Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Tuesday, November 1, 2011

Further Descent Into Absurdity

(With a hat tip to Chuck Thinks Right)

The Catholic University of America

Have you seen this story about Muslim demands at Catholic University? Excerpt:
The Washington, D.C. Office of Human Rights confirmed that it is investigating allegations that Catholic University violated the human rights of Muslim students... by not providing them rooms without Christian symbols for their daily prayers.

[...]

...[S]ome Muslim students were particularly offended because they had to meditate in the school’s chapels “and at the cathedral that looms over the entire campus – the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception.”...
Read the rest HERE.

Look here, Muslims! Anyone with half a brain knows full well in advance that the institution itself is Roman Catholic and that the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception is a prominent feature of the campus. What would Muslims have Catholic University do? Tear down the shine so as not to offend Muslims?

Muslims, if you don't like that religious tone on the campus, go elsewhere. If you don't like the Basilica, don't look at it.

Catholic University has better things to do than dealing with such nonsense from Muslims, who certainly would not tolerate Christians coming to one of their universities and putting up a fuss about Islamic symbols on campus. But the West jumps through hoops when Muslims complain. Usually, that jumping through hoops costs the defendant, the infidel, money, money, money.

Key facts about the above that might not have been adequately covered:
...In fact, not a single Muslim student at Catholic University has signed on to Professor Banzhaf’s complaint and he admitted...that he lodged the complaint against Catholic with the D.C. Office of Human Rights as a concerned individual, not on behalf of any student or group of students....
The professor bringing the legal complaint against Catholic University of America is John F. Banzhaf III of George Washington University. Banzhaf is known for the following:
In short, Banzhaf is an attorney who runs personal responsibility out of the courtroom, instead blaming McDonald’s for obesity and cigarette companies for smokers’ lung cancer.
Too bad that the American justice system doesn't impose severe penalties upon attorneys who instigate frivolous legal actions.

144 comments:

  1. Entering a Catholic university campus and complaining about religious symbols is like going to a nudist camp and complaining about all the naked people...


    It's telling that it's a lawyer doing this, not the Muslim students. I too wonder why there aren't severe penalties for such frivolous lawsuits.

    BS like this makes a mockery of our laws and our judicial system.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Banzhaf is a notorious litigator.

    It is worthwhile to notice that the Muslim students are not complaining and should not be accused here but we do take every opportunity to demonize Muslims.

    Blaming them for this situation is no better than the actions of this dipstick lawyer.

    The bottom line is that challenges to Catholic symbolism at Catholic universities isn't new and doesn't succeed.

    ReplyDelete
  3. With every frivolous law suit such as this one, it becomes more and more obvious we need tort reform. NOW!

    ReplyDelete
  4. This is all about the lawyer; FOX carried a story completely freeing the Muslim kids of any wrongdoing in this case.
    The key words I heard out of this dopey lawyer's mouth were "...but why SHOULDN'T this university respect the Muslim kids..?"
    See the leftwing PC crap? Of course WHY SHOULDN'T ANYBODY RESPECT ANYBODY? Oh, he makes such sense, is what he was implying with his horrid little smirk that got more repulsive each time he tried to goad the interviewer...and not answer her pointed questions.
    but the truth is the University has respected its Muslim students and the Muslim students seem to respect the Catholicism of CATHOLIC university.

    ReplyDelete
  5. we need a system like Germany's; you sue and lose, you pay.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It's my understanding that the Muslim students never complained, but a college professor lawyer launched the lawsuit on his own.

    ReplyDelete
  7. So are Madrassas going to start hanging crosses for their Christian students?

    Oh, wait. Islamists don't allow kuffar into their schools.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The attorney may be a shill for the MSA, MB, and CAIR

    Debbie
    Right Truth
    http://www.righttruth.typepad.com

    ReplyDelete
  9. Actually this is a clear example of a certain element of the US Muslim community that is provoking to ensure division - because then they can argue the more radical/victim line and tell their followers "I told you so" and thus support foreign radical interests. This happens all over the west and "liberal nicesness" allows it to happen.

    @Brooke - depends in what location and how "Islamist" the group is. There are foreign non-Muslim students in many Muslim Universities and Instutes all over the world with no issue. I am a Catholic and I am a part-time student a ferry-ride over in Tangier (Morocco) as part of a post-grad Arabic Language and History degree. I have no issues but then Morocco is probably the most liberal and well-balanced Muslim country. I travel to Malaysia twice a year - same situation there.

    ReplyDelete
  10. AOW, thanks for the hat tip.

    I did not rad in my article that this lawyer was acting on his own.

    Too bad that the American justice system doesn't impose severe penalties upon attorneys who instigate frivolous legal actions.

    I agree completely.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I say get the fiering squad ready!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Duck,
    You quacked:

    It is worthwhile to notice that the Muslim students are not complaining and should not be accused here but we do take every opportunity to demonize Muslims.

    Read. The. Post.

    I did point out the following:

    Key facts about the above that might not have been adequately covered:

    ...In fact, not a single Muslim student at Catholic University has signed on to Professor Banzhaf’s complaint and he admitted...that he lodged the complaint against Catholic with the D.C. Office of Human Rights as a concerned individual, not on behalf of any student or group of students....


    Apparently, some Muslims, whoever they are, have signed onto Banzhaf's complaint. I hardly think that he could have filed the complaint without the signatures of complainants attached.

    ReplyDelete
  13. D Charles,
    Thank you for pointing out the following:

    Actually this is a clear example of a certain element of the US Muslim community that is provoking to ensure division - because then they can argue the more radical/victim line and tell their followers "I told you so" and thus support foreign radical interests. This happens all over the west and "liberal nicesness" allows it to happen.

    I hope that Duck reads what you typed in. You yourself cannot be accused of demonizing Muslims. Duck hurls that accusation at me with some frequency. I doubt, however, that he'll pay a whit of attention to your reasoned comment.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Chuck,
    I discovered the additional information a few days after your post.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Debbie,
    The attorney may be a shill for the MSA, MB, and CAIR.

    If you find that information, could you email it to me?

    My blogging and web surfing time these days is very limited. Home front agonies!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Silverfiddle,
    BS like this makes a mockery of our laws and our judicial system.

    They are clogging up our court system to the point that cases of merit get delayed or not heard at all.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I noted that islamic schools in certain parts of asia never allow people of other religion or no religion in their strictly islamic schools. So, why should anyone expect a non-islamic university or school to pander to islamics?

    WLIL

    ReplyDelete
  18. Let them pray in their dorms or off campus at a local Mosque. The University shouldn't have to give them special treatment.

    ReplyDelete
  19. If it is a strictly Catholic religious institution, it have a right to cater to anyone or not to anyone, according to their own discretion. After all, islamic religious schools had mostly selfishly accommodate and pander to their own islamic kind only. Anyway, those islamic people have no right to pressure or bully us nonbelievers or of other faith to pander to any of their islamic or eastern demands.

    WLIL

    ReplyDelete
  20. WLIL,
    Yeah I think if pisslam built a pisslamic school the catholics would have to make them put a cross up! Fair is fair....BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

    Er not with pisslam!

    ReplyDelete
  21. I saw this story elsewhere but didn't know that the muslim students were not the ones behind this. Good on them for not being part of this.

    I think it should also be noted that the body investigating this nonsense is so stupid that it doesn't care that by investigating this it's dragging down the very muslims it's supposedly doing this for.

    It seems the left doesn't care even for its sacred minorities when persecuting Christianity.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Also, thanks for posting the key facts.

    ReplyDelete
  23. What about some christians or christian institution or other non-islamic religious institutions in asia being two faced or covertly knowingly or unknowingly supported those equally two faced islamics for their own gain and cry victimhood, when islamics failed to support them?

    WLIL

    ReplyDelete
  24. We are drowning in the sea of political correctness when in reality all it is, is just a way for one group to gain some kind of advantage over another. The truth is always, always the first victim of "PC"!

    ReplyDelete
  25. Do you think if Muslims ran a university and Christian students wanted to worship without Islamic symbols in the room that the Muslims at the school would tear down their symbols?

    Not a chance. Nor would I want them too. When applying to college one should take into account the religious or non-religious beliefs of the college. It is not the colleges job to cater to the students beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  26. If it’s against pisslam standards, then they need to not go to school there or work there!

    Pisslam is a bad change and pisslam needs to get a rule book on how to live in the USA keeping all US citizens FREE!

    They can do what the pot smoking crack heads do and practice at home!

    Hate is pisslam and socialist morons coming here against other more logical folk’s way of life!


    Piss be upon them all!

    ReplyDelete
  27. We should always base arguments on the reality on the ground and it is never that simple or clear-cut.

    Many universities and other institutions run by religious faiths are required by law to open their doors to those from other faiths or denominations. Also to get tax breaks they must comply to standards such as supplying prayer facilities, meeting rooms etc.

    The reality, though some here obviously have their heads in the sand (and are humming to themselves that it is not so, it is not so, etc....) is that there are many examples of Muslim universities around the world that are open to other faiths and have no problem with providing rooms for worship or simply have no issue at all. By the same token there are others that will make problems and those that because local law allows it, will simply not let others in (or with strict rules).

    I do take issue with those that twist reality and context for their own agenda, such as Muslim groups with foreign allegences and radical loyalties, milking local laws and hard-earned freedoms that we offer. Equally, I have problem with foolishness (and some bigotry) from either equally radical agendas or simply blog-based naives who "wish it was so" and have absolutely no idea what life is like outside their own small-minded worlds.

    On this topic my question is always the same - why is it in this day and age there is lack of those individuals and organisation to take responsibility of pointing out fact from fiction?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Eastern culture or asiatic culture are in general more unreasonably intolerant, whenever they have the upper hand, whatever religion or ideology they may profess to be. They usually are extremely demanding, whenever they gain any economic or demographic clout and have very strict rules or unreasonable rules and usually they would try to enslave people, by either denying rights or by imposing (either subtlely or blatantly) their cruel, inhumane intolerant, unreasonable eastern related ideology.
    This is an unpleasant present reality. Anyway, University is a place to study and NOT a place for praying and therefore there should be no special accommodation for any religious group.

    WLIL

    ReplyDelete
  29. WLIL "BROVO!"

    Don't ya just get tired of explaining s**t to block headed morons. That is why I hardly bother with them. They like to play word games and pretend that they are masters of the universe. When they are not.

    (it lives in a country unlike ours)

    True Americans can only tolerate stuff so far and then you better run when it comes to our freedom!

    Loved what you said there WLIL. That is how I remember school to be! We are being bullied.

