«

»

May 30 2013

When Humanity Has Failed You, The Only Thing Left to Do: A Guantanamo Call to Prayer

This meme was created using a cartoon by Carlos Latuff, from latuffcartoons.wordpress.com. M4L modified the cartoon (by changing the hand gesture to be the Islamic reference to One God). The prisoner images were taken from “The Guantanamo Files” by the Guardian

This meme was created using a cartoon by Carlos Latuff, from latuffcartoons.wordpress.com. M4L modified the cartoon (by changing the hand gesture to be the Islamic reference to One God). The prisoner images were taken from “The Guantanamo Files” by the Guardian

.
By Ramy Osman
June 2013

            It’s not a stretch to say that 90% of Guantanamo prisoners have nothing to do with terrorism. There have been 779 inmates held in Guantanamo since 2002. Over 500 hundred have been released without the government compensating them or attempting to restore their reputation. To this day (June 2013), 166 non-Americans are still imprisoned without charge. 86 of them have been approved for release but have been languishing in their cells because US government bureaucracy still won’t allow their release. A prisoner mutiny has been going on for over the past 3 months where over 100  prisoners banded together in a hunger strike; A number of them becoming deathly ill and then being force fed to keep them alive.  

These prisoners are on the receiving end of American injustice and they know how hopeless it is to expect America to right its wrongs against them. They’ve seen how difficult it is for a grass roots effort to get just a single person released.  The prisoners no longer rely on a president or on the media or on grassroots campaigns to respond to their cries for freedom and justice. They don’t view American presidential powers as being the most powerful authority in the world, or as “leader of the free world”. They view it as being subordinate to the corruption that it operates within. For these innocent victims, humanity has failed them and there’s only one thing left to do.

            How did so many innocent people end up in Guantanamo? And why aren’t they released? To answer the first question, you have to go back more than 10 years when America was in a frenzy after 9-11. The American government was more concerned with lashing out at people it didn’t like, than it was concerned about pursuing justice. Many Americans are still in a state of frenzy. When the US military invaded Afghanistan, they started a campaign of arresting anyone who was either a foreigner, or anyone who was against the American invasion. The US military paid local Afghans tens of thousands of dollars every time they would turn someone in who loosely fit those criteria. It was a scorched-earth policy that resulted in the arrest, torture and deaths of thousands of innocents.

            Which brings us to the second question: If they’re innocent, then why aren’t they released? The simple answer is because President Obama refuses to release them and has even signed bills that keep them detained. He acknowledges the injustice of Guantanamo, recently saying that “Gitmo has become a symbol around the world for an America that flouts the rule of law”, yet he doesn’t fight for its closure because it’s not politically safe for him to do so. In 2009, Obama thought he could close Guantanamo with the stroke of a pen when he signed executive order #13493, But  that executive order was blatantly ignored by his subordinates and nobody moved to close it. His political impotence was further exposed when the prison not only continued to function beyond its closure date, but when he himself authorized an infrastructure upgrade of the base and also signed the NDAA, which prevents the transfer of innocent prisoners.

            Obama simply didn’t have the moral fortitude to demand compliance with his executive order. To this day, he continues to value his job and political friends more than he values ending injustices done in his name. The same can be said about all his subordinates who know about the injustices of Guantanamo, but who continue to obey orders and “do their job”. From prison guards and commanders, to Guantanamo residents and DC policy makers, they all share a collective guilt because without their willingness to keep the system running, there would be no Guantanamo. No matter how mundane their job is and no matter how compassionate they think of themselves in the role they play, they are the ones responsible for implementing the injustice. Their excuse of “just following orders” does not absolve them of responsibility. As volunteers who are part of an oppressive system, they have a moral obligation to remove themselves from any role which contributes to the continuation of that oppressive system. There is a moral imperative for them to take a courageous stance similar to that of former Guantanamo prison guard Terry Holdbrooks, who chose not to work there anymore because he was against the injustices and inhumanity of the prison.

            People seem to forget that Obama is a popular leader, not a moral leader. In his 2008 presidential campaign, he pledged  to close Guantanamo because he was riding a wave of popular support. But after he became president, the popular support for the shutdown of Guantanmo was no longer felt, therefore, he didn’t follow through on his commitment. He became more concerned about harming the sensibilities of politicians and bureaucrats, than he was about following through on his pledges. The voice of the people who elected him disappeared, and so too did his sense of moral responsibility. Obama is a ‘political moral relativist’ because only with the outrage of citizens against him or with an impending impeachment can he possibly be driven to take firm action against injustice. But neither outrage or impeachment will happen. After all, it was the citizens who voted for his inaction when they elected him again in 2012. 60 million people gave Obama permission to continue to be a moral relativist and to continue to authorize that innocent people rot in prison, that women and children get killed in drone strikes, and that we fight and bomb countries that never attacked us. All with the blessings of the popular crowd.

            Despite the world knowing about the plight of Guantanamo prisoners, the world is helpless and can do nothing. All worldly authorities have failed them and so the only authority that is left to rely on is that of God Almighty. They don’t keep track of poll numbers, petition signatures, or the serial number of executive orders. They only rely on their humble prayers, which are the same prayers they made when they were free. Their prayers are what bring them comfort and consistency in good times and bad.

            It happens that one of these prayers was recently caught on video. Jason Leopold, an investigative reporter, was on a media assignment  at Guantanamo when he set up his camera to record a cell block in Camp 5 at the prison (a maximum security section set up for “non-compliant” prisoners). He recorded a scene that has repeated itself for over a decade. In the morning silence before sunrise, the prison guards were monitoring each cell unit. The silence was broken not by prisoners throwing tantrums or yelling obscenities, but by a call to prayer that is the same call to prayer recited in public every morning by millions of people around the world. In this case, what is usually a call to prayer that is muffled by a steel cage and lands only on the ears of those within hearing distance, this call to prayer was willed by God to be broadcast to the world:

            God is the Greatest, God is the Greatest

            I testify that there is no god but the One God

            I testify that Muhammad is the Messenger of God

            Come to prayer

            Come to success

            Prayer is better than sleep

            God is the Greatest, God is the Greatest

            There is no god but the One God

           

            Here is an mp3 file of the “Guantanamo Athan” (right-click and ‘Save-As’)Guantanamo Call to Prayer
Download it and share it. Set it as your alarm for morning prayers (salatul fajr). Let this imprisoned brother reap the rewards of waking you up to pray to your Lord.

Morning Prayers at Guantanamo’s Camp 5 (skip to 2:55)

Share

46 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. JTK2012

    //As I have previously noted, there would have been exactly zero Muslims killed by Crusaders had the Muslims left the Christian pilgrims unmolested to visit their holy sites.//

    - That is untrue as the crusaders were a bunch of mainly illiterate Europeans motivated by the supposed Christian faith to conquer lands in the name of helping their Christian brethren; the motivation was a pure lie and they did not help their Christian brethren but instead, forced their doctrines onto the Byzantine Christians and others

    //There is nothing unfair about not catering to every religious need in the public school system. Nobody is forcing non-kosher or non-Halal food down anyone’s throats. And, in America, the solution is parochial schooling, not strong-arming puublic schools into becoming religiously compliant on the basis of political correctness.//

    - I can’t say as I haven’t been to Americas at all. However, I thought the whole point of USA was freedom of expression and rights?

    //What’s not to make sense of? America is largely a Christian nation. The public schools in a Christian nation should reflect Christian values, as do the laws and culture of the United States.//

    - So basically, you believe Christianity should be forced on the public but you’re against the idea that in an Islámic state, people should have the right to follow as they please, provided they pay taxes? So much for freedom then….

    //It shows how great Islam is that it needs laws to subjugate and subdue non-adherents, when other religions do not need such laws? Judaism speaks extensively about relationships with gentiles, but it makes no demands on them. On the contrary, it describes how non-Jews can receive the reward of Heaven without converting. Is there a parallel in Islam or Christianity to that?//

    - Have you read the Talmud at all or the modern day perversion of the Torah (not the holy book given to Moses [peace be upon him])? Frankly, I know you haven’t or you are lying. Moreover, you clearly have not heard of Torat haMalech

    //No Islamic laws for non-Muslims? Perhaps in a doctrinal sense, but in a practical sense, the whole implimentation of dhimmi rules and apartheid in states that call themselves Islamic means that, in a practical sense, there are many, many restrictions placed on non-Muslims according to some interpretations of Islamic law. You have claimed the jizya is fair. As a non-Muslim, I disagree.//

    - You do not like jizyah because you prefer to be coerced into Islám? You are confusing me man

    //I am unaware of any major Christian presense in North Africa (away from Egypt) prior to the Islamic conquests. The Jews established communities in these areas, largely after the Spanish inquisition. My 1/3 vs. 2/3 numbers came from your post claiming that since 1/3 of the North Africans remained non-Muslim, that this was an example of Islamic tolerance.//

    - Governor of Cueta was a Christian and an example. 1/3 were Jewish in the Maghreb region prior to the Zionist occupation of Palestine, when the two racist ideologies of Arabism and Zionism came into fruition. If the Muslims were really intolerant, they would have wiped out these non-Muslims but they did not. It also indicative that the decrease in the number of Muslims were due to organic genuine conversions to Islám

    //You are wrong about Arab culture. Much of it is preserved in Islam, such as the custom of replacing the holy places of conquered people with Islamic holy places. That custom predates Mohammed.//

    - What on Earth are you talking about? How is that even true, seeing as during the reigns of the righteous Caliphs, the holy sanctuaries of Jews and Christians were preserved?

    //I am not trying to demonize Mohammed. His actions define who he was, as far as I am concerned. Since I reject his status as Messenger andf Prophet, there is little left other than a war lord who sought the conquest and subjugation of the entire world. Empire and power. Exactly the things you criticize the U.S. for desiring. Do I hate people that want to wipe out my country and turn it into something completely different than it was created to be? Sure.//

    - So far, you have demonised Muhammad (Pbuh) by truncating and perverting the truth, along with legacy

    - If you reject is his prophethood and messenger status, so what?

    - How can you compare the US Empire to the Muslim under Muhammad to the rightly guided Caliphate? Muslims were not seeking to exploit the resources of the people for slavery; in fact, they liberated the mentally oppressed and the physically oppressed. They predated the civil rights movement by allowing ethnically Persians, Jews and Habashi Negroes the right to positions of honour, respect and dignity. He did not wear just the dress of the local Arabs but those from other cultures in order to destroy racism and tribalism, which he defined as being as bad as biting one’s father’s private parts. He allowed women to businesswomen and told them that education was compulsory for all Muslims. He stopped the women and the orphans from being abused from their inheritance because under Arabism, they were the inheritance as opposed to the receivers. I could go on but the US empire has not helped a single people or country to develop except with mountains of debt.

    - On the subject of the US Empire, what was the US supposed to be other than a nation of double standards? The late George Carlin made an extremely relevant point, that the nation was founded by a bunch of ethnic European slave masters who wanted liberation from their masters in order to continue to enslave people.

    //When the same Mullahs who wish to export the revolution and destroy the Great and Little Satans have a nuclear weapons program, that’s a problem for the rest of the world. //

    Why is it a problem for the world? What have these Mullahs done to the world which is so damaging, that nuclear technology would ruin the world because of them?

    // I have no issue with the use of nukes in WWII. Japan had trained its women and children to attack any allied forces that landed on the mainland. They were told to fight to the last man, woman or child. The use of the nukes on Japan probably saved many thousands of lives, both American and Japanese.//

    There is your capitalist morality! You do not mind killing civilians because your religion dictates that your imperialism is superior to human life. You convince yourself that you have saved thousands of lives despite the horrendous radiation that followed suit. Moreover, you are heartless enough to justify invading Japanese people and not expecting the civilians to fight back.

    // Israel, a small nation surrounded by hostile neighbors needs a nuclear deterent. It has not once ever threatened to use their nukes for a first strike. The settlements, as you call them, are completely legal under international law. And again, your definition of justice, and my definition of justice are altogether different. I see the return of Israel’s indigenous people to the Land of Israel as genuine justice. No doubt you, and millions of Muslims, disagree. //

    - Israel does not have hostile neighbours. Name JUST ONE country which is hostile towards Israel. The Zionist American machine has installed puppets, including the Muslim Brotherhood for a year which reaffirmed the relationship with the Zionist Terror machine

    - Either you are wrong about international law, or international law is unjust. I believe in justice and thus, the settlements are inhumane. You cannot kick people out of their homes just because under daft lies and speculations, your ancestors lived there

    - As a human being and a Muslim, I disagree with the Jewish theft of Palestine. Many real Jews and Christians also disagree with the Palestinian land theft because they have humanity in them. Neturei Karta, Avi Shlaim, Ilan Papé among others are just a handful of Jews who are against the terrorism of Israel and the continuing theft of Palestinian land

    - I was going to ask, can you as a human being accept a bunch of foreigners kicking you out of your home and claiming ancestral ties? Would you honestly tolerate a bunch of Native Americans kicking you out of your house and occupying it?

    //You cannot blame U.S. media for placing those who claim to represent American Muslims on the air. There are no alternatives, and viewers demand to hear what Muslims in their own words have to say to America. Where are the leaders you speak of? What are the names of their organizations? Have they ever tried to get exposure in the U.S. media?//

    Yes I can as the alternatives are ubiquitous

    // No better proof is possible or needed.//

    Yes there is, as pantomimes are not considered proof by serious people.

    //I would suggest that it is groups like CAIR that make sure no voices of Islam other than its own get heard.//

    CAIR are against the agenda of the media which is to encourage consumerism and make people dumb. Honestly, there is more truth about the news in Anchorman 2 than there is the news itself.

    //I do not condemn Vietnam, Cambodia, etc., as an American, I believe all of these examples were examples of protecting U.S. interests and allies against real threats. That is the main responsibility of government, to protect interests and allies. Sorry if that is a problem for the spread of Islam.//

    So you believe that murdering civilians is protecting interest of American citizens? You obviously are not human or a moral creature.

    //I am proud to be human, and proud to support truth, justice, and the American way! I would think that you have much more to be ashamed of as a Muslim than I do as an American.

    Before the treaties? I don’t know, and I don’t care. What matters to me today is the actions of the Wahhabists as they impact my country and American allies. Studying history is fine, but our actions must be based on current realities.

    Trust me, I don’t make U.S. policy, and I would never support the Saudis if I did. As I said, I didn’t vote for Obama. And even so, the Saudis don’t seem to think much of American support these days.//

    I can conclude from the above you are an immoral creature who likes to murder civilians as a sport. Any civilian who resists your terrorism is labelled as a terrorist and without trial, tortured even to death. According to your religion, it is fine to torture, rape and murder people and yet, call it freedom.

    Fact is, you love the Saudis because they keep the Muslims mentally enslaved to your consumerism. Saudis are daily destroying Muslim heritage and this is why you love them.

  2. JTK2012

    Firstly, there was no invasion of Byzantine Palestine. In fact, if you look at how the “invasion” occurred, it is not like the Hollywood depiction. Secondly, there were many fortresses which pre-dated the Muslim entry into Palestine; they were built by the Roman Empire, and the Romans were notorious for these constructions due to their then world status.

    //Where, in what parts of the world, do you feel sharia should be the law of the land? I think we differ on how to define the imposition of sharia law. You define it as applying only to Muslims. I define it as any state that makes sharia the law of the land.//

    - You define Shariah as a law which is not true in a sense, as Shariah includes manners and etiquette. In the same light as bushido, Shariah has a personal element and an impersonal element. Shariah is only applicable to Muslims and the state can make distinctions for that because Muslims have one way of life, whereas non-Muslims have another way of life

    - The permissibility to trade and consume alcohol (as well as other intoxicants) applies to Muslims under Islam. With regards to non-Muslims, it depends on their own religion what they say/do. Hence the jizyah is for them because the Muslims cannot take benefit from unislamic transactions but that doesn’t mean their wealth should not be redistributed among them; just because someone is a Christian or whatever, they should not be excluded from the same standard of welfare

    - Hence, the non-Muslim can sell alcohol if his/her religion commands that but the Muslim is not permitted to trade or buy such products

    //Where else could they originate? If dhimmi are not subject to sharia law, may they opt not to pay the jizya (a requirement based in sharia law)? May they publicly worship their non-Muslim deity? May they build new houses of worship, and repair old ones? If not, from whence do these restrictions eminate? Answer: Sharia.//

    - The laws for dhimmi are deduced from their own scripture
    - If the dhimmi wants to live in an Islámic state, they have to pay jizyah. Why should they be tax exempt?
    - What does “publicly worship” mean?
    - Technically speaking, the requirement of jizyah has NOTHING to do with Shariah as it has to do with non-Muslim matters

    With regards to jihád, you have not actually explained to me what is wrong with it. You have however, displayed that you only think jihád is to do with invading non-Muslims which is complete nonsense and a definition only the Mongols would support.

    //So, what, exactly, do I not understand about jihad and dhimmi, JTK? You will not shut this discussion down by baseless claims that I am unable to comprehend what I can easily read. When you criticize capitalism and Zionism, I reply to you with factual rebuttal, not that you simply are incapable of understanding the concepts. I would appreciate the same courtesy from you.//

    - What facts? You have not presented a single fact in any of these discussions other than quotations from people I have never heard of except Hasan al Banna (whose works I am marginally aware of). You are acting as if these people have significant influence which clearly shows you know nothing about Muslims or Islám

    - Shariah does NOT equal Islámic law: it forms an aspect of Islámic law but not the whole due to ijtihád, amal, usül among other things. The source for all these tools are the Qurán and the Prophet Muhammad’s life (peace be upon him)

    - A scholar’s words are not divine

    //Since when do non-Muslim poor receive proceeds from the jizya? If that is a sharia principle, please cite your source.//

    Jizyah is not Shariah as it is for non-Muslims, not Muslims

    // Redistribution of wealth never increases the wealth of a society. //

    Tell that Caliph Umar ben Abdil Azeez. The problem with relying on rich people is that they are often a small percentage of society. The better thing to do is to increase entrepreneurship and reduce barriers of entry for business so that more people can become independent with respect to wealth creation.

    //You telling me selected parts of Islam as a form of Dawa is of course permitted. But for a non-Muslim to attempt to study the Koran, Sunna and Hadiths himself, without “guidance” from an Islamic cleric is haram, because we might get the “wrong idea”, i.e., discover the truth, about Islam//

    Who says it is haram for non-Muslims to study Islám? Haram means forbidden. Who is forbidding them to learn about Islám I wonder? Maybe it is your local indoctrination centre they call a school.

    //Judaism, for example, does not suggest that non-Jews would be better off embracing Judaism. In fact, it is easier for a gentile to receive the reward of heaven than it is for a Jew, according to Jewish law.//

    That is because non-Jews can’t embrace Judaism unless you are a “progressive” Jew, unless you are born into it. The rest is just ridiculous of what you say, especially as I have the Talmud and have read arguably one of the most inhumane books written.

    //There is no equivalent of dhimmi status for non-Christians in Christian doctrine. Judaism’s only restrictions on non-Jews, and is only enforceable on those who reside in the Land of Israel, are the 7 Noachide laws, and restrictions on access to the inner precincts of the Temple in Jerusalem. Not a good comparison, JTK.//

    Well actually, it is an excellent comparison! It shows how Islám is the first and only religion in the world which has a system of coexistence. It explains why those who did not follow the strict doctrines of “Christianity” were persecuted in Europe whereas those who were living under Islám received free education, access to local judiciary system (local Rabbinical courts and Priest Courts) etc. leading to La Convivencia

    1. Phillip

      The Roman garrisons left over from the Roman Empire had a completely different function than the Crusader castles that dot the Land of Israel. The garrisons housed legions or battalions that could be called into action to preserve order in the region. The Crusader-era Byzantine castles served as fortified way-stations that afforded Christian pilgrims protection from Muslim raiders who routinely attacked, robbed and slaughtered the Christian pilgrims. These castles have there more modern equvalent in such facilities as the Russian Compound in Jerusalem, which likewise provided a safe place to lodge for Christians visiting the holy sites in Jerusalem. These were necessary because of the prevailing belief that it was honorable for Muslims to attack, rob and slaughter the kufir as they pleased. Gated compounds would not have been necessary absent the threat of Muslim violence.

      I am unaware of the “Hollywood” depiction of the Islamic invasion of Byzantine Palestine. But suffice it to say that the native Christian and Jewish populations that existed prior to this invasion shrunk to near insignificance following the invasion. So, while there might not have been much in the way of spectacular battles, there was certainly a combination of slaughter, forced conversions, and expulsions that resulted in the near elimination of the Jewish and Christian populations of Byzantine Palestine.

      What I am unable to understand based on your answers is how a state that is not a sharia state, but permits Muslims living in that state to practice sharia, can levi the jizya on non-Muslims who are not subject to sharia. Why would a secular or Christian state impose the jizya on its non-Muslim citizens? I admit I am confused by this. But it is comforting to know that in a non-Muslim land, you can accept that non-Muslims will engage in practices that are haram for Muslims, in public and without restrictions. In America, for example, taxi drivers are not allowed to refuse a paying customer because of race, religion, or appearance. Yet, some Muslim taxi drivers went to court to try to exempt themselves from accepting passengers carrying alchohol. How do you feel about that?

      But you still didn’t really answer my question – Where should sharia law be imposed? Only in majority Muslim lands? Anywhere there is a Muslim community? What about in individual towns in, let’s say Europe, where there are large numbers of Muslims in one small area. Should that area be run by sharia rather than the laws of the state? Is it preferable for Muslims outside the uma to concentrate their dwellings into a small area so as to assert sharia law in that area? Should sharia be imposed on non-Muslim majority lands in order to make it easier for Muslims to move there and practice Islam?

      So, the jizya is collected only from the dhimmi class, but distributed to all. I cannot see how that is fair, outside of a sharia state, to the dhimmi, who shoulder a higher burden of taxation than the Muslims, who benefit from it even while being exempt from paying it.

      So, yes or no, should European Jews and Christians pay the jizya to Muslims in Europe?

      Public worship would mean any ritual observance taking place outside of a house of worship or private home. For example, a public Mass in a park, or a parade to celebrate All Saints Day.

      Ugh. Okay – the jizya is part of Islamic law, not sharia. My point remains: How could the jizya exist outside of Islamic law?

      I have no problem with the Lesser Jihad, JTK. The Greater Jihad, whether in its violent or non-violent forms, I see as efforts to force a socio-religious system on people who do not want it. Whether that is done with stunning attacks, imigration, gradualism, financial operations, deception, politics, or demographics makes no difference. It is the effort to spread the uma to places and people who which reject it and do not desire to submit to Islam. I have a big problem with that. And the Mongols are not alone. I have given you Al-Bana’s definition of jihad. He is not Mongolian. Al-Bana represents the Muslim Brotherhood. Although you may reject the Ikhwan as inauthentic, many millions of Mulims do not, and take Al-Bana’s words quite seriously. That represents a threat to my liberty and country. And yes, I will fight back if I have to. I already do at the ballot box and via the internet.

      The facts I have provided are regarding capitalism and Zionism. You can reject them in favor of Arab propaganda, but they are verifiable. As for Hassan Al-Banna, as I ahve said, you can reject him, but millions of Muslims accept him and follow him. And no matter how small his following, the Ikhwan is active in political Islam, and is exerting a lot of influence on American politics. So I see it as a force to be reckoned with. Your thoughts are all well and good, but how much influence do you have over Muslims and non-Muslims? Some of the scholars I have quoted are from Al-Azhar in Egypt, one of the most authoritative centers of Islam in the world. Do you reject these teachings and Al-Azhar’s authority as well? Okay if you do, but you are now placing yourself in the margins of the Islamic world. You might even end up with a fatwa on your head! (Just joking, sort of.)

      If some peaceful Imam somewhere has a huge following, great. I have no issue with that. But if a Wahhabi leader controls only a few dozen jihadists, who manage to fly jetliners into buildings and slaughter 3000 of my countrymen, I have a big problem with that. And, based on the large numbers of Taliban and Al Qaida soldiers being fielded in Syria, Libya and elsewhere, I think that the jihadist leaders have much larger followings than you might care to admit.

