Question for the Christian Soldier

excuse me.

Muslims are orcs. Our god - Allah, actually a moon god and not really the same god of Abraham - is a warrior concept that demands sacrifice in the present world. There is no love in Islam, only submission of slave to master. There is no divine revelation in Islam, only a code of action. The point of Islam is to bind the muslim, unlike Christianity where it is to elevate the believer. Islam is at its core a hate for everything that is not Islamic and the most important principle is jihad. Islam must destroy everything other than itself otherwise it will also be destroyed. There is no way to compatible the demands of Islam and of freedom because there is no free will in Islam. No muslim can truly believe in the Enlightenment principles because their own religion and holy book tells them opposite to the very core of those principles. The Prophet of Islam was false and a pervert and a crazed warmonger who slew drowned arabia in blood. Then the caliphs after him gutted the Christian world and destroyed overnight civilizations that would if not for Islam have endured today.

Is that right?

Is there anything I have missed?

greater and lesser crusades

I found this at the christian political blog Enchiridion Militis (which is run by The Christian Soldier) to be very interesting:

My Right Reason blog colleague Bill Vallicella has argued on his personal blog, Maverick Philosopher, that there are two culture wars–one against the American Left and one against Islam. According to Bill, the former is the “minor” war and the latter is the “major” war.

I think Bill is incorrect in his characterization of these two conflicts as major and minor. Instead, I think they are incommensurable–more colloquially, a case of apples and oranges. The one is a conflict over the national charcter of the United States and the other is a conflict over its survival in anything remotely resembling its present form.

she goes on to describe a horrible case where an abortion worker threw a living baby in the garbage!

then i see over at The Mujahid's blog the following piece about how muslims need to take sides on the "center left" of politics because the Republicans have done more damage to american muslims.

Now I am glad that the Christian does not agree with her colleague that the "threat" of Islam is a "major" one relative to the threat of leftism (which I think is not the same thing as what the Mujahid means when he talks about the center-left! progressivism left is not the same as liberalism left). However she still thinks that Islam is an existential threat to the US. Ironically it is her own compatriots who pose a threat to the US in their own way. Because as long as they see muslim americans as a threat, or the fifth column of global Islam and not their countrymen and women, then they are going to try and prevent muslims (and liberals alike) from expressing their values.

Ultimately I think that the problem is that the "left" has its wackos and that the "right" has its wackos. Today the right is in charge so the wackos have a lot more influence. But if the left is in charge wont they also have their wackos get more power. So what we need is to keep both in check by using them against each other so that both look at muslims and try to be moderate and win our vote. We have to be like the cubans in miami, fickle and never afraid to vote the other way.

also the Mujahid is right that the only vote is not the president but also we have to get out and vote at all levels including downstream all the way to school board and such. It is dumb to make stupid things like foreign policy towards israel the basis for our support. We should tailor it. School board? no creation, just teach them science so they score well on SAT and get into college. State government? dont tax too much but make sure services are provided. We should also make a distinction between senate and house at federal level. The Shayk said something about this a while ago and how divided government is best at his politics blog but I do not remember the link. Why not divide the vote then of muslims?

Muslims need to be smart and decide what our issues are and what are principles are. Then we can tailor the vote. I dont think we are left or right. Both directions are scary ones.

Islamophobia

The Alim discusses the overuse of Islamophobia, saying

This inability discern goes back to the point that British Muslims are 'culturally illiterate' who take any sort of criticism or opposition as a form of hatred upon us and our beliefs. We end up opposing all such opinions and views through demands for more rights from the state and society, rather than trying to distinguish between them, and perhaps using them to our advantage. Combatting Islamophobia should mean combatting exclusion, bigotry, racism and hatred against Muslims and treating Muslims as 'serious adults', who can bring something to the societies in which they live and their acknowledging critiques do not merely mask a bid for political power. It should not mean shielding them or their beliefs from the critical eye of the onlooker or the outsider; we have the intellectual resources, across the religious, political and social spectrum to be able to meet the challenges that might be posed.

OK this is a very important point. However we also have to remember that the Alim is British and the situation of muslims in Britain is more analogous to labor class like black people and latin immigrants in the US. Here in the US muslims are more like jews in pre-war europe, in other words we are educated and affluent and yet also scary and foreign to the mainstream people even though we are very similar and share lots of values (america is a very conservative country, socially i mean). Obviously this is a generaliztion and the Alim is certainly not a laborer and not all muslims in the US are professionals.