    Large kudos to anyone who can make that other know it all curl up in a fetal position and cry.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I think I heard a dull thunk in the bottom of that 'ol spitoon....

    ReplyDelete
  31. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Also in Asia, there are many similarities between islamic asian and nonislamic asian culture and one don't see much problems when the economy is developing or when eveyone is busy getting rich. Problems usually start when their asian economy is stagnating or only start after they chased out most of the past Western influences who have helped to enrich their asiatic country. Also, there are some nonislamic asians who appear to be willing to be dhimmi or appear to be willingly wear what appear to be their asian or malay version of islamic dresscode(that are noted to be increasingly self-imposed
    by islamic workers as well as by islamic biased asian employers),
    just for the "priviledged" of attending an islam biased university in Malaysia!

    WLIL

    ReplyDelete
  33. Actually to put generic terms on what is Islamic or what is life in Malaysia (or in fact Asia) only deludes oneself.

    As someone who has travelled to Malaysia for work twice yearly for the past eight years, has friends and regular contacts - I have seen both the changes and the realities of life in that country. My work involves the judicial processes in that country and in with others in ASEAN.

    There are different types of institutions and thus different rules and regulations depending on their status. UM (University of Malaysia) in KL or UT (University of Technology) in Jahore are very liberal and open to foreign students who are not Muslim and with no problems or hassles by conservatives. On the other hand, Putra University in Selangor or Zaynal Abadin in Kuala Terranganu are completely different and have different fundings (and thus influence and rules) and absolutely it is difficult for non-Muslims or even liberal Muslims to not be hassled or targetted.

    The point is that it is wrong to make gerneral assumptions that life in every or any Muslim country is hard-line, controling and that somehow Islamists intend to take over. Also, to get back to the actual topic - the issue was about elements from hard-liner and political Islamists and that is all. I question the morality (or level of ignorance) of anyone who tries to link this to the usual anti-Islam bigotry. We should target the hard-liners, sure, but that is all. We are better than that, or at least some of us are.

    I personally find it rediculous to hear comments about dhimmitude (a word used by bloggers more than Muslims) or simply imaginary comments about the Muslim or Arab worlds that have no reflection on reality. I guess some simply like to mouth-off or take pride in thier total ignorance of the world in general. They are the same ones whom throw the word taqiyya as being a defence for their own foolishness and errors. Taqiyya being another word used by bloggers and without basis in reality...

    "Stupid is as stupid does"

    ReplyDelete
  34. Oh great, another shallow example of logic of the most superficial kind.

    I find it not only shallow but insulting to the intelligence of the general population and to the tragic plight of such victims.

    Frankly speaking, showing these videos as a post (totally off-topic) only proves my general point to no end.

    Sure horrible things are happening and they are disgusting, but they have no relevance to the topic nor does it show anything other than the fact that the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan are as close to barbaric monsters as one can get.

    Now we know the taliban feed of ignorance and show hundreds of examples of videos, photos and stories about abusive and corrupt westerners to prove thier point (which we know is off-topic, out of context and just 'an example') but my question is what is the pathetic excuse from anyone in the west to do the same about Muslims?

    The answer is either gross ignorance, hate-agendas or ugly profiteering. So which one is it in this case?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Hirsi Ali - told the Dutch people that she loved that country, was proud of being Dutch and even became a politician. She then started her bigotry and was laughed out of politics and thus left in a huff. She is now an American citizen, that she loved that country and was proud of being an American. Next?

    dcat, you can go through every Spenceresque example and all it becomes is an example. I really feel sad for those that from an armchair pontificate over what they "wish" the world was like rather than the cold hard realities of it.

    I never have any time or respect for those that base their views out of simple word-of-mouth, profiteers (like Hirsi Ali) or hate-mongers (actually Spencer is both). For me it is cold-clear logic and a great deal of skepticism on the motives of those that promote such fringe hate agendas.

    As AOW knows, my view is clear. There are radicals, extremists, militants and ultra-conservatives whom are willing to wage war, kill and terrorise to promote their sick hate agenda. I believe they are doing so for political reasons and it is not based on faith. My view is in fact the academic and majority accepted one. By the same token there are haters, radicals and profiteers who are attempting to cash in on the "other's" hate and they actually feed of each other. The only condemnation that can stick, in general terms, is that western Muslims keep their mouths shut rather than attack the radicals and the hate-mongers like Spencer, Gellar, Wilders, BNP, EDL, Front-National, etc, etc, fill in that void.

    My belief is that if you do not follow this view you are either a victim of propoganda, ignorant of facts, naive, a profiteer, a hate-monger or a bigot.

    I think I can guess which one you are.

    With all respect.

    ReplyDelete
  36. ...Not to mention that Hirsi Ali feared for her life and left because of death threats!

    Did I mention that she had a clitorectomy? And her family had a fatwa on her head?

    Yes after America there will be no place to run to! You know that is what I fight for! It is to keep our America!

    I loathe anyone that wants to destroy our American values because it is the best!

    europia knows it too! We have a thug in office that will be a one time president!

    ReplyDelete
  37. Asia(which care very little for individual rights), indeed have a quite massive creeping islamic problem and if left unchecked by those in governance, it would get worse and worse and then it would be too late for the future generation to do anything. While other non-whites also caused social, economic and political problems with their excessive non-white immigration to the west, islamic is presently, specifically, the most obvious one due to their ever increasing unreasonable islamic loud demands and due to their islamic ideology. It is not right for islamics to demand so much while they give so little rights to other people who are not of their islamic religion.

    WLIL

    ReplyDelete
  38. Actually the vid from Syria is off-topic - it has absolutely nothing to do with an argument between islamists and a Catholic university.

    Second point, the bad experiences of Hirsi Ali only shows exactly that, her experience AND HAS almost nothing to do with life in most other Muslim countries. So the question is why does she claim so when in fact with her education she should know it is not the case? Because she used sympathy and later book selling to make money - simple. The subject is also very much OFF TOPIC.

    A third point, America is a great country but having said that, there are many other great countries and I never give respect to blind patriotism based on unreality. I find it important to be a patriot, love your country and so on - regardless of which country it is or the standard of living.

    A fourth point - European values are not only hard-earned through suffering and generations of development but I should point out that American values comes from it, it takes only a bit of study in history to know that.

    WLIL, with all respect (considering I do not know you) but your last message is totally baseless. Based on your assumptions, the entire Muslim world would be identical of which it absolutely is not the case.

    A point in example. The "loud demands" by radical and ultra-conservatives (mostly Salafis) in both Europe and the US are actually done by outcasts whom most Muslim countries have banned, outlawed or even imprisoned. That we in the West have accepted them as refugees or immigrants is our own stupidity. They ask for things that in the actual Muslim countries do not. The argument for a caliphate is frowned upon in most Muslim countries and it does not take much logic to know that no Muslim country seeks it. Why is that? In Spain and Britain they want to ban alcohol shops in streets with majority Muslim businesses and yet all you have to do is go to a large supermarket in Morocco, Algeria, Tunisa, Egypt, Lebanon, Turkey, Albania, Bosnia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Jordan or Syria and buy it. Go figure! In Holland Moroccan Salafis want Christmas decorations banned in shopping malls and yet every shopping mall in their country has them and you can buy even blow-up Santas for kids outside mosques there....

    I guess the blogs and hate-mongers you guys base your data from on the net are imagining what is the Muslim world because I see either nothing like it or simply singular examples of radicals and thus totally out of context.

    Thus I repeat myself again. I am all for arguing and discussing hate, radicals and dangerous militant Islamist groups - but base your arguments on logic, reality, with context and not rumours, bigotry and total BS mostly created by just another type of hate-monger.

    (a last important point - flooding/spamming constantly example of the piss-poor or ugly habits of people never represents a whole - the world is way to full of cr^p and Islamist websites are full of posting similar cr^p from the West with entire blogs devoted to quoting Christianity as being Westbro or Evangalist-run Uganda demanding the death penalty for being gay)

    ReplyDelete
  39. Yes WLIL!

    Well Said and you didn't need an entire page to say it!

    "It is not right for islamics to demand so much while they give so little rights to other people who are not of their islamic religion.

    WLIL

    ReplyDelete
  40. I hear a broken record in the distance. It keeps on skipping to the same brainwashing techniques used by liberal socialist scum!

    Talk about a racist!

    ReplyDelete
  41. assuming dcat your target is me, I suggest you pull your finger out and explain the "racist" remark which is both illogical and childish.

    Also, I am a real conservative, not a spoiler-far-right hypocrit who just gas-bags constantly to sound tough but actually provides no substance in any argument.

    As an active member and financial contributor to the British Conservative Party for more than 30 years, I find being called a liberal-socialist as not only laughable but frankly beyond pathetic.

    Sure, I tend to write way to much but that is my style and I am over that age limit that allows me to change. But having said that, a short one-liner for my part has neither substance or validity when it is based on superficial blindness.

    ReplyDelete
  42. OT

    Ah yes ladies and gentlemen everyone I mention are shot down.

    Oh and you best not write a book and make a profit!

    Everything should be free right? LOLOLOLOL

    ReplyDelete
  43. FYI...I am aware of this discussion but swamped on the home front at the moment.

    You two can take care of yourselves. That is not meant sarcastically, BTW.

    ReplyDelete
  44. D Charles,
    I do need to ask you a question.

    Conservatism in Europe has a different "flavor" from American conservatism, right?

    ReplyDelete
  45. AOW,

    Conservatism as a base set of principles is exactly the same and normally the only differences that exist SHOULD BE social-cultural habits of gaining goals. The subject of "liberal values" within Conservatism could be considered similarly.

    If anything French Conservatism is closer aligned to many US Tea Party goals and objectives as it is reactionary-based instead of enlightened - meaning that it is there to safeguard and respond rather than being an overal long-term build. Both your politics and that of France is born out of revolution, of course, and thus understandable whilst ours is built on evolution and actually predates the birth of the US. Your conservatism was part of Whig/Tory politics and broke away, ours continued on.

    I am a staunch believer that the original true conservatism to be "simply the practicing of traditional values and institutions whilst embracing the concepts of rationalism". I support Political-Maieutics. Some still call it Toryism but that would be incorrect considering the origins is "Whig" (look it up).

    We, in Britain, have decades of reality checks with the power (and destructiveness) of Trade Unions and 'real socialism' (Democrats are not socialist at all to us) - and thus we understand and adapt to the influences, power and aspirations of centuries of factory, mining and other working-class sectors.