      Of course a scholar’s words are not divine. But laymen of all faiths rely on those who devote themselves to study of the holy texts to explain to them what God sought to accomplish via the revelation of those holy texts. I do not have so much hubris as to suggest that I know better than all the religious scholars who came before me and who live today. Do you have that much confidence in your own studies that you know better than ever Islamic scholar?

      In additon to the fiat mooney issues, we now agree on another point. Yes, government should not erect barriers to business investment and creation. I acknowledge the income inequality in the world, but I think the solution is not redistribution of wealth, but the lessening of tax burdens and regulations so that individuals of modest means can invest in their own businesses. That is how America originally saw the rise of the vast middle class. The heavy taxes and regulations of the past 50 years is crushing it. And Azeez is spot-on. All the wealth of the rich would not improve the lives of the poor in any meaningful way if it was redistributed. On the contrary, they would simply join the ranks of the poor and share their misery.

      I have to recover my source for the ban on non-Muslims studying Islamic holy texts. I will get back to you.

      If you have found the Talmud inhumane, then you have not understood it. It is quite humane, and seeks the justice of the bible, which differs considerably from justice in Islam. Provide examples if you like, and I will show you why you have misunderstood them. And there are small numbers of converts to Orthodox Judaism, even though the practice is discouraged. But none of this changes the fact that non-Jews may achieve the same heavenly reward as faithful Jews while only observing a few basic moral laws.

      Coexistance? Yes, there were Christian persecutions of pagans, but this is not found in Christian doctrine. The Jews also suffered at the habds of the Christians. But today, the situation is quite different, and Christians oppress nobody. It’s not mosques that are burning and Imams being slaughtered in Egypt, India, Syria, Iraq and elsewhere, JTK. Perhaps your viewis that Islam forbids this as well. Great. But just as you point to historical misdeeds by Christians who were not following Christian doctrine, I can also point to misdeeds commited, in the present, by Muslims, even if they are not following Islamic doctrine (at least according to JTK).

      1. JTK2012

        //These were necessary because of the prevailing belief that it was honorable for Muslims to attack, rob and slaughter the kufir as they pleased. Gated compounds would not have been necessary absent the threat of Muslim violence.//

        - Now you are assuming Islám is everything Muslims do which is damn stupid.
        - How could they have fortresses if Muslims were not allowing them to live? Contradiction right there.

        //I am unaware of the “Hollywood” depiction of the Islamic invasion of Byzantine Palestine. But suffice it to say that the native Christian and Jewish populations that existed prior to this invasion shrunk to near insignificance following the invasion//

        - That is total nonsense. The churches and synagogues are testimony to the fact they weren’t insignificant and there is no historical proof to back up your claim. If they were made insignificant, their traces would have been invisible

        //Why would a secular or Christian state impose the jizya on its non-Muslim citizens?//

        - A secular or a Christian state would not impose jizya. They have their own taxation systems

        // Yet, some Muslim taxi drivers went to court to try to exempt themselves from accepting passengers carrying alchohol. How do you feel about that?//

        So according to you, that is imposing Shariah is it? What about those who impose Talmudic law on non-Jewish people?

        //But you still didn’t really answer my question – Where should sharia law be imposed? //

        You cannot impose Shariah and the rest of your paragraph consequently is redundant. Shariah is something to be considered only by Muslims and not restricted by space and time. Shariah however, is subjected to usool (principles) of Islám (monotheism, justice etc. as found in the Qurán) and thus, is situation dependent.

        - For example, to erect a new set of traffic lights in place of a roundabout, the Islámic principle of preserving life is in primary need of consideration; thus the most life-saving option to facilitate traffic should be selected. This is based on usool from Qurán and not Shariah, as Shariah doesn’t contain information on traffic lights

        //So, the jizya is collected only from the dhimmi class, but distributed to all. I cannot see how that is fair, outside of a sharia state, to the dhimmi, who shoulder a higher burden of taxation than the Muslims, who benefit from it even while being exempt from paying it.

        So, yes or no, should European Jews and Christians pay the jizya to Muslims in Europe?//

        - NO. The dhimmi’s jizyah is redistributed AMONG the dhimmi citizens. Furthermore, they do not have a higher tax burden unless the local non-Muslim authority (Chief Rabbi etc.) stipulates a higher rate than what the Muslims pay in Zakah

        - There is no Islámic state in Europe; who the hell are they going to pay jizyah to?

        //I have no problem with the Lesser Jihad, JTK. The Greater Jihad, whether in its violent or non-violent forms, I see as efforts to force a socio-religious system on people who do not want it.//

        - The problem is your perspective; you see the greater jihád as a “force” which is incorrect. Force is only used when agreements of peace are broken which signify an act of war and aggression

        //Some of the scholars I have quoted are from Al-Azhar in Egypt, one of the most authoritative centers of Islam in the world. Do you reject these teachings and Al-Azhar’s authority as well? Okay if you do, but you are now placing yourself in the margins of the Islamic world. You might even end up with a fatwa on your head! (Just joking, sort of.)//

        - Al-Azhar have had scholars of all different stripes and strokes coming from it. Moreover, their level of authority is questionable
        - I do not mind being a margin in the Muslim world but I hope to be a part of the Islámic world

        //But if a Wahhabi leader controls only a few dozen jihadists, who manage to fly jetliners into buildings and slaughter 3000 of my countrymen, I have a big problem with that. And, based on the large numbers of Taliban and Al Qaida soldiers being fielded in Syria, Libya and elsewhere, I think that the jihadist leaders have much larger followings than you might care to admit.//

        - Wahhabis are a political movement started by kicking out the Islámic Caliphate via Britain’s help- Wahhabis have stores of reserves in the Federal Reserve and Bank

        - Taliban and Al-CIAda have had nothing but support from the US government. I ask you NOT to support them as they are murderers in Syria & Libya. Yet, the western government only supports them. Now they are trying to become friends in Afghanistan with them. On one hand, you kill them in Afghanistan and Mali, on the other, you supply them with weapons via southern Turkey. I find it dubious and crazy to say the least

        - The same paragraph you write talks about killing 3.000 men (dubious as to who did it) but I really do not understand how you can say this, whilst ignoring the massacre and genocides of US foreign policy. Swallowing some humble pie is good for your country

        //The heavy taxes and regulations of the past 50 years is crushing it. And Azeez is spot-on. All the wealth of the rich would not improve the lives of the poor in any meaningful way if it was redistributed. On the contrary, they would simply join the ranks of the poor and share their misery.//

        - First and foremost, the Islámic system stipulates for Muslims a certain income amount which has to be sustainable for taxation (Zakah- MUSLIMS concerned only)

        - Then depending on the existence and sustainability of the income based on actual wealth, a percentage of 2,5% is taken away at the end of the year. If it is a farm with a certain crop yield naturally irrigated, then 10% crop taken. If unnaturally irrigated, 5% taken

        - People would thus not be joining the ranks of the poor as they would be rich enough. The poor would have resources upon which they could establish themselves

        - As barriers such as corporation tax etc. do not exist in Islámic business, naturally enterprises can start up more easily

        //If you have found the Talmud inhumane, then you have not understood it. It is quite humane, and seeks the justice of the bible, which differs considerably from justice in Islam. //

        How? Talmud and the Bible are different like the heavens and the Earth. Try the translation from Abraham Cohen

        // Perhaps your viewis that Islam forbids this as well. Great. But just as you point to historical misdeeds by Christians who were not following Christian doctrine, I can also point to misdeeds commited, in the present, by Muslims, even if they are not following Islamic doctrine (at least according to JTK).//

        - I have to ask why you assume all unislamic activity done in the name of Islám, you claim as if it is Islám? Yet when I point out what non-Muslims have done, suddenly, it is not in your doctrine

        - Do you have any idea what is going on in Angola and the Central African Republic?

        1. Phillip Slepian

          I have stated before that while the actions of many Muslims may not, in your view, reflect true Islam, the fact that their actions are done in the name of Islam, and that they have Islamic religious authorities who support their actions, means that non-Muslims cannot dismiss them as abberations. Actions have consequences and the non-Muslim world must respond to threats against it by Muslims, whether they interpret Islam the way JTK2012 does or not.

          The Crusader fortresses were constructed under the protection of armed soldiers from Europe. I am not sure I understand you comment that the Muslims were not “allowing them to live”. I made no such statement. Of course, not every Christian pilgrim was slaughtered. Some were only robbed and beaten. Perhaps they were not pleased with that treatment, either.

          The churches and synagogues that existed prior to the 7th Century in Byzantine Palestine were either destroyed or abandoned when the land fell to the Muslims. The only churches that survived in-tact were those located inside the forts of the Crusaders, and they are considerably newer than the early Christian churches of Byzantine Palestine. I am unaware of one single synagogue or church from the period before the 7th Century in Byzantine Palestine that exists today in tact and not as an archeological exhibit. The only exception I am aware of is the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, which was allowed to remain a church under the first Muslim rulers of Jerusalem. Even thenm though, the Fatimid caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah ordered it destroyed in the early 11th century. So the structure we see today is not the original 4th Century structure. Many of these churches and synagogues were indeed in ruins and only were discovered by archeological efforts in the 19th and 20th centuries. The fact that those who destoyed these buildings were unable to erase all traces of them is meaningless. In many cases, they built over them or defaced anything they felt was forbidden by Islam. The trend continues today with the conversion by force and destructuion of holy sites like Joseph’s tomb into mosques where non-Muslim worshippers are forbidden access.

          No, taxi drivers refusing to cary passengers is not imposing sharia, buit it is placing sharia above state law. In America, if you feel you cannot abide by the state’s laws, you have no business living there. And please, where in the world do Jews “impose Talmudic law on non-Jewish people”? That never happened.

          So, the imposition of sharia law is “situation dependent”. Educate me, JTK: Provide a situation, past or present, in which it was or is, in your view, appropriate for the imposition of sharia and/or Islamic law on the entire population of a given nation or city. I mean as a system, to replace all other state legal systems. I am not concerned with whether something like traffic lights, which fall into the category of common sense and public safety, happen to be compatible with Islamic law or principles. A better question would be, what is to be done, according to your interpretation of Islamic law, when state laws conflict with Islamic law? For example, the Muslim taxi drivers who were being made to serve passengers carrying alchohol.

          So, you are telling me that every cent collected from dhimmis of the jizya is redistributed only to other dhimmis? This is new to me, and I would need some reference to this in Islamic law.

          Many Islamic leaders in Europe and elsewhere see public assistance and entitlements as a form of unwitting jizya paid by non-Muslims to Muslims. That is their justification for accepting it and expecting it.

          Okay, so you reject at least some of the authorities from Al-Azhar. I hope you understand why non-Muslims feel they need to take leading Islamic scholarship seriously. What these leaders say does influence millions of Muslims, and the reality is that non-Muslims msut pay attention to their words, for the sake of security and self-preservation. I am glad you seem to reject violent jihad against infidels, JTK. I just wish people like you were the recognized and followed Islamic authorities, instead of people like Al-Qaradawi or the Iranian Mullahs.

          Again, you can criticize the Wahabbis as inauthentic, but they get things done. And we non-Muslims, as the intended targets of the things they are getting done, must pay attention. And they do it, rightly or wrongly, in the name of Islam.

          Believe me, I am no fan of America’s policies in the Middle East. Somehow, the Obama administration made the call that the Muslim Brotherhood are the “good Muslims” and Al Qaida and the Taliban are the “bad Muslims.” In my book, any group, Muslim or otherwise, who organizes efforts to violently or covertly harm Americans or American interests, anywhere int he world, is the enemy. And that most surely includes the Muslim Brotherhood. I will admit that our imperfect Republic has problems in the form of various departments that are not answerable to the voters, and act to promote their own agendas, domestically and foriegn, It is, perhaps, the greatest flaw in the Republic of the U.S.

          There is no question as to who the 9-11 attackers were (mostly Saudi Muslims), and who organized it (Bin Laden and Al Qaida). To believe otherwise is to buy into silly conspiracy theories with no basis in facts. “Truthers” have zero credibility. And there have been no genocides committed by the United STates. That nonesense is simply the made-up pretext for the “right” of the jihadists to kill 4 million Americans. Where they get this number from, I have yet to see a reasonable source. The U.S. has nothing to be humble or sorry about. We have brought prosperity and peace to millions all over the world. We are resented because of our success, power and freedoms. We don’t really care. And if we did not have the crypto-Muslim communist in the White House right now, we would still be the undisputed world leader economically and militarily. Obama is one of yours, and he is the Manchurian President, set up to bring America down. Sadly, Americans are too trusting and tolerant to believe that a President could want to do these things, but a little over half of the country was fooled, and now we, and soon the world, will pay the price. The result of what you want to see – America eating humble pie – will not be some vague notion of “social justice”, but massive war and poverty. And it is coming soon.

          So, Islam demands a sort of “minimum wage”. Fine, but what if that wage is so high that employers simply refuse to hire? That’s the problem with socialist systems that regulate businesses and employee wages. It doesn’t work. Eventually, you bankrupt the businesses, and run out of other people’s money. The everyone suffers (as in Greece). In the United States, the wealthy pay much higher tax burdens, and those defined as “poor” by the government (which is not really that poor by most standards) receive large sums of money, free food, health care, child care, cell phones and more. It’s simply out of control, and has created a humongous and expensive federal government that the consitution was designed to prevent. But I don’t see how such modest taxes as imposed by Islamic law would fund millions of non-working people who chose to live off of the work of others rather than work and support themselves. The number of Americans who are really unable to work is only a small percentage of those who don’t work, and it is similar in Europe.

          Limited taxation rates are admirable. Outside of a sharia-based legal system, however, they have no force of law and are not relevent to non-Muslims, as you have said.

          I have much better translations of the Talmud than Cohen’s. According to Jewish tradition and belief, the Talmud is simply the written version of the Oral Law, which was received with the Written Law at Mt. Sinai. In normative Jewish thought, the two are integral and one cannot be understood without the other. The Oral Law was transmitted orally from the revelation until after the destruction of the Second Jewish Temple and Commonwealth in Judea. At that point, the oral transmission chains began to fall apart, so Judah the Prince, rabbinic leader of the Jews of Palestine in the second and third centuries, AD, began to assemble the Oral Law in written form. According to Judaism, the Talmud (the Mishna and the Gemorra) are of divine origin and reveal the compete body of Jewish law when combined with the Old Testament, Prophets, and Writings. Even using Cohen’s translation, you have yet to show me an example of Talmudic inhumanity.

          I am not disputing that some Muslims, who claim to act in the name of Islam, may not understand Islam as you do. But the difference between Muslims acting badly and claiming that they do so as Muslims following Islam, and Christians acting badly and claiming they do so as Christians following Jesus, is that in today’s world, there are plenty of the former, and none of the latter. Non-Muslims have to contend with the forces claiming to act in the name of Islam. I don’t see bands of Christians burning mosques and executing Muslims because they have offended Christianity. We must separate our discussion into the doctrinal aspects of religion and the practical aspects of dealing with those who, in the present tense, are commiting violent acts in the name of Islam. I hope you understand why the intended victims of Muslims violence and deception cannot survive if they ignore the basis used by the jihadists for their efforts. It is the foundation that unites most of the “lone wolves” like the Boston Marathon bombers. And in the U.S., jihad against America is being promoted to some extent, in 80% of American mosques. That’s a problem for U.S. security, whether the Imams of those mosques misunderstand Islam or not. Except for a tiny minority of radical-left churches, like the church of Jeremiah Wright, there are no significant numbers of Chrisitians who misunderstand Christianity and, as a result, seek to harm Americans and destroy the Republic.

          I am sure your view of events in Angola and the C.A.R. are colored by your loyalties to Muslims. In my experience, it is rarely the non-Muslims that have started the violence by attacking otherwise peaceful Muslims. It is almost always Muslims asserting their supremacy over the infidels that is the start of the violence. Then the pro-Muslim world tries to paint the infidels who are trying to defend their lives and their freedom to live under non-Muslim rule as the aggressors. It’s an old story, and repeated ad nauseum.

  3. JTK2012

    //Perhaps only the last 10 years of Mohammed’s life were spent as a warrior, but that is the example many Islamic leaders follow today, whether you approve or not.//

    I simply cannot take this comment seriously. Despite having explained the whole of Muhammad (PBUH) life including his whole prophethood are important. Otherwise, what is the point in all the revelations? Islám is a religion of principles as well as rules. Justice is a principle: if it can be peacefully carried out, great. If it isn’t, then you have to take action.

    //I think the Quraiza tribe mambers would argue that their punishment was not restricted to the afterlife.//

    Well the tribe of Quraiza and their peripheries broke the agreement of peace THREE TIMES and hence, a decisive action to exile them had to be taken. On the THIRD time were such actions taken.

    // Outside of dar el-Islam, that is just unnacceptable to me and many non-Muslims.//

    Who the hell is forcing a non-Muslim to live under Islám? Your repetitive circular statements are ignoring reality and factual bases.

    //So, Muslims are free to violate treaties when it is expedient, but infidels cannot?

    As for 9:5, you can screem “context” all you like. The words are clear, and many modern scholars interpret them as they are written.

    So you have made my point regarding 2:256. The Muslims were in no position to compell the families of converts to accept Islam at that time. Later, as it is today, when Muslims have the power to do so, sharia law is enforced by force.//

    - When did it say Muslims were free to violate the treaties? As usual, you are making things up
    - The context of Quran 9:5 and 2: 256 as well as EVERY other verse in the Qurán are given in corresponding hadiths which describe the circumstances in which the revelations occurred
    - Islám is based on revelation, NOT what some scholar has said. Scholars are human beings who are not Prophets

    //And if I lack sufficient knowledge to comprehend the nuances of Islam, perhaps you will accept the words of Hassan al-Bana//

    Why? Who was Hassan al-Bana and why are his words so important? Moreover, in which situation was he writing in? Was it related to the European imperialists who have polluted Egypt?

    //Why do I ignore the parts of Islam not concerned with jihad? //

    Please stop using the word jihád because you do not know what it means. You have no idea about its’ holistic nature and that the words fighting and jihád are in fact mutually exclusive.

    //I get it, sharia is for Muslims, but it also governs the lives of non-Muslims under Muslim rule. Since the goal of Islam is the universal application of sharia to the entire world, and to all mankind (even though some may retain dhimmi status), it affects non-Muslims in places where Muslims are growing in number and are asserting the superiority of Islam and sharia over previously established domestic laws and liberties//

    Well there is currently no country in the world that applies Islamic law so I don’t know what you’re talking about other than espousing Fox News fear-mongering rubbish.

    //Zakah vs. jizya is a straw man. Since people of other faiths are also required by their own faiths to give charity, the jizya is an additional burden for which no equivalent burden is placed on Muslims.//

    Zakah does NOT mean charity: this is nothing more than a secular translation to reduce Islám from it’s pure form. Zakah as per Quran 9: 60 shows it is for MORE than just poor people, such as those indebted, stranded travellers, freeing captives etc.

    As the jizya is a tax to be redistributed among the non-Muslims to help the poor become richer, it is up to the non-Muslim authority what rate they want to pay. If you have any complaints, go to your local Rabbi or Priest representing your district!

    //Zionism displaced nobody, as the Jews were the indigenous people of the Land of Israel. No people extant has ever claimed the Land of Israel as a national homeland, or Jerusalem as its capital.//

    So what is happening now with these settlers coming from Europe and North America? They are not indigenous people especially as their ancestors were from Central and Eastern Europe. Even if they did have “ancestral claims” to the land; as human beings are supposedly originated from East Africa, shall we start settling in their too?

    It is an ideology based on racial supremacy.

    //Arab in modern Israel enjoy better standards of living, and more rights, than Arabs in any of the neighboring Arab nations. //

    Well in other Arab nations, the rulers are oppressive despots supported by none other than Israel and its lapdog, Uncle Sam.

    //Palestinian Arabs are free to live in Israel, but not as a fifth column dedicated to killing its citizens and destroying the state. No sovereign state would tolerate such treasonous behavior.//

    Well the Israeli apartheid and the continuing imprisonment of Palestinian children, as well as landlords discriminating against Palestinian residents as the Eliyahu case has revealed tells otherwise.

    Also, why is it that all Prime Ministers and Presidents of Israel have been Ashkenazim if there is so much multiculturalism? Why is their so much discrimination against black Jews, and even sterilisation of African Jews forced?

    You are not free but a SLAVE to the Zionist masters. You are free to believe you are free though and that is it.

    1. Phillip Slepian

      Of course to you, a Muslim, all of Mohammed’s teachings are important, and his instructions in warfare are only a component of those teachings. But can you understand, JTK, how these portions of Mohammed’s teachings might be more relevent to non-Muslims who desire not to live under sharia law?

      “Justice is a principle: if it can be peacefully carried out, great. If it isn’t, then you have to take action.”

      I assume you refer to “justice” in the context of Islam. What type of “action” do you feel Islam requires?

      Okay reguarding the Quraiza, JTK, but there are then instances in which earthly punishment is appropriate for those seen as threates to the uma.

      Who is forcing non-Muslims to live under Islam? Let’s start with the Islamic conquests of the 7th-8th century. The Moorish conquest of Northern Africa and Spain, large parts of the Asian Pacific. Ongoing fronts in Thailand, The Philipines, Kashmir, and non-violent efforts in Europe and elsewhere. Whether by sword or by stealth, whether Islam as you interpret it condones these efforts or not, it is the reality. In nearly every place that calls itself an Islamic nation, it got that way by force, not peaceful Dawa. Europe is the exception. As Qaddafi said, Inshalla, Islam will be victorious in Europe without the need to fire a shot. But it is still a conquest.

      As for the breaking of treaties, I think Mohammed wrote the book on that one. The basis of Muslim treaty-making with Infidels can be found in the Treaty of Hudaibiyya that Muhammad made with the Meccans in 628 A.D. Finding himself and his followers too weak to take the Meccans on directly, Muhammad made an agreement with them. He would not attack them in return for their promise to allow him and his followers to annually enter Mecca for the ‘ijra, or lesser pilgrimage. The treaty was to have lasted for ten years — and ten years, by the way, is the maximum period that a treaty with Infidels can normally last, though some Muslim authorities have said that a treaty can be renewed at the expiration of that ten-year period, if the Muslims need more time to strengthen their forces and would benefit from a continued “hudna.” The treaty with the Meccans lasted only 18 months, however, when Mohammad decided to find a pretext to attack, and did. And he has been praised ever since in Muslim lore, for his ability to deceive the unwary Meccans and to use the time of that truce to his advantage. And Muhammad is the Model of Conduct (uswa hasana) and the Perfect Man (al-insan al-kamil). He is the model in all things. Among those things, he provides the model, that transcends his time and is good for all time, for how to make treaties with Infidels. I think Mohammed would agree – all is fair in love and war. The only way to maintain a treaty between hostile entities is through strength and deterence.

      Of course for a Muslim, Islam is based on revelation. For a non-Muslim, not-so-much. Sorry to tell you, but my reading of Islam is that is is little more than a man-made blueprint for world conquest and domination, clothed in the authority of a diety-based religion. No offense, JTK, just telling you how this non-Muslim sees Islam. The scholars you discount speak for and influence large numbers of Muslims, which is why non-Muslims would be foolish to ignore their words.

      Al-Bana did not restrict his plans to Egypt. They were aimed at the conquest first of the uma, the restoration of the Caliphate, and then the conquest of the rest of the world. Through the Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Bana is extremely influential, even if you do not like his approach.

      Sorry, but I will continue to use the word jihad as I please, because I live in a place where such use is not prohibited, and you do not get to limit my speech or define jihad for me. I have provided you with Al-Bana’s views of jihad, and it is my choice to accept his views as authoritative. I could call it holy war, but there is no real difference other than the lesser and greater jihads.

      You may not agree that Sharia law is being properly implemented anywhere in the world, JTK, but powerful Muslims in many places would differ with you. I don’t think you would do very well to stand in the middle of Tehran and yell out that the Mullahs are Islamic frauds who do not understand or enforce sharia law. So, obviously, many Muslims disagree with you. I prefer to accept the self-definition of sharia societies over your posts, which have no large nation of Muslims that agree with your definitions of sharia law at present. I am not saying you are wrong, only that non-Muslims must deal with those who claim to speak in the name of Islam, whether JTK disagrees or not. And you can’t be sure where I get my news from, as I can’t be sure where you get yours from. Although Al Jazeera is surely less objective than Fox.