So in the UK Islamophobia is like american blacks decrying racism. There are probably many cases of overuse but at the same time that vigilance does put pressure on the society keeping it from reverting to its base racist instincts (and having visited UK and europe many times I can say that anyone who says that they are not deeply racist people towards muslims or pakis as I got called all the time in public, is just being ignorant and maybe even dishonest).

In the US though Islamophobia is more like what Jews have successfully done in that it keeps the community vigilant against a recurrence of fear. I don't think that europe was "racist" towards Jews, it just hated them. Jews were white after all, they were therefore hated for their belief and identity, not their color. There is a subtle difference. Same goes for muslims in US because here we are not all one ethnic type and in fact anyone can be a muslim even a white person. So it is hate that we are vigilant against.

Is overuse of Islamophobia bad? yes probably but what is worse in both cases is what bad tendencies would accumulate without the watchers of islamophobia to poinnt them out. The jewish community in the US is probably the best friend of american muslims because we have a lot to learn from them and they have seen it all before. Lots of jews in the US think that because the US is pro-israel that means that they are safe from hatred from the christian majority and only focus on the threat from occassional stupid muslim punks (really not an "existential" threat to them at all!). In fact Jews because of their history now see every threat as existential no matter how minor. But anyway the Chritsian majority here is fickle and they would prefer to undermine the very freedom structure that makes it possible for us all to live here. The Terry Schiavo case and stem cells and rules about sex between adults and all that means that the Christian majority doesn't care about the Bill of Rights but rather forcing society here to be explicitly Christian according to their views. That is the actual agenda at hand - not a theocracy, but more like a mainstreaming by force of their morality. Just look at conservative republican sites and how they say that "tolerance" and "diversity" is bad and that all social issues of policy have a moral dimension. So anyway we need to be very watchful even though in many cases we share those values for the most part.

the true Islam

I read the Jafi because he will travel the dark hallways and bring things into light that need to be seen by muslims. It is a job better left to a jafi than a muslim because the muslim will deny, will resist, whereas the jafi will make the extra effort. I think that the Jafi is motivated by the same love of country and society that I am and so I do not hate him but I certainly would not want to ever meet him because I am pretty sure that since I am not "moderate" like a manji then he will never see me as anything other than a potential threat and that is sad really.

Anyway the jafi has an important link about some comments by an Abu Bakir Bashir released from prison in Indonesia which I think that need to be discussed:

Abu Bakr Bashir: The only model to follow is pure Islam. Because Islam in its original form was tough and hard, not weak and pliable. Islam is fixed, stable, ordered and disciplined, and so are Muslims.

If we return to the real practice of true Islam we would be much stronger and that is when the kafirs will fear us. That is why we need to uphold the Shariah and return to real Islam. But the West is trying to weaken Islam from outside and inside. They attack our people and invade our countries from outside, and they weaken us from within with ideas like secularism, liberalism and democracy. This is all designed to contaminate our pure Islam.

"our" pure Islam? this abu bakir bashir is much worse than a jafi, he is a snake. First he defames the Prophet by saying that he was a "radical". That is a smear! The Prophet was an idealist, a great humanitarian. This Bashir needs to cloak himself in authority and so he tries to claim the mantle of the Prophet which is also shirk I think.

and of course it is always about "return to practice of true islam" with these people. And what is true islam to him? aha, it is avoiding things like liberalism and dmeocracy! Someone show the idiot the fact that democracy gives Islamists like him political power look at Hamas and Hizbollah, they are smarter than he at least. He needs to claim that these ideas "contaminate" HIS "pure Islam" when actually these ideas are a reflection of pure Islam. It is people like Bashir who want to honor kill their women rather than recognize their power and freedom.

I also will say that Al Jazeerah is very important and does muslims a real service by putting people like bashir up for their idiocy for all to see. The Aardvark has discussed many times why Al Jazeerah is important and really follows the ideal of showing all sides so the audience can see for themselves. Always always does the idiots like Bashir come off as foolish in comparison. The Jafi surely hates Al Jazeerah for this but the simple truth is that Al Jazeerah is the Jafi's ally though he does not know it. I know my allies, I hope someday the Jafi will also.

Al Jazeerah invites comments by readers at yourviews@aljazeera.net and I emailed them:

Hello Al Jazeerah

in response to your article at

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/C46DA5C1-D200-48E6-8B24-76EE739EC243,frameless.htm

I have the following comment,

First this Abu Bakir Bashir defames the Prophet by saying that he was a "radical". That is a smear! The Prophet was an idealist, a great humanitarian. This Bashir needs to cloak himself in authority and so he tries to claim the mantle of the Prophet which is also shirk I think.

and of course it is always about "return to practice of true islam" with these people. And what is true islam to him? aha, it is avoiding things like liberalism and dmeocracy! Someone show the idiot the fact that democracy gives Islamists like him political power look at Hamas and Hizbollah, they are smarter than he at least. He needs to claim that these ideas "contaminate" HIS "pure Islam" when actually these ideas are a reflection of pure Islam. It is people like Bashir who want to honor kill their women rather than recognize their power and freedom.