    I am also Spanish and I involve myself in Anglo-Spanish conservatism and conservatism here is very much a "Liberal" party (People's Party). The Franco years took a great chunk of confidence out of the conservative movement here and simply put the socialists dominate political life.

    ReplyDelete
  46. AOW,

    I love taunting wannabes, they are all emotive, superficial and bereft of logic and morals.....or in the below case ... bereft of light.


    "Some people are just ignorant their souls bereft of light
    On others they cast aspersions and see it as their right
    On Nationality and colour to draw the racial line
    Like this person not one of us and this one suits us fine.

    By racist politicians and biased journalists these people are led
    And amongst like minded people their phobias they spread
    And they vote for the hard hearted those who best serve their cause
    Those who cause hardship to many by implementing partial laws.

    Some people are just ignorant and to them ignorance is bliss
    What we do unto others we do unto ourselves that point they seem to miss
    And many who are racist even have the cheek to say
    That they are quite fair minded and believe in fair play.

    Some people are just ignorant and difference they fear
    Your culture is different to ours we do not want you here
    And four decades back when I was young it seems sad to recall
    That we were nearer in those days to a 'fair go for all'. "

    - Francis Duggan

    ReplyDelete
  47. I wanted to add one quote so as to make a point clear.

    "To be conscious that you are ignorant is a great step to knowledge." -Benjamin Disraeli

    I do not know everything and I am ignorant of many things and I do not pretend to know what I do not. What is important is not going down the road of what you do not know, understand your limits and avoid making things up. I ALWAYS admit my mistakes, if I am proven incorrect and that I do not know something.

    AOW here has shown me some realities on the ground in the US that I most certainly was unaware and she clearly shows and reflect local sentiment, though we disagree in many things, I take my hat off to her clearness and fairness in discussion and debate. We also do share many values.

    ReplyDelete
  48. OT
    OMG Talk about getting deep!

    It seems that some think they are smarter than everyone else and everyone else's views don't count.

    Everyone must shut up when you are around.

    I just never saw anyone as full of themself before!

    Keep on b rating because that is what you do. Look in a mirror!

    ReplyDelete
  49. AOW,
    I don't care for the pislamic jerks coming in to change what was there already! You don't like it leave!

    There back on topic my view and I'm sticking with it!

    ReplyDelete
  50. Dcat,
    You know that I welcome your comments here.

    ReplyDelete
  51. D Charles,
    I'd like to continue this discussion about conservatism.

    I do hope to get back to this thread.

    However, I do work a heavy schedule Tuesdays through Thursdays. Perhaps you can stop back by this thread Friday or over the weekend.

    I do note your compliment about. As for what's transpiring on the ground here in the United States, well, it's wearisome to keep up with all of it. Some of the Islamification that I have documented is alarming! Particularly in the education system, both public and private.

    ReplyDelete
  52. AOW,

    You know I keep you and Mr. in my prayers. Your situation is what my sister-in-law went through.

    my brother “Green Beret” episode happened when he was 52. . Not an easy job. He passed at 60 and that is way too young! I miss him.

    ReplyDelete
  53. I do not have any assumption about the moslem world as D Charles
    accused me of. I am just a commentator who commented on what I noted. I have to say D Charles
    interpretation of islamic behaviours behaviours in Africa, Europe, Asia, Middle East,
    rightly or wrongly is up to people to agree with or not. Everyone have a right to their opinion and so do I.
    Anyway, I have no intention to send out any 'baseless message', which D Charles QC accused me of.
    I only stated my opinion which was based on reality, from what I encountered from my travel and living in Malaysia, Cambodia, Saudi Arabia, UK, Thailand, Singapore. I also read about other people experiences via various websites. And I don't get easily convince by any newsfeed either.

    WLIL

    ReplyDelete
  54. Furthermore, it is really bizarre that people like D Charles chose to brush me aside just like that, just because I had seen the ugly side of Malaysia!
    Malaysia and other Asian countries may be liberal but only up to a certain point and any criticism against any religious organisation is frowned upon and generally not accepted in the nonweb world.
    As with any other asian community, whether they are islamic asians or nonislamic asians, one may have to be cautious about one opinions, even when it was based on reality, in even a socalled moderate Asian country such as Malaysia. That is another uncomfortable reality.

    WLIL

    ReplyDelete
  55. WLIL,

    I have something to share. Long ago at an Iraqi blog I became friends with a “moderate” talked to him on the phone, got recipes from his wife… He was from England and he had been going to Iraq and back to England.

    Well educated and astute was he till he said something off the wall that rubbed me the wrong way and I commented.

    He said: I think Iraq should have a beauty contest. I said: Iraq needs to do more then have a beauty contest and went on to make a joke: I can see it now head to toe black cow coming out with a beach ball for the bathing suit competition. Then coming out with a flashlight, “same outfit head to toe” carrying a flashlight for evening wear.

    Needless to say that was the end of our relationship. It got ugly on line.

    Oh yes and he was married before and never mentioned his first wife on what happened but he did come on to me. I don’t trust any of them on line anymore.

    Thugs are working overtime to win folks over and slowly take the web site down too.

    Muslims against shariah I don’t believe it because they slammed me before I got ugly with them. I told Pamela Geller what happened. Sent stuff so she would believe me! I couldn’t believe it myself.

    I will never open up to those people again! I learned! Right after being on line from 9-11 to now, I also can tell you about another site that got all chummy too. He disappeared. He invited my husband and him to come to England and have a scotch with him at a pub some time. Oh yeah swha!

    They are on line and working overtime. Be careful out there!

    ReplyDelete
  56. WLILL,

    Everyone has the right to make a comment and as it is public they should be able to stand up to comments not agreeing and yes - even criticising them. I certainly get my fair share and often with what I think is emotive "rubbish". I write as I see it and if your sensitive, sorry I am too old to change my ways.

    As for your comments, I found them to be generalized and thus totally incorrect. My point is always about fairness and accuracy and those comments were neither. Viewing the negative may be easy and for some of you fun, but for me it makes you inacurate and look naive or "worse".

    I have had bad experiences in Malaysia with Islamists whom disagreed with a western foreigner being a co-chair of a conference on Western-Islamic legal cooperation (even though it is an EU-ASEAN sponsered conference), but I know the government and the majority do not push that line or any as mentioned by you and thus it is an ugly aboration, that is all. That is my point - a reality check and then open the guns on valid targets.

    ReplyDelete
  57. dcat,

    are you talking about the website "muslims against sharia"?

    For a start they are not Muslims but actually two Russian-based Jews who are doing so for their own sick agenda. They are linked to Kahhanists and thus the ugly side of the Settler Movement.

    Just for your info.

    Not that I want to argue with you dcat, we obviously disagree on many things, but I would be rather dissapointed at a misplaced joke about women in Iraq since a third do not cover their hair and dress similar to western women (make-up and are actually quite chiq, a third cover their hair but show their faces and the other unfortunate souls use the entire burqa.

    With respect.

    ReplyDelete
  58. D Charals,

    D Charles,
    I can’t believe I am addressing you. However yes it was MAS. They are nasty!

    Do you have a link to your found information? Or are you just going to talk about it?

    As far as Iraq goes they still have a lot of work! I heard more churches were torched! I think that women can do better than parading in front of ill minded males. There are lots of accomplished women that didn’t have to go the rout of the displayed prove to morons pageant!

    ReplyDelete
  59. dcat, there are a number of websites pulling apart the MASh conspiracy. I noticed that there are three directions, one a good study saying that it is a creation of Gellar, Gates of Vienna and others in the anti-jihadist blog group. The second, by a PI with links to an address and a couple of names in the US and another (which I am still looking for the link) that claims that they are Russian (the ip most certainly is). Either way, they are certainly not Muslim and we must ask the question why?

    http://freethinker.co.uk/2007/09/24/non-muslims-against-sharia/

    http://pibillwarner.wordpress.com/2011/11/08/fraudulent-muslims-against-sharia-group-and-khalim-massoud-aka-alex-dobin-were-created-by-right-wing-extremists-at-frontpagemag-com/

    http://realmofthesphinx.wordpress.com/2009/03/10/so-who-are-these-muslims-against-sharia/

    As for women and Iraq. You are very much right in your sentiment. Arabs are famous for their sexism and because Saudi and other Peninsula Arabs love to deliberatly confuse their culture (sexist) with Islam - the entire Muslim world often suffers it as well (though not all of it). Iraq was a very liberal society under the tyrrant Saddam but with the start of the war there every agenda group comes in, and because the country is three quarters Shia, Iran is pushing their ultra-conservative brand on them. Iraqi women whom are not schackled are amongst the most educated and chiq in the region (as Lebanese and ex-pat Iranian women are).

    dcat, please understand me. I am very blunt and unforgiving when it comes to standards of information and verification (I am a lawyer of 32 years), but if we find common ground I can join in condemnation of the ugly and horrid and with vigour.

    Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  60. D Charles said: I noticed that there are three directions, one a good study saying that it is a creation of Gellar, Gates of Vienna and others in the anti-jihadist blog group..

    I say: News to me!

    I was invited to blog there years ago. I declined.

    The above is the sum total of my information about the site.

    Isn't the site gone now?

    ReplyDelete
  61. D Charles,

    This islamic related topic is not a sensitive topic to me but it is most probably to some others or many others, who for one reason or another are afraid or reluctant to talk about it(in the nonweb world) in South East Asia as well in other parts of the world. It is not generalising when there is tendencies within certain group of people to behave that way (whether it is due to their ubringing, politics, culture, ideology, genetics, social or economic circumstances or a combination of these factors or other factors. I have to say you are quite ignorant in some other matters(which I do not wish to go into details) relating to Malaysia. Are you not aware that many socalled liberal or socalled moderate countries with islamic majority or dominated by islamics had become more extreme or more problematic? Actually, I don't expect any answer from you. Anyway it is quite tiring for me to prolong this discussion with anyone. Look what happened to Middle East, Africa and some parts of Asia. One should be aware to prevent oneself from being a victim of any type of extremism. Anyway, you have a right to defend anyone, and if you still wish to maintain that my whatever view was incorrect, it is your view, even if I still don't agree with it. At the end of the day, it is up to individual to decide what is true and what is false. Sometimes it is best to keep our opinions to ourselves to prevent harm to ourselves. If it is safe to share opinions on the web, then one may do so if one wish to continue, as long as it is without pressure from anyone.

    WLIL

    ReplyDelete
  62. WLIL,

    this conversation is becoming a waste of effort as I consider your last post to be wishful thinking and more hype-based than any link to reality. In other words, your talking falicy.