      Regardless of your definition of Zakah, most of those aspects have parallels in the Judeo-Christian tradition (likely where Mohammed got them from). While you may be correct in the ability of dhimmis to receive zaka, that is still no justification of a separate jizya for dhimmis, as far as non-Muslims are concerned. How would you react to some Christian trying to force you to attend Mass or make confession? These are no more a part of being a Muslim than the jizya is part of being a Christian. No rabbi or priest represents my district. I have an elected representative who serves all the people equally, whatever their faith.

      Those “settlers” from Europe are the descendents of the Jews who were exhiled by the Romans, then the Byzantines and then the Muslims throughout the period of 70 AD through 730 AD. As Jews, they are the only nation of people ever to have established a national homeland in the Land of Israel that still exists today as a people. They therefore have indigenous national rights on that land that are far more legitimate than the successive invading armies, none of which established a state on that land in the last 2000 years. Again, not all Jews emmigrating to Israel are from Europe, and the Jews have had a continuous presence in the Land of Israel for thousands of years. The exact numbers are irrelelvent. I could also say that the only true Muslims originated in Arabia, and that all converts to Islam and their decendents are not really Muslims. How is your arguement different?

      Israel is not based on racial supremacy (Judaism is a nationality, not a race). It is based on the idea that Israel is the national homeland of the Jewish people. Others who live there are free to do so, but they must accept that they are living in a Jewish state, just like a dhimmi has to accept that he resides in an Islamic state. Unlike Islam, Judaism makes no territorial claims beyond the Land of Israel. And, why does Islam get to claim superiority based on its faith, but Judaism cannot? You may disagree, but Islam is doing exactly what you are complaining the Jews do.

      Israel may support Arab leaders that it feels are less hostile to Israel. Can you blame them for efforts to survive? Meanwhile, with all that support, Arabs still are worse off in Arab countries than in Israel. You can’t argue that point.

      There is real aparthied in Saudi Arabia, which claims to be a sharia state (I know you disagree). In Israel, any Arab desiring to live peacefully in the Jewish state will find that no avenues are blocked: Muslims may enlist in the army, serve in the government, receive education at all levels, pursue any profession, and travel freely throughout the state (of course, based on Arab hostility, security and safety require checkpoints and precautions for the preservation of life). Arabs pay less than 20% of Israeli taxes, but receive 80% of entitlement benefits. Every Arab university in Gaza and The West Bank was built by Israel at taxpayer expense. And even though they have Arabic universities, they are still welcomed in Israeli colleges and universities. So, that Israeli aparthied nonsense is pure lies and propaganda, JTK.. I would also wager you have never set foot inside Israel to see how Israeli Arabs and Muslilms live. I have.

      I won’t argue that non-Ashkenazic Jews have had their challenges in the early years of the state, and some continue. Like America, I am not claiming Israel is a perfect democracy. It sorely needs a constitution, but will never have one. But it is a young country, and changing rapidly in what I would see as a good direction. As for the court system, it is more disposed to favor Arab claimants than Jewish ones. You may not hear about it on Al Jazeera, but many, many court cases in Israel favor Arabs over Jews. And I mean that as a criticism, JTK, but one which you should appreciate. The instances of sterliization are many decades old, and not representative of current sentiments in Israel today. In fact, the Ethiopian Jews are rapidly integrating into society. And that’s something considering how uneducated most of them were when they arrived.

      Yes. I do believe I am free to worship my God. In my own eyes, I am a free man. What more could I ask for?

      1. JTK2012

        //Of course to you, a Muslim, all of Mohammed’s teachings are important, and his instructions in warfare are only a component of those teachings. But can you understand, JTK, how these portions of Mohammed’s teachings might be more relevent to non-Muslims who desire not to live under sharia law?

        “Justice is a principle: if it can be peacefully carried out, great. If it isn’t, then you have to take action.”

        I assume you refer to “justice” in the context of Islam. What type of “action” do you feel Islam requires?//

        - No I don’t understand what the fuss is, when non-Muslims don’t live under Shariah anyway

        - It depends on what the injustice is first!

        //Okay reguarding the Quraiza, JTK, but there are then instances in which earthly punishment is appropriate for those seen as threates to the uma.//

        If they broke the contract of peace, they are threat to more than the Muslims. They are a threat to anyone who is living in the city, allowing invaders to come in. Banu Quraiza proved their untrustworthiness thrice

        //Who is forcing non-Muslims to live under Islam? Let’s start with the Islamic conquests of the 7th-8th century. The Moorish conquest of Northern Africa and Spain, large parts of the Asian Pacific. Ongoing fronts in Thailand, The Philipines, Kashmir, and non-violent efforts in Europe and elsewhere. //

        What a joke! Under Islamic rule, there was more ethnic and religious diversity. Now look at how devoid of religious and ethnic diversity the MENA region is comparatively under secularism! Tragic how the loss of Islamic rule has lead to decreased religious diversity whereas before the 20th century, around 1/3 of North Africa was Jewish.

        - The Moorish coming to the Iberian Peninsula was carried out with many Christian soldiers who were persecuted by King Rodriguez of Hispania as well as Jews

        - Of course Muslims want to follow Shariah; they’re Muslims. It is like being shocked or scared about Christians wanting to follow Christianity!

        //Of course for a Muslim, Islam is based on revelation. For a non-Muslim, not-so-much. Sorry to tell you, but my reading of Islam is that is is little more than a man-made blueprint for world conquest and domination, clothed in the authority of a diety-based religion. No offense, JTK, just telling you how this non-Muslim sees Islam. The scholars you discount speak for and influence large numbers of Muslims, which is why non-Muslims would be foolish to ignore their words.//

        - No offence taken (then again, why would I take offence?)

        - Where is your statistical proof that 1.6 billion people on planet Earth are significantly influenced by these people you quote?

        //As for the breaking of treaties, I think Mohammed wrote the book on that one//

        Regarding the rubbish you wrote under this paragraph:

        - Hudaibiyyah was violated when non-Muslims attacked a camp of Muslims. If this is not a satisfactory reason to retaliate, then either you are a liar or a hypocrite

        - Of course the Muslims should have force to back up their bargaining power. There is no point in having an agreement signed when you cannot punish the violator of the agreement due to lack of power! You hate the fact Islám acknowledges this whilst you believe in it yourself

        //You may not agree that Sharia law is being properly implemented anywhere in the world, JTK, but powerful Muslims in many places would differ with you. I don’t think you would do very well to stand in the middle of Tehran and yell out that the Mullahs are Islamic frauds who do not understand or enforce sharia law. So, obviously, many Muslims disagree with you//

        - Actually, most Muslims agree with me statistically

        - Iran is based on Plato’s Republic and Plato wasn’t Muslim

        //Although Al Jazeera is surely less objective than Fox.//

        - Fox is not subjective at all. You have retards declaring Jesus (peace be upon him) was white!

        - Al Jazeera is owned by American puppets aka Qataris

        - Give me a news channel which is objective

        //Israel is not based on racial supremacy (Judaism is a nationality, not a race). //

        You have not read the Talmud, have you?

        If it isnt a race, then why do they say children are Jewish based on their mother’s lineage?

        //There is real aparthied in Saudi Arabia, which claims to be a sharia state (I know you disagree)//

        - What is the point in following Shariah if it has no Islamic basis? Why don’t you declare Denmark, Norway and Sweden Islamic states as they have elements of Islamic law with regards to free education?

        - The Zionist American Kingdom of Occupied Arabia (Saudi to most unread persons) was founded by kicking out the Islamic governance with the help of the British with resources invested in the American banks. Where is Islám in all of this?

        //How would you react to some Christian trying to force you to attend Mass or make confession? //

        This is the worst analogy ever as it has nothing to do with charity or tax

        // So, that Israeli aparthied nonsense is pure lies and propaganda, JTK.. I would also wager you have never set foot inside Israel to see how Israeli Arabs and Muslilms live. I have.//

        And yet, you are still so foolish?

        1. Phillip Slepian

          There are places where non-Muslims live under Islamic law, if not sharia. It affects their lives in many ways. Plus, if Islamic law requires jihad in all of its forms against dar el-harb, then it affects non-Muslims in non-Muslim lands that are targeted by the jihadists (e.g., Somalia).

          Well, if the injustice is, for example, that a public school in a non-Muslim nation refuses to make provisions for Islamic observances of its Muslim students (halal meals, prayer facilities, non-Muslim prayers at the start of the day), what is your recommended response? Or, if the non-Muslim nation uses its military to locate and attack Muslim groups it suspects have committed acts of terror against its citizens, either at home or abroad, what is your recommended action?

          I asked you about Muslims forcing non-Muslims to live under Islamic rule, and you reply with some gobbledigook about diversity? Really? I wasn’t asking about diversity. I was asking about the historic practice of Muslims arriving in a new part of dar el-harb and forcing Islamic rule on the inhabitants. Much of the Jewish population of Northern Africa, as well as most of the native Berbers, were either wiped out, fled or were forcibly converted to Islam, JTK. That’s what really happened to them. The small numbers that managed to survive as dhimmis were forced to flee in 1948, when Muslim anger at the rebirth of Israel made conditions for them very dangerous. So much for that wonderful Muslim diversity!

          You are correct about the Moorish allies, but the Moores didn’t go to Spain to liberate, but to rule.

          I am not bothered by Christians who practice Christianity, since I know that, at least nowadays, they will not force their religion on me if I reject it. Islam, by definition, obligates its followers to spread the uma, and use dawa and jihad to spread Islam. So, I am concerned about the growth in Islamic populations in Judeo-Christian lands.

          I never claimed all 1.6 billion Muslims followed the scholars I have quoted. But if even 1/10th of that number do take their words as authoritative, it poses a problem for the long term survival of non-Muslim nations everywhere.

          As for hudabiyya, there is controversy over the pretext for the treaty’s cancellation, whether the Khuza were recognized allies of Mohammed or not. So we may differ on the interpretation of these events. In any case, rightly or wrongly, that model has been held up by Muslim leaders throughout history as the basis for violating treaties wherever it might benefit the uma.

          I agree that no treaty is worthwhile if the parties are incapable of enforcing them.

          I would need some ststistic or study that supports your contention that most Muslims agree with you. But even if there is such supporting material, Muslims like you are not in charge, and the world must deal with those in charge. Your sentiments may be lovely, but insignificant compared to the sentiments of the Iranian Mullahs or leaders of the Ikhwan.

          I am going to need the reference about the Jesus was white thing. I have never seen that, and even though I don’t watch Fox news, I am sure I would have read about it. Was it said by a guest, or by someone working for Fox? Frankly, Jesus’ race is completely unimportant to me and most Christians that I know.

          Al Jazeera might be owned by what you call American puppets, but they regularly broadcast information that is clearly a distortion of the truth, and clearly anti-Western.

          From what I know of it, which isn’t much, Fox is as close to being a neutral network as any. They tend to invite voices all over the political spectrum to their programs.

          I am sure I ahve read more of the Talmud than you have. If you have those Talmudic examples, I am ready to research them. Otherwise, your claims about the Talmud remain unsubstantiated.

          My point about Saudi Arabia, sharia-compliant or not, was simply that other examples of apartheid are much more believable than Israel being apartheid.

          Islam in Saudi Arabia? The treaty between the Wahabbis and the House of Saud predates British involvement in the region, and is still in force. It is why only Wahabbi Islam is recognized as a religion in the kingdom, and why the Saudis finance Wahabbi outreach all over the world.

          Okay, how would you feel about Christians collecting a special tax on Muslims only in a Christian nation?

          Not foolish, JTK, but able to see with my own eyes what you refuse to acknowledge. When you have visited Arab and Muslim communities in Israel, let me know what you think of their treatment. Until then, you are merely parroting Arab propaganda and lies.

        2. JTK2012

          //There are places where non-Muslims live under Islamic law, if not sharia. It affects their lives in many ways. Plus, if Islamic law requires jihad in all of its forms against dar el-harb, then it affects non-Muslims in non-Muslim lands that are targeted by the jihadists (e.g., Somalia).//

          - It is a bit late for an April Fool’s joke, don’t you think?
          - Why do the US not support Somalian terrorists (not jihádists) but supports them in Libya and Syria?

          //Well, if the injustice is, for example, that a public school in a non-Muslim nation refuses to make provisions for Islamic observances of its Muslim students (halal meals, prayer facilities, non-Muslim prayers at the start of the day), what is your recommended response? Or, if the non-Muslim nation uses its military to locate and attack Muslim groups it suspects have committed acts of terror against its citizens, either at home or abroad, what is your recommended action?//

          - The public school issue; it depends on the size of the Muslim community at the school among other things. If for example, 96% of the students are Muslims, it is rather silly providing non-halál food as it is not a profitable operation. If however, 1 student out of 1200 are Muslims, the Muslim can cater for himself/herself.

          - With regards to prayer facilities: all a student needs is an empty classroom for about 5-10 minutes. I don’t see what the issue is here. I wasn’t practicing Islám at school though but at university, I’d ensure that the classroom was empty and no one would use it. There is no need to raise any issue as I was the only one. If the classroom was occupied, I’d find another empty one. As I said, 5 minutes doesn’t harm anyone

          //I asked you about Muslims forcing non-Muslims to live under Islamic rule, and you reply with some gobbledigook about diversity? Really? I wasn’t asking about diversity. I was asking about the historic practice of Muslims arriving in a new part of dar el-harb and forcing Islamic rule on the inhabitants. //

          How could one force Islám onto a bunch of people whilst simultaneously having religious diversity? That is a contradiction in terms!

          //That’s what really happened to them. The small numbers that managed to survive as dhimmis were forced to flee in 1948, when Muslim anger at the rebirth of Israel made conditions for them very dangerous. So much for that wonderful Muslim diversity!//

          - If you think being 1/3 of North Africa is a small proportion of the population, then I am speechless. If the UK was 1/3 Muslim, non-Muslims would not be saying they’re a very significant minority!

          - The numbers are small because the population is short: look at how big Libya is and the population is 6million!

          - Once again, it is Arabism and Zionism which are two branches of Nationalism/Patriotism: Patriotism in particular is one of the dumbest religions in the world and is a mental stopper towards civilisation

          //So we may differ on the interpretation of these events. In any case, rightly or wrongly, that model has been held up by Muslim leaders throughout history as the basis for violating treaties wherever it might benefit the uma.//

          The treaty was not violated by the Muslims. Of course, you seem not to be able to handle this fact.

          //I would need some ststistic or study that supports your contention that most Muslims agree with you. But even if there is such supporting material, Muslims like you are not in charge, and the world must deal with those in charge. Your sentiments may be lovely, but insignificant compared to the sentiments of the Iranian Mullahs or leaders of the Ikhwan.//

          - Well, the ikhwán are US puppets and this is seen by their support of IMF loan which Morsi tried for Egypt. Moreover, instead of helping Gaza, he cut them off.
          - Iranians are mainly Shia, which comprise a total of 15-20% of total Muslim population. Thus their influence is limited. However, among the actual Islámic practices they have carried out, their trade of oil for gold with India is against global trade rules, created by the oppressive Bretton-Woods system that relied on the dollar

          //Al Jazeera might be owned by what you call American puppets, but they regularly broadcast information that is clearly a distortion of the truth, and clearly anti-Western.

          From what I know of it, which isn’t much, Fox is as close to being a neutral network as any. They tend to invite voices all over the political spectrum to their programs.//

          - So Al Jazeera distorts truth but Fox is close to neutral?

          - Fox is to news what McDonalds is to food. With regards to the “political spectrum”, they get two political extremists to debate off and call it unbiased. An example would be Sean Hannity (a total republican retard) debating Anjem Choudhry (a supposed-Muslim leader with extreme views)

          - Speaking on the above subject, how is it that someone who is as vile as Anjem Choudhry is somehow representative of the Muslim community, and yet does not get arrested in the USA? Yet scores of Muslims without trial or charge are locked up in Guantanamo? Clearly, this Choudhry guy is an agent provocateur; I’ll be surprised if his beard is genuinely real too. I see a pattern with people like Choudhry and Al CIAda recruits: check out Craig Monteilh of ex-FBI and Morten Storm to connect the dots

          //Islam in Saudi Arabia? The treaty between the Wahabbis and the House of Saud predates British involvement in the region, and is still in force. It is why only Wahabbi Islam is recognized as a religion in the kingdom, and why the Saudis finance Wahabbi outreach all over the world.//

          - Who paid the Saud? Who promised them gold? Who led the campaign to oust the Islámic Caliphate?
          - Wahhabism is the political system polluting Arabia. The reason they want their version of Islám to spread is because it removes Islámic thought from the process of understanding the Qurán in lieu of Muhammad’s life (pbuh). It sells Islám as a spiritual sanctuary exclusively. Wahhabism teaches that the length of your beard is more sacred than human life. Wahhabism teaches that receiving bribes from non-Muslims is jizyah (which is impossible because the British and US authorities do not live in Arabia). The House of Saud want to please their masters in Washington D.C. and Wall Street so this is how they do so

          //Okay, how would you feel about Christians collecting a special tax on Muslims only in a Christian nation?//

          I wouldn’t mind because if I live in a Christian country and want the rights of education, abode, jobs etc. I have to pay taxes. I understand that because I am a non-Christian, the rules might be different for me because the Christians would use the Bible for their source of practice. The other question would be regarding how they tax: if they did so via consultation of an Islamic authority, I wouldn’t complain to the Christian leadership.

        3. Phillip Slepian

          Of course you will tell me these aren’t real Muslims, but it’s no April Fool’s joke to the victims:

          http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4252/slaughtering-christians

          I acknowledge the inconsistancies in U.S. foreign policy, which under Obama, is a train wreck. I didn’t vote for him either time.

          I disagree with your take on the school. Since taxpayers fund public schools, the schools in a free society must not show preference to any one religious group. Like the public schools in Brooklyn 60 years ago, most students might have wanted kosher food, but they brown-bagged it because the idea that a public school would conform to a national minority’s needs (even if in that school they were a majority), was unthinkable. It’s the old argument of assimilation vs. integration. Profits have less to do with this than principles. A school can’t embrace Muslim practices and provide space for them without endorsing Islam. And that is not the place of a public school in a Christian nation, regardless of the make-up of one particular school’s student body.

          Religious diversity is not the same as religious equality. I think you agree that Islam teaches the superiority, rather than the equality, of Islam over other religions. And while most faiths stress that their way of belief is superior to others, only Islam has laws that apply to non-adherants, and these laws are designed specifically to highlight the superiority of Islam and the inferiority of other faiths. I find it self-incriminating that Islam would need such laws when other faiths don’t.

          1/3 is small, considering the vast majority of North Africans were Berbers prior to the arrival of Muslim invaders. I would call a 2/3 reduction in the number of native Berbers a serious indictment of Islamic religious tolerance. The Berbers, however many of them there were, fled to the mountains to survive. They had previously been coastal dwellers, but fled to escape those “tolerant” Muslim invaders.

          Arabism is based on a common local heritage of the people of Arabia. Beyond the Arabian peninsula, it makes no sense to me either. However, much of Islamic culture preserves pre-Mohammed era Arab culture. As for patriotism and Zionism, I believe I have made my point already that the Jewish nation, which was a nation long before it was a religion, is bound up entirely with the Land of Israel, and the two are inseperable. Moreover, neither Zionism nor Judaism has much meaning without the other. That is simply the belief of the Jews.. I don’t understand why you feel thet the Jews, or any people, do not have the right to self-determine their faith and national interests, especially where they are indigenous people.

          As I pointed out regarding Hubadiyya, there is a legitimate doubt as to whether the attack on the Khuza’a constituted a breach of the treaty or not. It is unclear whether the Khuza’a were a known ally of Mohammed’s, or if they were claimed as an ally after the fact, providing a convenient way for Mohammed to violate the treaty. As I said, we see this issue differently, since, as a non-Muslim, I do not accept the koran as a divine, flawless revelation. Like most religions (Judaism being a notable exception), Islamic holy writ attests completely to the perfection of the messenger(s) of God. For the non-Muslim, there is no reason to accept this as a matter of faith.

          Again, U.S. puppets (which I think is not the case) or not, the Ikhwan have influence over vast numbers of Muslims, and claim to represent Islam to the American Government, through their subsidieries such as CAIR. As for the Shia, 50 million shi’ites with a nuclear arsenal wields more power and a bigger threat than 1.2 billion Muslims without such weapons, and without a unified, organized military. Like I said, non-Muslims must deal with the actual threats that they face, not some theological ideal. Another great example is the Nation of Islam. Having studied their beliefs, even I can admit that their religion has little to do with Islam, and I understand why the Nation of Islam is criticized by Muslims of all stripes as a corruption of true Islam. Nevertheless, the Nation of Islam has attracted millions of folloers in the U.S., and many believe they represent a domestic threat to the peace and safety of Americans. So, we must address the threat they pose rather than ignoring it, because it is not a genuine form of Islam.

          Yes, Fox is closer to being fair and balanced than Al Jazeera. You won’t see Sean Hannity on Al Jazeera, but I have seen Keith Ellison on Fox numerous times. Fox has also welcomed Dr. Zuhdi Jasser. How do you feel about Dr. Jasser, JTK? Is he also an “agent provocateur”? As far as Choudry is concerned, what do expect American media outlets to do, when a Choudry-type, through his booking agent, announces that he speaks for Muslims and would like to go on the air and promote his agenda? Should Fox just ignore him? Where are the Muslim leaders who support your views? Why aren’t they asking for air time in the American media? Perhaps CAIR has successfully discredited them and made them irrelevent. Perhaps they are scared. I don’t know, but Americans are always asking why the “moderate” Muslims rarely criticize, in any meaningful or effective way, the bad actors that claim to act in the name of Islam. All they do is shout “Islamophobic racist!” at anyone who dares to expose the goals of the Ikhwan and the Iranian Mullahs.

          As for Guantanamo, are you suggesting they are the “real” Muslims? Understand that they are prisoners of war. POWs are always held, without trial, until the conclusion of hostilities, when terms for the release of POWs from all parties are negotiated. Since their acts as combatants were not criminal acts, but acts of war, this detention is fully in accord with the Geneva Conventions. Since hostilities persist, release would only return them to battle, to kill more U.S. soldiers (which has in fact happened numerous times already). What logic is there in that? Or would you prefer we just lop off their heads as Mohammed’s generals did to his POWs?

          All the points you make about the Saudis occured after the treaty with the Wahabbists. And, once again, whether you feel Wahabbi Islam is authentic or not, it is powerful, and represents scores of Muslims who are willing to take up arms against infidels. As such, the infidels have to acknowledge and deal with the the threat they pose. Just modern reality, rather than spiritual idealism.

          Nice to see you would not object to a Christian sort of jizya. However, the Christian bible includes no such provisions, so it would be difficult to justify such a tax on Christian religious grounds.

        4. JTK2012

          It’s no April Fool’s either the number of Muslims who have been murdered by the Crusaders, as well as the oppressors of the Iberian peninsula.

          With regards to your comment about “minorities”, the USA is a country full of ” minorities” making them the majority.

          //I disagree with your take on the school. Since taxpayers fund public schools, the schools in a free society must not show preference to any one religious group. Like the public schools in Brooklyn 60 years ago, most students might have wanted kosher food, but they brown-bag//

          Well, I disagree with the Brooklyn school thing as it is completely unfair. It is thus not a free society if the head of the society is forcing its own views and perspectives on a minority.

          //A school can’t embrace Muslim practices and provide space for them without endorsing Islam. And that is not the place of a public school in a Christian nation, regardless of the make-up of one particular school’s student body.//

          How does this make any sense at all? I really cannot make sense of what you have written here.

