yes, so is Muslim civilization. Welcome to the human race. If you want to tell yourself that we are somehow better than the rest, perhaps you can explain how that works to the families of the hundreds of thousands of peasants we slaughtered in Viet Nam not so long ago.
Deflecting the argument away from Islam and Muslim motivations to follow their religious leaders in America is a silly tactic. Bringing up the indian wars, or WWII is simply beside the point. Bringing up the Bible and Christianity, or the Jews is beside the point. It is mere shadowboxing to no end other than deflection from the crux of the issue.
Is Islam and its Muslim followers a threat to the Unted States over the next 25 or so years? I say yes, and others say no. That is the argument. From a study of Islam and from the writings of Islamic scholars, I have concluded that the dream of a worldwide Caliphate is still very much alive within a number of Islamic cults. I cited both the UK and the EU as examples of the methodology being used—Silent Jihad. I have shown that Muslims must obey their religious leaders and must perform Jihad when called upon to do so, and it is easier for them when doing the Silent Jihad. It is obvious also that Muslims in the US are not loyal to the US, but to Islam. I have shown where one can read about Jihad in the Koran, including Silent Jihad, from knowledgeable sources.
Either address these points directly, or you are not being honest in your arguments.
So far, I have seen not one of the “no” commenters here actually address the argument in a proper fashion. Several have shown the utter silliness of the Bible/Indian/Christian group of non-arguments. Is this because of their ignorance of the subject of Islam? Maybe so.
Is someone like MR saying that because the Christians were bad over time, it is OK for the Muslims to be bad too, especially in our own nation? I do not follow this kind of argument at all.
Then our host says that he stops at giving them religious freedom. He refuses to look under the table at what is really going on, and thus would greatly lessen our ability to cope with the coming Jihad going from Silent, in steps, to fully active in a suggested 25 years or so. This head-in-the-sand approach will get more of us killed.
It most certainly does not matter whether Muslims read our Christian documents the way we read theirs. That is a non-sequteur, and yet another red herring, and sloppy argumentation once again. It does not address the crux problem set forth. Everyone of the “no” group is straining mightily not to address the crux, but to try to win the argument with all manner of herring! I find that very revealing of the beliefs and motives of that group.
@ Knapp
The American looks at his newspaper and reads of executions of gays in Uganda, forced conversions of Hindus in northeast India, bombs blowing up abortion clinics, the troubles in Northern Ireland and draws the obvious conclusion that Christians are unstable to be around.
Please sir, could you direct me to the newspaper accounts of gays being executed in Uganda? And also the latest story of a Christian bombing an abortion clinic? And, while you’re at it, please show me the stories where Hindus are being forced to convert to Christianity, rather than the other way around? By the way, in case you didn’t notice, the Catholics and the Protestants in northern Ireland quit killing each other, except for the odd dust-up now and again.
I ‘ve got a great idea. Why don’t you post the links to all of the “Christian atrocities” you mention above, we’ll count up the total number of incidents over, say, the last five years, and then I’ll do the same for the number of muslim honor killings, murders of pastors and schoolchildren going to Christian schools, murder of rape victims for the sin of adultery, and genital mutilation of little girls.
Somehow, I don’t think the chances are very good that my offer will be accepted.
Ah! Yet another of the “no” group joins the fray. And with what? Civilizations have bad actors. So? Get specific. There is one issue put forth, and here is a lesson in human faults and group faults! So?
Amazing refusal to address the problem.
Not to go too far with the Silent Jihad, but wouldn’t the Muslims want to join up and penetrate our military, our police forces, our legislatures, in short, anywhere they could be useful later on when the word comes out? Go with the flow—for now.
Why, of course some Islamic nations grant religious freedom to their subjects, for the simple reason that there are too many of them to turn as yet, but they are trying every day. You cite Turkey, which is turning away from the West towards the Islamic nations, but there are just too many non-Muslims or moderate Muslims in Turkey for them to do much about it right now. Muslims are attempting takeovers in Nigeria and India and have been for years. They appear to be succeeding in Nigeria, according to my Nigerian friend. Freedom of religion will last as long as the Muslims do not have full control. Any such temporary concession by Muslim leaders is purely practical and not altrustic.
@anjin:
If you want to tell yourself that we are somehow better than the rest, perhaps you can explain how that works to the families of the hundreds of thousands of peasants we slaughtered in Viet Nam not so long ago.
Fine. Let’s see how long you stick with this bankrupt argument before you abandon it by morphing into some other mouse-trail because you got pinned down with no place to go:
If all death and war is bad, which I agree it is, then the active pursuit of one’s goals through the express use of violence must also be bad as well, yes? In fact, it would seem to be reprehensible, since by pursuing this policy, death and violence become not simply a collateral negative result, but rather death and violence become goals in and of themselves, since it is through achieving these that the ultimate goal is reached – that goal of having your ideas and worldview be dominant over the worldview of your opposition.