    Perhaps you are caught up in media and blog hype and that would then be understandable but the reality is that this type of finger pointing is also superficial and not anywhere near the realities on the ground.

    There are 56 Muslim or Muslim majority countries and yes there are hard-line nations, wars, terrorists and a big push by Islamists. Having said that, only 13 are really suffering and the rest has various levels of efforts by Islamists to dominate life. Most make a noise but most also are being ignorned or given minor creadance. Some also have effects and inroads. What happens is a demonstration in say Amman (Jordan) or in Selangor (Malaysia) occurs, is allowed to run and the media play it as being a major event and though the crowd is large - it actually represents a fraction of the population and is ignorned by the government (which really matters).

    The hype over say the governing party in Turkey is a good example. They are certainly "Islamist" but the term as you may think of it in comparison to what actually is the definition of Islamist is something else. Like the word Zionist, it is a theory/ideology that has various levels of adherance and policy implementation. In Turkey the governing party has no intention of becoming say Sharia or challenging the secular nature of Turkey but in fact only wishes to allow the free expression of the majority Muslim population which was seriously limited by the previous pro-Attaturk regimes since 1922. Ex deputy PM, prisoner of conscious and award winning economist Anwar Ibrahim (whom I know and call a friend) in Malaysia is also an "Islamist" as is his party, but he is also the smartest economist and the most moderate/modernist Muslim you can find. He says that, in pure theorectical terms, Islamist simply means allowing tennants of Islam to be incorporated in how one's politics is followed, the rest is up to the people to decide.

    The point I am making is that the reality on the ground in the MAJORITY of Muslim countries is not what you are saying, not overtaken by radical, militant or extreme Islamists at all and they are simply living their normal, moderate lives. That is why generalist, wide-sweeping and off-the-cough-comments like yours not only work but are insulting to the huge mass of humanity that you are ignoring/condemning to simplistic slurs.

    There certainly are many who are suffering, there are dangers everywhere and most certainly there is a well-organised Islamist movement that is trying to infiltrate, sabotage and/or take over countries - every single one of them. The answer though is to give those countries a bit more credit for keeping tabs on them. 17kms away from my house is Tanger in Morocco, if I stand on my rooftop I can even see it on a clear day. They suffered terrorism three times and they dealt with the salafist problem within that country, the official "Islamist" party gets low to moderate votes and in comparison to some countries is very moderate. Al Qaeda in the Mahgreb (AQM) fails to get a foothold there. That is just ONE EXAMPLE of many countries whom simply are very devout Islamicly but have no interest or in fact tolerance for say Saudi or Iranian inspired radicalism.

    Are you aware that Sharia Legal Systems are infact in only 43 per cent of Muslim countries? Also that of those that do, again, the majority are only Family Courts and subject to a secular Supreme Court? I doubt it.

    "For every extreme example shown in the media there are a million examples of normality that are not ignored and forgotten" - Archbishop Desmond Tutu

    ReplyDelete
  63. correction to one para:

    The point I am making is that the reality on the ground in the MAJORITY of Muslim countries is not what you are saying, not overtaken by radical, militant or extreme Islamists at all and they are simply living their normal, moderate lives. That is why generalist, wide-sweeping and off-the-cuff-comments like yours are not only grossly wrong but are insulting to the huge mass of humanity that you are ignoring/condemning with simplistic slurs.

    ReplyDelete
  64. D Charles,

    It is pointless talking to you. I know you are trying to defend the noneexistent islamic moderates who appear to be moderates superficially. Those majority islamics from indonesian, malaysian, singapore, cambodia, thailand, etc who demanded that their food to be halal certified, fast strictly, pray strictly according to their rigid religious schedules, intolerant to any criticism, etc is certainly not under any definition a moderate. Even their islamic leaders from various factions spout extremist or racist speech. They may appear to be moderate but scratched the surface, you will see extremism. Whether you are aware or not aware of this problems is none of my business. I was just wasting my time talking to you.

    WLIL

    ReplyDelete
  65. D Charles,
    You are talking nonsense. You know right, even if sharia is only isolated in the family courts, anywhere in the world, it is still sharia. Anyway, that is for their own islamic problems to solve.
    That is why I don't support any political party in Malaysia. IF there is really an independent party that is really free from any islamic interference, then maybe I would support it. But otherwise, NO.

    ReplyDelete
  66. D Charles,

    It is your problems if you for one reason or another seems to be unable to detect extremsim or diagnose the problem as extremism. One have to analyse the early sign and symptom of any type extremism and if possible, prevent it from getting worse.
    You are the one that is guilty of making sweeping generalisation about me. And you can continue giving excuses for other people or other countries but for you to abuse me, (due to your own ignorance), in that manner was most repulsive. And, you are the one that is insulting my personal comment.

    WLIL

    ReplyDelete
  67. D Charles,

    Anyway, every country have their own political problems, whether the have creeping extremism problem or not.
    It is up to each and every countries political leaders in the world to solve their own problem.

    WLIL

    ReplyDelete
  68. WLIL,

    "what goes around hangs around..."

    "one man's stink is ....."

    The point being, gross generalisations on your part (and denying it) reflects on you alone and if you dish it out, then be prepared to wear it.

    Your own lack of knowledge on the subject is clear enough but your intention of pontificating on it is equally clear and thus you must bare the scrutiny that it deserves. Feel insulted, that frankly is your problem, I get enoug stick from others and I am not phased at all.

    Alternatively, if you start putting substance in your comments I am happy to debate it. If what you present has merit, I will acknowledge it. Equally so, if I do not know something then I am the first to point it out as I am when I am proven wrong. At present, my assumptions on you, personally, is that you have no clue as to what you are talking about, you generalize on Muslims and Muslim countries and thus simply put:

    PROVE ME WRONG!

    ReplyDelete
  69. D Charles,

    Furthermore, there are various types of generalisation. IT is nothing wrong to generalise something in order to diagnose a specific problem or if the problem constantly and with regularity came from the same group with similar features or similar ideology. There is nothing wrong to generalise something that is base on reality or base on unpleasant encounters with (mostly)various eastern people from the East and West as long as we treat everyone as individuals, with caution or with respect.

    WLIL

    ReplyDelete
  70. D Charles,

    I know what I am talking about. You are trying to force me to prove my opinions, just because you don't agree with it! Try living in hardship in malaysia for thirty years. Perhaps, that would convince you. Everyone have different views and different experiences. The examples that you gave about Turkey and Morroco was also not convincing in any way. I still don't agree with your opinions that the majority of islamics are really moderates. You obviously have a pro-islamic agenda and that is your problem. I have been patiently trying to explain my viewpoint and all I get was unpleasant inappropriate harrassment from you. I am not here to prove anything. I am here just to state my views. That is all. You have to do your own analysis or come to your own conclusion.
    I can't help you if you still remained biased to your own opinion. WLIL

    ReplyDelete
  71. D Charles,

    And finally, thank goodness, I am not that easily insulted or offended. Therefore, I don't have any problem with your ignorant accusation.

    WLIL

    ReplyDelete
  72. WLIL and D Charles,
    I'll jump in here and add the following comment:

    It takes very few extremists to control a society.

    If the numbers of moderate Muslims exist, they should be out in force -- publicly.

    Scholarly debate is fine and dandy. But pragmatism and application rule the day.

    ReplyDelete
  73. AOW,

    your comment is basically correct. The question here is the position, are the majority of Muslim countries and in particular Malaysia run by extremists. The answer in both cases is a clear no and I would find it questionable if anyone even thinks that. Also, because it is not the majority (or just that country) it is logical to assume that such a belief to the contrary is based on gross generalisations.

    One can live in a country for an entire life and the community that they live suffer terribly, it reflects nothing on either the nation as a whole nor the policies of the governments in question. A good example would be say a family of Copts in Manshiyat a suberb in outer Cairo, Eqypt. The are hassled constantly by ultra-conservative and radical Muslims with every aspect of their life being damaged. They should feel agreived to no end, their churches and community centres burned and some of them were pig-hearders with centuries of tradition are told that their businesses are not welcome by the growing Muslim population that now is larger than theirs. There are a number of areas like that and it is shown in the news (we all have seen it). However, Copts in Alexandria (the north coastal city of Egypt), the Copts make up the wealthier end of the spectrum, are leading figures in city life and they flourish with no problems including with the Muslims of that city. The radicals are not welcome. The question would be, is being a Copt in Egypt a struggle? Sure, for some, but the reality is that the government does not target Copts, in fact Copts have a higher success rate per-capita in employment and wages than Muslims and as a sum-total are not targetted or miserable. In fact the Copts of Egypt have asked repeatedly for American Copts to stop sending the wrong message and signals and to "stick to reality".

    I am simply tired of gross exagerations, unwarranted generalisations and though I understand some have suffered, being supperficial or judgemental from a point of ignorance (or agenda).

    Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  74. AOW,

    I will add that you hit the nail on the head with the one area that can be condemned. I think you have seen my comment on that a number of times.

    Moderate Muslims, particularly in the West keep their mouths shut. It is because they say nothing, the void is taken over (or in fact contested) by radicals both against the abuse by Islamists and the Islamists themselves.

    Some argue that they do not do so out of fear of association whilst others say it is because a major tennant of Islam is to not call another Muslim a "bad Muslim". That second argument, if the case, is going to fail because the radical Muslims are mostly "taqfiri" which means they believe they can justify claiming that they are the "true believers" and thus call others wrong, failed, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  75. WLIL,

    Ouch! You got him doing caps!

    PROVE ME WRONG!

    I believe Charles said to me it was a sign of weakness.

    Scroll up to see his speech to me about using caps. LOL

    Oh and ... Cheers!

    ReplyDelete
  76. Sorry but there is nothing great about being chic in a burka and a slave to man!

    Mo was a pervert!

    Oh and pisslamic women need eyeliner application 101! Education on a smudge used on eyeliners to tone it down a bit…but then again that won’t help either because a ho is a ho and nothing chic if yeah ain’t got that Western swang! Oh yeah baby!

    Cheers :D :D :D

    ReplyDelete
  77. Seems like all the avenues are covered then.

    In 1272, the Arabs invented the condom, using a goat’s lower intestine.
    In 1873, the British somewhat refined the idea, by taking the intestine out of the goat first

    I’m lucky I wasn’t drinking anything when I read it.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Silverfiddle...

    BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

    Entering a Catholic university campus and complaining about religious symbols is like going to a nudist camp and complaining about all the naked people...

    Now just try and explain that to a pisslamic there son! LOLOLOLOL...

    ReplyDelete
  79. The reason why they hold back is so they can re-group. They don’t talk ill against a fellow mussie either.

    Pttt =ding! ah got it on the first spit! Hehehehe

    Oh and son I got more truth like stories about the internet intelligence wanna hear! We ain’t so dumb boy!

    We knows all about yeah!

    ReplyDelete
  80. D Charles,
    Moderate Muslims, particularly in the West keep their mouths shut.

    I agree that some stay silent for the reasons you mentioned.

    But I also agree that some stay silent because of the regrouping strategy that Dcat mentioned.

    In addition, the seeking of the will of Allah is a factor in the silence, IMO. Allah's will as presented in the Koran has a great deal of fickleness to it.

    Christians, too, seek the will of God, of course. Centuries ago, much of Christianity held the belief that religion and state must be one entity so as to fulfill the will of the Lord. On a personal level today, many Christians believe that their personal woes stem from not following the will of the Lord; on a personal level, that view doesn't lead to mayhem on a large scale. On a large scale, that kind of view can indeed lead to mayhem on a large scale.

    Here's an example of the will of Allah: a few years ago, a lot of people were trampled at the Hajj. When the Grand Imam was asked, "What could have been done to prevent this tragedy?" he responded as follows:

    "Nothing could have been done. It was the will of Allah!"

    In my view, the Grand Imam's position was (1) fatalistic and (2) lack of accountability.

    Now, here is the heart of the matter about Islam: (1) Is there really such a thing as moderate Islam, or (2) are moderate Muslims secularized Muslims who don't follow "the real Islam"?

    We have a similar issue within Christianity, but not to the extent of impacting the majority of society. Some Christians are nominal Christians only, and Christianity doesn't govern their lives in the manner that Jesus taught?

    ReplyDelete
  81. Dcat,
    Mr. AOW read that bit about the condom somewhere and often tells that joke.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Good on Mr. AOW! :+:

    I liked it too when I read it at a blog.

    ReplyDelete
  83. AOW you said: here is the heart of the matter about Islam: (1) Is there really such a thing as moderate Islam, or (2) are moderate Muslims secularized Muslims who don't follow "the real Islam"?

    That is always the good debate and I have seen a number of good answers on that, from Muslims themselves.

    There are 56 Muslim countries, how many believe in a Caliphate? None, thus are all 56 Muslim countries not followers of real Islam?

    You go to a mosque say in Casablanca, of which the vast majority of Muslims in that country could be argued as "secularised" because they do not believe in Sharia. Go and watch them bow their heads in prayer, which they do five times a day and avoid drinking alcohol and will even go on hajj to Mecca if they can later in their old age. Do you call them "not serious or bad muslims?".

    How many Catholics eat fish on Fridays? Are they not real Catholics or not serious Christians?

    The answer is that the question is actually a fraud because it is a method of drawing lines that neither need or should be drawn. The question is more on the person asking the question? What is their motive?

    For me it comes down to power, control and personal freedoms. A Muslim, because of the power and poltics of their country often does not get much choice in his freedoms because clerics have to much power and governments use/abuse the faith as a form of control mechanism over their population. It has little to do with the base or core values of the faith itself. A Muslim is someone who believes in the One True God, his Prophets, Mohammed as their last one and that the Koran is the word of God brought down by him. The level of piety and adherance and intepretation will always be up to the individual regardless of what the state, religious leaders or other power groups force.

    Again, my question is why do certain hate-mongers in the west, as a form of attacking Islam, side with the radical? That tells a lot.

    ReplyDelete
  84. dcat, with all respect and reminding me of an old classic joke (I know a few camel ones that I am to prudish to put on-line),

    Jokes aside, I do assume you are aware of how many women actually do use burqas or face covers in the various (56) countries?

    ReplyDelete
  85. Though Arab men are among (if not the most) the most sexist on the planet and women's rights are horrible in some location. You have to actually give credit to those Arab women who do make it. Becaues of the link to France and the number of suprisingly large fashion houses with links to Arab and North African countries - Lebanese, Jordanian, Moroccan and Algerian women are amongs the most classy and chic when it comes to dress, make-up and taste in parfumes. Yves Saint-Laurent spent much of his life in Marrakesh (his ashes were laid to rest there) and based much of his taste on Moroccan women's love for haute-couture.

    Mind you, on the other hand, Egyptian women are considered the least-fashion-wize on the planet, with rural-Australian women second, ladies from Alabama third(hope I am not upsetting any here) and Sussex over here in the UK at fourth place. Source, Marie-Claire magazine about two years ago.....

    http://www.fashion4arab.com/

    http://www.juleadomani.com/ (iraqi fashion designer, Zeena Zaki)

    ReplyDelete
  86. D Charles,
    How many Catholics eat fish on Fridays? Are they not real Catholics or not serious Christians?

    But where did Jesus advocate that?

    In my view, the Friday-fish ritual is symbolic, but not doctrinal nor a tenet of the faith.

    Again, my question is why do certain hate-mongers in the west, as a form of attacking Islam, side with the radical?

    Siding with the radical? No.

    Pointing out that Islam itself has radical tenets? Yes.

    I disagree with you that those who are pointing out the dangerous aspects of Islam are hate mongers. It is not hate mongering to tell the truth, IMO.

    Now, do some counter-jihadists write exclusively about the negative and dangerous aspects of Islam? Yes. Should these individuals present a more balanced picture? I don't see why. There's already plenty of advocates whitewashing Islam.

    I'm sure that we are going to disagree on those points. But I will not tell you, "Shut up!" just as I expect you not to tell me to "Shut up!" Free discussion is the only answer to coming to terms with the clash of civilizations. Furthermore, a cartoonifada is not the answer and gives credence to "Islam is dangerous. Get Islam out of the West."

    clerics have to much power and governments use/abuse the faith as a form of control mechanism over their population

    Yes, the clerics have too much power. Yes, governments use Islam to further a tyrannical agenda.

    But we still have the issue, pointed out in an article in the Washington Post [I can't find the link at the moment], of how many Muslims who are perceived as moderates yearn for the caliphate, in and of itself the very concept of Islamic supremacism. A fantasy? A pipe dream? Maybe.

    But when enough people are motivated to be the instruments of Allah and bring about a caliphate AND continue in a state of war against all non-Muslims, the silence of secularized Muslims is a problem. I can say exactly the same of Christianity and Christian dominionists.

    IF Islam has been hijacked by radicals, it is up to the majority to take back their faith and practice faith -- not a geopolitical ideology that tramples other ideologies.

    PS: I hope that I'm being clear in my above statements. I'm getting interrupted every few minutes here. **sigh**

    ReplyDelete
  87. NOTE TO ALL PARTICIPATING IN THIS DISCUSSION:

    I know that there is quite an exchange of animosity going on here.

    That's okay.

    You are adults and can have your say -- even if impasses are reached.

    I rarely intervene, and I very rarely delete any comments.

    Just letting all know my philosophy of an open forum such as this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  88. AOW,

    What I like about your blog is though we certainly disagree on many points (not all), we certainly can have a logical discussion/debate. Also, even though there is a disagreement, you do not fall into bigoted line and you raise often legitimate questions and not condemn in blanket absolutes. I certainly do not call you a bigot, that would be incorrect.

    Back to that topic, you said "In my view, the Friday-fish ritual is symbolic, but not doctrinal nor a tenet of the faith.". I would argue that you have just proven a point in regard to valuing Islam. You started by saying "In my view" but if you go to the average Spanish family and priests in most Spanish towns, they would argue to the contrary - so I ask why can you judge a subject by "in my view" but somehow Muslims may not.

    I would be careful putting any value on the Caliphate concept because like above, putting a concrete value on a topic that is Utopian in my view is very unfair but unfortunately an example of the social-bigotry present in such subjects as Islam. Why are some values judged rhetorically or utopian with one hand and yet considered clear-cut and to-the-letter on the other, and switched often between to suit one side of the argument.

    Radicals, hard-liners, ultra-conservatives are puritanical, there is no doubt so they will say so but the vast majority are not. Having said that, by our standards most Muslims are very sincere in their faith and talk in faith-based terms. The term Caliphate is similar to talking about creating a Kingdom of Heaven on Earth for us and thus for them they cannot deny in a rhetorical way or a utopian format that "of course if the entire world was Islamic and under God's rules" but that does not mean they are all planning or trained to support the overthrow of the rest of the world - like some like to push.

    The answer is in the reality - there are no Muslim countries (and it would be insulting to logic and to them to say they are not almost totally faithful Muslims) who support the creation of any Caliphate - in fact the subject (other than rhetorical) in my mind is even silly to discuss. What Caliphate, in what format, run by whom, Sunni, Shia or Suffi? Shaafi, Maleki, Hanafi, Henbali or what? Nobody is talking about it except radical clerics whom are mostly exiles, terrorists and anti-Jihadist bloggers! Just like word taqqiya - western bloggers us it, almost nobody else.

    You also say "It is not hate mongering to tell the truth, IMO." Of course, but when it is out of context it is no longer in the realm of truth. Your own comments are often much better, in my opinion, than many others, particularly those with excesive and bigoted wide-generalisations. Do not get me wrong, target ugly pracitices and silly events, dangerous comments, racism and wild comments by lunatics like Ahadinejad and I can probably add a dozen more and some pretty ugly personal experiences in my travels - but when it loses context and is played like a definitive when it is only an example or a single (and in fact minority) view-point - no, it does not work at all.

    On some blogs they ask why do I bother what I do and defend Muslims, what do they mean to me? My answer is two-fold. I know about Muslims and Islam very well from study and 30-plus years of close association (and work), and secondly - on blogs like yours, you begin to suffer the self-congratulatory syndrome - meaning nobody is there, particularly from the Muslim community, is available to either support or argue against what is posted. Thus I speak for the non-present target. You need a devil's advocate as you would be suprised what I personally agree with - on a number of topics.

    ReplyDelete
  89. D Charles,
    I ask why can you judge a subject by "in my view" but somehow Muslims may not.

    I never said that Muslims cannot do so. I have said that voices from the Islamic community to take back a hijacked religion are missing!

    When I said "in my view," I should have elaborated thus: "in my view as a Christian, albeit not a Roman Catholic."

    The trouble with Islam is certain verses in the Koran.

    I well know that the matter of abrogation is up for debate within certain Islamic circles. But I see no way to get around that "better verse superseding previous verse" portion of the Koran. And the contrast between the later verses and the earlier verses does exist -- almost the reverse of the judgmental Old Testament and the redemptive New Testament.

    I won't get started on the topic of Uthman. Indeed, I think that you're probably familiar with the controversy there.

    I have finally located the Washington Post article that I mentioned above. Take a look for yourself. Hardliners are tapping into that emotion and desire, IMO.

    I have no problem with your playing devil's advocate. But understand that I can't always participate fully in comments threads here. I know that you understand why.

    Later. Gotta go now.

    ReplyDelete
  90. dcat,

    Perhaps D Charles was not observant enough and did not realised other creeping unpleasant extremist aspects. One just have to ask D Charles why is it that islamic asians imposed their halal label on almost 99% of the foodstuffs/beverages on most of the shelves in Malaysia via asian marketting companies and other international food corporation, even when it appear that many parts of Asia have only a small majority of islamics? Is that not a sign of extremism? If only D Charles bother to be more observant. He would see proof everywhere, only if he had bothered to look or if one happened to notice this strange and ugly imposition (from who? and why?)! IF those islamics in Malaysia were moderate, they would not have discriminated against us disadvantaged nonbelievers. The fact is islamic did deny many equal opportunity to some of us disadvantaged nonbelievers in Malaysia, when they have alot of power. If those islamics asian government were moderate, they should discourage enslavement of nonislamics maids as well as islamic maids, but they did not. The reason they gave for their malay islamic discrimination policy or separatist policy is that they want to improve their malay islamic economic status. But that is not the way to do it.
    Once me and(at that time newly wed, about ten years ago) my British husband visited a Morrocon couple in London and stayed as guests there for a few days but the socalled moderate Morroccon started quoting creepily from a verse, saying something like us guests are only welcomed as guests for up to three days only! Anyway, me and my husband found accommodation elsewhere and we left. That is only some examples, if I remembered correctly!
    WLIL

    ReplyDelete
  91. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  92. WLIL, don't bother, your own personal experiences though perhaps interesting to some reflect nothing other than just that. I have enough horror stories with Muslims and non-Muslims alike to even burn AOW's patience.

    Commercialisation is a sad fact of life that any and every country deals with in various manners. Malaysia and Indonesia have chosen to ensure that most food is "halal" complient to ensure that no accidental confusion is made to unsuspecting clients thinking their food is so. Malaysia is very much open business to anyone who fulfills quotas.

    Now obviously your not originally an English speaker, but your inability to actually write/spell Islamists is a reflection ultimately on your inability to see other than superficially around you (mind you dcat's inability to write Islam is done out of pure ugly and bigoted spite).

    It is interesting however you mention maids and domestic servitude. I see you going down the well-trodden distortion that some push that somehow Muslims are the masters of modern-day slave traders and that they own honor-killing. That argument fails instantly with only a bit of research. India has the highest rate of slavery in regard to numbers and abuse with forced bond-slavery and domestic servitude whilst honor-killing being also India's. They certainly happen in a number of Muslim region as such ugliness is cultural. Just to clear the subject once and for all, Nepal has the highest percentage rate of wife-beating and South Africa with regards to rape (though PNG probably has it but there are no stats kept). Commercial sexual child exploitation, though global to various degrees, on the other hand is collectively equally high in Central/Latin America and South East Asia with Westerners being a major source of high-end clients. I assume we all will groan and shudder collectively in condemning our own ugliness in this matter.

    So, what was your superficial point there? Simply put, do not bother, it ain't working.

    The simple reality is that targetting Islam itself or exagerating/inflating/generalising only makes oneself bigoted or stupid. For those that try, they target the faith instead of the actions of the people themselves and the argument that the faith drives the ugliness falls dead with the simple example of say the actions of Westbro or historically say the Inquisition. Was Christianity the source/cause of such people/events? We know it is not and thus we must remark the same. The question of the amount of control by such ugly people is an issue, but exagerating to the extent that WLIL does, is baseless.

    That is my point and I think for me, I will no longer waste my time on responding to such childishness. WLIL was asked to basically provide clear evidence and considering the supposive history, I suspect also with questionable motives.

    Good night and God bless.

    ReplyDelete
  93. D Charles,

    Of course other negative aspects happened in other nonislamic asian culture too and the fact that islamic asian culture have alot of similarities with other unpleasant aspect of nonislamic asian culture is also fact. And I am not interested in your disagreeable repy too, nor I expect any reply from you. I was only speaking out some of my thought aloud to dcat. It is your problem if you chose to reply. I don't need your blessing in anything. Just because they want halal label or just because those asian islamic and asian nonislamic find it profitable to be halal, they have no right to impose halal on everyone or offer no choice to everyone just because they have a slight majority. I don't want any totalitarian culture be they islamic or not. Is it wrong to like freedom of choice? I am sure almost everyone would prefer freedom of choice, if given a choice.

    WLIL

    ReplyDelete
  94. D Charles,

    You are just trying to give excuses of why some countries are behaving badly or worse than some countries. No doubt, not all countries who are behaving badly are islamic-majority countries. And how are those islamic going to improve their socalled islamic poverty, if they continued with their (too many?) mega mosques or other mega projects? Again, I am not interested in your reply cause it is up to those islamics to solve their islamic related problems.

    WLIL

    ReplyDelete
  95. D Charles,

    I am most comfortable stating my views or opinions via English Language because I more proficient in English Language than some other asian languages. You are free to dislike my comments or the way I spoke. You are also free to analyse what you assumed as an 'inability'.

    WLIL

    ReplyDelete
  96. WLIL,
    it is up to those islamics to solve their islamic related problems

    That is the bottom line as far as I'm concerned.

    Except for one other point, IMO: The West needs to be committed to preserving the ideals that we claim to value so much.

    Muslims come to Western nations for many reasons, including that of a desire for personal freedom.

    I personally know some former Muslims who have converted to Christianity. Yet, here in Northern Virginia, they "sneak" into church. Why are they so afraid here in the West?

    Furthermore, critics of Islam -- the ones whom I personally know -- receive death threats and require heavy security. I'm not speaking of anyone you know of I'm sure; that is, I'm not speaking of Robert Spencer and other similar "high profile" individuals.

    In fact, some years ago when I personally gave a public presentation about the dangers of Islamification, I myself had to have a security escort into the building and on the drive home. I even had to use a pseudonym. This should not be the case in America -- of all places!

    ReplyDelete
  97. D Charles,

    And you seems to have this delusion that only your comments are valid while my comments are 'exaggeration', 'baseless', childish', 'bigotted', 'stupid' and with 'questionable motives'? I questioned your motives too for attacking my comments. I find it disgusting with the way you attacked my speech with your intolerance. While all cultures are not perfect, I have a right to dislike any culture that tried to impose their totalitarian way of life on my individual self.

    WLIL

    ReplyDelete
  98. AOW,

    It was interesting reading about your comments. The erosion of our personal freedom is caused for concern. Should we care for people who don't care for our personal freedom? Perhaps, at the end of the day, one just have to draw a line of barrier in order to protect our personal freedom.

    WLIL

    ReplyDelete
  99. AOW,

    "The West needs to be committed to preserving the ideals that we claim to value so much."

    For me AOW, this is the one comment that I believe in to no end and have even personally suffered for it. That is why I consider some comments (no names mentioned regarding this thread) to be simply rediculous.

    This is my little story. I am an active member of the British Conservative Party and if you know Gibraltar you will know that we are not representative here. One of the reasons is the local version of conservatives and the fear of speaking out against protecting the hard-earned liberties by even mentioning other cultural influences (note cultural not religious). I stated twice, both in a party meeting many years ago and at a public gathering, that though immigration is necessary and morally correct that immigrants should sign a binding contract that they will 1) show loyalty to the new country, 2) prove an effort to learn the language and 3) show respect to the dominant culture, standards and norms (in public, of course). I was branded, publicaly, a bigot and a racist, even in our local newspaper and the local one across the frontier in Spain. I sued both papers and won my case and obtained both public apologies and even financial restitution but the damage to my reputation lasted more than 10 years.

    Ironically it was the local Muslims who gave me grief and even death threats. Having said that, later I become their friends and I encourage integration (not assimilation) but I stick to my opinion and now I am even respected and have spoken on radio. I get nasty letters from Tanger in Morocco whom listen to the broadcasts (in Spanish) to this day.

    My point is that we in Europe (and that includes of course North America and other places) have worked hard, suffered, been through wars, etc to gain a level of standards both moral and social. Most are based on our Abrahamic values but also our cultures and we must protect them. Immigrants, for my part, are welcome but they must respect them. I am for banning the face covering, not the hijab, because the face covering (niqab) is absolutely contrary to the freedoms, liberty and rights given to women through suffering and harship. It is cultural, not religious. The hijab is religious, for those that want it, and as long as it is not forced is welcome.

    Now you know my story. Islam is compatible with European society, it is the foreign allegiences, incopatible cultures, anti-integration stance that is our enemy and I am all for deportation and binding immigration contracts. I support the war on terror and I all for waging war on those that do so against us.

    You also now know why I have no time or respect for people who like to mix culture, exagerate, are superficial and cannot fathom context. Who base their judgements on thier own small worlds, in fact rather similar to the Islamists themselves.

    Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  100. AOW,

    I think I mentioned our book of rules! People should fear us! We don't like nonsense and will keep fighting what we already have in place! Not idiocies of others form of Goverment over ours or their intended socialism religouse rulles and doctorin!

    We are still a Christion Nation no matter what Ali o butthead spewed! Yes it will get ugly. The occupiers will die off from disses I see. Most sane people know they are nuts! Just like the outsiders are for trying to horn in!

    ReplyDelete
  101. Like on another blog which is being discussed at present.

    Though America is a nation built by and predominantly Christian, it is most certainly not a "Christian Nation". That is also enshrined in your Constitution and one of the reasons was that no influence by established faith will occur. Additionaly, from many perspectives (including my own), declaring a nation Christian is in fact very "unChristian"! The Lord Jesus Christ never intended society to be exclusive, which by such a statement it becomes.

    ReplyDelete
  102. AOW,

    Regarding your mention about Islamification.

    Islamification or Islamisation is indeed a danger(not to mention the damaged done) to any free society who value individual freedom to live a decent life that is free from terror, imposition and oppression. Defending our individual freedom is more important than pandering to any types of islamic or oriental related ideology or culture.

    WLIL

    ReplyDelete
  103. "pandering to any types of islamic or oriental related ideology or culture."

    big·ot·ry/ˈbigətrē/

    Noun:

    Bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

    Definition of BIGOT

    : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

    — big·ot·ed adjective

    — big·ot·ed·lyadverb

    According to the bigoted comment at the top, Mahatma Ghandi would be a danger to this imaginary free society.

    All the major religions of the world, and in fact "particularly" the other Abrahamic Faiths (Judaism and Islam) are more than workable and compatible to American and Western society. What is not, is the politics and radical elements of any faith. Westbro, splinter-Mormanism, radical-Zionism, that is often home-grown in the US on the other hand is as equally incompatible with our hard-earned freedoms and liberties. Not to mention bigotry.

    ReplyDelete
  104. WLIL,
    I think it’s because we are spoiled little Americans with our views of keeping to the code of our laws and Constitutions.

    It seems anytime we want to put down those that move here to try to impose their ideology and try to change our way of life we are then seen as bigoted.

    We take in our humble masses with open arms and that seems not to be good enough.

    If they are so darn homesick then they are the ones that can move back to their hellhole whitest they came from!

    I think allowing the regects here should open up eyes but obviously we are still painted in guano because we fail to give more of our own freedom to the tyrants of deception an motive to overthrow.

    It’s the tepid water syndrome we won’t know we are boiling until it is too late to do anything about it! Some of us will refuse to the bitter end to get into that kettle of nice warm bath only to have the tempter turned to boil!

    "The come with me little child I have candy for you".

    I buy my own candy thank you! And I was tought to say you don't have my kind that I like!

    ReplyDelete
  105. WLIL,
    I had an episode or three. I know and that what irks the sympathizers to the point of labeling me.

    I have broad shoulders!

    They will smooze with you till it’s time to have you killed.

    Soon as they get with their own kind it is mob rule and you know you won’t have a chance. Take their side and they will only kill you last.

    See not without my daughter. The good doctor was doing the American way his colleges did get after him a bit and he couldn’t take it.

    Soon as he went back “I’m thinking he lost his job because of poor doctoring skills” ‘soon as he returned home he was getting up for prayer time and becoming what he was from the beginning.

    Leaving Betty to flee with her daughter before they had her married off to an old goat!

    Notice the BS coming from the left loone NY times and other sympathizers. LOL Nothing really funny about this situation!

    Oh and it was in 1981! This is a true story and Betty worked to help other women to escape once back home!

    ReplyDelete
  106. AOW,
    I didn't know this happend to you!?

    In fact, some years ago when I personally gave a public presentation about the dangers of Islamification, I myself had to have a security escort into the building and on the drive home. I even had to use a pseudonym. This should not be the case in America -- of all places! No it should not!

    Next time you need back up I will fly down with all my ammo!

    I am quite good!

    I have a feeling it is going to get very ugly pretty soon.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Yes well it is ok to be intolerant of those that want your personal freedom! A war that needs to be won!

    You can have your religion but don't use it on me because I have my own and with the 2 amendment I can change a tyrant’s religion that tries to interfere with mine! No bigotry just sayin that this is what will happen if tried!

    I don't have to like the others!

    I'll say good afternoon but I will not be the one saying it first all the damn time!

    ReplyDelete
  108. Oh damn! I knew I had it wrong oh and I too admit it with fact!

    Here you go bio on Betty M.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Betty Mahmoudi

    She is the President and co-founder of One World: For Children, an organization that "promotes understanding between cultures".


    Point made, according to one on this blog that makes her a danger to the country.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Yeah well she wishes for the best from people. Lots of people live in lala land mental thought!

    Do you really believe what is on wiki when it's edited by others. I don't the subject is she was lucky to get away!

    ReplyDelete
  111. I love this, use Wiki or the MSM to prove a point but when thrown back at them - well it is edited by others or , well it is the MSM, we do not believe them anyway.

    Proves my point endlessly that the original arguments had no legs to stand on in the first place, the true colour shines out in the end.

    ReplyDelete
  112. dcat,

    I too don't have any bigotry ideas or prejudices. But some myopics chose to accuse me of that. All I have is only personal viewpoints and that also I thread cautiously in the webworld for fear of any bigots who may be intolerant of my mild speech.
    It is weird why some people don't see that intolerant of my opinions are not bigotry whereas my criticism of an intolerant eastern related ideology or eastern related culture that seek to impose their intolerant religious culture on us, was seen as bigotry!
    I agree that people who tried to impose their restrictive eastern related islamic ideology or tried to take away our valuable personal freedom bit by bit should not be tolerated.

    WLIL

    ReplyDelete
  113. Correction of one of my sentence above.
    It should be:

    It is weird why some people did not see their intolerance of my opinions as bigotry, but my criticism of an intolerant eastern related ideology(or eastern related culture that imposed their intolerant religious culture/ideology at various degree of severity) was seen as bigotry!

    WLIL

    ReplyDelete
  114. Yes oh smart and intellectual one that is what you say about the ones I brought forth to you. Funny how things get twisted isn't it.

    Did you bother to notice the NY times about it? I'm betting the brotherhood of hoodlums were behind it crying foul to the NY Times how not to side what was first said about pisslam. I mean really why would anyone dare to post the truth about the muslim world in the media!

    ReplyDelete
  115. WLIL,
    Yes you are right! Only the one world lovers views count.

    They want a amusment park where everything is free.

    You know like fantasy land. You and I are just bigoted hate mangers that dont understand. The thugs are all the good people and we are suppressing them don't you know. ;]

    ReplyDelete
  116. D Charles,
    Islam is compatible with European society

    Only IF we're talking about Islam that is not fundamental.

    Having seen my former neighbor (a Muslim whom I'll refer to as "M") go from being well integrated to being "radicalized" at the local mosque (Dar al Hijrah aka "the 9/11 mosque"), I believe that the imported imams are a huge part of the problem. M was as integrated as they come, but once he began attending the mosque where the imported imam was holding forth, my neighbor (who had grown up here in the United States although he had dual citizenship in the UAE) "tipped over." The change was astounding, I tell you! He moved back to the UAE before 9/11 as he apparently found the United States too corrupt as a place to bring up his son.

    I'm not saying all this casually. M and his wife and I had a good friendship, including meals together, keys to one another's houses, etc. Shortly after his "radicalization," M "filled me in" on details about his faith and culture when I asked him some questions related to teaching World Literature -- I believe that he was informing me because he liked me. I can still hear the anger in his voice as he talked about "Jewesses," including Monica Lewinsky and Madeleine Allbright. M also informed me, "There is no literature other than the Quran." This conversation took place in 1999, BTW. At the time, I was absolutely stunned as I was ignorant about Islam -- except that I myself had attended an open house at Dar al Hijrah and had witnessed for myself an animated debate as to the meaning of "jihad."

    After 9/11, my mind flashbacked to the above, of course.

    So, here's my point: M loved the many freedoms here in America. No doubt about it! But the day came that he was "revived" right here in the United States. M left the West, possibly forever. But many who are "revived" don't leave, many because they are citizens without the dual citizenship option.

    If the West doesn't get a handle on this imported-imams situation, we're in for terrible, terrible times.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Interesting that the name Betty Mahmoody has popped up in this thread.

    The Council on Islamic Education (Susan Douglass?) absolutely forbids that the movie Not Without My Daughter be shown or discussed in American schools because the story puts Islam in a bad light.

    I'm not sure that One Word: For Children still exists. See THIS.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Dcat,
    Next time you need back up I will fly down with all my ammo!

    At the time, I didn't have enough sense to be frightened. I was focused on the task at hand.

    A few Muslims were in attendance. I tried to engage them in conversation. A no go, and I did try.

    The former Muslims, converts to Christianity, were so very glad that I was publicly giving them "support." Many were college students, non-Muslims from Islamic nations. They were dismayed at the whitewash of Islam presented at the universities they were attending.

    But I still think back with despair that the security was recommended and provided. This should not be the case in America, the land of the free exchange of ideas!

    ReplyDelete
  119. WLIL,
    Perhaps, at the end of the day, one just have to draw a line of barrier in order to protect our personal freedom.

    The day may be coming that the West will have to employ an "iron veil."

    Certainly, immigrants of all ilks should be well vetted before they enter the West.

    The West in general has the idea that once immigrants are here, they will so love our way of life that they will integrate and accept our values. Well, that is an unrealistic expectation -- and a dangerous one.

    I believe that some Muslims (and others as well, including adherents of La Raza) are coming to the United States to colonize. The demographics (specifically, the rate of reproduction) is a serious factor as well.

    We now see more hijabs than we ever did prior to 9/11. What's up with THAT?

    ReplyDelete
  120. An email on another blog I posted is relevant to this topic. Note the term "them" or the broad sweeping definition with the "the" word is critical in this matter.


    big·ot·ed/ˈbigətid/

    Adjective:

    1.Obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of one's own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions.
    2.Expressing or characterized by prejudice and intolerance.

    Any intolerance of "them" the Muslims and Islam is by clear definition, bigotry. I am a lawyer and one of my specialities is social injustice including bigotry and unjust exclusivity.

    Example, and by legal defintion through most court systems, via showing an unwarrented and unsubstantiated claim of violence and danger by the religious faith called Islam (and thus all Muslims), a condemnation of them equates with them being inferior to the faith and social standing of the accuser which therefore states that their standing as being superior. Thus such a condemnation is clearly advocating superiorty and therefore by defintion is bigoted, calling for exclusivity and supremacist. Unfortunately, being a bigot is not against the law, so it is a right as long as no action or coordinated public dissemination takes place.

    My right to point the finger is also a right and I personally consider, a duty. The Dutch populist politician and clear bigot and hate-monger though found not-guilty of inciting violence and racism was called a bigot by the tribunal under these same principles and the tribunal also stated that it was borderline criminal-bigotry due to the public-dissemination of that same line he took.

    su·prem·a·cist (s-prm-sst)
    n.
    One who believes that a certain group is or should be supreme.

    ex·clu·sive (k-sklsv)
    adj.
    1. Excluding or tending to exclude.
    2. Not allowing something else; incompatible.
    3. Not divided or shared with others.
    n.
    1. An exclusive right or privilege.

    ReplyDelete
  121. AOW,

    "Only IF we're talking about Islam that is not fundamental."

    Almost but correct in your direction - "puritanical" and definitely radical, Salafi or Wahhabi would be the correct words (the latter to being direct groups) as fundamental or fundamentalist is actually a definition of certain Christians.

    Foreign Imams are a HUGE reason. Imams need to be registered and controlled by the government. They are in fact controlled by the Muslim governments that consider Mosques to be part of the social communication system - ie disseminators of information and news. In most countries Mosques are actually part of the government (Ministry of Habouss or religious affairs) and when you see radial Imams and radical mosques on television in most countries, they are in fact unrecognised, unregistered or illegal mosques (not that they have the nerve, in some cases, to tackle them).

    The subject of your friend M is not uncommon. We must ask the simple question, was he born in the US? We should not expect someone born outside our world (using that term losely) to be able to easily fit in. They still think like back home and I know some whom have been 25 years here and still fall back into old styles of thought, habit and reflect response. The next generation change more quickly but then they are influenced to lesser degrees by their parents and the third generation - have no excuse other than what they witness as a community. This last part is also the answer to your question/comment why do you see more hijabs after 9/11. The answer is two fold - the first (albiet a small part) is that you may have not noticed them before the event, and secondly - many Muslims are targetted because of their faith (directly or indirectly) and though they keep their mouths shut and are moderates, when you target their faith they will defend it. Not defending terrorism and radicals, but defending their own faith. We would do the same, I am sure, I have no problem people targetting the actions of Catholic Priests and even the Vatican on the topic of covering-up child abuse, but when someone attacks my Church as a whole, I will defend it as if I was Opus Dei (which I am not).

    I think we are coming down to the core issues here which, for me, is the point I have been making from the beginning. We can target the acts of Muslims, the innaction of Muslims, the organised radicalisation and the political nature of certain Islamic groups and communities. They are incompatible, potentionally dangerous and certainly damaging. Some directly and many indirectly support extremism, militancy and terrorism. Some wage war on us and they should be responded with war. Having said that, attacking, condemning or even targetting Islam the faith or throwing generalisations over "them" "the Muslims" is nothing short of wrong. It is bigotry and we are more mature than that, unfortunately some (not just on this site but throughout society) are not that mature. I sometimes think education and living in a free world opens eyes and that living in countries with less may contribute to immaturity and bigotry but if that is the case, they have an excuse, what is ours?

    ReplyDelete
  122. AOW,
    But I still think back with despair that the security was recommended and provided. This should not be the case in America, the land of the free exchange of ideas!

    You would think that wouldn't you.

    However I get it and we are not dealing with humans of the same nature.

    BTW I know the one nation thing didn't exist.

    I know that the movie "Not Without My Daughter" was also not popular with the NY times.

    The m brotherhoodlums are behind it I am sure!

    ReplyDelete
  123. Any intolerance of "them" the Muslims and Islam is by clear definition, bigotry. I am a lawyer and one of my specialities is social injustice including bigotry and unjust exclusivity.

    Yep they don't like the truth and the hell with us and our social injustice!

    We have the right to defend our way of life here in the USA!

    That is why we are so hated by the loony toons of Ero and other back water ideology's! They can't seem to grasp!

    Let see a lawyer working for the wrong side not a prosecution but a defendant lawyer for the wrong side!

    I am not really a great speller either but this just jumped out at me. He spells funny:

    It's S-P-E-C-I-A-L-T-I-E-S

    specialties Not specialities

    I think as a lawyer one must dot all the i's and cross all the t's.

    ReplyDelete
  124. Back on the subject on this thread:

    It all started with the muslims and the Catholic University.

    The muslims feeling put out about a cross.

    Then by golly they are at the wrong, school and country aren’t they!

    No bigotry just saying how stupid, they are to demand such a ridicules demand!

    I believe that the title of bigotry belongs to the mussies!

    ReplyDelete
  125. I just got this email from a follower of this comment section

    The person may feel that most people are aware and does not need mentioning but I will share it:

    Yes almost all muzscums are radical. Their strategy is to inhabit the West and live peacefully until they are called to Jihad. We can see the results in Lebanon, a once progressive Christian nation that was an island of prosperity and culture in the Middle East. Now it is a war torn ravaged dump thanks to the takeover by radical muzscums. Also look at France and Britain where the population of 12-15% supposedly peaceful muzscums seeks to takeover and destroy thousands of years of advanced European culture. IS there anymore that needs be said??!!

    I don't care what false and deceptive lies come from any muzscum source. They have only one objective and that is the destruction of Western Civilization and the implementation of their izscumic sharia hell on all of mankind. They will all burn in hell for their attempts to subvert and destroy the Christian followers of God.


    BTW we have a brother living in the UK and he hates what is going on.

    ReplyDelete
  126. dcat, claiming something to be the truth is your right, there is no question there. It is still technical bigotry in any format, that is just as much a truth. You can pretend as much as you like to be the stuborn independant whoever or whatever but it remains bigoted.

    It may be considered picky, but you continued so with the repeated comment about the university. Personally I agree with the argument that they have no right to say what they did and if you see my original comment you will also see that I am in agreement to some degree with AOW, of who was responsible for it. BUT and this is the big BUT. You said "the Muslims". That is incorrect, it is "some Muslims" or "those Muslims". If it is your language style of simply your unaware of how your saying it, I can understand, but considering how you mostly spell the word Muslim and your other comments, I doubt it. I hope in this case I am wrong.

    As for your "friend's" comments, that is an example of a full-on bigoted scumbag who deserves simply to be ignored, his comments are also factually incorect at a number of levels - it is just more bigoted and in fact racist trash talk.

    A last comment. Yes my spelling is full of holes because it would take forever for me to correct. I am not only writting on this stupid iPad that my son-in-law insists I use but my eyesight is so bad (unfortunately I am eventually going blind), even with the glasses that I have, that I need to spend forever correcting my all-thumbs work and expand the text size so large that I lose context of the sentance as a whole, thus I simply ignore it unless it is blatant. Also, I think more in Spanish than English and I run the only dual-language Llanos Abogados oficina. I give myself another 18 months to two years and I will no longer be able to practice, by then I am 65 and happy to retire.

    ReplyDelete
  127. LOL you do have your issues D Charles!

    They are yours and yours alone!

    You are more than welcome to them all. In the butt of it all that is!

    ReplyDelete
  128. AOW,

    You mention about 'immigration of all ilks'.

    Those immigrants may have a right for a better life in the West but they have no right to impose their incompatible, extremist intolerant, supremacist, exclusive agenda on anyone who disagree with their political or religious aim.
    I also noted the ever increasing numbers of islamic women who put on the various types of distinguishable head covering(hijab) that is known to be related to islamic culture in Malaysia. Perhaps it is to display their increasing extremist slant or just an ethnic fashion statement that was influenced by their totalitarian ideology?

    WLIL

    ReplyDelete
  129. WLIL,
    Immigration isn't a right, IMO. Rather, it is a privilege.

    To a certain extent, the opportunity for immigrants to have a better life prevents reforms in the native lands.

    I've been told that hijabs are a statement of Islamic supremacism and a public display of setting oneself apart (us vs. them).

    Now, I'm sure that not all Muslimatoon in hijabs are aware of that statement of supremacisn and setting apart. But I do notice that hardliner males are accompanied by females wearing hijabs.

    ReplyDelete
  130. You can divide those that have hijabs into four basic categories.

    1. Those who do so because they are told to (first by thier parents and then by their husbands).
    2. Those that do so because they want to fit in and that is how they were taught.
    3. Those that do so because they want to make a statement, and
    4. Those that consider it an act of piety and simply chose to (often after having children).

    It depends on a multitude of situations which of the above is the more dominant reason in whichever location they are in.

    From my conversations say with Moroccans those middle-class and above that wear it are almost always number 4. The wife of my office manager in Ceuta would be the case, ten years ago she did not have a hijab but now she does, not because she became more conservative but because she was now a mother and considered it "the time.

    I have also seen in Morocco young ladies have the hijab and at the same time tight jeans and not covering their backside. Many Moroccans consider that to be hypocritical, actually I would as well. It is more a fashion statement than anything else. If I make any judgements, I would say that it is important to note that there can be many reasons for women to have the hijab, not all are simply religion nor it being a control over women. It is not, like the face covering (niqab) or the burqa which is in fact cultural and not rooted in actual theology.

    ReplyDelete
  131. D Charles,
    I won't argue with those four categories.

    I speak for myself only now: were I to immigrate with the intention of gaining citizenship, I'd want to "be like" the dominant culture of the nation to which I have chosen to immigrate. In other words, if I have made the decision to join, I would join. Of course, in the privacy of my own home, I might well wear native dress.

    Many of my ancestors on my paternal side came from Germany. None wore lederhosen once they arrived in the United States. Yes, yes, a bit of a reach, but I'm making a point here.

    Follow my reasoning? Mine alone, as I've said.

    I do see burqas and niqabs are some of the halal supermarkets.

    I also see hijabs on young children, usually children who look African rather than Arab.

    ReplyDelete
  132. AOW, I am mostly in agreement there, but I do think hair-covering can be religious and I think giving that up because of fitting in is a bit of assimilation - "if" (a big if) they are giving up what they think is important. I have absolutely no problems with hijabs at all but I think niqabs out of the countries that have that as a culture are an insult to everything that we as a society and the efforts and suffering that women have endoured in our country. Women's equality and rights is something critical and hard earned.

    I actually like the lederhosen comment, regardless.

    Girls wearing hijabs that are obviously pre-pubity tells a great deal about the parents - that they are hard-liners, ultra-conservatives or simply "wannabe pious" (as a very liberal Imam I know calls it in London).

    ReplyDelete
  133. D Charles,
    We see quite a few pre-pubescent girls in hijabs in our local school systems here in the D.C. area. I know that African Muslims often put hijabs on their very young girls. But Arab Muslims? I'm speaking of Arab Muslims when I say that quite a few pre-pubescent girls in hijabs in our local school systems here.

    ReplyDelete
  134. BTW, my father's family belonged to the Mennonite sect, a sect related to the Amish. Are you familiar with those groups?

    At some point well before my grandfather's birth in 1863, the family left the Mennonite sect to join the Church of the Brethren. The Brethren don't dress in a manner to set themselves apart, but Mennonites often do and the Amish always do.

    If you're unfamiliar with those sects, I'm sure that you can find information about them on the web.

    In all of the above sects, participation was a choice -- a choice given to the children when they reached adulthood: the choice of remaining Amish, Mennonite, Brethren. Furthermore, those sects are not judgmental -- even of their children's choices (although parents will shun if an action warrants shunning). Shunning is an interesting custom; in proper shunning, the warning must first be given. Shunning does not mean no forgiveness, BTW. I saw my father shun a family member only once -- his half-sister.

    ReplyDelete
  135. AOW,

    I read about the Amish a long time ago and though I have hear the other church names I have not ever read on them. Thanks for the background.

    It is interesting about Muslims out of the actual Muslim regions and it shows the different sytles, pressures and reactions by people. Indonesian and Malay girls are often in hijab from a very early age but in the Maghreb (North West African countries, Arab and Berber) ban girls from hijabs until they reach pubity and find it offensive in fact. Salafi parents who force their children are often fined and certanly shouted at in Morocco.

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective