VOICES OF ISLAM

New York Post ^ | 9/23/03 | DANIEL PIPES

[kattracks]

September 23, 2003 -- 'YOU will sooner or later pay for your pack of lies," read one threatening message last week. It went to the author of "The Trouble with Islam: A Wake-up Call for Honesty and Change."

In that book, just released in Canada, Irshad Manji, 34, explores such usually taboo themes as anti-Semitism, slavery and the inferior treatment of women with what she calls an "utmost honesty."

[SevenDaysInMay]

Islam commands the first to be killed before even the Jews, peaceful muslims.

She stands a fatwa change of a peaceful life because of what islam's propheteer Moham' commands: kill.

The word 'islam' accurately translated means submit. The word 'Islam' means submit or die.

Islam is a cult is search of nations. Religion is faith in search of homes.

Islam is a literally belicose religious death cult because profiteering Moham' himself was a misogynistic, lying, stealing, invading, mass murderer promising his followers that their only assured access to his pedophilic wine sodden pair o'dice was to die killing infedel men, women, and children. Cool.

We must read Mein Koran and Haddith, if not other books on what Islam actually commands. These documents teach of Moham's duplicity, misogynony, promise of invasion booty and "brides" not to mention his martyrs' (the first 70,000 long ago filled to the limit) pairo'dice.

Moham's edict is to kill peaceful muslims (forbidden to negotiate with infedels), Jews, Christians, and all non-beleivers. In what you might say? The literal documents created about 250 years aaafter Moham's rantings were repeated for the ignorant, blood thirsty, murdering thieves storming out of their deseeert incubator.

Devout muslims by their own prophet's commands are about destroying our infedel liberty along with all Jews and all who fail to submit to this cult.

Submit or die; the literal meaning of islam under the threat of the Sword of Islam. Islam is the death cult of religions.

Since 1979 in Tehran, this war has been about attacking the USA, the only nation on earth capable of winning this bloody culture war. For two generations, jihadies have been breeding terrorists.

Our children's children's lives depend on what we soon do to defend our Constitutional Republic. Do we submit to murderers? Whether a boot or sandle, on our loved ones' throats it matters little.

[Monty22]

"anti-Islamist Muslims"

What the hell does this mean? Oh, is that the elusive moderate mooselimb?

[JasonC]

I agree, it is important, now who besides Pipes is actually doing it?

One thing that could be made a lot clearer in the west is that the authorities will protect dissenters to the hilt, that silencing attempts using tactics of intimidation will not be tolerated. This is not even the rule at present in American universities.

[JasonC]

Yes, and the article points out they are not elusive and names names. If you don't get that or like it that is your problem. What they too often are in intimidated. And it hardly helps that those on our side who ought to be welcoming them, are instead bent on denying their existence to paint Islam as a monolithic bloc of nutjobs.

[Monty22]

You apparently don't know much about islam, you're just an apologist.

[Allan]

Bump

[Imal]

And non-Muslims wonder why anti-Islamist Muslims in western Europe and North America are so quiet?

I don't wonder why. Islam is, and always has been, a reign of terror. Islamic evangelism is nothing more than brutal imperial conquest by another name.

To accept on the one hand that Islam is not just a religion, but also a culture, a society and a political system, and not realize the fact that its spread is the spread of the Islamic empire, is to fail to see the forest for the trees.

There can be victory against Islam, or defeat and savage annihilation like so many times before in history, but there can be no middle ground. With the rise of Israel, the dhimmi has been canceled. Conquered Jews and Christians can no longer expect enslavement instead of death.

This is jihad, and this is the way of modern Islam. No quantity of lies, platitudes or pandering will erase the bloodstained truth.

I hate saying things like this, because they sound so extreme. But when faced with extremism, nothing less suffices.

[SevenDaysInMay]

"Islamists" are now defined in the media as Koran and Haddith literalists, the jihaddies accepting the actual commands of Moham' to kill in the name of this death cult.

Our same media equates evangelical Christians to these death cult jihaddies.

After 500 years as mostly 4th world trash, islamists' oily billion$ finance their global war on Western civilization, namely the USA.

Non-Islamist muslims following the commands of Mein Koran are like RINOs adhearing to our RATIFIED COnstitution. It is inconvenient in modern life, a "living" Koran, if you will. Non-Islamist muslims fail to understand or carryout the actual murder commands of the one true profiteer Moham'.

That is why Moham' himself commands in Mein Koran and their battle plan Haddith that these peaceful traitors to the true faith be killed before even the hated Jews, men, women, and children.