Why is it then that – when faced with a worldview represented by Islam which has an express goal of world dominance, with an historical doctrine that justifies violence in pursuit of this dominance, and a modern re-affirmation that violence is still a legitimate means to the end, and daily proof that religious violence is not punished by the gatekeepers of Islam – you refuse to criticize the worldview?
Either you are against violence in principle, or you are against violence when it suits you. To deny that Islam as a religion advocates that violence is a legitimate tool in pursuit of dominance and purity, is to deny the reality of what you can read about in the newspapers every week. To state that it is not worthy of caution and a wary eye, is showing ignorance of the way Islam is impacting western nations such as the UK and France. Riots, sharia courts that are outside the national justice system. and private killings based on religious edicts; these are the results of this “peaceful” religion.
Theo Van Gogh, Salman Rushdie, the Dutch MP, etc. are all examples of the ‘tolerance” of Islam. Not to mention the fact that the first amendment is already held hostage to some degree; witness the fear of the TV network and the creators of South Park who refused to even show a cartoon caricature of Mohammed. They make fun of every major religion in existence – except Islam. Because it’s such a peaceful religion.
So, once again, how many people need to die over the fact that they broke a religious rule, or spoke to a man, or got raped, or converted to another religion? And the person who did the killing gets no punishment. Because the country has Islamic law as its basis for punishment, and there was no crime.
Its not just a few, and its not just the “evil of humanity.” With Islam, its institutionalized. That’s what makes it different.
Not to mention the fact that the first amendment is already held hostage to some degree; witness the fear of the TV network and the creators of South Park who refused to even show a cartoon caricature of Mohammed. They make fun of every major religion in existence – except Islam. Because it’s such a peaceful religion.
This is laughable! We begin with an argument over Islamic goals for world domination, and end up rehashing Vietnam!
The most sensible counter was Knapp’s, and even he fell into the same mode of argument. The fact that there are many sects within Islam, some hundred or so in Iraq alone, is quite well known. It is indeed a complicated array of beliefs and tribal allegiences, but there is little argument within them as to who the Great Satan is, and Wahabbists have set the stage for years, radiating from Arabia invective against the US, and promoting the Muslim Brotherhood. Saudi money funds many organizations around the world to promote their cause of world domination. and to educate good Muslims in the faith.
So we get arguments that are trivial and totally misdirected, along with invective just to make a false point. How very sad it is to see minds unable to grasp the simple truth here, and struggling to compare the history of Christianity to that of Islam for all the wrong reasons. Misguided and delusional.
The no-sayers will go down singing their song of freedom of religion, to be choked off abruptly by Muslims giving them the choice of dhimmitude or death.
Oh, and you can add Kenya to the list of Muslim takeover attempts.
“How very sad it is to see minds unable to grasp the simple truth here”
The simple truth here is that our core values are under attack by those possessed of a sac-shrivelling fear of the other. It differs not one whit from the fears of our distant ancestors, hunkered down around the fire starting at strange sounds in the night. The First Amendment is a mere impediment to the greater claims of the tribe. This isn’t conservatism, it primitivism. Old-brain financed rationalizations of the kraal.
“Muslims have been trying to take over India for years”
As an Indian, I find that the most fear mongering and idiotic statement I have read in a while. Muslims are part of Indian culture and our major movie stars are Muslim the richest man in India is Muslim. India has Muslim extremists, just like we have Communist and Hindu extremists.
Fear mongering and generalizing a whole population will work on ignorant people, but won’t work on everyone.
when faced with a worldview represented by Islam which has an expressgoal of world dominance, with an historical doctrine that justifies violence in pursuit of this dominance, and a modern re-affirmation that violence is still a legitimate means to the end,
And of course, we never use violence to achieve domination. Just ask the non-combatants who died in the “shock and awe” bombings. Oh wait, you can’t. We killed them. Of course that was justified, because we found the WMD that were were told about. “We know they have them and we know were they are. Oh, wait, that was total BS.
While we are talking about world domination, lets keep in mind what nation has nearly 1000 military outposts on foreign soil. And who spends more on “defense” than the rest of the world put together. Its interesting and instructive how outraged some Americans get over the violence that is done by Muslims. Meanwhile, children in America are murdered with automatic weapons every day and they don’t bat an eye. Well, it is much easier to have a bogeyman than to do the difficult work of putting our own house in order.
“You take the disagreeable or improper actions and words of some few involved in anything you disagree with, and ascribe those motives to the entire body of people involved.”
Project much, Juneau? You do the same thing about not only Muslims but also liberals…
“Is someone like MR saying that because the Christians were bad over time, it is OK for the Muslims to be bad too, especially in our own nation? I do not follow this kind of argument at all.”
Perhaps what he is trying to say is that throughout history, there have been many groups and individuals who have used religion as a means to oppress and harm others…it is not as though a few nutjobs who are using Islam to legitimatize what they do have cornered the market on this practice…
You know, I keep trying, but there’s no arguing with a bigot.
A certain percentage of homo sapiens simply needs someone to hate. The emotional need to identify and hate an “other” precludes any possibility of introspection or intellectual growth. I imagine it’s down deep in the DNA with these people, hardwired.
There’s probably a survival mechanism at work, but one that is now self-destructive. It now takes the form of people actually believing that they improve their chances of survival by extrapolating from a handful of sects to an entire population of a billion plus people. Instead of having a handful of enemies, they deliberately choose to have a billion enemies, and believe they have improved the odds of survival.
It’s a delusional world view that borders on paranoid schizophrenia. But there’s no reaching them, not any more than you can argue the schizo hobo out of the idea that his shopping cart is a space ship.
@Michael Reynolds
You know, I keep trying, but there’s no arguing with a bigot.
Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing…. When you’ve got no game, just call names.
Now we get the psychoanalysis approach from a neophyte coupled with yet another foray into the presumed sins of Christianity and the US! That is a hoot! Not one of you so-called brains have addressed the stated problem at all.
Apparently you can’t. You can’t demonstrate that the words and beliefs of Muslims do not portend an attempt at world domination, while I can from numerous sources. It is written down by them for Pete’s sake! It is not my invention at all, it is theirs! You rely on obfuscation and attacking me, not the problem. That is simply your problem, not mine. None of the demonstrations against the bad old US count for anything but noise.
If that is all these people are trying to say, AIP, it is too vague a statement to apply to the specific situation of the Islamic push to dominate now through Silent Jihad, yes or no. To paraphrase: “Sometimes some people use religion to their own ends.” So?
The noise level is so high now on this site that I wonder whether a rational debate on the argument can ever take place. We should be down into the Suras, and the highly specific works of a number of important people, etc. not clamoring about psychoses or bigotry, or ignorance, or how the US fought some war. Those are all red herrings.
So I guess that until some rationality appears from the “no” side, the discussion is over as far as I am concerned. I have made my point. And all noise was the return.
“I have made my point.”
Your point was, in the end, fvck the First Amendment. Some of us think that’s contemptible.
The bottom line is this: How do you new Crusaders plan on stopping this supposed Islamic Jihad without shredding the First Amendment? Good luck with that…
Fifty years ago, to some people, the big external bogeyman was the Soviets while the internal one was black people…well, we saw how that turned out…now, those two roles seemed to have been filled by Islamic terrorists and gay people…the more things change……
The First Amendment presents a challenge, and to modify it would mean to have 3/4ths of the Congress and 3/4ths of the state legislatures approval. That might only be possible way late in the day, after what is happening is quite visibly clear to everyone. No one I know wants to violate the law and the amendment, but if the Jihad is measurably well underway some 20 or so years hence, there is a very decent chance that we would react by excepting Islam from its provisions.
There is another route, however and that is not to go for an amendment at all, but to outlaw the introduction of Sharia Law in the US as being applicable to US citizens or any others within our jurisdiction. This can be done I am told by legislation to that end. This is the preferred route, and it may well become the best posible legal prevent.
It too, would have a gauntlet to run, but it would not violate the 1st Amend. That would leave Muslims all alone to practice their religion freely, per se, but it removes the direct possibility of introducing Sharia into the US, which is a good stopping point. So, no fireworks for violating the 1st!
Of course, if the Muslims declare that they want the freedom to take down the government as a key part of their religious freedom, perhaps in not exactly those terms, we have the same old situation to cope with, but with the issue out on the table for all to see. This I doubt would happen!
So pull in your horns, you “nos” overreacted yet again!
Going off half-cocked is contemptible too. Think it through for a change.
Shorter Manning: “Nobody has refuted my unsubstantiated claims that all Muslims are part of the same religious conspiracy to take over the world, and that all evidence to the contrary is just further evidence that the conspiracy exists. Therefore, the conpiracy must exist, and all Muslims are always lying to all unbelievers, and we cannot trust any of them, since every single one of them would gladly kill every single one of us in the name of Allah. The fact that the Qu’ran specifically refutes these claims is further proof that the claims are correct.
Also, we should pass a law to forbid the adoption of Sharia law because we can’t change the First Amendment. I shall pretend not to notice that the First Amendment already forbids the establishment of religion, which would include the enforcement of religious laws by the state, because otherwise I wouldn’t be able to pass laws that discriminate against Muslims, which is what I really want to do.”
So you, AIP, are willing to stand aside, and let what happens, happen? The Soviet threat was quite real, and it was not easily defeated, not by a longshot. We had some 60 years of the Cold War and it could well have gone ballistic several times. Some of us stood tall and helped to create a defense that ran the Soviets out of money to try to compete. So we helped the outcome very directly. We didn’t let what might have happened to happen.
But this is taking the issue into dark corners for no reason once again. Geez!
I would let the SCOTUS sort that one out. As for the rest of your shortcut, it does not take into account what the Islamic clerics themselves say and have said for decades. Not my ideas, old sod, but theirs! You had better be very careful not to run into the trap when trying to use nice words from the Koran. Chances are that they fell within the first half of the book, which was abrogated.
No, Manning, I’m for dealing with real issues in a real way, not cowering under the sheets and wetting the bed because some big, bad, scary, invented bogeyman is coming to get me…
You know, the libretto may change, but it’s the same effed-up opera nutso that seems to be a staple in some quarters.
Not one of you so-called brains have addressed the stated problem at all.
Ummm. Manning. You are not running the show here. If we are to go back and reread Doug’s original post, the subject at hand could just as easily be “Manning is a gibbering idiot”. You have done much to prove this premise.
You, you… you’re just a big fat bigot! There. Showed you, didn’t I? Now then, where did I lay down my binky. I feel ever so much better when I suck.
Till : I direct you to South Park episode 68
We all know your POV angin-san, which is somewhere Left of Nowhere. Try as you will, this problem will not disappear. It will grow, despite the administrations of those who want to hand them lollypops and ask their forgiveness for existing as infidels, and for the manifold sins of Chritianity since the days of Moses.
The penetration into our lives of Muslims (good and bad) was the underlying subject, so I have taken it to the next stage, where some resolution might be forthcoming some day. I do not want to live under Sharia, nor do I want my offspring to do so, and I do not want my country to do so. It is that simple.
Recently, s recently as 2008 in what I have in hand, too many Sheikhs in important places have given their blessing to a Jihad against America for me to be as complacent as some here, ok many, seem to be. Too many of these Sheikhs are actually stating official government policy in that process, from Saudi, from Egypt, from Lebanon, from Syria, from Iran, from Yemen, and even from Iraq. Since they are all in Farsi, these statements of policy are not readily available to the English-speaking world, but a few have been translated. Jed Babbin published a few in his book:”In the Words of our Enemies”; others trickle out from time to time, all with the same message: I call for Jihad against America!
Why is it that we seem to ignore what these leaders are saying to their people every day, just as we ignored OBL before 9/11? Are they not Islamic leaders of large sects? Are they not the ultimate authorities in Islam that many Muslims in the US must follow? Why have such messages not been published very frequently in the MSM for all to read? Their authenticity is not in question, and the roles played by these specific Sheikhs are well-known.
Hello Ostriches! have a nice day! Oh! sorry, I see that your heads are buried in the sand, and since you cannot understand Farsi anyway I will talk only to my true people here in the US—says the itenerant Sheikh from the stage in a US mosque!
Manning,
Recently, s recently as 2008 in what I have in hand, too many Sheikhs in important places have given their blessing to a Jihad against America for me to be as complacent as some here, ok many, seem to be. Too many of these Sheikhs are actually stating official government policy in that process, from Saudi, from Egypt, from Lebanon, from Syria, from Iran, from Yemen, and even from Iraq. Since they are all in Farsi, these statements of policy are not readily available to the English-speaking world, but a few have been translated.
What do you mean by Sheikhs? The title has many different meanings depending on the particular community. It can simply refer to a man of stature. It can refer to one of royal blood. Arab Christians use the term to designate learned theological scholars in their communities, as do the Druze. In Lebanon, the term specifically refers to CHRISTIAN nobles. Etc, etc, etc.
Indeed, most Muslim communities don’t recognize <i>any</i> centralized authority. There are many schools of Islam. There are many different <i>types</i> of Sharia, featuring different phillsophies of jurisprudence, different authorities, and different styles of interpretation. Further, fewer than 10 percent of Muslims speak Farsi, over 90 percent of whom live in Iran. The general <i>lingua franca</i> among Muslim scholars is Arabic, of which the largest proportion of Muslims (about one-third) speak.
I am sure that you are well meaning, but your comments indicate an appalling lack of understanding of Islam. (For example, your statement that the “first half” of the Qu’ran has been abrogated.) You also don’t seem to have a firm grasp of the varying cultures within Islam. (The practice and lifestyles of Indonesian Muslims, for example, is quite different than Malian Muslims, which is quite different from Saudi Muslims, which is quite different from Iranian Muslims.) Your painting of all Muslims as sharing some singular ideology or following some singular authority simply bears no relationship at all to the real facts on the ground.
Even your willingness to delve into the Suras, though admirable, is limited in scope. Simply reading the Qu’ran or even the Hadith won’t get you an understanding of how Muslims practice their faith in the <i>real world</i>, any more than studying the Bible and Catholic Canon Law will give you an understanding of how actual Catholics practice <i>their</i> faith in the real world. Just ask any number of divorced Catholics who remarry outside the Church and still take Communiion.
There are always, in every faith, culture, and ideology, people willing to take up arms and kill in the name of their ideas. Most people, however, aren’t inclined to fight unless they feel like they have to–and they primarily feel like they have to for secular, not religious reasons. The targeting of American and Europeans for terrorist attacks has a great deal more to do with the West’s foreign policy in the Middle East than it does with some secret conspiracy to try and take over the world.
Your instructions are welcome, Alex, but let me state the names of the Sheikhs that I have read comments from, and let you point out to me whether they are significant, or not, across quite a few sects of Islam.
1. Sheikh Al-Rahman Al-Sudayyis
2. Grand Mufti Sheikh Abd Al’Azia Aal Al-Sheikh
3. Sheikh Mustafa Bin Said Aytim
4. Sheikh Abd Al-Muhsim Al-Qassem
5. Ayatollah Mohammad Emami-Kashani
From my small perch on the internet I have not delved into these men’s lives beyond reading some remarks of theirs. I do not read either Arabic, the language of the Koran, or Farsi. (I had erased Arabic in the sentence of a previous post that you took me to task for, I do not know why. My fault– in a hurry I guess.)
So, with your knowledge, perhaps you can tell me what their importance really is in the scheme of things Islam.
As to the abrogation, it is my understanding that all suras before the “Sword” sura was abrogated, which has been referenced to be about half of the suras. Big deal.
You are quite right that I am not including a number of Muslim nations and sects in my
comments, quite obviously because they are very removed from most of the action against the US, and they appear to have far less interest in pursuing that line than do the ME brands, although that doesn’t mean there is no terrorist activity by Muslims in the Western Pacific. Rather than mere ignorance as you suggested, my approach has been to follow the sounds of gunfire and wordfire in the ME directed at us here, and what seems to be a concerted effort to initiate a more comprehensive Jihad/US between, with, and among the various sects in the ME. But, then, you tell me what real influence these men, and their like, have in this effort. They all use the term Sheikh, you see, except the Ayatollah, and they all use the term Jihad.
There is one primary trait that is common throughout the ME when Jihad and Jihadism is brought up, Sacrifice of life for the cause of Islam. Suidide bombers appear to surface throughout your complex mix of tribes, sects, and nations of Islam, and they seem to be able to recruit them at will. That there is no central clearinghouse for suicide bombers doesn’t seem to slow them down, not one whit. If you could count the number of people, mainly Muslims, killed and maimed by Muslim suicide bombers, it would be a shock! Just the American military casualty list is huge. Such bombings haven’t stopped either, as a look into my paper today shows.
Is it so great a stretch to consider that we here in the US may be subjected to something similar in the not too distant future? Why, we do not even comtrol our borders adequately, and have a large number of Muslim aliens, illegals in other terms, here in the nation. We have erected some infrastructure to combat this, but just how effective it is I cannot vouch for.
Seems to me only common sense to seek to define the threat, and then the counters.
@Manning
“There is one primary trait that is common throughout the ME when Jihad and Jihadism is brought up, Sacrifice of life for the cause of Islam. Suidide bombers appear to surface throughout your complex mix of tribes, sects, and nations of Islam, and they seem to be able to recruit them at will.”
One of the problems some of us have with your position is its totalism. As if all Muslims, everywhere, are bent on violence. That is just not true, as I think the following will make clear.
Ah, sorry, meant to include the date of the fatwa: March 2, 2010.
BTW, there’s an interesting story on the fatwa on the Foreign Policy website:
Sheikh to Terrorists: Go to Hell
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/04/14/sheikh_to_terrorists_go_to_hell?page=full
You will have to lead me by the hand to where I said categoically that all Muslims are bad Muslims. That is not rally possible to be true, especially if you count the many sects that have stayed to the side in the situation.
What I have said (and I have the story of that Muslim kid of about 15 to prove my point, from a moderate Muslim family, that was “persuaded” to become a suicide bomber in Israel, and on TV yet. One of the more moving sequencies I ever saw on TV. Did they threaten to kill his parents to get him to do that? It was not said.) is that with the right pressure any Muslim can be “persuaded” to seek his 76 virgins by one means or another. That is not the way to raise an army, for sure, but it does create a bomber when needed. I have also claimed numerous times that in the daylight, out in the town square, you cannot tell the Islamic radicals from the good old Joes Ali’s around the corner.
It would be nice if the radicals would paint their faces blue or something, but oh well! So we do have the problem of finding and identifying the radicals from the rest. Just how does one do that in America? You cannot follow 2 to 12 million Muslims around all day every day. The 2000 census claims there are about 2.1 million Muslims here. At only 1% of say 2 to 4 million Muslims as a guess you still get 20 to 40,000 to track. I have no idea how many there are now. Any ideas as to what percentage of the crowd is radicalized?
When we get up to the 12 million number for the population of Muslims, which is highly speculative yet estimated by some people, and we raise the percentage up to 5%. we get quite a large bounding number–600,000 radical Muslims in country now—which completely buries any idea of keeping track, and it represents a really large force.
So, while I have a great appreciation for the millions of non-threatening Muslims in town, there is still potentially a very big problem here right now, and their faces are not painted blue, guaranteed! We could play numbers games forever on this subject and get nowhere without firm facts, but it is one way to take a stab at the dimensions of the problem we face. Someone could claim, aw! there are at most .0001 here so the number is 1,200. That to me is still a problem, although I would challenge that fraction.
What do you believe? Zero? 1,2,3…what? I tend to believe in the range of 3,000 to 10,000 lolling about, doing nothing or actually working, or in our forces, for the nonce! Knapp I think it was said that there were 15,000 Muslims serving in the forces! Good training, a small chance of getting killed, and they have all the fighting skills they would ever need, plus they could be in a position to do great harm at the right time.
> Try as you will, this problem will not disappear.
Never said it will. What I do want to do is deal with it intelligently. You are just a much a fanatic as those you rail against, seemingly obsessed with the idea that a billion Muslims have no purpose in life but to kill you.
>I do not want to live under Sharia
Please provide ANY believable, or even halfway believable scenario that ends with America under Sharia law. I have heard this paranoic fantasy before, and remain unimpressed. Start by explaining how Muslims will defeat our armed forces. Then explain how they will subject our heavily armed population. You might want to include some thoughts on a couple of million of heavily armed Muslims will reach our shores. And keep in mind the history of Muslim states when they have attempted to form alliances.
If we are indeed ready to tear up the constitution, they it is not to hard to argue that Bin Laden succeeded in destroying America on 9.11.
James – are you EVER going to get some decent functionality going? I realize that the internets are confusing to you GOP types, but there must be somebody’s 14 year old kid available to straighten things out 🙂
Dear Manning
http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php
Thanks
“You will have to lead me by the hand to where I said categoically that all Muslims are bad Muslims.”
@manning Sunday, August 8, 2010 at 18:29
Little light on the nuance, wouldn’t you say?
@sam
The statements by Geller and Spencer were accurate that Muslims are capable of being coopted into service of the radical element and have been, but they do not necessarily do so, certainly not all of them. From our view, the good Muslims do not join the Jihad, and the bad ones do.
Such a decision lies in the hearts of each Muslim as to where his loyalty is placed–in God and Muhammed, or in loyalty to the US as some brand of Muslimship that refuses the commands to Jihad in America over a long period of time. Of the 4.1 million Muslims in the US today, according to the World Christian Database, I do not know how many would do what. Do you? That is the question. Apologists would give a number approaching zero, I guess. My own believe is far higher.
@angin-san: you asked for speculation, so I give it to you, at least a partial answer.
As one key assumption, such an effort would require truly enormous outside help and funding, such as from Saudi Arabia, and in secret.
It is quite obvious that the silent Jihad would bend every effort:
a) to avoid direct confrontation with either the military or the armed population for some time to come;
b) to grow its own population as rapidly as possible by way of births and immigration, aiming for a significant increase in certain key areas;
c) to integrate into US industry, military, social, governmental, and political organizations at all levels as far as possible over a long period of time.
d) It would be expected that they would cluster in enclaves in small cities and counties surrounding major population centers as they are currently doing in France, Germany, Sweden and the UK.
e) once they dominate the population of these small cities and counties they would propose concessions for their children for schooling, for their foot cleaning and 5 times a day worship, and eventually for them to run their own version of government under Sharia in these enclaves as they are doing right now in the UK. They would run their own police and make it highly dangerous for our police to operate in those areas. Malmo, Sweden is a prime example of this in being now. One could point to several Chinatowns in the US now that operate much like this. They would elect representatives to the government at the local, state and national levels using the voter base that groups of enclaves in counties and cities would give them.
f) Later, they would build their base throughout a few key states, hoping to grab a significant portion of the representation, which then would allow them to propose and pass legislation favorable to their progress, especially if they capture a governorship. Their demands for concessions to Islam would grow.
g) It is important that this SJ not appear to be an organized operation with a HQ
and identified personnel, so there would be a two level organization, the top being a seeming welter of do-good organizations like CAIR and ilk, but the real organization would be buried underneath, as it seems to be now. There are references to the informal command structure on the web now.
h) As they move into positions of power in a state, they would champion and effect a number of favorable pieces of legislation for the general population, thus building a solid reputation for being civic-minded and efficient as well. This would possibly result in even more positions of power granted to the individual, supposedly private citizen Muslims that perform so well.
i) in how many states could this happen over 20 to 30 years? 0, 1, 2, 3…I do not know.
It is notable that the Muslim population of Germany is over 4%, France 8 to 10%, and the UK 3% as of 2006, so they are higher now. One can see the gradual effects of this all over the EU. Watching the steps there is a clue as to what to expect here over time.
So, is it possible for the Muslim population to exceed 10% in key cities and states in the US? Probably.
j) why 10%? That is the population percentage that is sufficient to hold an insurrection and takeover of the government, regardless of the armed forces or the armed population, since the social and legal controls would have passed to this new crowd, and quite a few of their leaders would presumably be Muslim by then, just as we had a black as head of the armed forces not long ago–Colin Powell (and many other black generals and admirals).
k) It would be vital for them to begin to form up their own militias, until they had built up a sufficiently strong force, probably based around one or more infiltrated state national guards, with access to their armories. It is possible for them to have a million men all trained up and in NG positions, or in private units in 25 years or so at a peak point.
l) still, they would not overtly show their power, but would proceed with business as usual, and staying under the radar of the people and the military and doing their good works for the local and state citizens. Many mosques would be built, and one might speculate as to what might be stored inside them. In Iraq, they were veritable armories.
m) perhaps the key to further progress would be to find that they had gained basic control of three or four contiguous states in one region of the nation, with significant numbers of representatives and six or eight senators in congress and three or four governors to further their localized aims—staying in office, pleasing their constituents, and not raising a confrontation with real power.
n) Is it possible that the Muslims could gain basic political control of more states and increase their numbers of beholden governors, representatives and senators at all levels without a major confrontation with the current political structures? Perhaps that depends on how much money is used, where it is used, and on whom. We are talking billions and billions here, and further progress most likely depends upon the corruptibility of some sectors of our government and political machinery from low to high when faced with millions and billions of bribery funds. This essential question needs an answer, and I do not have one, not one that I like anyway. I will let others answer. I cannot go further with this story without an answer just now. …
Old joke line occurs to me here: …Will you go to bed with me for $10? Hell no she says! What do you think I am? Would you go to bed with me for $1 million? …well, she says… We already know you are a whore, Madam, we are just negotiating the price…
HAHAHHAHAHAHA
Manning dude in all seriousness you’re repeating the past. All you have to do is replace Muslim with Irish or Jew or Chinese or Black or Catholic or any group of minorities that was fashionable to hate on in the past (especially during down turns in the economy). Your arguments are nearly the exact same as those put forth by conservative bigots in the past and quite frankly it’s pathetic considering your otherwise intelligent existence. The reality is that you’re not going to get to keep this country under mostly white control forever and the sooner you realize this the better off you’ll be. In the past these minorities were eventually accepted and assimilated into the American culture. By isolating Muslims you’re only going to encourage extremists like in Europe. The reason the USA hasn’t had the domestic Muslim problems like other countries was because up to recently we weren’t treating them like shit like they do in Europe.
Look I know the economy sucks and that people like you want someone to hate/fear and blame for the suck but quite frankly it’s not facking helpful for the rest of us..
“We can’t allow them n$%%ers to vote or they’ll take over the country and make us slaves!!”
What I want to know is who Manning thinks will magically coordinate all these complex maneuvers over the next 30 or so years? Muslim sects don’t get along any better then Christian sects *cough*ProtestantCatholic*cough*. So your mystery leader would not only have to coordinate various sects of Islam that are currently fighting each other but also do all this over the course of +30 years without anyone leaking or discovering this glorious leader. AKA it’s impossible and you’re just a rage filled delusional fool if you believe it possible..
What I want to know is who Manning thinks will magically coordinate all these complex maneuvers over the next 30 or so years? Muslim sects don’t get along any better then Christian sects *cough*ProtestantCatholic*cough* with litterly thousands of years of bad blood. So your mystery leader would not only have to coordinate various sects of Islam that are currently fighting each other but also do all this over the course of +30 years without anyone leaking or discovering this glorious leader. AKA it’s impossible and you’re just a rage filled delusional fool if you believe it possible..
Well, guys, angin-san asked for it, so I gave it a 10 minute shot. Not anywhere near perfect, if only because I do not have the insight on several matters here…..and no one else does either!
I suppose the answer to the leadership question is….well, have you seem them yet? Do you know who they are? Do you see their mechanism working?
I thought not.
Matt, old sod, you didn’t read what I wrote very well. Far from isolating Muslims, I touted them as super-assimilators, so good that they get elected to office, promoted in the military, and generally accepted everywhere from gressroots to the congress. They are larger than life! They are “what many have been waiting for!” LOL
But, there is a catch.
Now I must confess that I have enjoyed this jousting about the Muslim question. I have learned something at every stage, especially how to duck and weave. Mostly, I have learned of the opposition to what I have speculated about, and was glad to see the fire of the responses. It was gratifying to see people leap up to defend the provisions of the Constitution, especially in the time when the poor old Constitution has taken far too many beatings, and worse, to many that are willing to ignore it, or want to subvert it wilfully. I do believe that we must be watchful of the undercurrents in the nation where there are people that wish to do harm to our beliefs and our way of life. 9/11 was a wakeup call, was it not? Perhaps we will see a scenario develop that has some of the elements in it that I used. If so, this was fair warning! The aspect that I do fear is the spectre of corruption in our leadership right now, today, and it could lead us to something as bad as, or worse than, Sharia.
Since I will most likely not live long enough to see any of this going down, if it ever does, I feel very certain that I will never see Sharia from the wrong end. Nor will my wife and kids, I believe, for a variety of reasons that convince me. So my fears are for the far future some 20 years out or more, where there will be some kind of conflict arising between us and “them”, whoever them is! There is always a “them”. My hope for our nation is placed in two things: a strong people with strong ideals, and a core of people that believe in upholding the Constitution and ridding us of corrupting people.
This second fear I speak of is not one to dwell upon, obviously, it is way far out!
mannning
Listen manning I’ll fight against sharia as hard as I’m fighting against “biblical law” being proposed by the Christian nut jobs if it ever gets that far. I just don’t see Sharia getting anywhere without the help of the Christian groups in this country so I’m not too worried about the concept.
Unfortunately I believe you’re right about the corruption infesting our government. Sadly greed is not a left or right thing but a human thing 🙁
To this outlook of corruption, I would add the game plan of the current administration, where our international effectiveness is now near zilch, except for our armed forces, and our ecomonic power is sliding downhill to where we soon cannot afford that armed forces anyway, or much of anything else. While some of our so-called leaders are “rearranging the chairs on the deck of the Titanic, others are seemingly down below decks looting all of the valuables they can find. In practically every major expense item in our budget, the ability of the government to track their expenditures of funds has come up woefully short. This is the Billion Dollar Shell Game here!
Bring on the planet-destroying comet. Jesus.
I haven’t read anything past
yet, but surely I won’t be the first to point out the utter lack of awareness of irony in that statement.
How detached from reality do you have to be to think that World War II happened twenty years ago?
German islamic criminals with links with 9-11 were arrested and this under-world had their notorious mosque shut recently. In this context, do we want more mosques?! Do you want to be in nexus with such Int’l criminals!! Ask yourself!!
One is likely to be trapped like we are in af-pak region. [If you can imagine one country worse than Iran, Saddam’s Iraq, Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, Kin jon Yil’s N Korea, Hitler’s Germany, Charles Taylor’s Liberia – this is it!
They export nuke tech (infamous nuke wal-mart), terrorism – as well exposed by UK’s PM, practice islamo fascism – exposed by USA’s BUSH, traffic in counterfeit – exposed by India’s Central Bank, cause havoc like Charles Taylor etc. Yet none has been hauled to the HAGUE or ICC. What an irony!!! Or is it subversion of universal humane values or perverse under-cutting of human rights of every global citizen?!!!]
If you allow more mosques, you are abetting global terrorism! Is that what you want?! Think about it for a minute!! They keep demanding ever more.
Look at what is happening in FRANCE AND INDIA full of no-go zones for cops where riots and burning of cars is very common! Do you want it in your community? How the af-paks betray us at every turn:-
the afghan soldiers kills their/our trainers, the pak-s get several billons of INFIDEL TAX – money prescribed in quran – by extortion and intimidation – mafia antics – and rob truck supplies and send taleban to kill our boys, get proxy slaves as contract killers, traffic in drugs, etc, etc.