I think that Bashir wants power for himself rather than any true concern for the muslims. By whose hands do the muslims die in Iraq? by the same self-proclaimed champions of "true Islam" who kill children and innocent people lining up for work or to serve in police forces.

thank you, Sakina Arwah

silence is not agreement

The greatest lie of the jafi is that muslims are silent on terror. The ordinary actions of every law abiding and decent citizen muslim are themselves a loud condemnation of fanaticism in and of themselves. expecting that muslims have an obligation to condemn is itself evil. it says that we in the great great majority must all day do nothing except watch for and repudiate the actions and words of that tiny tiny fraction all day who are obscene. well, we have real lives to live! I am not a condemnation machine.

so why did i accuse the Mujahid of giving ammunition to the jafis? because he too wants mulsims to condemn. and like the jafis he says that not condemning is the same as agreement, tacit or implied.

The Mujahid wrote this:

So, I ask, either the societies aren’t Islamic, or Islam is no longer an adequate protection for the lives of women. In fact, Islam has become a scourge. Which is it? Since there are many who will ‘protect’ Islam from this ‘merely cultural’ evil (”let’s not mix culture and Islam” they will say), I will say that every Muslim, practicing or not, who in any way stays silent in the face of this evil, is complicit. Therefore, I myself am guilty and I don’t know how to atone.

I said before that his question, "Which is it?" is the part that is the problem. He makes it a false choice. Why is it only these two options? Why isn't it that the societies are both Islamic and also tribal, patriarchal, backwards? Why can't we just say flat out that Pakistan's culture still retains some element of barbarism which is thankfully absent in the new world to which pakistan's best and brightest have emigrated? this is the NEW WORLD and there are no honor killings here. Pakistanis who emigrated to europe took some of that barbarism with them. where is that recognition in the Mujahid's comment above? Or is critique of pakistan's culture (my culture too!) off limits?

No! Pakistan is NOT a barbaric culture - I said that it has retained elements of barbarism just as most cultures do. But there is no shame in calling spades spades. We must attack the barbarism not the Islam - it is the barbarism that prevents Islam's vision of true gender emancipation. So attack that, even if it means that precious Pakistan gets a black eye. Hey America didnt give women the vote until just 50 years ago so really its not like anyone is perfect.

and the Mujahid thinks that the following actually makes it better and clear:

the part “every Muslim, practicing or not, who in any way stays silent in the face of this evil, is complicit” makes it pretty clear that when I say “Islam” there I mean the actions of Muslims.

i think he means that we should read the earlier quote as:

So, I ask, either the societies aren’t Islamic, or Islam is no longer an adequate protection for the lives of women. In fact, (the actions of muslims) has become a scourge.

ok, but this still is a false choice and in fact even worse because its not the fact that the evil people who do honor killings are muslim that is worth commenting on, but that they are barbarians. Why not say:

So, I ask, either the societies aren’t Islamic, or Islam is no longer an adequate protection for the lives of women. In fact, (the actions of barbarians) has become a scourge.

and the Mujahid says plainly that every muslim who stays silent is complicit. Is the Alim complicit? Is the Shayk? Is the Mughal? Am I?

Why has The Mujahid rushed to condemn, to show the Jafis that he is not like the rest of us who do not condemn? I dont think so. I think that the Mujahid sincere feels that the honor killing problem must be stopped. But the way to do is call the murderers MURDERERS. Say they follow BARBARISM. Instead he has given the jafi the license to say that this is Islam. And worse, the Jafis will point to me and say look how the moderate muslims are treated by their own when they speak out about the evil of their horrid little religion.

I do not castigate the Mujahid for i know his goal is true. But his method is too much aware of the jafi's favor. When he casts aside his need to stay in the graces of them, then he will be a more effective champion for us.

The Mujahid is very sad

He laments honor killings, as well he should. But he again makes the mistake: honor killings are about muslims, and about Islam.

So, I ask, either the societies aren’t Islamic, or Islam is no longer an adequate protection for the lives of women. In fact, Islam has become a scourge. Which is it?

What a lovely false choice has been setup here. Of course any time that a muslims commits an evil, then Islam has become a scourge because Islam somehow failed to protect the victim!