          // And while most faiths stress that their way of belief is superior to others, only Islam has laws that apply to non-adherants, and these laws are designed specifically to highlight the superiority of Islam and the inferiority of other faiths. I find it self-incriminating that Islam would need such laws when other faiths don’t.//

          - This actually shows how great Islám is; it is the only system in the world that acknowledges there will be people who will not be Muslims and that it doesn’t simply preach coexistence but speaks about it operationally

          - Secondly, Islám does not have a “set of laws that apply to non-adherents” as these laws are taken from the books of the non-adherents! The only extra thing is jizyah, which I have proven is absolutely fair

          //1/3 is small, considering the vast majority of North Africans were Berbers prior to the arrival of Muslim invaders. I would call a 2/3 reduction in the number of native Berbers a serious indictment of Islamic religious tolerance. The Berbers, however many of them there were, fled to the mountains to survive. They had previously been coastal dwellers, but fled to escape those “tolerant” Muslim invaders.//

          - 1/3 is significant considering Jewish were never the majority in North Africa due to Christian persecution in the Medieval period and then the subsequent fleeing reconquistas from Iberia led them to other MENA nations, as well as others in Europe

          - 2/3 is not a reduction in Native Berbers: how the hell did you come up with these fractions?

          - The last statement you made in the quoted paragraph is baseless conjecture

          //However, much of Islamic culture preserves pre-Mohammed era Arab culture.//

          - You have displayed a lack of knowledge about Islám here as the difference between pagan Arabism and Islám is like the difference between sky and the earth

          - Islám is a way of life, not a culture

          //As I pointed out regarding Hubadiyya, there is a legitimate doubt as to whether the attack on the Khuza’a constituted a breach of the treaty or not.//

          Is this not just way of trying to demonise Muhammad (PBUH)? This “doubt” is your excuse for hatred against Islám and its espoused adherents

          - Having never been to the North American continent, I cannot speak about Nation of Islám as their influence is practically zero in Europe. I couldn’t tell you a single modern member and most Muslim other than the former Malcolm X couldn’t tell you whether or not they exist

          - What is wrong with Shia having nuclear? I do not see it as a threat to humanity. Remember the 3 fingers pointing back at you regarding Hiroshima, Nagasaki (which I bet you will tell me was necessary, as was the internment camps for Japanese in the USA, 1942 with subsequent discrimination and torture). What about the unregistered number of Israel’s weapons? Let’s be honest, Israel is the lapdog of USA and is one the biggest threats to world justice. It’s constant building of settlements and displacing, torturing and imprisonment of Palestinian children is just cruel and the international community accepts it. However, the moment a Muslim speaks out against Israel, they are branded with demonic labels.

          //As far as Choudry is concerned, what do expect American media outlets to do, when a Choudry-type, through his booking agent, announces that he speaks for Muslims and would like to go on the air and promote his agenda? Should Fox just ignore him? Where are the Muslim leaders who support your views? Why aren’t they asking for air time in the American media? Perhaps CAIR has successfully discredited them and made them irrelevent. Perhaps they are scared. I don’t know, but Americans are always asking why the “moderate” Muslims rarely criticize, in any meaningful or effective way, the bad actors that claim to act in the name of Islam. All they do is shout “Islamophobic racist!” at anyone who dares to expose the goals of the Ikhwan and the Iranian Mullahs.//

          - Yes, Fox should ignore him because doing basic research will show his voice is insignificant

          - The Muslim leaders who support my views (as if my views are significant) are ubiquitous. However, being caressed by the media and shown fake news has polluted your eyes

          - If the Muslims haven’t heard of Choudry, how the hell would CAIR now? CAIR would only know of him because of the media. The only reason Muslims know him is because of the media as THEY have given him a platform

          - You have no legitimate proof or evidence that the Ikhwán (despite them being your government’s bed buddies) and Iranian Mullahs are a threat

          - The media is not interested in the voice of Islám and Muslims and rarely brings on genuine speakers

          - Where is your condemnation of Vietnam, Cambodia, Panama, Serbia, Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Korea, Japan etc. ?

          //POWs are always held, without trial, until the conclusion of hostilities, when terms for the release of POWs from all parties are negotiated. Since their acts as combatants were not criminal acts, but acts of war, this detention is fully in accord with the Geneva Conventions.//

          It is not a war that is happening on these fields; it is acts of terrorism committed by your taxpayers dollars. The fact that you call those who act in self-defence to invasion as POWs just shows to the world how mentally low you are. You are not interested in world peace and justice, you have no sympathy for Muslims tortured, raped, murdered in Abu Ghraib, Bagram or Guantanamo. In fact, you enjoy it probably with popcorn in one hand and a hot dog in the other. You should be ashamed to call yourself a human as you are the enemy of humanity.

          //All the points you make about the Saudis occured after the treaty with the Wahabbists. And, once again, whether you feel Wahabbi Islam is authentic or not, it is powerful, and represents scores of Muslims who are willing to take up arms against infidels. As such, the infidels have to acknowledge and deal with the the threat they pose. Just modern reality, rather than spiritual idealism.//

          - What about the bribes etc. that happened BEFORE there were any treaties?

          - If you do not like wahhabism, stop supporting the Saudis for God’s sake!

        5. Phillip Slepian

          As I have previously noted, there would have been exactly zero Muslims killed by Crusaders had the Muslims left the Christian pilgrims unmolested to visit their holy sites.

          The U.S. is over 70% Christian by religious affiliation. I was talking about religious minorities, not racial ones.

          There is nothing unfair about not catering to every religious need in the public school system. Nobody is forcing non-kosher or non-Halal food down anyone’s throats. And, in America, the solution is parochial schooling, not strong-arming puublic schools into becoming religiously compliant on the basis of political correctness.

          What’s not to make sense of? America is largely a Christian nation. The public schools in a Christian nation should reflect Christian values, as do the laws and culture of the United States.

          It shows how great Islam is that it needs laws to subjugate and subdue non-adherents, when other religions do not need such laws? Judaism speaks extensively about relationships with gentiles, but it makes no demands on them. On the contrary, it describes how non-Jews can receive the reward of Heaven without converting. Is there a parallel in Islam or Christianity to that?

          No Islamic laws for non-Muslims? Perhaps in a doctrinal sense, but in a practical sense, the whole implimentation of dhimmi rules and apartheid in states that call themselves Islamic means that, in a practical sense, there are many, many restrictions placed on non-Muslims according to some interpretations of Islamic law. You have claimed the jizya is fair. As a non-Muslim, I disagree.

          I am unaware of any major Christian presense in North Africa (away from Egypt) prior to the Islamic conquests. The Jews established communities in these areas, largely after the Spanish inquisition. My 1/3 vs. 2/3 numbers came from your post claiming that since 1/3 of the North Africans remained non-Muslim, that this was an example of Islamic tolerance. My point was, that if if Islam was so tolerant, why did the Berber population largely dissappear from the coastal region? It is true that Berbers ended up in the mountains south of the coastal areas, and that has historical support. Refer to Bernard Lewis.

          You are wrong about Arab culture. Much of it is preserved in Islam, such as the custom of replacing the holy places of conquered people with Islamic holy places. That custom predates Mohammed.

          I am not trying to demonize Mohammed. His actions define who he was, as far as I am concerned. Since I reject his status as Messenger andf Prophet, there is little left other than a war lord who sought the conquest and subjugation of the entire world. Empire and power. Exactly the things you criticize the U.S. for desiring. Do I hate people that want to wipe out my country and turn it into something completely different than it was created to be? Sure. As much as you hate those who you perceive to be enemies of true Islam. Hatred is a natural human emotion, and it has its uses and place.

          You can google Nation of Islam. I am sure you will find it inauthentic, and I would agree with you.

          When the same Mullahs who wish to export the revolution and destroy the Great and Little Satans have a nuclear weapons program, that’s a problem for the rest of the world. When smaller, non-aggressive nations want them purely as a defensive deterent, that’s something else. If the U.S. was not unilaterally disarming, it could provide a nuclear umbrella over the Western world that would eliminate the need for allies to acquire these weapons. But as it is, more and more Western allies are realizing that they need to build their own nuclear weapons as the U.S. shrinks its arsenal. I have no issue with the use of nukes in WWII. Japan had trained its women and children to attack any allied forces that landed on the mainland. They were told to fight to the last man, woman or child. The use of the nukes on Japan probably saved many thousands of lives, both American and Japanese. Israel, a small nation surrounded by hostile neighbors needs a nuclear deterent. It has not once ever threatened to use their nukes for a first strike. The settlements, as you call them, are completely legal under international law. And again, your definition of justice, and my definition of justice are altogether different. I see the return of Israel’s indigenous people to the Land of Israel as genuine justice. No doubt you, and millions of Muslims, disagree. And that is why Israel must have massive deterrent capabilities, for survival. You are buying into Palestinian propaganda again. Israel does not torture Arab children. But it will arrest them if they try to harm Israelis. Again, survival instincts, JTK. I have no problem with criticism of Israeli political policies. But once you deny the national rights of Jews in their ancestral homeland, what is there to talk about? How would you react if someone told you that Mecca belongs to some newly fabricated non-Arab people with little if any history there? Same thing, JTK.

          You cannot blame U.S. media for placing those who claim to represent American Muslims on the air. There are no alternatives, and viewers demand to hear what Muslims in their own words have to say to America. Where are the leaders you speak of? What are the names of their organizations? Have they ever tried to get exposure in the U.S. media?

          I have 100% proof of the plans and goals of the Ikhwan. It is from the trial of the Blind Sheik for the 1993 Trade Center bombing, in which court documents found by leaders of the Ikhwan in America laid out the specific plans and goals of destroying the American Republic, and replacing it with an Islamic Republic. No better proof is possible or needed.

          If CAIR thought Choudry did not represent Islam, I am sure they would have said so. Their silence is evidence of agreement. CAIR is the U.S. arm of the Ikhwan.

          I would suggest that it is groups like CAIR that make sure no voices of Islam other than its own get heard.

          I do not condemn Vietnam, Cambodia, etc., as an American, I believe all of these examples were examples of protecting U.S. interests and allies against real threats. That is the main responsibility of government, to protect interests and allies. Sorry if that is a problem for the spread of Islam.

          Two opposing forces shooting at each other sounds like war to me, and that means prisoners captured are indeed POWs. You can reject the Geneva Conventions, as many do, but they are the only set of war rules ever adapted internationally. And again, you need to stop buying into the Muslim propaganda about Abu Ghraib or Gitmo. As you can see, any time any prisoner is mistreated, the U.S. prison staff is investigated and punished. I don’t think the treatment of captured Americans has been a shining example of Muslim mercy, JTK.

          I am proud to be human, and proud to support truth, justice, and the American way! I would think that you have much more to be ashamed of as a Muslim than I do as an American.

          Before the treaties? I don’t know, and I don’t care. What matters to me today is the actions of the Wahhabists as they impact my country and American allies. Studying history is fine, but our actions must be based on current realities.

          Trust me, I don’t make U.S. policy, and I would never support the Saudis if I did. As I said, I didn’t vote for Obama. And even so, the Saudis don’t seem to think much of American support these days.

  4. Phillip Slepian

    I suppose it is comforting to Ramy to know that “people like” me are on the decline. I guess that means people who resist political jihad. Ramy might be right about that, but it doesn’t mean we will go down without a fight. As for the “medicine”, I am fine with a nice single malt, so I don’t need the alchohol alternatives that Muslims must rely on.

    1. JTK2012

      What political “jihad” are you on about?

      Last time I checked, the Islamic rulership hasn’t existed since 1923 officially, the Muslim lands have despotic regimes supported by western governments and they have a choice between Israeli-American puppet A;B;C or Russian puppet D.

      Your kind of people Mr Slepian are responsible for causing damage; you oppress people wherever you go. Look at Vietnam, Chile, Panama, Indonesia, Cambodia etc. with your economic hitmen.

      Last time I checked, the Muslim world was not responsible for creating a global economic enslavement, causing political leaders to be powerless only to serve to Uncle Sam’s military industrial complex, supported by banks and bigshot corporations.

      This is about more than Muslims and Islam; it is about global justice.

      1. Phillip Slepian

        JTK2012: Political jihad is outlined very clearly in Andrew McCarthy’s excellent book “The Grand Jihad”. Read it if you wish to understand what I am referring to by the term “political jihad”. Your lies will be left unchallenged, JTK2012, at least not by me.

        You can try to make the USA out to be the Great Saten if you wish, but liberty-minded folks like myself, who do not cower in fear of being labelled an Islamophobe have complete confidence that Islamic jihad, and not the USA, is the threat to liberty and freedom throughout the world. Is the USA perfect? Of course not. No nation is. But your acceptance of wild conspiracy theories and evil corporations that enslave people is ridiculous and completely unfounded. There is no evidence for any of that, only speculation and accusations, made to make America look bad relative to the Uma. That fails because, as the above referenced book clearly shows, there is clear evidence of global jihad, not just conspiracy theories and conjecture. On the opther hand, if America had not rid the world of evil numerous times in the past 200 years, the world would be a much less free place today. Perhaps that would suit you, JTK2012, but there are billions of infidels that would rather die than submit.

        Besides, although I doubt this web site’s true agenda is pro-USA and pro-constitution, it claims to be so. Shouldn’t you be arguing that the web site contributors should be fighting against the USA and its constitution, since you seem to feel it is responsible for every evil in the world?

        1. JTK2012

          Why would I want to read nonsense from Andrew McCarthy when I can read the source of Islam?

          Furthermore, there is no political jihad as Muslims are currently the most devoid group of people of ANY power. How many banks, military complexes and bases to the Muslims own?

          //Besides, although I doubt this web site’s true agenda is pro-USA and pro-constitution, it claims to be so. Shouldn’t you be arguing that the web site contributors should be fighting against the USA and its constitution, since you seem to feel it is responsible for every evil in the world?//

          You read McCarthy’s nonsense but not what I read?! How can you make such a retarded inference about my views. How about actually asking before making yourself look like a complete buffoon?

          It is not just the USA which is complicit in the Satanic workings of the world but others too: the anti-Christ system of banking has many hands in Germany, UK and other parts of the world too!

          How is it a lie that corporations enslave?! Give me just ONE corporation who is not enslaving the planet through unjust employment, reduced employee freedom, credit=debt financials and not even paying corporation tax, as well as dictating politics without any form of democratic leanings.

          Essentially, USA like most countries on planet Earth have a system either pure dictatorship or meaningless democracy, where you vote for many candidates, neither of whom can make a sodding difference.

          You have no proof or evidence that Islam is a threat to world peace but I have a wealth of proof and evidence that people like you who hide behind screaming “liberty”, “freedom” and “democracy” whilst supporting the bombing, raiding and pillaging of other peoples homes for resources ARE a threat to JUSTICE AND PEACE.

        2. Phillip Slepian

          JTK2012: Having power or lacking it does not change the fact that Jihad, in all of its many forms, is endorsed by the Muslim Brotherhood, the Iranian Mullahs, and the Salafis. Whether by terror, stealth, demographics, politics, legal challenges, or the acquisition of WMDs, the leaders of jihadist organizations and nations are doing all they can to remedy that power shortage you feel invalidates all concerns the West might have about jihad. McCarthy, a former Federal Prosecuter, has the documentation from the jihadists themselves that proves that the jihadist threat against America is ongoing and real, albeit long range and gradual.

          I see you are in the early stages of decending into ad hominem attacks, as every other Muslim or liberal I have ever engaged ends up doing when they are unable to debate on facts alone. How do you know what I have and have not read? I bet I know more about Islam than you know about economics, but I am only guessing because I cannot know what you have and have not read, even if you claim to have such info about me. It does seem, though, from your comments, that you might have read The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. That book was a forgery, in case you were unaware. Belief and faith cannot be proven or disproven, JTK, but reality is reality, facts are facts, and I stick to those, not conspiracy theories about anti-Christs and Satans.

          And there you go again with the Social Justice nonesence. You do realize that the term social justice is just a nice way of saying communism, right? From each according to his abilities (that’s real slavery) and to each according to his needs. It is perhaps the largest form of injustice ever. In most places, people are free to choose not to work if they dislike the wages or conditions. In those places where such choice doesn’t exist, there is no liberty, and that is hardly the fault of the USA or American corporations. But you would free these workers from their oppression, and then what? Rob from those who work in order to feed and house them?

          The USA, historically, is a great friend to nations who support freedom, liberty and justice (real justice, not “social” justice). It has also been a fierce enemy to those who support oppression, tyranny, injustice, and theft of property. Your moral compasss, if you have one at all, is horribly distorted. Why don’t you share with M4L readers what your ideal vision of social justice looks like? Where can we see an example, past or present, of such social justice? How, exactly, would it work to preserve life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

        3. JTK2012

          //Having power or lacking it does not change the fact that Jihad, in all of its many forms, is endorsed by the Muslim Brotherhood, the Iranian Mullahs, and the Salafis.//

          How can jihad be political when there is no political power in order to discuss anything, let alone jihad? Your statements are meaningless and empty of any ground.

          //I see you are in the early stages of decending into ad hominem attacks, as every other Muslim or liberal I have ever engaged ends up doing when they are unable to debate on facts alone. //

          Name one fact you have brought along to this discussion. So far, you have vomited up conjectures without any basis in reality whatsoever. I can’t find a single statement you have written which is a fact.

          //It does seem, though, from your comments, that you might have read The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.//

          No I have not.

          //Belief and faith cannot be proven or disproven, JTK, but reality is reality, facts are facts, and I stick to those, not conspiracy theories about anti-Christs and Satans.//

          I can see already you are against the use of logic to justify faith. Amusingly, you claim not to stick to conspiracy theories which is just cute, considering the rest of your posts which deals with defecation by the likes of Spencer and Geller.

          //In those places where such choice doesn’t exist, there is no liberty, and that is hardly the fault of the USA or American corporation//

          You are in denial of economic hitmen such as formerly, John Perkins. Fact is, where you have your military bases, you have political arm and you wave your prick unashamedly in order to enslave people by ensuring the government is in debt to the federal reserve always, and then paying the debt back with interest by removing slowly but surely the liberties of the people.

          // But you would free these workers from their oppression, and then what? Rob from those who work in order to feed and house them?//

          You Americans have an Orwellian definition of freedom it seems. Moreover, your disgraceful capitalism has lead to nothing but an increase in debt, gentrification inter alia. Just look at how the USA’s GINI coefficient has increased over the years.

          //The USA, historically, is a great friend to nations who support freedom, liberty and justice (real justice, not “social” justice). It has also been a fierce enemy to those who support oppression, tyranny, injustice, and theft of property. Your moral compasss, if you have one at all, is horribly distorted. Why don’t you share with M4L readers what your ideal vision of social justice looks like? Where can we see an example, past or present, of such social justice? How, exactly, would it work to preserve life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?//

          Friend is a very strong word; I think a bully in a playground people have to play nice to otherwise they’d get kicked is a more realistic description. Tell me ONE tyrannous regime the US was not friends with, except that the rulers no longer complied to US demands (such as Saddam who wanted to have a gold backed economy and this displeased the US).

          With all due respect, you look like the stereotypical American clown who reads Fox News (who claim Jesus was a white man, peace be upon him) and coming from Northern Europe, you do Americans a great disservice to their public image. Your ignorance is so amazing that I have new stand-up comedy material.

          You claim we come out with ad hominems and that you use facts; you have not mentioned a single fact so far, so how am I to take you seriously, except with ad hominems?

        4. Phillip Slepian

          I am talking about Islamic docrtrine, not necessarily what jihadists are capable of achieving at this minute, JTK. They are not meaningless at all. Ask the families of those who died on 9/11 (or the thousands of similar families all over the world) if it is meaningless to them. And I doubt the Mullahs call to “export the Islamic revolution” will be meaningless once they acquire nuclear weapons. Political power? Polticial power means little when it is extinguished with violence. But yes, the Muslim Brotherhood has used politics to advance its jihad in many places, and continues to do so in America and elsewhere. Simply because America is not yet an Islamic Republic is no reason to dismiss the long-range plans of some Muslims to make it one.

          I have brought in many facts. Evidence in the Blind Sheik trial may not be evidence for you, but it is for most people. Heck, even many Leftists and Muslims point to the efforts of those involved in the 1993 attack with pride, rather than denial. These are documents produced by Muslims in the Muslim Brotherhood, not “vomitted up conjecture”. Does my conjecture include the koranic passages I have read or that were quoted in evidential court documents? Careful, you might be end up with a fatwa on your neck, JTK!

          You may not have read “The Protocols”, but you sound like someone who has. You buy willingly into all kinds of conspiracy theories of evil Zionists and corporate Satans, but refuse to acknowledge that to a non-Muslim who is informed and educated, Islam is the genuine historical and present danger to non-Muslim freedoms.

          The funny part is, you cannot produce one document authored by “anti-Christs, Zionists, and capitalists” that admits to the evil intent you ascribe to them. I, on the other hand, can point to myriad documents and holy writ from Islam and Muslims, plus plenty of YouTube videos, that have, in their own words, called for the jihad that I have described. I don’t have to “vomit out conjectures”, JTK, the Muslim leaders past and present do all the work for me. I just read and retain. Spencer and Gellar, and many others who are alert to the jihadi threat, do much the same, thankfully, albeit with varying degrees of tact and professionalism. I understand your need to refer to their work as “defication”, since they do not help the jihadi efforts at Dawa and taqqiya very much. But I doubt that dismissive labels will be much help to your cause, either, JTK.

          Nearly all the foreign bases the US maintains are desired by the host nations. Those that are not are there because the threat to US security remains. This is not the 19th century, JTK. The U.S., because it is free and prosperous, cannot wait for the enemy’s tall ships to sail into the harbor, and then let fly the cannons. Projection of power in the age of the ICBM is absolutely necessary. Also, most of those bases, like NATO, allow the host nations to avoid spending massively on defense, and so improves the living standards of their citizens. Just for the record, I am no fan of the Fed or out-of-control taxation and debt. But, again, I never claimed America was perfect, although it is less imperfect than most other nations. At least if a US official stole millions of taxpayer dollars they would likely be put on trial, unlike many Muslim kleptocracies. I don’t see the oil wealth of the Arabs enriching many average Muslims, or the oil wealth of Venezuela enriching many Venezuelans, JTK.

          “Gentrification” is a pure expression of free market capitalism. And residents and merchants in gentrified areas usually benefit greatly from it, as do the property owners. Some will find that their income is insuffiecient for living in a gentrified area. They are free to move to less expensive areas, or, wow – they can save their money, buy a home, and enjoy rising property values if their neighborhood is gentrified. Better than watching your block descend into a crime-ridden, unemployment-filled nightmare. There is nothing Orwellian about person responsibility, self-reliance, hard work, and free markets. Just the opposite. Only in Orwell’s world could the 20% of earners that pay 80% of the total taxes be told that they were not paying their “fair” share, or that the “Affordable Care Act” would prove neither affordable nor capable of providing good care.

          And the GINI has increased mostly because of the entitlement programs of the Left. But in any case, where in the constitution does it say that everyone will have equal income? Should those who prepared for a successful career and worked hard be limited to the same subsistance wages of those who goofed off in school and put forth little or no effort to earn? Again, that’s not America. An Orwellian Soviet Union, perhaps, but not America. I bet even the moderators of M4L will have issues with your Marxist views on income and personal responsibility.

          The super-power nations, be it America, Great Britten, the Ottoman Turks, the Byzantines, the Romans or the Ummayads will always be viewed as “buillies”. That is the way of the world, and there are both good and bad aspects to being a super-power. But look at the list I just typed. Of all of them, only America conquered and left, without staying to rule and tax. If you want to see what a world will look like when a super-power withdraws unilaterally, stay-tuned. Thanks to voices like yours, America is doing that right now. Russian, Iranian and Chinese aggression are only the beginnings. It’s going to get ugly, and American projection of power could have prevented most of that ugliness. And Saddam attacked his neighbors (good Muslims, many of them), who asked for our help. We helped them repel the invaders, and when Saddam repeatedly violated the terms of his surrender, he was removed from his office. Judging by his treatment at the hands of Iraqis after the wars, I don’t think many Iraqis were too bothered by America’s “bullying”. And Saddam gets no pass after welcoming AQ jihadists and allowing them to train in Iraq. As Bush said, “you’re either with us. or with the terrorists”. (I know, to you they are “freedom fighters”. I don’t care. To me, and to most Americans, they are enemy combatants).