Some 1,300 years of slaughter in the desert trash's temporarily blunted conquest of the entire world. Submit or die. Islamist enforcers stalk the outspoken in every town on earth.

Jihaddies are the psychopathic fringe of all muslims, (often muslim because of the death threats of islam), some 3% to 5% of muslims; the same percentage of any normal population. Islam just concentrated the dangerous under the banner of kill and die for access to Pairo'dice. These devout are not crazy, just sociopathic with the excuse of Mein Koran and its promise of satyrs' pedophile dreams in sodden eternity.

[Bon mots]

I still hear these voices...

We should just let Israel start pushing them into the sea.

[backhoe]

The entire West ( dare I say "the civilized World?" ) is locked in a fight to the death with militant Islam.

There will be no second-place winner, no "third way" solution-- it is March or Die time, folks.

It is Us versus an eighth-century "culture" of plunder, forced religious "conversions," and the mistreatment of women.

The sooner we face up to this fact realistically and quit dancing around PC talking-point nonsense about diversity and tolerance, the better off we'll all be.

We did not pick this fight- which really has roots in Jimmy Carter's appeasement in 1979 of militants- but we had damned well better see it for what it is, and be prepared to face it and finish it.

I'll put it in raw, personal terms-- I don't want Sharia law visited upon my women, and I don't want a goat-roper "culture" infesting my land.

I don't want their vile, nasty, loathsome weapons of mass destruction loosed upon my fair country, either.

They picked the fight, and now it is up to us to finish it- balls to the wall, hammer and anvil, fire and blood and iron... freedom is never, ever free, and the coin you pay it in is men's lives and tears and blood.

What we saw during Gulf War I was our military doctrine ( high tech ) versus Soviet doctrine ( throw a lot of low tech iron at the problem )-- and we all know how that turned out.

What we have just seen in the 3-Week War is Information-Tech,
( What some are calling it Hyperwarfare... )
or 21st Century warfare versus 20th Century...

What I would suggest, and call your attention to, is the fact that we, and Israel, are capable of waging 21st Century warfare, and the entire Arab world is not.

Proven fact, by recent events.

One more thing- this will be a war where we are all called to be warriors- so I suggest to you that the time has come to get hard, and stay hard... it really is the time for fire and blood and Iron...

[Restorer]

The word 'Islam' means submit or die.

The word "Islam" refers to submission to God, something that in concept should not freak out Christians or Jews, who are often referred to in the Bible as "slaves of God."

[tkathy]

Western civilization is in a fight to the death with these idiots and liberals as well, both of which hate what we stand for, and are doing their best to destroy us.

[Restorer]

The entire West ( dare I say "the civilized World?" ) is locked in a fight to the death with militant Islam.

Hyperbole.

We have the capability of destroying militant Islam, or for that matter Islam itself, or even every Muslim.

Islamists do not have, and for the foreseeable future will not acquire, the capability of destroying the West, or even America. Even assuming the worst case scenario, in which they acquire a few nukes, their use would result in the destruction of a number of American cities, followed shortly thereafter by their own utter crushing.

This is a far cry from a fight to the death, as was WWII. Hitler had the potential of conquering the world. OBL and Friends do not.

[backhoe]

Respectfully disagree.

A billion plus Muslims is nothing to sneeze at.

[Woahhs]

Even assuming the worst case scenario, in which they acquire a few nukes, their use would result in the destruction of a number of American cities, followed shortly thereafter by their own utter crushing.

Ever give any thought to how that would be accomplished? Talk about hyperbole...

[wildandcrazyrussian]

Normal people were quite capable of submitting to God for thousands of years before the criminal mind of MoHAMmed invented a new cult, masquerading as a religion, to (supposedly) tell people what they already knew far better than he. I think the sentence above refers more to the irritating habit the liberals have of claiming (contrary to elementary linguistic analysis) that "Islam means peace".

[wita]

Interesting how "truth" has always been labeled extreme. The literal Son of God was killed by those who couldn't or wouldn't stomach the "truth". The same thing is in store for those not killed on 9-11 if we fail to see the forest for the trees. Islam is what it is, and moderate adherents to the contrary only attempt to mask the "truth".

[SevenDaysInMay]

The "concept" is not at issue. The redundant surahs' commands to murder is.

The entire message of literal islamic thought is dangerous to anyone else.

Peaceful living and humane treatment of others with forgiveness is not good islamic dogma. Those suckers may submit to God, but Islam's enforcers will kill them quicker than Jews. The Koran commands it. Bad people can make good muslims because good muslims are bad people. Submit to literal Islam or die. The Koran commands it.

[bulldogs]

"A billion plus Muslims is nothing to sneeze at."


This is why Bush Says Islam is a religion of peace. He doesn't believe it. He could easily start a bigger problem if he called Islam exactly what it is.

[RipSawyer]

The problem is not submission to God, the problem is what some of these fruitcakes believe God is commanding them to do, and this is true of some in all religions but especially so with Muslims.

[AngryJawa]

In that book, just released in Canada, Irshad Manji, 34, explores such usually taboo themes as anti-Semitism, slavery and the inferior treatment of women with what she calls an "utmost honesty."

"Grow up!" she scolds Muslims. "And take responsibility for our role in what ails Islam."

Mr. Manji, correct as he is, will soon be as hunted a man as Salman Rushdie. Anyone playing an online Dead Pool may want to think about adding him. He's big points.

[Valin]

The world is a lot more complex than you appear to think it is.
News flash!!! Today 2,997,482,053 Muslims did nothing to harm anyone. They got up, said their prayers, went to work, came home, played with their children, went to bed.

[Valin]

and this is true of some in all religions but especially so with Muslims.

Agree it is a problem. Unfortunately for many here the answer seems to be go to war with all 3+ billion Muslims.
Fortunatly Our President is smarter than that.

[Valin]

Correction 1,997,482,053

[Valin]

correction 1.3 Billion

[JasonC]

I know tons about Islam, I've studied it for 20 years. And no I am not an apologist. I started studying it because I saw after the Iranian revolution that we'd have to fight this fight just as we had to fight the cold war fight. Now some of the rest of you have woken up to the struggle I've been worrying about and working on for decades. That I know slightly more about it than "Its Thuggee! Nuke Mecca!" does not mean I am an apologist.

In even the medium term, we need an end state in the Islamic world we can call victory. And whether you like it or not, that end state will involve breathing Muslims. If it is not to involve continued attacks by the nutjobs, then we must arrange for a practical distinction between the nutjobs and all Muslims. We have to state what we would accept, as capitulation or surrender.

Acceptance of religious tolerance in the Muslim world would be a good start. They've never had the real thing on that score - hardly surprising, since it is a relatively recent thing even in the west. What we didn't have, for centuries on end, we now do; what they haven't had they also could. And men like those mentioned in the article are needed to make that happen.

Call it divide and conquer if you like...

[JasonC]

No problem - destroy literalism.

It is the real origin of the difficulty, it is a highly dubious doctrine, it has tons of theoretical weaknesses, it's practical strength lies entirely in ignorance and anti-intellectualism. There are plenty of internal resources already available in their own traditions to help this along. And as the article makes clear, some individuals willing to step forward and make the case against it and its practical consequences.

Smashing literalism should not even be that hard. It has been a strand in historical Islam certainly, and too big, but by no means the dominant position for the whole of that history. In its current manifestations it is a relatively recent thing. The Muslim *political* world was not this ideological, anti-western, and literalist as recently as 1970. In 1900, it was a theoretical outsider fighting its way in to even Islamic universities.

Wahabbi lived in the 18th century, and was the first doctrinaire literalist to have his own state. His theoretical predecessors - the Marx's to his Lenin - go back much further, certainly. To Ibn Tayymia in the late middle ages, and to Hanbali in early middle age Islam. But they were both opposition figures. Ibn Tayymia died in jail. Hanbali was put on trial for heresy.

This does not mean historical Islam was sweetness and light, it wasn't. But it was not monolithically literalist. It isn't today, though on the whole it is much more literalist today than it was in the past. The internal opponents of the present literalism have already made the case against it, in several varieties.

They did not win the internal recruiting struggle. But we can intervene in that struggle, first and foremost by making the literalists pay for crimes they incite, and by frustrating their designs. Also, as Pipes explains in the article, by protecting the opponents of literalism from the violence and intimidation of the literalists, and giving them a platform from which to be heard.

[JasonC]

Sure, but you haven't received the memo. We aren't losing.

You've noticed there is a fight, and some of us already realize the problem is going to be to rule our newly conquered subjects. You still don't seem to have noticed that great gobs of them already are our subjects. Yes it was necessary to fight, to send Marines to Baghdad. Guess what, we already did, they are already there. The problem now is to rule Muslim subjects.

That doesn't mean the fighting is over. It isn't. But the problem of peaceful rule begins the instant we conquer a Muslim country. Which we already have. And "hammer and anvil" yada yada is not a policy that can rule conquered subjects. Subjects must be told what is allowed to them and what is forbidden. And forbidding any form of Islam, anywhere we conquer, is not a practical policy. We don't forbid Islam in Detroit, we are not going to forbid it in Baghdad.

What we can do is require religious tolerance, in practice. We can oppose literalism, in education and theory. We can frustrate the practical designs of violent literalists, and kill them when they come into the open - though we can't ourselves make them do so. What subjects need in addition, however, is something permitted as that violence is forbidden. Which moderates like those discussed in the article can help provide.

War is not an end in itself, but a means to victory. Victory means rule of former enemies, trying to keep the "former" in that sentence. You cannot rule by "hammer and anvil"; rule is done by means of an idea of justice that subjects can accept.

[Monty22]

You're kidding yourself, the truth is one side will be standing, one will be gone. Sorry you can't see that yet.

[JasonC]

We are currently standing in downtown Kabul and downtown Baghdad with guns at the ready. But we aren't firing them other than sporadically, because nobody challenges us other than sporadically. Those who aren't challenging us are, however, standing.

Sorry your active fantasy life Armegeddon didn't come off as you hoped, but here in the real world, plain as a pikestaff, the other guys did not die nor fight to the death, they threw down their arms and surrendered. In numbers. Rapidly. They did not prefer to die for their fanatical religious beliefs, which evidentally aren't quite as dear to them as you seem to suppose.

Now we've won, and still have to live with them. We don't murder submissive subjects because we don't like their religion. We can require certain conduct of them, teach them certain principles, form their government in certain ways. They aren't going to kill us because when they tried we stopped them and now they can't. We aren't going to kill them because they surrendered and we don't do such things to subjects now under our protection.

Are there still fights remaining elsewhere? Certainly. Are there still nutjobs who'd prefer to keep fighting us, in the places we've conquered? Sure. But the overwhelming majority in two countries so far have submitted unconditionally to our arms. Sorry to burst your bubble, but once that happens we are going to rule them as best we can in accordance with some notion of justice, not exterminate them. They aren't going to exterminate us because they are impotent and can't.

[Restorer]

A billion plus Muslims is nothing to sneeze at.

Don't feel like sneezing. However, I do recognize that all the Muslims in the world, completely united, could not even invade, much less conquer the US.

If nothing else, how in the heck would they get here? From any Muslim country you care to name, they would have to cross oceans, and they can't.

Now we would also have a difficult time conquering and occupying all Muslim countries, primarily because we would approach them in the same way we did in Iraq, with great care to avoid civilian casualties. But in the aftermath of a nuclear attack on the US, our gloves would come off. Any leaders and their capitals that refused to cooperate instantly and fully would simply cease to exist.

After a couple of examples have been made, the others will scramble to join us in destroying anybody who smells even vaguely of Islamism.

[Monty22]

When they use bio/chem/nukes on the USA and kill hundreds of thousands at least, we'll see (if you survive) what your attitude about mooselimbs is then.

[JasonC]

I'll be too busy ruling them, successfully, after defeating them, successfully. You will be busy fantasizing about the death and destruction of your countrymen. We can tell where your actual sympathies are. They aren't for victory, they are for death and destruction.

[Monty22]

No, I don't. I simply don't think modern civilization and islam are compatible. And you know what? I'm proven right all the time.

[JasonC]

Modern civilization will defeat militant Islam, certainly. And afterward, will rule Islamic countries. You are fully prepared for your war but not for your own victory. What are you going to do when they surrender and you win? It has already started, we already rule 50 million Muslim subjects conquered by our armed forces. So, we rule them how? You don't have a word to say on the subject.

[TBP]

As I have said numerous times, unless you're one of those Christians who thinks it's your purpose to prosselytize the world, Islam is not the enemy; Islamism is. Militancy of any type is our enemy -- militant Islamism, militant Hinduism, militant secularism. But to impugn any religion by the actions of its militants is unrealistic, unfair, and intolerant. What we must do is help to create an environment where sensible Islamic people like the ones Pipes cites in this article can make their voices heard.

[Publius6961]

...are instead bent on denying their existence to paint Islam as a monolithic bloc of nutjobs.

They do a pretty good job of that all by themselves.
World wide.

[Publius6961]

There are at most, 1.2 billion muslims, in spite of your pulling numbers out of your mohammed.

If only 20% of them are crazed maniacal killers, that comes to... 240,000,000.
That should sober even the most unconscious.

[Monty22]

You seem delusional. There are already international cries about 'occupation', and Daschle today did too. So do all the democrats here.

So basically this 'conquored' crap is just that, crap. It won't last.

[JasonC]

Oh I can impugn any religion by the actions of its militants, alright. Any time I please. And that is perfectly realistic. Incidentally, pacifism aka absence of "militance" is not the standard. I'm no pacifist, neither is the US. My objection to the Islamist nutjobs is not that they aren't Quakers.

The issue with the present crop of Islamist nutjobs is first of all simply that they declared war on us, so war they shall have until they cry "uncle". It is, second, that they've used particularly intolerable means, ignoring all the laws of war, attacking innocent civilians, etc. And third so they have arrogated to themselves a war-making power usually reserved to responsible leaders of states.

This gives other states, Muslim or not, and other Muslims, a choice. They can publicly repudiate those tactics and that war, in word and in deed, or not. If they do, then I for one am ready to treat them as non-combatants. The same for those who submit and lay down their arms, if they fought under complusion of a government, etc. Those who defend or endorse those tactics and that war, on the other hand, are my enemies and I want war waged on them until they cry "uncle".

I give no special status to Islam as a religion in this. That is just how an organized body of enemy are treated. As individuals they are invited to opt out of it all, to stand aside, to surrender. And those that do should be treated with all possible fairness - not simply for their sakes, but precisely to encourage more to do so. If somebody out of the 12th SS wanted to surrender in Normandy, you let him and gave him a smoke. Bring your buddies. Give up.

But wars are conducted until the other guy cries "uncle" and not beyond. After the victory comes the peace. Victors decide what to do, and do not suffer being lectured to on the subject by the defeated. But to rule in peace is to offer a standard of justice that subjects can abide by, and any smart one should moreover be one they can abide without degradation.

Coercing conscience is stupid because it simply does not work. So we distinguish the errors of Muslim subjects - without for a minute imagining they are anything but errors - from the crimes of Islamists. Error is not crime. We tolerate, we suffer error because it is the natural state of mankind and more trouble than it is worth to remove in every form it can and does appear.

In Burke's words, we bear with infirmities until they fester into crimes. Crimes we do not tolerate at all, but punish. We do indeed think that by making this distinction, we provide an environment in which more sensible people can make themselves heard. For one thing, outright crimes against them trying to silence them, we can and should punish. If we can also offer, take it or leave it, any additional instruction to men trapped in elaborate errors, by all means let's.

Tolerance is not respect. I have zero respect for slavish literalists following the maxims of successful brigands. I have somewhat greater respect for slavish literalists following the Sermon on the Mount because that is a vastly better thing to be literal about, but I don't think they are right in their literalism either.

But with either, I tolerate until I see crime, and then I do not tolerate any more. Instead I command good and forbid evil. After some cries of "uncle", we can go back to tolerating the various ravings of human error.

[cookcounty]

Now, here's a toughie, for you:

Will Ibrahim Hooper at CAIR chalk her treatment up in the "Hate Crimes Against Muslims" category or not?

[nutmeg]

ping

[JasonC]

Of course it will last. The Democrats are drinking Dean kool-aid as we speak. They are going to run against W as the terrorist party and defeat themselves in a landslide. (If they had a ounce of patriotism and 2 brain cells between them they'd say "me too" on the war and run against W on the economy. But they have neither). The war on terror will run, for up to another 5 years if we need it (though we probably won't) and end in victory. The nutjobs are pathetically weak on time scales that short, against a US actually doing anything half-way sensible. We will completely reshape middle east politics and rock the Islamic world. It is already happening.

[Valin]

I've seen the figure 1.3 quoted in a number of places, but if you want to use 1.2 I for one am not going to quibble.

And yes it is a cause for concern. Hench the war on terror, BUT does that mean a war on the non-extremeist elements of Islam? You do know that that is just what OBL wants. He would like nothing better than to see America declare war on the Islamic world.

[JasonC]

Incidentally, I notice that you still can't answer the question, what you'd do with a victory. You talk big on the need for war side, but fundamentally you don't even know -how- to win.

[Valin]

No appeasing, no extending the hand of friendship, no offering of olive branch. They are our enemies

Then would I be wrong in assuming that you don't approve of what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan?

[Monty22]

So you have the answers, eh? Think we can occupy them, and clean the allah out of them? Sure...

I do know what the answer WILL be, and you won't like it. The complete extermination of the mohammedian society and culture.