Yes of course these particular cases are by muslims, and the "honor" is wrapped in Islamic arguments and excuses. But The Mujahid makes the same mistake as those who argue that Islam is inherently violent and hateful of women. He paints it as muslim this and Islam that. What wonderful ammunition he gives to the jafis!

The Mujahid seems to try and be the voice who condemns. Any muslim, anywhere, who commits an evil act and he must step up and demonstrate to some audience of jafis that HERE is a muslim who is righteous! Funny but I do not think that The Mujahid is any more righteous than my father, or my brother, or my cousin, who live in America, in Pakistan, in East Africa. They do not honor kill me because I live here and because I might date a non-muslim. I am alive; I am fine.

And where do these crimes take place? Why do they not take place here in the US? Does the Mujahid try to answer this question? So eager is he to immediately toe the line that he never bothers to dig deeper. For some insight maybe we should look at the Shayk, though that link is from years ago and nowadays the Shayk seems not to care about issues as anything more than a philosophical excercize.

Yes honor killings are evil. And they are usually committed by muslims, in the name of Islam. But the fact that there aren't honor killings in the USA means something. I wish that the Mujahid would spend some energy on THAT instead of being so sad.

tilts at windmills

The Mujahid believes that entering the lion's den - ie the jafi community - is productive. His latest foray met with disaster that was really predictable from before:

What hurt most was the way in which I was blatantly excluded from the conversation as if I were completely invisible. There were postings and conversations in which the commentators spoke to each other about “he,” “the guy,” “the Muslim apologist,” “this experiment.” It was as if I was not there. I was not Ali Eteraz. I didn’t have a name. They described and discussed me without acknowledging me. I was no more to them than a vague idea. Not a person, but a pronoun. It was the most blatant case of linguistic exclusion I have ever experienced because even when a man has called me sand-nigger, it has been to my face and I have felt his spittle hit me and felt the actual tangibility of the moment. This time I felt brushed off like I was a husk. Non-existent. Precisely because of the severity of their actions I am going to call it bigotry and I am not going to forgive it.

of course to them you are not a person, you are a muslim, and there is a very big different from their attitude and the one like the Liberal Hawk's attitude, because the Liberal Hawk believes in liberty and the jafis (led by The Jafi) only believe in a weak Islam that is not a threat to them. muslims are not human, they are scum, to be crushed. Otherwise they will crush the West, that is the attitude.

I have sympathy for the jafi's opinion actually because I also want what they want, which is no more big attacks upon my nation and no more death of innocents. I think that the Liberal Hawk is beginning to understand the dangerous attitudes of his allies, but why the Mujahid continues to try and reach out (or why any muslim should heed the Liberal Hawk's call for reaching out) I simply cannot understand.

Remember the biggest argument of the jafis. They say that they want muslims to stop terror. As if muslims were not the biggest victims of terror already! And then they say in very sad tones that if we do not stop it then the consequences will be to awaken the sleeping giant and then Islam will be destroyed and that they really don't want to be forced to do that. Why is genocide against Islam even raised as an option if they don't really want to do that? Especially when you consider that NOTHING that muslims do - not even foil bomb plots - is ever good enough, one sees that maybe we are being set up to fail.

their silence speaks volumes

The Liberal Hawk tells The Transhumanist:

A lot of hawks are just waiting to hear the bold, brassy statement:
7:19 PM "I love America, I love freedom of choice and free will and free worship, and I hate these fuckers who pollute my religion. I may not agree with everything my government does, but I want to help deffeat these assholes who spit on our enlightenment values."

Is the Liberal Hawk paying attention? At his own blog, which the Hawks surely read, the Shayk says this on a regular basis. And the Mujahid as well, to whom he links to routinely. And in fact any blog in the brass crescent.

So why this silence from the Hawks?

America is not the West

Welcome to War on AL-Islam (WALI). I am a patriotic American and I am a muslim. America is a nation, of all its loyal citizens, it is something grand and it is something wonderful and like the Shayk says, it is the greatest muslim nation on earth, for nowhere else in the so-called "ummah" is there a place like this where muslims are free. America unites its people.

But the West - what is that? It is just an ideology. It is just a construct. It exists only in the mind. Unlike the idea of America it divides people from each other. There is no "the West" and not even it's biggest defenders can even define it. What is the West?

I am of America, I am not of the West, for the West would have me abandon Islam and the West has declared war upon Islam. I will use this blog to show muslims like the Shayk, the Mujahid, the Alim, and others the truth of what I claim.