          As for our friendships with unsavory leaders, sometimes the devil you know is your best friend. Saudi Arabia, proud sponsors of Salafi jihadists, is no friend to America. But we did need the oil, and at least the Saudi rulers were not overt in their jihadist support. Plus, they were a bulwark against the Muslim Brotherhood, which the US largely opposed prior to the current administration.

          Now you’re putting ideas in my head and words in my mouth. I do watch Fox and read plenty of news sources that you dismiss. I also dismiss the MSM that you rely on for pro-Muslim, pro-Marxist, anti-Capitalist news and views. The difference is that I welcome a diversity of thought and belief, whether I agree or not. But I get steamed when either the Left (“Fairness Doctrine”) or the Muslims (CAIR, “Islamophobia”) try to shut me up. I am not trying to shut them, or you, up. I ask for the same courtesy in return. But, as I see it, the weakness of the arguments made by both honest Muslims and Leftists leads them to work to silence the opposition, rather than debate them. And for your willingness to engage, and to refrain until now from ad hominem atacks, I thank you and commend you, JTK. So, am I sterotypical American? Perhaps. And I don’t take that as an insult, since I see that as being one who seeks the truth, values the rights endowed to us by our Creator, and believes in the justice of the American way and the constitution. It also means I value the freedoms we have to express ourselves without regard to whom we might offend, and to read the freely expressed thoughts of others who interest us.

          Do I care at all if Jesus was white or not? No. Because I care about the content of one’s character, not the color of one’s skin. It is the Leftists who obsess on race and race baiting in today’s world (along with the Muslim Janjiweed). Our white sheets are for our mattresses, JTK. It is 2014, not 1954. Please do not put us on trial for what our ancestors might have or might have not done.

          Well, I see you are indeed headed towards ad hominem attacks, JTK, by calling me ignorant. That’s sad and useless. If you can’t see a good chess move, please don’t turn the board over.

          Again, I have mentioned and referred to many facts. If you won’t read McCarthy’s book, or are not familiar with my references to Islamic holy writ, I am not going to type them out here for you. That’s just silly. Look them up and see them yourself, as I have. What you seem to be really upset by is that I have a different world-view and set of values than you do. I hope I have clarified some of my beliefs, as you have yours, but please know that your efforts to change my mind about my very sincerely held beliefs will not be successful. I don’t expect to change your mind either, but I do feel compelled to point out the faults in many of the accusations and assumptions you have made. Sorry if that bothers you, JTK.

        5. JTK2012

          Firstly, there are many non-Muslims who accept history as opposed to your dressings of nonsense. You label them as hippies, liberals and other ridiculous labels just to demonise them in your war of illogical argumentation.

          //This may come as a surprise, but millions of forced conversions and executions of those who refused to submit did not lead the world to see Islam as the liberator faithful Muslims believe it is. And if you expect me to believe that the Berber abd Spanish properties were “returned” to rightful Muslim owners who had never set foot outside of the Arabian peninsula until their conquests, then you underestimate my intelligence. //

          How can you force someone to convert to Islam when the Quran in Surah 18, among other places clearly mentions forced conversions do not exist? You can’t force someone to believe things they do not actually believe.

          Moreover, the Jewish and Christians such as Governor of Cueta Julian WERE given their properties and rights back. In fact, the whole reconquista happened because Muslims stopped following Islam and Christian extremists kicked out Muslim kings using other Muslim armies, as well as Jews fleeing to north Africa.

          //I stand by my statements: Native Americans did get a pretty raw deal, but it’s not like they welcomed the Europeans with open arms. The Native Americans slaughtered many whites, and the vast majority of Native Americans that died did so as a result of disease, not death at the hands of the European settlers. //

          You truly are brainwashed and inhumane if you think Native Americans died just because of disease; why should they have given Europeans “open arms” when the Europeans were killing them off?

          //There is plenty wrong with being a dhimmi. First and mainly: I do not wish to be one. As it is my basic human right to self-determination, you Muslims do not get to define what religious belief system I have to live under. I believe in civil equality before the law. By definition, dhimmi status is unequal, the taxes are unequal, and the treatment before the law is unequal. By paying the jizyah (not to mention many other rules), a dhimmi is indeed forced to follow sharia. That’s fine in an Islamic republic, but not outside of one.//

          - If you do not want to be a citizen of the Islamic State then there is no compulsion.
          - You contradict yourself; on one hand, you are dhimmi paying jizyah clearly showing you are a non-Muslim. The whole point of jizyah is that you can live under protection of the Islamic State and yet, follow your own respective religion
          - Of course the laws are unequal; why should a Christian who follows Christianity be judged under Islamic system? It is unfair on the Christians living who want to follow Christianity, to have Islam forced upon them when they do not believe it!

          //The parrallel you try to draw between dhimmis and Native Americans fails completely. //

          What parallel? There was no parallel drawn. Try reading for two minutes.

          //and do exist all over the world). Their interment was temporary and humane. The examples you give of external involvement in foreign nations fails because of the much larger body of Muslim violence throughout the globe against non-Muslims – India, Africa, Thailand, Lebanon, Egypt, Israel, The Philipines, and numerous other Islamic Jihad fronts are bloody battlegrounds littered with dead non-Muslims who dared to reject the “freedoms” that sharia law threatened to oppress them with.//

          Read the news; you will see these Muslims are among the most oppressed people on Earth because of continual oppression through domestic policies forced through by Uncle Sam. Then again, you’d be glad to see me in a concentration camp, or may be you want to destroy my home with a predator drone.

          //Sharia ruled nations? There are varying degrees, with the most pure being Iran. //

          Clearly, you know NOTHING about Islam. How can there be an Islamic State in this day and age, when the global economic system doesn’t allow an Islamic rulership, not without an invasion and military coups. The International Monetary Fund and the Zionist arm called the United Nations makes sure the world is continued into economic slavery, an economic system that not a single country can call itself Islamic can follow this.

          Do you really think the World Bank, IMF, UN and the Federal Reserve would fund an Islamic Country?

          //I am being serious. As a non-Muslim, I don’t consider sharia to be a form of liberty or freedom, for Muslims or for non-Muslims. As a student of history, I know what happens when jihadists invade and loot ever more lands, demanding submission, conversion, or death. //

          - I am worried. After the jokes you have posted, you claim to be serious.
          - You can think what you want, I do not really care what you think of Shariah especially when you’ve demonstrated to show nothing except the script Zionist robots have taught you in your indoctrination hub/school

          //when 3000 dead men, women and children who were going about their business are pulverized by violent jihadists, and when the Muslim Brotherhood, like the communists before them, infiltrate every part of our power structure in order to subvert it and destroy it by its own hands. And I take it seriously when well-meaning Muslims like yourself try using Dawa to convince me that what I really want is to submit. I don’t, and never will. It is taqqiya for a Muslim to tell me I have nothing to worry about, and I will not be bullied or fooled into silence. And there are billions like me.//

          - What about the other thousands of people dying every day funded by invasion of natural resources which your tax dollars fund?
          - What about the drone strikes that murder people at weddings in Yemen?
          - The fact that there are “billions like” you explains why the world is so messed up; a few billion dumb cretins makes the world go wrong

          //But guess what, JTK, that was 150 years ago, and the situation was fixed. Liberty was eventually extended to all. //

          No it isn’t. Try telling those poor children in Guatemala, Bangladesh, Mexico, Vietnam, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Taiwan etc. sowing your clothes for barely a dollar a day that slavery is over and that the situation is fixed.

          Try telling those people who were cleared from prison, who are waiting many years on death row without a proper trial, that liberty has been “extended to all”. Try talking about liberty to heroes such as Bradley “Chelsea” Manning and Edward Snowden.

          //One country? How about you name for me one country the U.S. has invaded that it still rules – collects taxes, enforces U.S. laws, etc. //

          It is easier if I tell you countries it is trying to rule and so far failed; Russia, North Korea, China, Cuba and Venezuela. It’s not taxes it collects; it is “debt” money being paid off.

        6. Phillip Slepian

          JTK – I never used the term “hippies”, and rarely refer to liberals. I am a proud conservative, and don’t mind being labelled with the label of my own choice. What’s your label of choice?

          So now you are descending deeper into ad hominem attacks: I am being illogical, I am demonizing, brainwashed, inhumane, and you continue to put words into my mouth.

          As I stated previously, I do not hate Muslims. I know many are not jihadists, although common interpretations of Islam suggest that jihad is a non-negotiable obligation, so this does present a problem. Reformation? Great, if the reformists survive the fatwas. Mostly, reformist Muslims keep their heads down and their mouths shut. But again, we have to decide if we are talking Islamic doctrine, or history and reality today in the Muslim world.

          As I have pointed out here on M4L many times, the Koran is interpreted differently by different Islamic authorities past and present. The rule against compulsion is often viewed as being abbrogated by later obligations of forcing the infidel to submit. And the lack of compulsion does not apply to the requirement of dhimmis within the sharia system. The Koran does not prohibit the enforcement by force of dhimmi laws. What you have is an opinion. And you know what they say about opinions.

          Sure, the dhimmi received their property back so that they could afford the jizya. What would have happened to those dhimmi had they refused to pay the jizya? Anyway, the Muslims ruled then, so sharia law applied. The Jews and Christians lost the war. Later on, they won the war. You say it is because the Muslims behaved badly. That is purely a matter of faith. A Chrisitian might see their victory over the Moores as a sign from their God. Objectively, the Christians were later victorious because they fought harder or better.

          Again, JTK, words in my mouth. Did I say that the Native Americans died “just” because of disease? No. Please google it – more Native Americans died from disease than from settlers’ bullets. Widely accepted historical fact, JTK. The first settlers were vastly outnumbered by American Indians. Attacking them without any efforts at coexistance would not have made sense. It did not always work out, and there was the cultural/language barrier, but many settlers did indeed attempt to befriend the Natives.

          I choose not to be a dhimmi, which is my right in America. It is not my right in a Muslim state. Islam’s goal is to make all of the world an Islamic state, and all within it sharia compliant, which would make me a dhimmi. I know, America is not now an Islamic state. That was not my point, JTK. Are you really trying to tell me that nowhere in the world there are Muslims fighting, or working non-violently to change non-Muslim lands into Muslim lands, and apply sharia law there? Try Somalia for starters. Is it impossible for these efforts to be made in America? On the contrary, the Muslim Brotherhood’s own documents stress the use of American liberties and laws as a tool with which to import sharia into the USA.

          When did I suggest that I am now a jizya paying dhimmi? Perhaps in a hypothetical. I am not, and never will be, if I can help it. I don’t want the protection of the uma, JTK. I want the protection of the U.S. military under the laws of the constitution.

          If you find it so impossible to live as a Muslim in America, which was always a Christian nation, nobody is keeping you here. There are 57 Muslim states. Pick one. I am neither Christian nor Muslim. I have no issues living in a nation whose laws are informed by Christianity. In fact, because of those laws, I am free to worship (or not to) as I see fit. What I value in America is that there is a non-denominational legal system that applies to all citizens, regardless of their religious affiliation. I desire to keep it that way. If two members of the same faith wish to have a case adjudicated by a religious court, fine. But I retain the right to reject the authority of any religious court, because of the non-establishment clause.

          Muslims oppressed? Eh. Yes, the Muslims have leaders, mostly Muslims, who are oppressive. Whose problem is that? Americans also were oppressed by their own leader. They revolted and were successful. I simply disagree with you that Muslims are oppressed in Muslim lands because of America. And I doubt that if America withdrew from the world that Muslims would suddenly enjoy genuine freedom and liberty. And I reach those conclusions because I read the news.

          Again with the words in my mouth: Did I say I wanted you in a “concentration camp”? Is being the victim all you have to offer? If you break no laws, then I do not wish to see you incarcerated. If you break the law, you should be punished according to the law (and not sharia – unless you live in a sharia state). Where did I say I want your home destroyed? Are you an enemy combatant, hiding in a residential structure? Well, in that case, yes, you are a target. Otherwise, I have no harmful intentions. Why do you find it so hard to debate an issue without assuming that I would kill you because of your beliefs alone? Projection, perhaps?

          I bet the Mullahs would disagree with your statements about Iran not being an Islamic state. Why do you get to decide what state is Islamic and what is not? Perhaps if Americans had never helped the Muslims get the oil out of the ground, most Muslims would be left alone and left out of the global economy. And they would be very poor. Is that what you want, JTK? And you don’t know what I know about Islam. Nor do I know what you know, outside of what our posts have included.

          The UN is Zionist? That’s extremely funny, JTK. Nearly every comittee, resolution and conference in the UN focuses on Israel as the source for all the world’s problems, while ignoring the real issues. The UN G.A. is controlled by the OIC, its largest unified voting block.

          Economic slavery means what, JTK? If someone feels they are underpaid, and are free to quit their job, is that slavery? And the UN, Fed and IMF send billions to Muslims all over the world. I know, without a caliph and a unified uma, there is no Muslim Nation, per se. Perhaps the non-Muslim world sees the Caliphate as a threat to its existance and freedom. I know I do, so pardon the non-Muslims for pushing back against a historical threat to their lives and liberty.

          I am sorry you are worried. I am worried, too. Worried that there are people who accept your beliefs, and are determined to do the rest of us a “favor” by “gifting” us Marxism and Sharia.

          You clearly have a problem with Jews, JTK. I guess their rejection of Mohammed sticks in your craw. I just can’t understand how people with strong beliefs feel this obsessive need to force (vilolently, as opposed to peacefully) what they think is right onto others who disagree. I guess if you are told that it is what Allah wants, it makes some sense. But don’t expect anything less than the sword to be effective. Molon labe.

          What about our wars in the Middle East? Here’s where I stand: I agree that war was appropriate following 9/11. While it is difficult to attack NGOs, I see nothing wrong with attacking the states that harbor them. That was the choice of those nations’ leaders. Choices have consequences. But I agree that the wars were poorly executed. I would have destroyed the Iraqi and Afghani infrastructures and militaries, then built a base in each country. Allow the people to rebuild their states using their oil exports, not American money, and let them know that if they threatened the US or its allies again, we would respond again. I know your head might be exploding right now, but you assumed that I felt a certain way, and I needed to set the record straight. And yes, I am 100% serious. As serious as Hassan Al-Bannah was.

          Thanks for calling me a “dumb cretin”. I am not going to engage you if you continue the ad hominem attacks. It just means you are out of ideas.

          The poor kids in those countries, who are likely happy for the wages they get, are not the responibility of the U.S. government. If they are so unhappy, let them work to change their own nation’s laws.

          Again, JTK, as for our justice system, it is imperfect, but way better than most. At least we don’t hang gays from cranes. And manning and Snowden are spies. There are whistle-blower protections in the USA. They chose instead to hand classified info over to our enemies. BTW, do think Jonathan Pollard is also unjustly imprisoned?

          How, exactly, has the US tried rule Russia or any of those nations? Have we collected taxes there? Do we have military assets there? Debt? Whose debt? Who owes what to whom? Governments borrow of their own free will. Nobody forces them to borrow. Without loans from the US, what would those countriess look like? How poor would their people be? I am not sure you think through your arguments fully. I know Islam forbids lending with interest, JTK. But those places are not a part of the Muslim world.

        7. JTK2012

          //JTK – I never used the term “hippies”, and rarely refer to liberals. I am a proud conservative, and don’t mind being labelled with the label of my own choice. What’s your label of choice?

          So now you are descending deeper into ad hominem attacks: I am being illogical, I am demonizing, brainwashed, inhumane, and you continue to put words into my mouth.//

          - My label of choice is Muslim- end of.
          - I cannot help but make the inferences of the drivel you have posted. So far, you are not worthy of a proper debate because of your self-debasing intellectual capacity display.

          //As I stated previously, I do not hate Muslims. I know many are not jihadists, although common interpretations of Islam suggest that jihad is a non-negotiable obligation, so this does present a problem. Reformation? Great, if the reformists survive the fatwas. Mostly, reformist Muslims keep their heads down and their mouths shut. But again, we have to decide if we are talking Islamic doctrine, or history and reality today in the Muslim world.//

          - What the hell is a “jihadist”? Define this ridiculous term for me which the media keeps farting out.
          - Of course jihad is non-negotiable; when there is oppression and injustice, it has to be stopped. As I hate oppression and injustice, I love Islám as I believe it has the most optimal solution to destroying oppression and injustice
          - By “reformist” Muslims who “keep their heads down and their mouths shut” you mean those mentally enslaved who are not free to express themselves
          - If you want to talk about Islamic doctrine and the Muslim world, that is fine by me. However, the two subjects are mutually exclusive

          - In your post, you touch upon the sensitive subject of interpretation. Considering you have displayed your complete lack of knowing Islamic basic theology, I am horrified you have the nerve to mention this. However, there is no “abrogation”. The lack of compulsion in Islám related to times of peace, where treaties are being kept and there is no oppression taking place. However, the verses which involve corporal justice involve the discussion of attacking anyone is in lieu of oppression occurring and agreements of peace being trampled upon. For enlightenment, actually read Quran 9: 1-10 as an example.

          //Sure, the dhimmi received their property back so that they could afford the jizya. What would have happened to those dhimmi had they refused to pay the jizya? //

          Consequences of not paying jizyah:

          - There would be no welfare for those who could not afford the jizyah
          - Income inequality would persist in being high
          - Increase in cultural gentrification (which is a bad thing unless you are a capitalist)

          // The Jews and Christians lost the war. Later on, they won the war. //

          The Jews and Muslims were on the same side in Andalucian Iberia! How does what you say make any historical sense.

          //Again with the words in my mouth: Did I say I wanted you in a “concentration camp”? Is being the victim all you have to offer? If you break no laws, then I do not wish to see you incarcerated. If you break the law, you should be punished according to the law (and not sharia – unless you live in a sharia state)//

          Your support for the military industrial complex which has enslaved and destroyed so many places on Earth, as well as your obsessive militaristic view of a non-existent conflict is reminiscent of Ingsoc party members in Orwell’s dystopia. Hence my justified view. I do not trust you because not only are you in such a huge denial about the truths which are evident to a significant minority on Earth. However, You dismiss them as Marxists, liberals and shariah followers.

          //You clearly have a problem with Jews, JTK. I guess their rejection of Mohammed sticks in your craw.//

          Who is putting words into ones mouth now eh? How could you pull so many lies out of your backside? I didn’t know it was physically possible. This is one for the Guinness Books.

          // The UN G.A. is controlled by the OIC, its largest unified voting block.//

          The OIC is run by a bunch of Zionist supporting mongrels in terms of business, economic and resource cooperation. The OIC is nothing more than a farcical natured, castrating force to further subdue Muslims to “keep their heads down and their mouths shut” against the oppression and injustice facing them as well as the rest of planet Earth.

          //Here’s where I stand: I agree that war was appropriate following 9/11. While it is difficult to attack NGOs, I see nothing wrong with attacking the states that harbor them. That was the choice of those nations’ leaders.//

          - There was no war, it was an invasion
          - Surely the only way 11/9 occurred was because of foreign policy issues; something the western world is still in denial about and refuses to admit to the world

          //I know your head might be exploding right now, but you assumed that I felt a certain way, and I needed to set the record straight. //

          - Was that supposed to be a stereotypical insult, making a reference to explosions? How freaking childish of you

          //The poor kids in those countries, who are likely happy for the wages they get, are not the responibility of the U.S. government. If they are so unhappy, let them work to change their own nation’s laws.//

          - Well maybe if you stopped supporting CIA or other forces intervening to create ineffective democracies and single-party dictatorships for just two minutes, you could help them in reaching that goal

          //nd manning and Snowden are spies. There are whistle-blower protections in the USA. They chose instead to hand classified info over to our enemies. //

          No, they chose to expose US terrorism to the world and are heroes.

          //How, exactly, has the US tried rule Russia or any of those nations? Have we collected taxes there? Do we have military assets there? Debt? Whose debt? Who owes what to whom? Governments borrow of their own free will. Nobody forces them to borrow. Without loans from the US, what would those countriess look like? How poor would their people be? I am not sure you think through your arguments fully. I know Islam forbids lending with interest, JTK. But those places are not a part of the Muslim world.//

          - Come on, we both know banks are more powerful than ANY government in the world and it is the banks that have the greatest bargaining power, political influence globally, as well as deep connexions to corporations, intelligence agencies, military complex and finally, the government.
          - They DO get forced to borrow because if they don’t comply, the “vultures” get sent in. These are former economic hitman’s words, John Perkins
          - The people would be better off without a dictatorship in a region where the government can actually help people as there would be a financial system backed by something tangible
          - The countries would look fine; just because there aren’t shopping malls and major highways every two kilometres, does not mean the country is poor
          - Islam forbids more than interest; it forbids an economic system based on intangibility

        8. Phillip Slepian

          I assumed you were Muslim, buit thanks for confirming.

          It seems to me that you might be trying to turn the chess board over, by dismissing my posts as drivel, and self-debasing, whatever you mean by that.

          A “jihadist” is one who dedicates his life primarily to the fulfillment of the obligation to jihad in Islam. Why does that term seem ridiculous to you in the context of my definition? If you prefer, I will stick to referring to “those who fulfill their Islamic obligation to jihad.” Would you prefer that, JTK? A lot more keyboard strokes than “jihadist”, but I will stick to that if you insist.

          Face it, JTK, what you, and Islam, define as “oppression and injustice” is not what most non-Muslims define those terms as. Not saying you are wrong and that non-Muslims are right, only that, if we are to exchange ideas, you should acknowledge that justice in Islam is not the same as justice in other religions/cultures. You might see “income inequality” as injustice and oppression. I see it as a requirement for a free society. TomAYto-TomAHto. Don’t assume non-Muslims (or even all Muslims) will accept your definitions of justice and oppression. Naturally, with different definitions of injustice and oppression, my prescriptions for fighting injustice and oppression are likewise different.

          By “reformist Muslims” I refer to Muslims you would likely label as inauthentic. Muslims who desire to reform Islam to make it more compatible with other cultures and less aggressive against non-Muslims. This can be done by radical alteration of normative Islam, or by interpreting Islam in ways that make it compatible with non-Muslim legal systems. Admitedly, Islamic authorities might find both of these methods to be forms of apostacy, hence the fatwa comment. Far be it from me to dictate Islamic law to Muslims, but I do follow some individuals, like Dr. Jasser, who seem agreeable to innovative interpretations of Islam for the sake of genuine equality and coexistance in non-Muslims lands.

          I am curious, JTK, is there, historically, an example of a genuine Islamic society in the post-Mohammed period that you could point to? I’d like to see what your definition of Islamic doctrine put into real-life practice looks like. If there is no such example, what implication does this have for your vision of a purely Islamic society?

          Yes, you and the M4L contributors try to pretend that “abrogation” as an Islamic method of koranic interpretation does not exist, even if it is widely accepted by current Islamic scholarship, including at al-Azhar in Egypt. But there are simply too many apparent contradictions in the koran for any rational reader to accept this. In my studies, it seems to me that there is a different flavor to the koran prior to Mohammed’s rejection by the Jews and Christians than there is after those rejections. Which I think is quite understandable. I know that Islam forbids infidels from studying Islamic holy writ, but seeing as all these works as well as modern scholarship are accessible to all, the cat is out of the bag. Since this prohibition is unenforceable outside of places ruled nominally by sharia, infidels can and will study the Koran, Haditha, etc. And they will reach their own conclusions. Like the bible for the Jews and Christians, outsiders will reach different conclusions, owing to their lack of faith. Since I do not accept Islam as a matter of faith, I am not bound to blindly accept what the faithfull accept. So, I have yet to hear any reasonable explanation, other than abrogation, for the many koranic contradictions that I have personally read. Sorry if you are horrified by this, but try to deal. Goodness knows, your ideas horrify me, too, even if they do not surprise.

          As for the “time of peace”, I assume you know that true peace in Islam can only exist once Islam is victorious everywhere, and the dar el-Harb is eliminated. Sadly, few non-Muslims understand this, which is why Islam gets away with calling itself the “religion of peace”, even though that word has a completely different meaning in non-Muslim society. Understanding that difference is key to understanding Islam and its relationship with the non-Muslim world. By your own words, you admit that now, when there is no “peace” (i.e., complete Islamic hegemony), there is indeed compulsion in religion in Islam.

          Once again, your conflation of Islam and Marxism is interesting and telling. To repeat: I refuse to accept the status of dhimmi or pay the jizya. I believe income inequality is a necessary and expected outcome of a free society, and I think gentrification, on balance, is healthy and unavoidable in a truly free society. Here I suggest we agree to disagree.

          The Jews supported the Moores because they rightfully feared Spanish Catholic oppression. As I have said, Christian doctrine, like other religious doctrines, was not always put into practice, but was corrupted by non-religious factors. During the period of the Jewish diaspora, there were times and places in which Jews were better off under Islamic rule, and others in which they were better off under Christian rule. However, both are relative. In neither were they completely free to realize their national rights in their homeland. So, in the case of the Moores, it was the lesser of evils, far from ideal.

          Funny, but, unless you correct me, I think your ideal Islamic world would be enforced by – wait for it – a Muslim military-industrial complex. So, I don’t see your fantasies as any different from our present realites, except for who is in charge. You want it to be you who makes the rules. Your Islamic faith disqualifies you from being an anarchist (which is an impractical system, leading to fascism, anyway). You claim to eschew “militarism”, yet Islam was spread, throughout history, by the sword more than by any other method. So I can only conclude that you are fine with militarism if it is your own Muslim militarism. Am I wrong? Do I dismiss the “truths” you support as Marxism, liberalism and sharia-ism? Well, do you feel that each person should contribute according to his abilities, and receive according to his needs? Do you believe that people are basically good, but corrupted by “society”? Do you believe that sharia law ought to be universally applied – since you see Islam as the best system for dealing with oppression and injustice? I am basing my words on your own posts, so I am open to clarification.

          And, again, even if these are “truths” in your mind, others, like me, may not agree, and may not be open to being convinced otherwise.

          Well, you seem to see “Zionists” as instruments of injustice and oppression. Don’t fool yourself – “Zionist” is simply the modern way for anti-Semites to refer to Jews. Any Jew of faith is a Zionist. So if you have issues with Zionists, you have issues with Jews, JTK. And if I am “pulling lies out of my backside”, does that mean that you are fine with the Jews’ rejection of Mohammed?

          So, by your description of the OIC, I take it anyone or anything that does not support your definition of true Islam is a “Zionist”? You have rejected every nation that claims to be Islamic, as well as the Taliban. Is there a national leader or any Islamic group you can point to that would be an example of an authentic Islamic leader or group? Having such a reference would make it easier for me to understand your posts and avoid making assumptions. I may be opinionated, JTK, but I am teachable.

          Invasion is indeed war, JTK. That’s a basic military tactic – taking the fight to the enemy. Whether the subject of the invasion fights back or not, it is still war. Invasion is only a tactic, as is terrorism.

          Curious: Is 11/9 a typo, Euro-dating, or indicative of something of which I am unaware?

          Where we differ is in what an oppropriate response to perceived foriegn policy disagreements is. In the U.S., when somebody attempts to address their concerns by flying passenger jets into civilian buildings, we call that an act of war, not foreign policy negotiations. Muslims may feel that they are entitled to kill infidels at will without any negative consequences. We infidels disagree.

          Nope, my reference to your head exploding is a common term in America, and refers to someone getting really upset, steam pooring out of one’s ears, shaking in anger, etc., etc. Sorry if you took it otherwise. I just figured my take on the post 9/11 wars would be so different from yours as to “get your Irish up” – another similar expression.

          Almost every nation in the world employs covert operations to protect and promote its own interests outside that nation’s borders. We have the CIA. The Russians have their spies, Iran has Hezbollah, and the Chinese have their industrial spies. I don’t see this basic trait of human nature changing any time soon. Your wish is for a utopian Islamic uma that I doubt could ever exist. And I maintain that absent the U.S. importing cheap foreign goods, world poverty would be worse, not better. Better culprits are the dictatorships that steal foreign aid and over-tax their producers.

          Like I said regarding Snowden and Manning: One’s man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. Since I obey and respect the laws of the United States, I see these men as spies for our enemies, who are the ones who received the intel they stole. Only later was it released to the public (which includes, of course, enemies of the U.S.). They have both committed acts of treason, IMO.

          If banks are more powerful than tanks, please explain Russia’s siezure of Crimea in that context.

          If by vultures, you mean opportunistic businessmen who will buy depreciated assets as an investment, that’s the reality of a free market global economy. Besides, if corporations cannot exist without borrowing huge sums from international lenders, was their business sound to begin with? Shaking out the weaklings has always been a reality of a free market system, and it keeps that system healthy and prosperous.

          I agree that currencies ought to be backed by hard assets, and that the gold standard should not have been abandoned. But this was not my choice to make. Nevertheless, I vote for candidates who would like to restore hard-asset backing to our currency.

          I agree that malls do not a prosperous economy make. However, it is individuals operating in the free market that choose to borrow to invest. And those malls and highways do create many employment opportunities. I think North Korea is a good example of what a nation without business investment looks like.

          Believe it or not, the U.S. constitution also forbids an economy based on intangibility, which is why the Fed, as currently implemented, might be unconstitutional. I do indeed believe that this is one of many examples of how the constitution has been eroded and has become largely meaningless. However, I do feel that if truly enforced, the constitution is perhaps the best way to protect the freedoms and rights of a free society mankind has ever devised. I know you will see sharia as fulfilling that role, but again, we must agree to disagree on this.
          One difference, unoless you can provide that historical example of correctly applied sharia I requested above, is that the Constitution was successfully implemented for better than a century, whereas pure sharia law has yet to be successfully applied at all.

        9. JTK2012

          //Face it, JTK, what you, and Islam, define as “oppression and injustice” is not what most non-Muslims define those terms as. Not saying you are wrong and that non-Muslims are right, only that, if we are to exchange ideas, you should acknowledge that justice in Islam is not the same as justice in other religions/cultures.//

          For the large part, I disagree as oppression (theft of resources, pillaging, discrimination etc.) is how Islam defines oppression based on historical examples. This is why the first thing Muhammad (PBUH) did when he entered Yathrib was to broker a peace deal between tribes. Moreover, he united two Jewish tribes who were having a conflict based on interest based loan (interest is a form of oppression).
          I do however, acknowledge as other Muslims do based on Islam, that to not worship Allah is a form of injustice but to non-Muslims, they worship another deity. That we acknowledge and that is fine. This is why we have these peace deals to ensure we can live in harmony without stepping on each others toes. This is why under Islám, churches with depictions of Jesus (PBUH) and Mary (PBUH) were permitted but such depictions were not permitted FOR MUSLIMS.

          //I am curious, JTK, is there, historically, an example of a genuine Islamic society in the post-Mohammed period that you could point to? I’d like to see what your definition of Islamic doctrine put into real-life practice looks like. If there is no such example, what implication does this have for your vision of a purely Islamic society?//

          Focus on society and rulership GENERALLY SPEAKING before 1258CE. Please give particular focus on Caliph Umar Ben Abdil Azeez, who died after 30 months of being a ruler and the Caliphates of Abu Bakr to Ali ben Abi Taleb.

          //Yes, you and the M4L contributors try to pretend that “abrogation” as an Islamic method of koranic interpretation does not exist, even if it is widely accepted by current Islamic scholarship, including at al-Azhar in Egypt. //

          As scholars such as Dr Jamal Badawi explains, there are roughly 5 superseding verses (NOT abrogation, this is a mistranslation as it implies redundancy). The consequences of 5 verses out of 6000+ is extremely minimal as these verses do not relate to the fundamentals of Islam.

          There are no contradictions in Quran; if you read the Quran (or the English translation) as how the verses were revealed which you clearly have not, then there are no contradictions because different situations call for different measures. For example, if you have been attacked, you should have the right to fight back if the attacking authority refuses to acknowledge or apologise.

          //As for the “time of peace”, I assume you know that true peace in Islam can only exist once Islam is victorious everywhere, and the dar el-Harb is eliminated. //

          Where the heck did you get this information from? Please post an Islamic source for this particular comment.

          //Once again, your conflation of Islam and Marxism is interesting and telling. To repeat: I refuse to accept the status of dhimmi or pay the jizya.//

          I am lost in the paragraph you wrote here. If you choose to live under Islamic rulership, why would you refuse to pay taxes? Then you talk about Marxism and income inequality which is just totally incoherent. You lost me here.

          //Funny, but, unless you correct me, I think your ideal Islamic world would be enforced by – wait for it – a Muslim military-industrial complex//

          I am proud to burst your bubble here and tell you it is a crock of nonsense what you have written. In the past, there was no military industrial complex and if Islam was revived, there would be no MIC either.

          //Well, you seem to see “Zionists” as instruments of injustice and oppression. Don’t fool yourself – “Zionist” is simply the modern way for anti-Semites to refer to Jews//

          Utter rubbish. There are many who identify themselves as Christians and are Zionists. Look at David Cameron, Chancellor Merkel, Barack O-bomber, George W Bush, Romney, Bachmann, Santorum etc.

          Secondly, there are many Jews who are not Zionists and speak of the oppression that the fake Jews (Khazarian Ashkenazim) force upon Palestinians and real Jews (see how they treat their Jewish brothers from Ethiopia, Sudan etc.)

          We shall not be bullied by your screams of anti-Semitism when unveiling Israeli’s criminal machine.

          Thirdly, the founder of Zionism called Theodor Herzl was hardly Jewish; the man didn’t even believe in god, nor was he circumcised! Israel is nothing more than a refined form of white supremacy.

          Think about it; if King David and Solomon (PBUT) came to Jerusalem today, would they be in support of a racist, secular regime?

          //So, by your description of the OIC, I take it anyone or anything that does not support your definition of true Islam is a “Zionist”? You have rejected every nation that claims to be Islamic, as well as the Taliban. //

          More or less you got the point. I cannot point you to a group sadly. However, I advise you to check the words of a scholar called Sheikh Imran Hosein.

          //Curious: Is 11/9 a typo, Euro-dating, or indicative of something of which I am unaware?//

          I am a European.

          //Almost every nation in the world employs covert operations to protect and promote its own interests outside that nation’s borders. We have the CIA. The Russians have their spies, Iran has Hezbollah, and the Chinese have their industrial spies.//

          The CIA does not protect American people’s interest but tries to ruin other people’s for stealing to give to the 1%.

          //If by vultures, you mean opportunistic businessmen who will buy depreciated assets as an investment, that’s the reality of a free market global economy. //

          They are not opportunistic, they are murderers and slave masters. Read Confessions of an Economic Hitman by John Perkins.

          //If banks are more powerful than tanks, please explain Russia’s siezure of Crimea in that context.//

          Why do you think the oligarchs are leaving Russia and why is the world against Putin? :)

        10. Phillip Slepian

          I find it difficult to think of Mohammed as such a peace maker when most of his life was spent as a warrior. Sure, if people he encountered were willing to reject their own faith and embrace Islam, peace was the order of the day. The consequences for rejecting Islam, however, are quite clear in the Koran. And while it is mighty kind of Muslims to “permit” Christians to have images in their churches, you miss the point: Why do Christians even need permission from Muslims to worship as they please? Why does any non-Muslim need permission from Islam for anything? I hope you understand what I am trying to say. The fact that Islam sees itself as the authority over other religions is a problem for most non-Muslims.

          Thanks for the reference of Umar Ben Abdil Azeez. I have some research to do, and little free time. Please be patient with me. Eventually, I will give you my thoughts.

          Call it superceding if you like, but there are verses that conflict in the Koran. Normative Islamic scholarship uses sequence to settle these contradictions, and more recent verses surpercede older ones. I really don’t see how one can ignore the different tome in the koran prior to and after the rejection of Mohammed by the Jews and Christians. To me, the approach to Jews and Christians changed dramatically after their respective rejections. This is not a criticism, just an observation. And here’s the source:

          2:106. Whatever a Verse (revelation) do We {Allah} abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allah is able to do all things?

          Want just one “contradiction”? Here: there is this passage revealed just after the Muslims reached Medina and were still vulnerable:

          2:256. There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the Right Path has become distinct from the wrong path. Whoever disbelieves in Taghut {idolatry} and believes in Allah, then he has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that will never break. And Allah is All-Hearer, All-Knower.
          .
          In contrast, take 9:5, commonly referred to as the “Verse of the Sword”, revealed toward the end of Muhammad’s life:

          9:5. Then when the Sacred Months (the 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikun {unbelievers} wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat {the Islamic ritual prayers}), and give Zakat {alms}, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

          More? Having been revealed later in Muhammad?s life than 50:45, 109, and 2:256, the Verse of the Sword abrogates their peaceful injunctions in accordance with 2:106. Sura 8, revealed shortly before Sura 9, reveals a similar theme:

          8:39. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do.8:67. It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land. You desire the good of this world (i.e. the money of ransom for freeing the captives), but Allah desires (for you) the Hereafter. And Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise.

          9:29. Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

          9:33. It is He {Allah} Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam), to make it superior over all religions even though the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) hate (it).
          .
          The Quran’s commandments to Muslims to wage war in the name of Allah against non-Muslims are unmistakable. They are, furthermore, absolutely authoritative as they were revealed late in the Prophet’s career and so cancel and replace earlier instructions to act peaceably.

          Where did I get my Islamic definition of peace? Well, JTK, you tell me: Can there be peace if there exist places in the world where non-Muslims rule over Muslims? Where full application of sharia law cannot be accomplished? Is not that the very definition of “oppression” you provided? And what is the Islamic remedy for such “oppression”, JTK?

          My point about jizya is that I do not choose to live under sharia law, and therefore reject the jizya and all dhimmi-related rules. Are you implying that there should remain places in the world where non-Muslims are free to ignore sharia? If so, how do you determine which places non-Muslims should be free to do so, and which they are not free to do so?

          My Marxism comments refer to the communal property laws of sharia. The Judeo-Christian tradition permits private property ownership. Islam holds all property belongs to Allah, and therefore, is under the control of the uma. Big difference.

          So, if there would be no military-industrial complex under sharia, how would the uma undertake to defend itself against attacks and help enlarge the uma into dar el-harb?

          Zionism and Christian doctrine are not incompatible. Zionism (and I doubt you understand this) is merely the modern movement to restore Jewish national rights to its ancestral homeland – the Land of Israel. Your implication that Zionism is some evil force is laughable. Zionists aren’t flying jetliners into commercial buildings, JTK. Or do you feel that Jews do not have the right of self-determination in the land where they are the indigenous people?

          Zionism is a fundamental component of Judaism. Judaism cannot be fully observed outside of the Jewish homeland, with a restored Temple. That there are Jews who do not believe this fundamental aspect of Judaism is no different than members of other religions who reject elements of their own faiths.

          And if the Khazars are “fake” Jews, then there are no real Christians or Muslims either. Every Christian and Muslim can trace his ancestry back to a non-Christian or non-Muslim. Jews by choice are no less Jews than Muslims by choice are Muslims, JTK.

          And yes, if you deny the national rights of the Jewish people in their homeland, you are anti-Semitic. Unless, of course, you equally deny the right of self-determination to all people. It’s not bullying, but a reaction to being bullied.

          What you call Israel’s “criminal machine”, others call true justice in action.

          I bet that the Kings of Judea would demand that the attrocity on the Temple mount be immediately raized and replaced with the rebuilt Temple of God.

          True, Herzl was not much of a Jew, but others, who are more authentic, were also involved, and the State of Israel is becoming much more religious. In any case, Herzl’s personal shortcomings do not invalidate Jewish national restoration.

          Thanks also for the reference to Imran Hussein. More homework to do.

          Your view of the CIA is amusing. In any conflict, peaceful or violent, there are winners and losers. Nations acting in their own best interests at the expense of others is hardly anything new, and Muslims are not exempt from that. And that 1% nonsense is just Marxism in a friendlier t-shirt. Most freedom-loving Americans who are self-reliant don’t buy that stuff, myself included.

          Wow. So a smart businessman, in JTK’s world, is a murderer and slaveholder. You might want to tone it down a bit if you want others to take you seriously. You know, that bit on “24″ where an evil corporation wants to nuke L.A. because, I guess, it would be good for profits, is just so much nonsense. Perkins does not interest me. I read Jefferson and deToqueville.

          They are leaving because Putin put an end to free market freedoms in Russia. And so, as the oligarchs leave, Russia will become ever poorer, and seek financial gain with its military. If you think that beats free-market capitalism, then I don’t know what to say.

        11. JTK2012

          //I find it difficult to think of Mohammed as such a peace maker when most of his life was spent as a warrior. Sure, if people he encountered were willing to reject their own faith and embrace Islam, peace was the order of the day. The consequences for rejecting Islam, however, are quite clear in the Koran.//

          - What? Where on Earth did you find this nonsense from? His military career began after the age of 53 and he died around 10 years later.

          - Yes, the consequences for those who reject Islám are in the Qurán. You’ll notice that all of those consequences involve a punishment from Allah in the AFTER LIFE. What is your point? Christians preach a similar thing (not the neo-lefty Christians who claim everyone shall enter paradise but the honest ones)

          //And while it is mighty kind of Muslims to “permit” Christians to have images in their churches, you miss the point: Why do Christians even need permission from Muslims to worship as they please? Why does any non-Muslim need permission from Islam for anything? I hope you understand what I am trying to say. The fact that Islam sees itself as the authority over other religions is a problem for most non-Muslims.//

          - Christians were living under Islámic rule and the Muslim authorities are supposed ensure the Christians and Muslims are freely practicing their faith without encroaching on each other i.e. Muslims should not perform their 5 daily prayers inside churches as to respect the church for what it is

          Your reference to Quran 9:5 and 2:256 being contradictions is a real schoolboy error.

          - Quran 9:5 was revealed in the CONTEXT that the polytheists had broken the agreement of peace which is considered an act of war. Naturally, Allah was giving soldiers morale so as to not to be nervous or afraid for fighting for an injustice against a sacred agreement.

          - Quran 2:256 was revealed when Christian and Jewish persons in Yathrib wanted to become Muslim but wondered if the rest of the family HAD to be forced to Islám.

          - Hence we can see when an agreement of peace has been broken and when the peace is being followed, there are and should be two different rules. Different strokes for different folks.

          - The other verses which command us fight require knowledge to actually understand when, where and how they were revealed. I really could go on but I can see already you do not seem to understand at all what is going on

          - Islám is about combating more than peace because peace under oppression is worse than fighting against injustice. This is why in Quran 5:8, justice is linked to an increase in spiritual gain (taqwa). As long as there are injustices on this Earth and people prepared to stand against it, there shall NOT be peace

          - There are 6,023 (or so) verses (ayat) in the Qurán, of which around 300 or so are actual commands. From the 300 or so, barely a handful are actually commands of battle. This goes to show you are not paying attention to the 95% or so of the Qurán. Why do you do this?

          //My point about jizya is that I do not choose to live under sharia law, and therefore reject the jizya and all dhimmi-related rules. Are you implying that there should remain places in the world where non-Muslims are free to ignore sharia? If so, how do you determine which places non-Muslims should be free to do so, and which they are not free to do so?//

          - You don’t get it. SHARIAH is FOR MUSLIMS.

          - Non-MUSLIMS do NOT follow SHARIAH

          - If a non-MUSLIM wants to live under an ISLAMIC governance, they have to pay TAXES aka JIZYAH. Jizyah rate was historically valuated by the non-Muslim community leadership. Muslims on the other hand, have to pay ZAKAH which is NOT charity as the perverted translation secularists claim

          //My Marxism comments refer to the communal property laws of sharia. The Judeo-Christian tradition permits private property ownership. Islam holds all property belongs to Allah, and therefore, is under the control of the uma. Big difference.//

          What on Earth? Ultimately, EVERYTHING belongs to Allah but relatively, things are owned privately. It is like saying my ear is Allah’s ear!

          //Zionism is some evil force is laughable. Zionists aren’t flying jetliners into commercial buildings, JTK. Or do you feel that Jews do not have the right of self-determination in the land where they are the indigenous people?//

          - Zionism is as much to do with Judaism as Batman is to do with ballet

          - The founder of Zionism was Theodor Herzl who himself, was a man unobservant to the laws of the Torah

          - Zionism has led a displacement of a nation from their homes, contributed to economic enslavement, dictatorships and despotism rife in a region, oil price hikes, one of the largest open air prisons in the world where women have to give birth at checkpoints as they’re not allowed through to hospitals

          - Zionism is racist towards real Jews such as those who follow the Torah such as the Mizrahim and those who are from Sudan and Ethiopia. It teaches that Palestinian children are allowed to be killed in the name of racial supremacy and it preaches that the pseudo-Jews have a right to be racist

          - Why did Herzl’s ideology get major backlash from Orthodox Jewry initially if it was so authentic and fine?

          - Why should Palestinians be kicked out their homes for other people to steal their land and come in?

          // And that 1% nonsense is just Marxism in a friendlier t-shirt. Most freedom-loving Americans who are self-reliant don’t buy that stuff, myself included.//

          You are a true consumerist American, making the authorities (slave masters) proud.

          // So a smart businessman, in JTK’s world, is a murderer and slaveholder. //

          - Smart by a capitalist standard is evil by humane standard

          //They are leaving because Putin put an end to free market freedoms in Russia. And so, as the oligarchs leave, Russia will become ever poorer, and seek financial gain with its military. If you think that beats free-market capitalism, then I don’t know what to say.//

          Well if free-market means the NSA stealing everyone’s data, controlling the puppet governments etc. then I prefer Putin.

          Putin is restoring Russia to Christianity and I stand by his actions for protecting Crimeans in the time of need.

          Today, the IMF have approved a package to Ukraine which means Ukrainians will now be economically enslaved. However, they’ll think they’re free because of the shopping malls and wireless internet, until economic dips smash them.

        12. Phillip Slepian

          Perhaps only the last 10 years of Mohammed’s life were spent as a warrior, but that is the example many Islamic leaders follow today, whether you approve or not.

          I don’t think the “take no prisoners” approach of warfare in the Koran implies that punishment for those who reject Islam is restricted to the afterlife only. One example:

          Sira, p463-4: Then they {the tribe of Quraiza} surrendered, and the apostle confined them in Medina in the quarter of d. al-Harith, a woman of Bani al-Najjar. Then the apostle went out to the market of Medina and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches. Among them was the enemy of Allah Huyayy bin Akhtab and Kab bin Asad their chief. There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900. As they were being taken out in batches to the Apostle they asked Kab what he thought would be done with them. He replied, “Will you never understand? Don’t you see that the summoner never stops and those who are taken away do not return? By Allah it is death!” This went on until the Apostle made an end of them.

          I think the Quraiza tribe mambers would argue that their punishment was not restricted to the afterlife.

          You are missing my point. Even if dhimmi status was completely fair and equal in its treatment of Muslims and dhimmi (it is not), my complaint is that I do not wish to be subject to the good-will of Muslim masters. Outside of dar el-Islam, that is just unnacceptable to me and many non-Muslims.

          So, Muslims are free to violate treaties when it is expedient, but infidels cannot?

          As for 9:5, you can screem “context” all you like. The words are clear, and many modern scholars interpret them as they are written.

          So you have made my point regarding 2:256. The Muslims were in no position to compell the families of converts to accept Islam at that time. Later, as it is today, when Muslims have the power to do so, sharia law is enforced by force.

          And if I lack sufficient knowledge to comprehend the nuances of Islam, perhaps you will accept the words of Hassan al-Bana:

          “It is fard (obligatory) on us to fight with the enemies. The Imam must send a military expedition to the Dar-al-Harb {House of War — the non-Muslim world} every year at least once or twice, and the people must support him in this. If some of the people fulfill the obligation, the remainder are released from the obligation. If this fard kifayah (communal obligation) cannot be fulfilled by that group, then the responsibility lies with the closest adjacent group, and then the closest after that etc., and if the fard kifayah cannot be fulfilled except by all the people, it then becomes a fard ‘ayn (individual obligation), like prayer on everyone of the people.

          Many Muslims today mistakenly believe that fighting the enemy is jihad asghar (a lesser jihad) and that fighting one’s ego is jihad akbar (a greater jihad). The following narration [athar] is quoted as proof: “We have returned from the lesser jihad to embark on the greater jihad.” They said: “What is the greater jihad?” He said: “The jihad of the heart, or the jihad against one’s ego.”

          Why do I ignore the parts of Islam not concerned with jihad? Becuase they mean nothing to me. If a Muslim wants to live as a faithful Muslim, they will matter a great deal to him. But I am only concerned with Koran and hadith where commands are given for the treatment of non-Muslims. I am, after all, a non-Muslim. Why would I care about Halal food unless someone is trying to force it on me or make me pay for others to have it?

          I get it, sharia is for Muslims, but it also governs the lives of non-Muslims under Muslim rule. Since the goal of Islam is the universal application of sharia to the entire world, and to all mankind (even though some may retain dhimmi status), it affects non-Muslims in places where Muslims are growing in number and are asserting the superiority of Islam and sharia over previously established domestic laws and liberties. A dhimmi who follows the laws of the dhimmi is following sharia law insofar as it applies to non-Muslims. That’s what I object to.

          Zakah vs. jizya is a straw man. Since people of other faiths are also required by their own faiths to give charity, the jizya is an additional burden for which no equivalent burden is placed on Muslims.

          You may accept that all things belong to Allah, but others do not. As for your ear, I was referring to legally obtained property, not life and limb. For example. If you own a bakery, is it truly yours, or are you merely operating it for the benefit of the uma?

          Perhaps I know less about Islam than you do, JTK, but I know you know less about Judaism than I do. The fact is that many of the obligations upon the Jews can only be fuldilled in the Land of Israel, aka Zion. Judaism as a faith is centered around the Jerusalem Temple cult, and Jews have prayed for 2000 years for its restoration thrice daily. The modern expressions of Zionism may not have stressed the religious component, but modern Zionism would never have existed without Judaism. Again: Herzl’s personal shortcomings do not invalidate Jewish national rights in the ancestral Jewish homeland.

          Zionism displaced nobody, as the Jews were the indigenous people of the Land of Israel. No people extant has ever claimed the Land of Israel as a national homeland, or Jerusalem as its capital.

          No “Palestinians” have been “kicked out”. Arabs followed the early settlement movement into this area as the Jews created employment opportunities. Almost all were from Jordan, Syria, Egypt or Lebanon. Prior to 1948, “Palestinian” referred to anyone living in the British Mandatory territory of Palestine, as in Palestinian Jew, Palestinian Arab, Palestinian Christian.

          Arab in modern Israel enjoy better standards of living, and more rights, than Arabs in any of the neighboring Arab nations. So your accusations fall flat. And you can’t blame the Jews, as many try to do, for all that is wrong in places where Jews don’t live (most Arab nations). That is true anti-Semitism.

          Your accusations of Zionism being oppressive of certain minority groups of Jews are outdated. In Israel today, Jews of all stripes and skin color live in relative harmony and are granted equality under the law. Religious Jews of all backgrounds are growing in number in Israel, even as the unobservant shrink as a percentage of the population.

          There are some ultra-Orhtodox Jews who believe that only the Jewish Messiah can establish Jewish hegemony in Israel. But that view is open to dispute, and very few Jews reject the right of Jews to inhabit their homelenad outright.

          Palestinian Arabs are free to live in Israel, but not as a fifth column dedicated to killing its citizens and destroying the state. No sovereign state would tolerate such treasonous behavior.

          I am a consumer, but I am also a patriot, and proud to be a free citizen of the United States. I serve nobody but God.

          I do not consider business investment and the pursuit of profits as evil. On the contrary, they benefit all mankind when the businessman is mindful of his obligations to God and country.

          I am not a big fan of the NSA’s recent activities. I would never say America is perfect, JTK, just better than most other places. Watch – the NSA will be reigned in.

          I am still formulating my thoughts on Russia, Putin, and Crimea. Too many facts still unknown.

          I actually oppose the IMF, but for different reasons. I see it as a back-door attempt to redistribute the wealth of America to other nations.

  5. Phillip Slepian

    Here’s an inconvenient dose of reality for M4L and Ramy: Whether BHO ackowledges it or not, Jihadists at home and abroad have declared war on the USA. No, Ramy, not all Muslims are actively engaged in the shooting war against us, but millions of Muslims support Jihad in one of its various forms (military, financial, demographic, political, civilizational, et. al.). The prisoners at Gitmo are, in truth, POWs, captured mostly on battlefields where enemy combatants attacked, with intent to kill, our U.S. servicemen. Although the current government of the United States, sadly, does not see it this way, POWs, traditionally, are held, without trial (exceptions for accused war criminals), pending the end of hostilities and a signed peace agreement from the enemy, in which terms of surrender, including the return of POWs, are clearly defined. IMHO, any combatant, including those fighting jihad against any American interests, as POWs, must be held, without trial, in conditions compliant with the Geneva Conventions, until the government or NGO they were directed by admits defeat and sues for peace. If, as one would expect based on the nature of Islamic Jihad, this admission never comes, then the POWs will spend their remaining days as POWs. Anything else is to show callous indifference for the lives of our own men and women in uniform, since POWs freed in the absence of a victory and peace treaty will, naturally, rejoin the ranks of the enemy and attempt to kill more of our servicemen. And, in fact, this has proven to be the case in numerous examples of released jihadi fighters, including some from Gitmo (most of whom probably agreed not to fight any more, but lied in the way of taqiyya), who have been recaptured or killed in battles with our own forces. So, pray all you like. Any nation with an ounce of self-respect and morality will act in the best interests of its own citizens, not in the interests of its enemies.

    1. ramy

      Phil, your generalizations show that you’re as clueless as our government and military in regards to who the enemy is and why we’re fighting them. What don’t you understand about 90% of Guantanamo prisoners have been declared BY OUR GOVERNMENT to not be terrorists? If any of those innocent people who were released went on to join al Qaeda or fight American troops afterwards, then it’s called blowback (aka revenge).
      You seem to try to justify killing, imprisoning, and torturing innocent people if it means that you might get one “bad” guy in the process. Which actually makes you no different than the “bad” people you’re after.
      It also seems like you still don’t understand that neither the Taliban nor the iraqis had anything to do with 9-11

      1. Phillip Slepian

        Ramy – You are making my point for me. Terrorists, by definition, are criminals, since they use methods of attacking their enemies that are outside the acceptable forms of combat specified by the Geneva Conventions (e.g., targeting civilians). Terrorists must be tried for their crimes, and sentenced if found guilty. Of course 90% of the Gitmo detainies are not terrorists, they are POWs. Combatants captured in a war zone. If they were not violating the Geneva Conventions, then a trial for them is inappropriate. They are detained until their release is secured by a peace agreement with the enemy. I will grant that Obama’s retreat from Iraq and Afghanistan might qualify as an end to hostilities, but it then falls to the governments in question to secure the release of their citizens being detained as POWs by the other side via negotiations.

        It’s not revenge, Ramy. That nonsense about all the dead Muslims America was responsible for prior to 9/11 is a canard concocted by those wishing to export the Islamic revolution to Dar al-Harb. And the charges you make regarding torture and killing are yet another example of taqqiya intended to create some justification for violent jihad against Americans. Funny thing, but when people are trying to kill Americans, America will take whatever steps it must to find those intent on doing so and stop them. Innocent, truly innocent, people have nothing to fear from the U.S., unless they are being used as human shields, in which case, the blame accrues to those who are using them as shields. Innocent Americans have plenty to fear from Islamic jihadists, however.

        How this fits in with “liberty” I can only guess. Perhaps it is the “liberty” for Muslims to slaughter infidels that you are working towards at M4L. While the Taliban and Iraq played only supporting roles in 9/11, both aided and abetted those who were inviolved. As Bush said, “you’re either with us, or you’re with the terrorists.” It’s quite clear which side you are on, Ramy. Just because you and the Muslim Brotherhood aren’t blowing stuff up (yet) doesn’t mean the goals are any different than the goals of the jihadists who are. The only difference is strategy. Gates of Vienna, baby. Bring it.

        1. ramy

          It’s comforting to know that people like you are on the decline and are losing power and influence in American politics. The damage you’ve done and still do to this country is pathetic.
          You might need some government-banned medicine to calm your delusions

    2. JTK2012

      Phillp, how could the Muslims possibly be invading, when it is their lands, their people being attacked, oppressed, raped, tortured?

      How can it be Muslims when there is not a single Islamic authority on this Earth, except that which has been forced through by dictators supported by USA? Who?

      There is no war, only an invasion.

      Maybe the world will respect US more if they stopped invading, pillaging, raping, bombing everywhere they go in the name of freedom.

      1. Phillip Slepian

        Well, let’s see, JTK2012. What lands could have objectively been called “Muslim lands” prior to Mohammed? Answer: None. How, primarily, was Islam spread throughout the Arabian peninsula, Northern Africa, and the Near East? By the sword – i.e., invasion. And the fantasies you list of Muslims being abused and oppressed by infidels haven’t been true for centuries. Let’s not forget that had Christian pilgrims been left undisturbed to visit their holy sites in Israel, there would never have been any crusades. And guess who did the distrurbing of those pilgrims, JTK2012? It wasn’t the Zoroastrians! Thise Muslim leaders who support the USA are doing so for financial benefit. And they invite U.S. troops in to deal with threats from other Muslims. So, Muslims have no one to blame for their own sorry state of affairs other than themselves. The world, including the Muslims, did respect the U.S. when it projected power and the will to use force to support its interests. As a Muslim, you should well know that timidity and weakness only invite jihad, not respect.

        1. JTK2012

          In response to your first point, the same could be applied to Christian lands, Buddhist land, Animist land etc. your statement is devoid of any sense.

          You have no proof Islam was spread by the sword because a lot of Christian sects who were being persecuted by other Christians such as the Chalcedonians, were saved. Furthermore, religious diversity was greater under Islamic rule than it is now in the secular dictatorships that plague the Muslim world.

          The Capitalist (there are no Muslim leaders in the Muslim world) are of course doing things for financial benefit! The Capitalists do not want Islam to succeed because they know Islam will bring capitalism to justice.

          I am not falling for your neoconservative nonsense and your misuse of the word jihad. I will not be a slave to you or your kind of people and I know this is why you want to eradicate us. Islam teaches absolute justice and that is why you hate Muslims and fear their awakening.

          Last time I checked, you have no right to talk to Muslims about problems because Muslims are not responsible for economic enslavement, financial crises, income inequality, lack of wealth distribution, ongoing torture, ruination through invasion and military coups of Vietnam, Cambodia, Panama, Chile, Serbia, Cote d’Ivoire, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran (so far a failure) and the list unfortunately goes on.

        2. Phillip Slepian

          Yes, your first point is true, even if many of these lands were not conquered militarily. But it still leaves the term “Muslim lands” a questionable designation.

          Some infidels were spared where the Jihadists arrived, yes. But the fact remains that without violent jihad, Islam as a religion would have never become Islam the social-political hegemony it is in most Muslim lands. You don’t have to go far to find a lot of evidence of the authorization of force in the effort to spread Islam. Both historic and textual evidence abounds. Religious diversity does not count if non-Muslims are only tolerated as dhimmi, with all that that implies. What America brought to the world was the idea that different peoples could practice their religions freely without owing aliegence or taxes to members of the state’s sole endorced religion.

          This may come as a shocker, JTK2012, but those who believe in liberty and the Judeo-Christian model of property rights support capitalism, not the collectivism of Islam. I think a look at sharia-ruled nations compared to capitalist nations speaks for the success of capitalism, and the failure of kleptocracy, monarchy, communal property and focus on after-life rewards instead of current life behavior and positive acts.

          You don’t have to fall for anything JTK2012. I look at Islamic holy writ, history and the facts, and reach my own conclusions. It drives Muslims mad that some infidels have read the Koran (my copy is a beautiful free copy I received free from CAIR) as well as other Islamic holy writ, and reject the propaganda and taqqiya promoted by those modern Islamic authorities who seek to spread Islam at the expense of liberty all over the world. But the truth is out there, and it is not restricted to those who claim to be the definitive interpretors of Islam. And, for the record, I don’t hate Muslims (how could you possibly know what I hate when I have never said anything like that). Although knowing what Muslims teach each other makes it difficult to love the many faithful Muslims who would like to see me and my family dead. I am simply informed, well-read, and awake to the threat Islam, the belief system, not Muslims, the people, pose to our liberties. And your comment about being a slave to our people is just silly. It means you have no real understanding of the history of slavery or its implementations accross various cultures. Sorry, but the Islamic world is the prime culprit maintaining modern slavery in the world today, as endorsed by sharia law. Name one thing you are not free to do because you are enslaved by the United States, JTK2012.

          Your Democratic party-authored talking points are all just that. People are born equal, JTK2012, but they don’t stay that way. People live with the consequences of their own actions and choices. Using the strong arm of government to take from those who have produced in order to hand it to those who have not is no form of justice that the Judeo-Christian God or the founding fathers would recognize.

          And I make no apologies for America’s projection of force throughout the years. While imperfect, these efforts to safeguard America and its interests throughout the world were noble compared to the jihadists goals of subjugating all people to their specific way of life and confiscating their wealth for the benefit of the uma (i.e., the rulers). The U.S. does not invade to rule, but to free. There is and never was what liberals like to call the American Empire. We are about to see what a world without a strong America looks like. It will be violent, bloody, oppressive and unjust to an extent most people alive today can’t even imagine.

        3. JTK2012

          You act as if the Muslim world spared a handful of non-Muslims by usage of the word “some” which is frankly nonsense. Yes, the Muslims did travel through and in many lands, relieved oppression, returned properties to those who were oppressed such as Governor of Cueta, the Jewish community of Cordoba, the fact that Christian and Jewish communities were allowed to be part of the government as doctors, advisers etc.

          Also, what is wrong with being a dhimmi; fact is, everyone has to pay taxes. If you are a Muslim, you pay Zakah which is a form of taxation as the money was collected and redistributed by the state. A non-Muslim was not forced to follow Islam but as a citizen, ought to pay tax and thus, by identifying themselves as non-Muslim citizens, they would then follow their own local authority’s taxation.

          //America brought to the world was the idea that different peoples could practice their religions freely without owing aliegence or taxes to members of the state’s sole endorced religion.//

          Really? Where is the proof of that? I shall ask our Native American brethren about these different people. Or shall I ask the Japanese during WWII? How about the Koreans, Cambodians, Vietnamese, Chileans (who’s democratically elected government the CIA overthrew in 11 Sept 1973), Panama (economic slaves to date).

          // I think a look at sharia-ruled nations compared to capitalist nations speaks for the success of capitalism, and the failure of kleptocracy, monarchy, communal property and focus on after-life rewards instead of current life behavior and positive acts.//

          What shariah-ruled nations are these? We are talking about planet Earth in 2014, right? You capitalist Zionists made sure Islamic nations do not exist and have done so for a century. Don’t try and argue by using dictatorships which your tax dollars have installed in the Muslim lands, I am simply not fooled.

          // I am simply informed, well-read, and awake to the threat Islam, the belief system, not Muslims, the people, pose to our liberties//

          I am trying to have a serious debate here.

          // Using the strong arm of government to take from those who have produced in order to hand it to those who have not is no form of justice that the Judeo-Christian God or the founding fathers would recognize.//

          Are these the same founding fathers who gave blacks and indigenous Americans next to no rights, as well as giving women no rights, as well as giving Catholics and Jews a low status, while claiming “all men are created equal”?

          //he U.S. does not invade to rule, but to free. //

          Name one country the US has freed in the last two centuries

        4. Phillip Slepian

          JTK – Do you honestly think that non-Muslims will accept your version of history? This may come as a surprise, but millions of forced conversions and executions of those who refused to submit did not lead the world to see Islam as the liberator faithful Muslims believe it is. And if you expect me to believe that the Berber abd Spanish properties were “returned” to rightful Muslim owners who had never set foot outside of the Arabian peninsula until their conquests, then you underestimate my intelligence. I know – in your religious world view, the entire world is Allah’s, whether a single Muslim has set foot in any particular spot yet or not, just waiting to be liberated and “returned” to the uma. Good for you. My point is that non-Muslims don’t see it your way, and will fight to be free from the oppression of Islam. It seems you may be chosing your starting points in history to suit your argument. I prefer to start at the earliest recorded historical period, which is way, way before Mohammed launched his conquests. To the non-Muslim, Islam has nothing to do with history prior to Mohammed.

          There is plenty wrong with being a dhimmi. First and mainly: I do not wish to be one. As it is my basic human right to self-determination, you Muslims do not get to define what religious belief system I have to live under. I believe in civil equality before the law. By definition, dhimmi status is unequal, the taxes are unequal, and the treatment before the law is unequal. By paying the jizyah (not to mention many other rules), a dhimmi is indeed forced to follow sharia. That’s fine in an Islamic republic, but not outside of one.

          I stand by my statements: Native Americans did get a pretty raw deal, but it’s not like they welcomed the Europeans with open arms. The Native Americans slaughtered many whites, and the vast majority of Native Americans that died did so as a result of disease, not death at the hands of the European settlers. Nevertheless, the Native Americans today are free to practice their tribal rites, and many do. Plus, they are free from many U.S. laws and taxes, and govern themselves to a large degree, even as they receive entitlement benefits from taxes levied on Americans that Native Americans are exempt from. The parrallel you try to draw between dhimmis and Native Americans fails completely. The Japanese during WWII were quite reasonably suspected of loyalties to an enemy that had viciously attacked America (fifth colums have existed and do exist all over the world). Their interment was temporary and humane. The examples you give of external involvement in foreign nations fails because of the much larger body of Muslim violence throughout the globe against non-Muslims – India, Africa, Thailand, Lebanon, Egypt, Israel, The Philipines, and numerous other Islamic Jihad fronts are bloody battlegrounds littered with dead non-Muslims who dared to reject the “freedoms” that sharia law threatened to oppress them with.

          Sharia ruled nations? There are varying degrees, with the most pure being Iran. In my reading, my conclusion is that strict enforcement of sharia, with its communal property and economic restrictions, is inversely proportional to the economic success of that nation. And you really need to put down your well worn copy of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, JTK. It was a forgery, made up. It is not the “Zionists” or the “capitalists” who seek to rule the world, but the Muslims, whose holy books call for jihad until the entire planet is subdued, and Islam the supreme religion. Chrisitanity only desires to win over men’s souls, not their nations or wealth, and does not do so by the sword (I am talking doctrine here, not history, so you can stop typing about the very misunderstood and politicized crusades right now). Judaism seeks only hegemony over the tiny Land of Israel (a hegemony older than Islam, and acknowledged in the Koran). Beyond those borders, sorry to tell you, the Jews have no interest in ruling anything. Are there induviduals who seek wealth? Yes, and they are from every place, culture and religion, including Muslims like Prince Alwaleed, but I don’t buy into an Islamic economic conspiracy theory because of a few wealthy Muslims. So it is only Islam, of the three Abrahamic faiths, whose doctrine wants it all: All of the world, all of the wealth, and all of the souls. And it is the only one that condones the use of force to accomplish a world-wide goal of hegemony and property siezure. You can believe what you like, but, again, don’t expect non-Muslims to see it your way.

          I am being serious. As a non-Muslim, I don’t consider sharia to be a form of liberty or freedom, for Muslims or for non-Muslims. As a student of history, I know what happens when jihadists invade and loot ever more lands, demanding submission, conversion, or death. And I know from recent documents that there are plenty of Muslims who consider it their religious obligation to continue the jihad against the infidels. And by that I mean all the forms of jihad, not just the violent one. I know what is taught in many mosques, and you bet I take it all seriously when my family and I are the target of jihad, when 3000 dead men, women and children who were going about their business are pulverized by violent jihadists, and when the Muslim Brotherhood, like the communists before them, infiltrate every part of our power structure in order to subvert it and destroy it by its own hands. And I take it seriously when well-meaning Muslims like yourself try using Dawa to convince me that what I really want is to submit. I don’t, and never will. It is taqqiya for a Muslim to tell me I have nothing to worry about, and I will not be bullied or fooled into silence. And there are billions like me.

          I did say that America was not perfect, JTK, and slavery, as practiced in the pre-Civil War U.S. was clearly inhumane and inconsistent with the values of the founding fathers and the constitution. But guess what, JTK, that was 150 years ago, and the situation was fixed. Liberty was eventually extended to all. America is still imperfect, and always will be, but don’t bother trying to sell me on Islam as the perfect system, because it won’t work. If it’s perfect for you, wonderful. And, where is slavery practiced today, JTK? By Muslims in Muslim lands. Slavery as regulated in the Old Testament is extremely humane. Slavery as permitted by Islam is less so. But Jews and Chrisitians have rid themselves of all slavery. Many Muslims have not. Having read the koran, learned about Mohammed, and seen his faithful in action, I want nothing to do with it. There are billions like me, and when pushed, we will push back. Gates of Vienna, JTK.

          One country? How about you name for me one country the U.S. has invaded that it still rules – collects taxes, enforces U.S. laws, etc. The U.S. has stood up for the right of self determination and won in many cases: South Africa, Germany, Israel, USSR, France, nearly all of Eastern Europe, Taiwan, Panama, South Korea and Japan are the ones I can name off the top of my head. How many places have been conquered by Jihadists then set free – free of sharia law?

        5. JTK2012

          By “jihadists” are you referring to CIA agencies such as Taliban who invaded Afghanistan, giving the Afghanis one other choice which was another American puppet like Karzai?

          Also, the US didn’t stand up for self-determination, it threatened to bomb nations to the stone age, like Pakistan while paying simultaneously a bunch of elites; in the same breath, they’d declare they are giving “aid” to foreign nations.

          //It is not the “Zionists” or the “capitalists” who seek to rule the world, but the Muslims, whose holy books call for jihad until the entire planet is subdued, and Islam the supreme religion//

          Zionists and Capitalists do not seek to rule the world because they already DO!

          Furthermore, Islam is a supreme religion which does NOT need people to follow it. Allah does not need you or me to be Muslims for Him to be great; God is great without the existence of space or time required.

          It is about time you read the Quran. In fact, it is about time you read ANYTHING.

          Start with the oppression of the Bretton-Woods system in 1944

        6. Phillip Slepian

          Ha! Of course, JTK, by jihadists. I am referring to those around the globe who fulfill their obligations to jihad in one or more of its many forms. And I wish there were readers of this site who were Taliban to discuss with you whether they are a CIA agency or not. Karzai? I bet there are few in Washington right now who still feel that US strings are attached to that puppet. But the time-honored tradition of victors in war installing new leaders who would keep the peace is nothing new, and practiced nearly universally throughout history by every culture, including Islam.

          I actually agree that it is folly for the U.S. to give aid to its natural enemies in the hopes of buying friendships. It ends up as a form of extortion, and a financial burden without much benefit for U.S. citizens. U.S. aid should be directed at proven allies, not potential ones.

          A few points about “Zionists and Capitalists”: If they truly rule the world, as you say, what implication does this have for the legitimacy of Islam? But the mainpoint is that for you, the “rule of the world” is either black or white, Muslim or Infidel. Since national divisions are un-Islamic, any nation that is powerful is haram, I guess. The Judeo-Christian tradition, on the other hand, promotes multi-national coexistence. Judism, of course, has no designs on territory outside of the Land of Israel. Christianity seeks primarily to govern men’s souls, not land masses, and so is content to be purely a religion, rather than a national system of rulership. But Islam demands it all. All the land, all the people, all the property. If you, as a believing Muslim, seek to actuate that demand, as I would exoect you to, fine. Just be aware that, now as in the past, the infidels will push back, and seek to actuate their own beliefs. Sometimes, the infidels even win. As a non-Muslim, I don’t think you can expect me to accept the Muslim world-view, JTK. I know for you Islam is “supreme” above all other religions. I would be the last person to try and disuade you from your faith in Islam. But just because you believe it does mean others like me will. I believe my faith is “supreme”, just as adherents to almost all religions do. But the difference is what is done about that belief. Except for Islam, other faiths are content with the status quo, with limited territory, influence, and authority, allowing others to determine for themselves what they will believe or reject. Only Islam refuses to accept anything less than complete hegemony. Knowing this, the non-Muslim world will allow itself to be pushed only so far before it pushes back. Gates of Vienna, JTK.

          I am familiar with Bretton-Woods. I see no problem with elected officials negotiating treaties for the economic benefit and stability of their peoples. While we are exchanging suggested reading, I would reccomend to you The Federalist Papers, and de Toqueville.

        7. JTK2012

          Jihad means to struggle, to strive etc. and basically, ALL Muslims are obliged to struggle against oppression, injustice and to eradicate it by any means permissible and possible. I am not ashamed to admit that I love Islam because it believes in conquering oppression by the recognition of one God, who is the Most Just.
          How does Islam install puppets? Islam is not a physical tangible entity; it is Muslims. Moreover, tell me where Muslims under the Islamic system (before 1258CE ideally) installed puppets. With regards to puppetry, the Muslim world is faced with either one US puppet or the other; this is the root cause of many global problems and only a few have the guts to stand up such as Venezuela, Uruguay, North Korea, Iran, now Russia and China.

          //A few points about “Zionists and Capitalists”: If they truly rule the world, as you say, what implication does this have for the legitimacy of Islam?//

          None whatsoever. I do not see how the legitimacy of Islam is relevant to the fact that Zionist Capitalist rule the Earth. Please explain the link.

          //The Judeo-Christian tradition, on the other hand, promotes multi-national coexistence. Judism, of course, has no designs on territory outside of the Land of Israel. Christianity seeks primarily to govern men’s souls, not land masses, and so is content to be purely a religion, rather than a national system of rulership. But Islam demands it all. All the land, all the people, all the property.//

          Rubbish. The Christian world for so many centuries was in infighting and total disunity with extreme gentrification. During the Islamic rule before 1258CE, the Muslim world was multi-cultural and multi-religious with many great scientists, philosophers and theologans coming through with high governmental positions. Were it not for the existence of Islamic rulership, universities would never as exist as the first university was established by Lady Fatimah Al Fihri in Fes, (University of Karaouine/Qarawiyyin), the University of Oxford certainly would not have existed and Pope Sylvester II who travelled to the Muslim world and learned, only to bring it back. In fact, the Renaissance could not have occurred at all without Islamic rulership as it was the principles and knowledge the Islamic rulership put in place, which benefited all regardless of race or religion. Andalucian Iberia was known as the Coexistence (La Convivencia) and I could go on.

          Under Islamic rulership, there was greater religious diversity than there has been with secularism. Note how the Muslim world has sunk under secularism which exists in abundance today.

          //I know for you Islam is “supreme” above all other religions. I would be the last person to try and disuade you from your faith in Islam. But just because you believe it does mean others like me will. I believe my faith is “supreme”, just as adherents to almost all religions do. But the difference is what is done about that belief. Except for Islam, other faiths are content with the status quo, with limited territory, influence, and authority, allowing others to determine for themselves what they will believe or reject.//

          I agreed with the first half up to the point where you speak of a “difference” which is kind of ironic because last time I checked, it was Christian missionaries who were globally ubiquitous in the last 300 years. Moreover, according to Islamic doctrine, Muslims do not particularly care if someone becomes Muslim or not; Quran 18:29 among other verses such as Quran 2:256 (verse revealed when Christian and Jewish converts were asking about whether or not their families have to convert to Islám) show mutual existence. Note how the multiculturalism and multi-religious society existed under Islam (the percentage of Christians and Jewish under Islamic rule were far more in North Africa, the Levant etc. than today). I am thus, VERY confused as to where you get your observations from because the last time I checked, the Islamic rule does not exist and thus how could Muslims be trying to conquer the world and enforce their view?

          //Only Islam refuses to accept anything less than complete hegemony. Knowing this, the non-Muslim world will allow itself to be pushed only so far before it pushes back. Gates of Vienna, JTK.//

          Admittedly, after the death of Caliph Ali ben Abi Taleb, the Muslim world began to plummet and the peak of its fall was in 1258CE (Mongol invasion of Baghdad). The Ottoman Empire was based on nationalism and treated Islám as a form of nationalist culture. Indeed, there were some just and good rulers and technically speaking, Ottoman Empire did have greater religious and ethnic diversity than modern day Turkey. However, it is undeniable that the Ottoman seizure of Eastern Europe up to Vienna was from an Islamic perspective, unacceptable and appalling. Additionally, the seizure of Constantinople was unislamic and their conversion of Hagia Sofia to a mosque was just plain wrong. Sadly, many Muslims actually do not know the history of Muslims especially in this day and age.

          //I am familiar with Bretton-Woods. I see no problem with elected officials negotiating treaties for the economic benefit and stability of their peoples//

          How could you have no problem with economic enslavement? There was no economic stability but seizure of power and control. Even from a Christian perspective (Vladimir Putin seems to understand this) that to have a trade system based on other than tangible value is ungodly. Islam teaches this and so does Christianity (I don’t know about other systems).

        8. Phillip Slepian

          Getting busy at work, JTK, so I will have to be brief:

          Please peddle your taqqiya elsewhere. I am fully aware of all of the variouos meanings of jihad. Most modern and non-modern Islamic authorities include the aspect of holy war in the definition. The obligation to jihad as a means to spread Islam within dar el-harb is incumbent on every Muslim, and you know that. You may wish to hide or change this aspect of Islam, but in doing so you do not speak for normative Islam as it is accepted by the vast majority of Islamic scholarship.

          To repeat: All victors in war, if they decide not to rule directly, will select local rulers that will pose no further threat to them. This applies to Islamic leaders and non-Islamic leaders. This may displease you, but it is a historical reality and nearly universal.

          The link between Islam and the belief that “Capitalists and Zionists” rule the world is that, if Islam’s goal is to unite the world under Islam, this is a status quo that is not acceptable to Islam. What is your prescription, JTK, for dealing with this supposed rule of “Capitalists and Zionists”?

          I knew when I discussed the different goals of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, you would jump to historical examples. I am speaking strictly in the doctrinal sense. Especially in the modern era, there is no authoritative Christian or Jewish group that desires to conquer the entire world as an element of their faith’s doctrine. Islam, on the other hand, does demand that the entire world become dar al-Islam if there is ever to be peace. Just because some rulers in history abused Christianity to legitimize military conquests does not mean that Christian doctrine supports such behavior. And in fact, it does not. This applies to religious diversity as well. Since religious diversity in the Muslim world is subject to the sharia rules of the dhimmi, I cannot accept that tolerated classes are examples of diversity. Diversity, to the western way of thinking, does not favor one faith over the other. Diversity implies equal religious freedoms for all religions (or those of no religion). The sharia punishment for apostacy is clear proof that religious diversity is quite limited under sharia.

          And I would date the modern university system to ancient Greece, not Muslim schools of the 11th century.

          It’s kind of you to denegrate Ottoman Turkish expansion into Europe, JTK, but I don’t think your sentiments are shared by most of today’s Islamic religious authorities. Are you willing to give up on making Europe into part of the uma? Spain as well? Or is it only the Ottoman methods that you find unreasonable. Jihad can be accomplished without the sword as well, as it is now happening throughout Europe and elsewhere. The results are the same, if perhaps less bloody. It still means Muslims rule, everyone else submits or converts.

          I don’t define economic enslavement the same way you do, JTK. I see free market capitalism as the opposite of economic slavery. I see sharia, in which all property belongs to the uma, as a form of collectivism, and much closer to economic enslavement than a free market. And, to repeat, I agree that fiat currency is a problem, and unconstitutional.

        9. JTK2012

          //Please peddle your taqqiya elsewhere. I am fully aware of all of the variouos meanings of jihad..//

          In other words, you are going to find an excuse to wage war against Muslims just like the Crusaders did and lie about it. Secondly, since when did the majority speak for Islám? Islám speaks for itself and does not need an advocate.

          //The link between Islam and the belief that “Capitalists and Zionists” rule the world is that, if Islam’s goal is to unite the world under Islam, this is a status quo that is not acceptable to Islam. What is your prescription, JTK, for dealing with this supposed rule of “Capitalists and Zionists”?//

          Advocacy of the truth and solution of Islám and implement it at least among Muslims so we are no longer economically enslaved. Then to free the others who wish to be freed from economic slavery.

          //I knew when I discussed the different goals of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, you would jump to historical examples. I am speaking strictly in the doctrinal sense. Especially in the modern era, there is no authoritative Christian or Jewish group that desires to conquer the entire world as an element of their faith’s doctrine. Islam, on the other hand, does demand that the entire world become dar al-Islam if there is ever to be peace.//

          Well, the early Islamic rulership was based upon Islámic doctrine and hence, you could see a practical example of Islám as opposed to just theory. However, I know your kind of people and you will never be accepting of Islám and Muslims until we are history.

          //Since religious diversity in the Muslim world is subject to the sharia rules of the dhimmi, I cannot accept that tolerated classes are examples of diversity.//

          Well your definition of dhimmi is a pile of rubbish. Let’s be honest, what is fairer than a non-Muslim living under an Islámic governance being allowed to practice their own religion freely as long as they agree to pay taxes to the state in order to reduce income inequality?

          //The sharia punishment for apostacy is clear proof that religious diversity is quite limited under sharia.

          And I would date the modern university system to ancient Greece, not Muslim schools of the 11th century.//

          - You talk about apostasy without even knowing the fundamentals of Islám! It is a difficult to discuss Islám rules seriously with a guy who knows nothing about Islám. It is like teaching vector calculus to someone who doesn’t know 1+1=2. The death sentence is for treason and hence, most people who left Islám were not sentenced

          - Of course you would date the modern university system to ancient Greece; you Islamophobes would do absolutely anything to discredit Islám and Muslims for your rancid agenda of global oppression and slavery. You would discredit Ibn Al Nafees for discovering blood circulation and Al Khwarizmi for algebra too.

          //It’s kind of you to denegrate Ottoman Turkish expansion into Europe, JTK, but I don’t think your sentiments are shared by most of today’s Islamic religious authorities. Are you willing to give up on making Europe into part of the uma? //

          If followers of other belief systems are allowed to propagate their message and values to the world, then why the hell cannot Muslims? I will always invite people to Islám and never stop. Fact is, your lies about Muslims forcing people to follow Islám are nothing more than the defecation on history.

          With regards to the concept of “free market”, Islám has a greater way of free and much more genuine market. Firstly, there are no corporation taxes which allows all barriers of entry into industry to lower. Secondly, as every religious group is allowed businesses in conformance with their own ideology, they do not have restrictions on what they can or cannot produce i.e. Christians and Jews can produce and sell wine and through jizya, income inequality shall be eliminated among Christians, Jews and other religious groups. Moreover, as loans are not via interest nor fiat money, it created opportunities for business to function with sound investment without having concerns about hard-hitting collapses which can burn away industries overnight.

          I could go on.

        10. Phillip Slepian

          JTK – I have no interest “waging war” against peaceful Muslims who do not attempt to subdue the lands and peoples of dar el-harb. But with each new front jihad opens, I will indeed support the fight to repel the jihadists, whether they represent your views of Islam or not.

          As for the Crusaders that the Muslims love to hold up as an example of infidel aggression, I have no doubt that had the Muslims left Christian pilgrims unmolested during their travels to Christian holy sites, there never would have been any Crusades. Imagine the cries if Muslim pilgrims to Mecca were attacked, robbed and killed with impunity as they tried to visit the Kabba.

          So your solution for the rule of the “Capitalists and Zionists” is, in fact, jihad. Jihad to replace their rule with Islamic rule. How can you deny that Islam obligates its true followers to conquer the world? Freeing people and subjecting them to sharia law against their will (dhimmi status) is what I would call a contradiction in terms.

          Actually, “my kind” of people would be quite happy to leave Islam alone in Islamic lands, provided they did not threaten non-Muslims or their property. That would also mean no immigration of Muslims to non-Muslim lands. But think about it, JTK: You are saying that Muslims should be free to live everywhere, and once they arrive in a non-Muslim land, they should “free” the people in that land by imposing sharia law upon them. What then, is the difference between what you desire and jihad?

          Dhimmi are NOT free to practise their religion – not in public, not by building or improving their houses of worship, and not by peacefully seeking converts. And the jizya enforces economic inequality, JTK, by insuring that dhimmi will always have less than Muslims, all else being equal. It is separate, and not so equal. Jim Crow would be proud. And, as I have said before, you cannot oppose income inequality, which is a hallmark of a free society, and claim to treat everyone equally. Ending income inequality means taking from those who have earned and giving it to those that have not. Being born a Muslim does not entitle you to any of my hard-earned money. Any infidel that willfully moves to a Muslim nation should expect to be subject to dhimmi laws. But don’t tell me that I have to accept those laws in non-Muslim lands. Yes, that I will fight to prevent.

          You do not know what I know about Islam, JTK. And I bet I know more than you think I do. I have long been familiar with the attempts by Muslims to shut debate down by claiming it is impossible for a non-Muslim to comprehend Islam. That’s simply not true. It may be haram for a non-Muslim to study Islam, but in non-Muslim lands, we are free to do so if we wish, and many do. I am sure you discredit any examples I might supply, but I can give you plenty of examples of Muslim apostates that were killed for their offense. Hey – if you are a non-Muslim in a Muslim land, that’s just the way it is. I just don’t want my land to become a Muslim land, because I don’t want sharia to be the law in my country.

          Here’s why I have a problem with Muslims “propagating their message”: That message does not teach true coexistance on an even level with other faiths. Since it teaches the superiority of sharia over the laws of the state, it is de facto treason. It is using religion as a shield to protect those who would overturn the laws of the state by deception and the democratic process, for the purpose of replacing state law with sharia law. That’s what I would call treason, and what I will fight to stop. The U.S. constitution is not a suicide pact. And, the truths that I expose to non-Muslims about Islam open their eyes to the threat that the gradual stealth jihad in America poses to all Americans who value their liberty and their constitution. I do my part to make sure everyone I know gets to hear what the true mission of Islam is, by repeating the words of Muslim leaders. Whether you think they are legitimate leaders is not important. If they have followers, they must be taken seriously. And I do so, and urge my fellow Americans to do so. You and I will never agree on much, JTK, other than our dislike for fiat currency. But the constitution prohibits fiat money just as surely as Islam does. Neither prohibition is effective if it is ignored.

          I also believe in low taxes, JTK, but that tax rates ought to be determined by the international market. IOW, it would make sense for a government to keep its corporate tax rates competitive with other industrialized nations, in order to retain and attract business. Funny how you can say that dhimmi can produce “through the jizya”, which immediately puts them at a competitive disadvantage with Muslims. How you can call that equality is a mystery to me.

          I am sure you could go on. So could I.

        11. JTK2012

          //JTK – I have no interest “waging war” against peaceful Muslims who do not attempt to subdue the lands and peoples of dar el-harb. But with each new front jihad opens, I will indeed support the fight to repel the jihadists, whether they represent your views of Islam or not.

          As for the Crusaders that the Muslims love to hold up as an example of infidel aggression, I have no doubt that had the Muslims left Christian pilgrims unmolested during their travels to Christian holy sites, there never would have been any Crusades. Imagine the cries if Muslim pilgrims to Mecca were attacked, robbed and killed with impunity as they tried to visit the Kabba.//

          Well, your comments and views particularly with respect to foreign policy echo otherwise. Moreover, the Christians and Muslims were living side by side in harmony until European imperialists came and upset the balance between the two faith groups.

          //So your solution for the rule of the “Capitalists and Zionists” is, in fact, jihad. Jihad to replace their rule with Islamic rule. How can you deny that Islam obligates its true followers to conquer the world? Freeing people and subjecting them to sharia law against their will (dhimmi status) is what I would call a contradiction in terms.//

          Do you speak English? Or do you simply not read what I have written.

          Subjecting people to Shariah is against Islám completely in the case of non-Muslims. The whole point of a dhimmi is that they are not subjected to Shariah and that is why they pay a tax amount decided by their own authority thus they are can practice their faith freely provided they pay taxes. Muslims have to pay another tax but because they’re Muslims, they follow Shariah.
          With respect to jihád, I do believe in struggling and striving against capitalist imperalism and Zionism; they are inhumane ideologies that must be eradicated from continually invading. Luckily, Vladimir Putin is turning against this and he is an example of a true Christian who I love and respect.

          //Dhimmi are NOT free to practise their religion – not in public, not by building or improving their houses of worship, and not by peacefully seeking converts. And the jizya enforces economic inequality, JTK, by insuring that dhimmi will always have less than Muslims, all else being equal.//

          Clearly, you have no idea what a dhimmi is nor what jihád are. I advise you to not speak about subjects which you know absolutely nothing about. Jihád has nothing to do with forcing or coercing anybody to believe that which they do not believe.

          Secondly, how does jizyah enforce income inequality? If the rate set by the local religious authority gets redistributed so the poor get increased disposable income and the rich continue to thrive, then overall, disposable income will increase, as will spending power. With increased income comes the chance of increased entrepreneurship. In a usury free world (from Islám and Christianity at least), loans can be taken out without harming anybody and significantly reducing the risks associated with starting up enterprises. As a result of reduced barriers of entry, monopolisation cannot be actualised.

          //It may be haram for a non-Muslim to study Islam, but in non-Muslim lands, we are free to do so if we wish, and many do. //

          The irony is not lost! On one hand, I am educating you about Islám and the colossal nonsense you have spewed. On the other hand, it is “haram” for you to learn about Islám!

          Do you actually know what you are talking about?

          //Here’s why I have a problem with Muslims “propagating their message”: That message does not teach true coexistance on an even level with other faiths. Since it teaches the superiority of sharia over the laws of the state, it is de facto treason. //

          - So allowing non-Muslims to practice their faith as long as they agree to a treaty of peace and having a locally agreed tax amount does not promote coexistence? You are hilarious! Such coexistence has not been found in any other society except for the Islamic model

          - Of course Islám teaches self-superiority, as does any other way of life!

          //Funny how you can say that dhimmi can produce “through the jizya”, which immediately puts them at a competitive disadvantage with Muslims. How you can call that equality is a mystery to me.//

          - I never said equality but it is fair and just that the dhimmi and the Muslim get a chance to practice their religion

        12. Phillip Slepian

          I don’t know what period of time you are referencing with your Muslims and Christians living side by side in harmony. Certainly not the period following the Islamic invasion of Byzantine Palestine. The remains of fortresses built to protecrt Christian pilgrims from attacks by Muslims are all over this area. None of them date from before the Islamic invasion from Arabia into Byzantine Palestine.

          I have read what you have written, JTK, but you are not making yourself clear. Where, in what parts of the world, do you feel sharia should be the law of the land? I think we differ on how to define the imposition of sharia law. You define it as applying only to Muslims. I define it as any state that makes sharia the law of the land. The very nature of sharia makes it difficult to apply unless it is the law of the land. For example, the sale of liquor. How can a Muslim live under sharia in a place where liquor is legally sold and consumed? If a non-Muslim lives in a state governed by sharia law, he is likewise governed by sharia law. As a dhimmi, the laws that apply to him are different than the laws that apply to his neighboring Muslims, but the laws of the dhimmi are sourced in sharia. Where else could they originate? If dhimmi are not subject to sharia law, may they opt not to pay the jizya (a requirement based in sharia law)? May they publicly worship their non-Muslim deity? May they build new houses of worship, and repair old ones? If not, from whence do these restrictions eminate? Answer: Sharia.

          When you say Zionism and Capitalist Imperialism must be “eradicated”, what is, in your view, Islam’s method of eliminating those ideologies? What if the supporters of Zionism and Capitalism resist Islamic efforts to “eradicate” them?

          As for what jihad is, I quote Hassan Al-Banna:

          “All Muslims Must Make Jihad. Jihad is an obligation from Allah on every Muslim and cannot be ignored nor evaded. Allah has ascribed great importance to jihad and has made the reward of the martyrs and the fighters in His way a splendid one. Only those who have acted similarly and who have modeled themselves upon the martyrs in their performance of jihad can join them in this reward. Furthermore, Allah has specifically honoured the Mujahideen {those who wage jihad} with certain exceptional qualities, both spiritual and practical, to benefit them in this world and the next. Their pure blood is a symbol of victory in this world and the mark of success and felicity in the world to come.

          Islam is concerned with the question of jihad and the drafting and the mobilization of the entire Umma {the global Muslim community} into one body to defend the right cause with all its strength than any other ancient or modern system of living, whether religious or civil. The verses of the Qur’an and the Sunnah of Muhammad (PBUH {Peace Be Unto Him}) are overflowing with all these noble ideals and they summon people in general (with the most eloquent expression and the clearest exposition) to jihad, to warfare, to the armed forces, and all means of land and sea fighting.”

          As for dhimmi laws in sharia, Al-Maghili explains:

          “On the day of payment {of the jizya} they {the dhimmi} shall be assembled in a public place like the suq {place of commerce}. They should be standing there waiting in the lowest and dirtiest place. The acting officials representing the Law shall be placed above them and shall adopt a threatening attitude so that it seems to them, as well as to others, that our object is to degrade them by pretending to take their possessions. They will realize that we are doing them a favor in accepting from them the jizya and letting them go free.”

          Further, Al-Damanhuri:

          “… just as the dhimmis are prohibited from building churches, other things also are prohibited to them. They must not assist an unbeliever against a Muslim … raise the cross in an Islamic assemblage … display banners on their own holidays; bear arms … or keep them in their homes. Should they do anything of the sort, they must be punished, and the arms seized. … The Companions [of the Prophet] agreed upon these points in order to demonstrate the abasement of the infidel and to protect the weak believer’s faith. For if he sees them humbled, he will not be inclined toward their belief, which is not true if he sees them in power, pride, or luxury garb, as all this urges him to esteem them and incline toward them, in view of his own distress and poverty. Yet esteem for the unbeliever is unbelief.”

          So, what, exactly, do I not understand about jihad and dhimmi, JTK? You will not shut this discussion down by baseless claims that I am unable to comprehend what I can easily read. When you criticize capitalism and Zionism, I reply to you with factual rebuttal, not that you simply are incapable of understanding the concepts. I would appreciate the same courtesy from you.

          Since when do non-Muslim poor receive proceeds from the jizya? If that is a sharia principle, please cite your source. Redistribution of wealth never increases the wealth of a society. Only wealth creation can do that. Redistribution merely takes from those who have earned to give it to those who have not. The net impact to the economy is negligable. In fact, wealthy people tend to purchase luxury goods, make investments, and invest in business ventures, which benefits economies more than the purchase of staples, which is what poorer people spend their money on. And since the jizya only benefits Muslims, I don’t see where non-Muslims will benefit from all this enrtrepenurial activity. They will be the ones “enslaved” as you would put it, by Muslim business owners. In America, the states with the highest taxes and largest redistribution programs (entitlements) are the ones with the weakest economies and highest debts, and vice versa. I think the EU is similar – look at Greece vs. Germany.

          You telling me selected parts of Islam as a form of Dawa is of course permitted. But for a non-Muslim to attempt to study the Koran, Sunna and Hadiths himself, without “guidance” from an Islamic cleric is haram, because we might get the “wrong idea”, i.e., discover the truth, about Islam. And the truth is that Islam is a threat to non-Muslims who wish to remain non-Muslims. Again, you may disagree, but history indicates otherwise. Do I know what I am talking about? Sure, as much as you know what you are talking about, and moreso when it comes to capitalism and Zionism.

          No, many other ways of life do not teach superiority. Judaism, for example, does not suggest that non-Jews would be better off embracing Judaism. In fact, it is easier for a gentile to receive the reward of heaven than it is for a Jew, according to Jewish law. The difference is that many religions hold that what is right for me is not necessarily right for thee. Islam teaches that all forms of belief other than Islam are not only inferior, but deserving of “eradication” as you put it. Even though dhimmi are allowed to exist, their treatment is aimed at discouraging their survival, and encouraging submission to Islam. There may be parrallels in Christianity, although the punishments for non-adherance are restricted to the afterlife. There is no equivalent of dhimmi status for non-Christians in Christian doctrine. Judaism’s only restrictions on non-Jews, and is only enforceable on those who reside in the Land of Israel, are the 7 Noachide laws, and restrictions on access to the inner precincts of the Temple in Jerusalem. Not a good comparison, JTK.

          So now you are setting a limit on “income equality” – the limit of Muslim vs. dhimmi. So, you admit that the dhimmi is indeed inferior to the Muslim in a sharia society. That’s what Islam teaches, so, no worries. But how do you apply that to your homeland in Europe?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *