Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Thursday, March 22, 2012

The Toulouse Slayings

For two mornings in a row, the lead story on the news has been that of the siege in Toulouse.

The precipitating event was Mohammed Merah's murder of Rabbi Jonathan Sandler, the rabbi's two sons — Gabriel, age 3, and Arye, age 6 — and Miriam Monsonego, age 8 (hat tip to Will for the photo below):

All four of the above victims were buried in Israel:
...As French police surrounded the suspected killer of four Jewish children and a 30-year-old rabbi in Toulouse, the victims were laid to rest in the Jewish cemetery in Jerusalem. Around 2,000 people turned up for the funeral. The weather was perfectly sunny and warm for a ceremony that lasted about two hours. But the mood was deeply somber.

The bodies of Jonathan Sandler, his two sons, 4-year-old Gabriel and 5-year-old Arieh, along with a 7-year-old girl named Miriam Monsenego, were flown to Israel on Tuesday night. They were wrapped in prayer shawls and dark fabric, and then carried on the shoulders of mourners to their final resting place....
Mohammed Merah apparently has Al Qaeda connections. In addition, the following information has been released:
...The suspected killer reportedly told French negotiators on Wednesday that he was attempting to avenge the deaths of Palestinian children with his actions....
From this source comes the following detail that you may not have heard:
...[T]he murderer of a rabbi and three small children at Toulouse’s Ozar Hatorah school on Monday filmed the atrocity as he shot each one to death.

The school’s video surveillance tapes showed that the cold-blooded killer used a small video camera suspended from his neck, of the type employed by athletes to record their performance....
Mohammed Merah's vile deeds were motivated by what, exactly? Did he scream, "Allahu akbar!" all the while?

Profile of Mohammed Merah HERE (BBC) and HERE (CNN, includes video).

Update: Mohammed Merah is dead. Good riddance!

60 comments:

  1. The filthy beast probably screamed 'allah ackbar' when he jumped from the window, as well.

    Back to hell with him!

    ReplyDelete
  2. This will no doubt encourage others with all of the attention he received.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Satan's death cultist has met his end. Too bad he didn't land in a vat of pork fat.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Jim at conservatives on FireMarch 22, 2012 at 11:26:00 AM EDT

    Maybe some day science will discover a pill to cure hate. Until that time these kinds of atrocities will continue to occur.

    ReplyDelete
  5. What misunderstanding of the meaning and purpose of life MAKES these people even want to THINK of doing things like this?

    A great mystery!

    ~ FreeThinke

    ReplyDelete
  6. According to a news report, he was shot in the head as he jumped out a window. So he was dead before he hit the ground.

    Someone, somewhere has a video of red and grey crap flying out of his head as his body crumples in midair, and I would dearly love to see that.

    ReplyDelete
  7. there are no words....and it's so important to show the faces because they're just numbers until we see them.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It appears that he admitted to saying he was radicalised in prison and then was in touch with Salafists. Enough said, the Salafi movement ecourages hate and a level of puritanical ultra-conservatism that is out of touch with main-stream Islam and rejected by most Muslim countries. In other words, Salafis are considered suspicious, dangerous and untrustworthy in most Muslim countries.

    In fact they are more tolerated in Europe than say in North Africa and that is perhaps why so many now live in countries like France. I support Sarkozy's desire to put harsh limits and tests for Salafis and other radicals.

    A last point. Some comments above show a real lack of knowledge about Muslims and Islam, thus I am not having a go at you guys but this is more of some information that you should be aware of. The use of the phrase 'Allahu-Akbar' is common place in the lives of any Muslim. It only means God is Great (and remember they are talking about the same God we do, ie the God of Abraham). They will say that when they yawn, when they see something good or bad, even when their is lightening (if they are superspicious). For example, when I was recently in Fez (Morocco) for my graduation (in Arabic Letters) I had the misfortune of slipping on the university steps and embarassingly fell on my behind. At least a dozen people said the phrase. When a child is born, when someone dies, announcing a marriage etc, etc. It is only natural that they would also do so firing a gun or even letting-off a bomb, it has no connection to the act being bad, good, deadly or wonderful. It is similar to us saying the word of our Lord and Saviour or even saying "holly sh*t" when we are suprised.

    Just so your aware, because I noticed some above have no idea why the word is being said and assume it has to do with the act of terror, it does not.

    Damien Charles

    ReplyDelete
  9. D Charles,
    they are talking about the same God we do, ie the God of Abraham

    I disagree.

    And devout Muslims would also disagree with that comment.

    Neither would Muslims try so hard to convert Christians whom they like as individuals. Nor would Christians be preaching the Gospel to Muslims.

    The three monotheistic religious have a few commonalities -- but many more differences that commonalities.

    Think about this logically: if all religions worship the same God, why bother to have different religions at all?

    You are absolutely correct that Muslims utter the word "Allah" with great frequency -- in all sorts of contexts. That said, jihadomaniacs do scream "Allahu akbar!" during acts of terrorism and during certain beheadings.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I can't help but think of the following:

    "Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain, for He will not hold him guiltless who taketh His Name in vain." Was not this commandment given to set apart the Israelites -- and later Christians -- from those of other religions? It seems so to me -- although ever since the TV show Three's Company, taking the Lord's name in vain has become "the norm."

    ReplyDelete
  11. AOW is correct. Christians worship Jesus as god, and he preached kindness, love and forgiveness whereas the Muslim god, Allah, is a lover of hatred, death, blood, vengeance and violence.

    The OLD Testament god is very much like the Muslim's Allah, only taken to a higher level of ugliness. It was the Old Testament god who was jealous, who turned people into pillars of salt and smote whole cities in wrath. That's not the god that Christianity is founded on. Christianity is founded on The Christ. Huge difference.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Ugh:

    French police were warned nearly two years ago that Mohammed Merah, the Islamic radical suspected of murdering Jewish children and French soldiers, was recruiting boys for jihad – or holy war – according to Le Télégramme, a French newspaper....

    More at the above link.

    ReplyDelete
  13. AOW,

    no, Muslims most certainly believe it is the same God, it is written very explicitly in their Koran and even Salafis would say so. If you disagree, please by all means show an example.

    I just read an interesting comment on the foxnews website that you may be interested in. Here is an important quote.

    "Interfaith Leaders: Yes, we must do everything in our power to denounce racism and discrimination in all its forms, including Islamophobia. But we have every right and obligation to demand of Muslim leaders that they directly confront and take on those who invoke G-d’s name to justify hate and murder. They need look no further than the nearest computer to learn who is competing for the hearts and minds of their young people. "

    - Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate Dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles.

    Yes AOW, when I learned that about Islam that was the first thing that stood out, saying the Lord's name in vain, and it is also Jewish so Muslims would certainly follow that as well. I asked a number of Imams and Scholars and they said, yes absolutely, but in this case it is not said in vain, it is stating a fact, that no matter what happens good or bad, God is most certainly great. I mentioned that at Church one day and to my suprise, the Rector present said, yes that is logical.

    Just to add, for those with little or no knowledge about Islam (so as to get their arguments correct), Allah is the Arabic word for "God", no more and no less.

    Damien Charles

    ReplyDelete
  14. Sorry, the quote from foxnews is as follows: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/03/22/french-terror-suspect-dead-what-are-lessons-toulouse/?intcmp=trending

    ReplyDelete
  15. Though people can argue all they want, the argument that Muslims and us Christians worship the same God or not is almost totally in support of they do. It appears that the only group that does not are almost exclusively from the US and of the Conservative community (and then still a minority of).

    However, since you all seem to be here, I will not argue the case but rather point out how that conclussion comes about. I spoke about that to a good friend of 40 plus years and a priest, he puts it in simple turms.

    That Muslims (and Jews) do not accept the divinity of Jesus as Lord simply does not enter the equation. We talk about God, the Creator and that He is the God of Abraham, Moses, Joshua. That is the argument, nothing more and nothing less. It is also the argument of what they (ie the Muslims and the Jews believe), that counts to us, if He is the same God or not. If they accept God as being the Creator, the God of Abraham, Moses and Joshua, then most certainly He is the very same God that we are discussing. Also, in simple logic, since they are talking about one singular all-compassing and all-knowing God, then there are no others.

    Catholicism, the Protestant Church, the United Lutheran congregation, Wesley/Methodists (unless your Penticostal), the Copts/Assyrians and the Patriarchal Sees of the East (the Eastern Orthodox Christian communities) all consider Islam to be an Abrahamic Faith (ie the same God) and thus 95 per cent of all of Christendom.

    Aparantly, Anababtists and Babtist ofshoots in the US consider themselves, well let us say, the only ones who know better in most subjects of a spiritual and political nature (with all respect, of course).

    Personally, I suspect that 11 September 2001 has more to do with the argument that Muslims do not worship the same God than anything else - they musn't right? They are evil and hate-filled right?

    Damien Charles

    ReplyDelete
  16. Woodsman, A great curse!
    I can't believe how cute the kids were.
    I heard something on the news this morning about the gunman having criminal record. Ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
  17. D Charles,
    Actually, September 11 has zero to do with my assertion that Allah is not "the same God" as That of Christianity (in particular).

    Islam doesn't agree with the doctrine of the Trinity. For that matter, present-day Judaism doesn't either.

    There is also the matter of Jesus Christ as the Son of God -- a concept not believed by Muslims or Jews.


    Islam, Christianity, and Judaism claim ties with Abraham. Christians claim spiritual descent from Abraham -- and not necessarily generational lineage.

    The matter of the origin of the word "Allah" may not be as THIS LINK states, but I'm putting in the link anyway as the material is interesting. I've heard similar (if not the same) information from Arabs who are Christians.

    Furthermore, if we accept that Allah is "the same God" as the God of Christianity, how are we to explain the Christian concept of salvation through Jesus Christ?

    ReplyDelete
  18. D Charles,
    And one more thing....It is not necessary for various groups to worship the same God to have mutual respect for each other's right to freedom of worship.

    Of course, if freedom of worship extends to killing "the other" as an element of their fulfilling their religious obligations. the matter is something else entirely.

    ReplyDelete
  19. D Charles,
    One last comment before I turn off my computer for the evening....

    Aparantly, Anababtists and Babtist ofshoots in the US consider themselves, well let us say, the only ones who know better in most subjects of a spiritual and political nature (with all respect, of course).

    Such is their commitment to their denomination. Indeed, most religious groups are convinced that they have "found" the one true way to the one real deity.

    And the idea that we know the one true way for all sorts of matters seems to be a part of human nature -- worldwide. The conflicts result when we take action to eliminate "the other."

    Good night.

    ReplyDelete
  20. AOW,

    as I said, I expressed the reasoning why the vast majority of Christians consider the Muslim's God to be the same God of Christians. You in fact, did not respond to any of those points.

    Second, that "argument" that Allah means something else is a well spread argument that someone calculated for exactly the reason to disenfranchise/discriminate/demonize Muslims.

    Lastly, you again make the assumption (incorrectly) that Islam is there to destroy and disrespect other faiths in your comment "Of course, if freedom of worship extends to killing "the other" as an element of their fulfilling their religious obligations. the matter is something else entirely."

    That comment, though as a general comment against any faith is for my part correct, is obviously that repeated (ad nauseum) attack based on incorrectly sourced material, generalised assumptions and not theologically sound at all.

    I wonder why you continue to return to that same assumption. I certainly hope that if you tell your students this view, that you do the correct academic method of pointing out that you have that opinion but it is neither the principle nor the overall academic or popular view.

    Damien Charles

    ReplyDelete
  21. AOW,

    interesting that you mention freedom of worship. Is that another assumption that Islam does not?

    If that is the reason for the comment, then again your again basing your views and supositions based on the politics of now (and the actions of Muslims and not Islam itself). Also context falls flast when you consider the environment and history of the interelations between Muslims and others (ie Jews and Christians).

    Let me explain. The Koran specifically states that Jews and Christians are People of the Book and that the righteous of those people will stand "shoulder to shoulder" with Muslims at the Gates of Heave on Judgement Day. In other words, it recognises those two faiths and gives them value. It does not say anywhere in the Koran that they must be destroyed, that their houses of worship must be closed or demolished, etc, etc.

    Now you will undoubtably (or another here) give copius examples to the contrary. Fine, that shows the acts of Muslims. So we must say, is it just them? The answer is no, of course not. Muslims took over Constantinople and destroyed every single Church except for Sancta Sofia and turned that into a Mosque (a building built before Mohammed was even born). The Castillians in the reconquesta destroyed every single Mosque (and synagogue) in Southern Spain except for the great mosque in Cordoba, and turned it into a Cathedral (I have gone to Sunday Mass and even watched John Paul II there).

    The point is we can argue the case to death that Muslims, Christians and yes even Jews have abused their faith and banned the right to freedom of worship, or punished, destoryed and killed each other under the name of God but in reality for themselves.

    I am always reminded of two events. The First Crusade of Pope Urban II took its time to start, in fact the first year was spent killing thousands of Jews, then the Germanic armies left for the Holy Land. The second was the Crusaders that first retook Jerusalem chose to kill every single non-Christian (of which the word "infidel" was created) and no-one was to be left alive. That was, in fact, the first time that happened in Jerusalem as the Muslims never did that but chose to do so afterwards as a matter of revenge, and yet in most cases, the Arab Princes refused to do so or did so against the Christians and refused to kill the Jews.

    How the world turns, and forgets history. Is it a lack of education, or a willingness to want to know.

    "truth takes no side"

    Damien Charles

    ReplyDelete
  22. I hope there will be a full and honest investigation of how and why this Islamist barbarian was allowed to walk around free to perform these crimes.

    But I suspect that political correctness and the fear to call evil by it's name will once again block full disclosure of what really happened here.

    It's tragic for the family but equally sad for the rest of us as we just sit here and watch this kind of thing happen again and again without doing everything we can to stop it.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Glad to hear that scumbag is dead. Good riddance indeed. May his victims rest in peace.

    What i found interesting was that the msm told us about the story adding that the murderer was suspected to be of the far-right. Once it was established that he was an islamist, suddenly the story was dropped.

    Another instance of carrying water for the cult of death and blood i suspect.

    ReplyDelete
  24. DIDADIN

    If a non-homosexual American citizen who happened to have been born in INDIA can be deported to INDIA for being "unkind" to his mentally unbalanced homosexual roommate, who insisted on having sex out in the open in front of the Indian-American, surely we can -- and SHOULD -- give all Islamaniacs who do not publicly denounce and officially renounce their evil "faith" a one-way ticket to the Islamic Republic of their choice.

    ISLAM is not a RELIGION, it is a CONTAGION

    Fly them over, open the door, and let them parachute in to meet their Islamic Destiny.

    Close the mosques, outlaw the satanic insanity that is their "reiigion" -- jail their leftist defenders, silence their apologists -- and send 'em packing.

    ~ FreeThinke

    ReplyDelete
  25. I am perfectly happy to allow Muslims to practice their so-called "religion" IN the Islamic countries who forbid and punish the practice of Christianity and any other non-Islamic faiths. Just GET THEM OUT and KEEP THEM OUT of the WEST or very soon "The West" will become nothing more than an Extension of The Middle East.

    "East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet."

    Kipling forgot to add "except in mortal combat."

    ISLAM is NOT A RELIGION, it is an AGGRESSION

    ~ FreeThinke

    ReplyDelete
  26. D Charles,
    This comment is disjointed as I'm still on my first cup of coffee for the day....

    The concept of an all-knowing deity is not exclusive to Abrahamic faiths. See THIS. The same applies to the concept of deity as creator; see THIS.

    I may be wrong, but I think I read somewhere that Zoroastrianism is another monotheistic religion.

    As for interfaithing, it is my belief that the Bible teaches that God is the One and Only ("I the Lord your God am a jealous God" and "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me" and "No man cometh unto the Father but by Me)). To worship Him, one must follow the Bible and not some other book.

    As for the ties between Judaism and Christianity, Christ taught that He was the fulfillment of the law and the prophets.

    Not Allah.

    Not Mohammed.

    According to Islam, Jesus is a prophet of Islam. In my view, that is heresy.

    As for Judgment Day, is there or isn't there something in Islam about "breaking the cross"?

    You said in an accusatory way: You in fact, did not respond to any of those points.

    I say: I have other things going on here. You know that, so do not assume the incorrect reason for any lack of response to any comment by anyone at my web site. Furthermore, I do not respond to every comment or to every portion of every comment -- yours or otherwise. Please note that in this comment I am not responding to every element of every comment you have made here. I am under no obligation to do so, and when fatigue calls, I retire for the evening.

    Finally, it is my religious belief that the redeeming death and resurrection of Jesus are the only path to eternal life (salvation); good works do not bring salvation ("by faith alone, not by works").

    Frankly, others can believe as they wish. But when I think about interfaithing (in fact, it is syncretism and falls into heresy, IMO), I recall the New Testament cautionary verses of not adding to or subtracting from the Word of God as It was given via Judaism and Christianity. Clearly, Islam (and other faiths) are adding or subtracting something -- hundreds of years later.

    Here's a question for you....Many interfaithing groups observe Ramadan or the like. How many mosques observe the Lord's Supper as the body and blood of the Saviour?

    PS: You accept no source that I offer. Fine. Suit yourself. At the same time, you are entrenched in your views -- just as entrenched as I am in my views. Our discussions are going nowhere as far as I can tell.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Z,
    In all the dust-rolling here, I forgot to acknowledge your comment, which specifies my purpose in posting the photo:

    it's so important to show the faces because they're just numbers until we see them

    People are looking at Mohammed Merah's face and forgetting about who really deserve to be remembered -- and mourned.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Thank GOD the police put a bullet through the villain's head and "he dropped lifeless to the ground."

    What a pity this could not have been accomplished BEFORE he perpetrated this heinous act!

    Europe and the United States need to cleanse themselves systematically of this scourge before it takes over and annihilates Western Christian Civilization.

    Islamaniacs are the moral equivalent of RABID DOGS.

    They should be rounded up, quarantined, DEPORTED and EXCLUDED from Western Society.

    An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

    ~ FreeThinke

    ReplyDelete
  29. FT,
    I read yesterday that the French authorities were well aware for some time that Mohammed Merah was dangerous in the extreme. Yet, they let him go along as he was doing -- until he committed the unthinkable and became an Islamomaniac serial killer.

    I'm glad that he's dead and will not be imprisoned for some 50 years at the taxpayers' expense.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I'm glad that monster is dead, too.

    My little boy is eight years old. I can't imagine some psychopathic Muslim (Sorry, didn't mean to be redundant) doing to him what that beast did to that beautiful little girl.

    I hope he's enjoying his permanent vacation with Satan, or as Merah knows him, Allah.

    ReplyDelete
  31. No Christian God would urge Jihad
    Upon His son or daughter.

    Islamists odd would take a rod
    And urge its use for slaughter.

    Although 'tis writ the Christian Lord
    Brought us no peace, instead a sword.

    The ironies about Belief
    Should generate mad laughter.
    Instead vile hatred sans relief
    Obtains from floor to rafter.

    There is one God.
    From sod and sky
    And deep within He sees us.
    But all we know's manmade facade,
    That blinds us to Lord Jesus.


    ~ FreeThinke

    ReplyDelete
  32. This was a horrible thing to happen to anyone, reminds me a little of the slaughter of the Rabbi, his wife and children in the hotel terror attacks in Mumbai India I think. If ever there were hate crimes, these are. The terrorist is dead but look at the damage he did. He should never have been walking free.

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

    ReplyDelete
  33. FT,

    let me see what you provided, apart from the obviously text-book bigotry and unChristian, let alone fascist, references of close them down, send them packing arguments that are reminiscent of Hitler's Germany.

    "IN the Islamic countries who forbid and punish the practice of Christianity and any other non-Islamic faiths". Please provide examples of Islamic jurispudence that forbids the practice of Christianity in the Muslim world. Note, do not provide Muslim political decisions as my references is to Islam, not Muslims.

    "ISLAM is NOT A RELIGION, it is an AGGRESSION"

    No, everybody except some evangalist groups call it not a religion. As provided above, 95 per cent of Christendom and the entire Jewish faith considers Islam to be a religion, thus your argument has no standing other than, your own personal bigotry.

    Aggression. Maturity states that one should not blame an entire group for the actions of a few. If we are, as you are, to blame all of Islam for the terror that radical and militant Islamists do, then that can only be considered cultural prejudice, reactionary immaturity or something worse. Now if you suggest, as some do, that Islam was spread by the sword, do not forget that Christianity was spread by the sword in Eastern Europe, Asia and South America. In otherwords, avoid double standards.

    "Europe and the United States need to cleanse themselves systematically of this scourge before it takes over and annihilates Western Christian Civilization."

    Me thinks we have a Goebbels in our midst.....

    So to sum up, you have in fact provided nothing other than your own personal bigotry, something akin to fascism/racism that both Christianity shuns and western society has attempted to purge itself of.

    Damien Charles

    ReplyDelete
  34. Damien Charles,
    Me thinks we have a Goebbels in our midst.....

    Careful there, please. Note the caveat at the top of the comments box here at my site:

    Caveat: Continued invectives and personal attacks will result in deletion.

    You and FT are going to disagree, but be mindful of the terms of service here.

    ReplyDelete
  35. AOW,

    Interestingly, as you said to worship Him, one must follow the Bible and not some other book. That is exactly why Islam is considered an Abrahamic faith and thus worshipping the same God that we do, as they follow and "The Book". That they have their Koran, in their belief an extension and confirmation of The Book. We obviously will not agree with that, but then again as you have said, we consider Christ taught that He was the fulfillment of the law and the prophets and Jews will not agree, but we must accept Christ, and Muslims will go one step further and say also Mohammed.

    Please note your incorrect reference to "Not Allah". Allah is neither Mohammed nor Christ, but simply the Arabic translation for God and thus should be respected as that. Would you say, "Not God"?

    You said "according to Islam, Jesus is a prophet of Islam. In my view, that is heresy." The definition of heresy is "Belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious doctrine."

    In that case, yes it is heresy, but so then is the Coptic view as they also consider Christ to be a Prophet, but yet do you consider them as Christians and worshipping the same God? According to you, no.

    Yes there are reference in Islam about "breaking the cross" and it has to do with Judgment Day.

    The basic tenant is that in the afterlife the "truth" will be exposed to all that Islam was correct (as we believe that all we bare witness to our Lord and Savior and Jews something else). In Islam, symbols are considered "heresy" and that is why images of the Prophets or other symbols are banned. They consider the Cross to be both an inaccuracy to the events leading up to the death of Christ and that kneeling in front of or wearing one is considered heresy. On Judgment Day, God Himself will break the Cross to show the errors of vain worship of what has become an idol in itself. So they believe.

    "Many interfaithing groups observe Ramadan or the like. How many mosques observe the Lord's Supper as the body and blood of the Saviour?"

    Mosques will not observe the Lord's Supper because it places the Prophet Issa (Jesus) at the same level of God Himself, in other words they will not support a heretical act. Apart from the obvious impact of recent politics, most Muslim countries have not only sanctioned Christian events and holy days but ensured that comments against The Book is considered blasphemy. Though it may be hard for some here to believe, Jewish holidays are well respected in the Islamic calender and often followed.

    Are you aware that if "halal" or clean food for eating is not available, that "Kosher" is considered halal? That the most important Muslim holiday of Eid al Adhar (the sacrifice day) is in honour of the same event in the Jewish calander (Abraham's test of having to sacrifice his son).

    ...... continued

    ReplyDelete
  36. ...... continued

    "You accept no source that I offer. Fine. Suit yourself."

    The problem in regards to what you have linked is that these are well worn examples of arguments that have been put forward and disproven time and time again. Just like the media may have a strong pro-left bais in the US, there are well worn efforts (some with well funded organisations) that simply spend time and effort into searching for some way of ensuring that Islam is put down some knotches. Some of it is for very sinister reasons, such as the Settler Movement, but others is for what I simply detest the most amongst our own faith which is tit-for-tat battles between denominations trying to "save souls" by discrediting each other. Also, of course, especially against "heathens". I have a cousin who become a Jehovah Witness and married into an American JW family. All he cares now is how to swamp me with what equates to a truck-load of so-called research of why I should be a JW and reject my heretical Catholic Faith. In the end it comes down to a matter of faith, self respect and respect for others.

    My Church tells me that in the end it comes down to three words.

    FAITH, RESPECT and EMPATHY

    Faith is obvious, I have faith in the the Lord and His Sacrifice for our sins.

    Respect is the most interesting and difficult subject. To gain respect one must be able to give it and in all forms. Though I have my faith, I must ensure that I have earned it through respect, for my faith and for those that have faith, REGARDLESS, if it is not the same as mine.

    Empathy, though similar to respect goes a step further. To ensure that we are stead-fast in our own faith and have a capacity to give and earn respect, we must be able to see through the eyes of others and understand their own faith. By doing so allows us to be stronger in our own faith by fully comprehending others, respecting their view but still being able to say, "yes I understand, though my own faith says otherwise".

    That, by the way, is one of the charters of Opus Dei that I am proudly associated with. We are called to our own spiritual quests to understand the Lord our Savior and to do so we must have faith, respect and empathy with the world around us to achieve that.

    That is, I will confess here, why I play the devil's advocate and question, stretch, prod, push and yes even provoke in a harsh fashion, to get to understand what they really believe and not just some blog-bravado.

    For me, the argument about Islam is an important test to everyone here. Argue that you do not believe, argue that there are serious issues with the world's Muslim communities, but if you are going to argue that it is Islam itself that is corrupt, satanic, dangerous, then come up with some concrete evidence. If the average person is unable to understand others, then how can they understand their own faith?

    Damien Charles

    ReplyDelete
  37. AOW,

    I will respect the rules of your blog and I respectfully withdraw that mark.

    Now I ask you to demand the same to FT with his basic desire to "cleanse" the west of Muslims - his words not mine. If he did so in public and not in the anonimity of the bloggosphere, could face charges in most countries.

    I would hate to accuse you of double-standards, one-sided targetting, etc, etc.

    Damien Charles

    ReplyDelete
  38. Damien,
    Quick response here. I'm in the midst of resolving a very odd computer issue that involves how my display reads on the monitor. Something very strange happened a few minutes ago! **sigh** I shall read comments later; right now, I can barely discern what is on my screen, and what is on my screen is "cut off" in mid-words. Ugh.

    To be clear....FT expressed his views. I am not saying that I agree with them. But as I said, the Goebbels accusation was too extreme because of the connotations involved with that name. I'm sure that FT isn't calling for cattle cars. If he disagrees with me about the cattle cars, he will likely return to this thread and say so.

    I certainly have never advocated rounding up any "other" in cattle cars and sending "other" to the ovens.

    these are well worn examples of arguments that have been put forward and disproven time and time again

    Perhaps so, perhaps not.

    Anyway, empathy can be extended, but only so far. I say that not only with regard to different religions.

    You know, discussion of religion is difficult because of the many ins and outs of complicated doctrines. Ultimately, those who are convicted in their hearts of the veracity of their faith have, over the course of history and indeed in the present day, visit horrors upon "the other." Unconscionable, in my view. But such has been the history of the human race across the eons of time.

    Back later -- but likely not until much later. Must resolve this computer issue!

    ReplyDelete
  39. Get ready to puke! Merah posted the video of killing that little girl. The link I'm leaving does NOT go to the video but rather to information that he did indeed post the video.

    ReplyDelete
  40. For the record:

    I have neither recommended nor advocated KILLING anyone, but I most certainly do think it would be better for the interests of the current native populations in Britain, the European countries, the USA, Canada, Central and South America if the practice of Islam was PROHIBITED and the Jihadists removed from our midst and peacefully DEPORTED to countries hospitable to their values and mores.

    They wouldn't be missed, if they ceased to exist as a factor in mainstream Western Life.

    I realize we do not have the good common sense we once had, for we are no longer a unified people, nor do we have the political will to do anything like this, but that does not -- and never will -- stop me from registering my opinion.

    I would agree with those who argue that our white English and European ancestors effectively stole the western Hemisphere from myriad Indian tribes. They did.

    I would also agree with those who argue that ALL land occupied today has been stolen from someone else somewhere along the line, and that horrible, indecent death, destruction and deprivation has been visited on countless millions in the not-so-distant past.

    If we want to go back far enough, I suppose we would have to blame it all on poor, stupid Eve -- but what good would that do?

    In the past ten centuries (roughly) England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Cornwall each developed a specific, clearly defined ethnic identity and traditional culture. The Ancient Roman, Anglo-Saxon and Norman elements, however, combined to dominate the Celtic tribes, and so even though Ireland remains Ireland and Scotland Scotland, each is still part of Great Britain, and quaint variants of the English language are spoken throughout the British Isles. Efforts to revive Erse, Gaelic and Welsh have been weak and probably destined to fail altogether. Weaker peoples constantly get conquered by stronger, more aggressive people and teir languages and cultures get absorbed into the dominant whole all the time. It's the way of the world.

    That's why I believe it pays those who wish to survive and prosper in what is and always has been a dog-eat-dog world to grow strong, remain string, and make every effort to keep getting stronger. The alternative is to let oneself and one's people be crushed and subject to the rule of hostile insurgents.

    Islam may claim many delightful people among its followers, but they don't belong HERE.

    Just as no sane person would add crushed garlic to a recipe for chocolate fudge -- THINK abut that for a second or two! -- so no sane person should deliberately advocate the blending of disparate and fundamentally discordant ethnic and cultural elements -- UNLESS they have a fervent desire to lose their IDENTITY once and for all.

    One Worlders, of course, want exactly that, and I say to hell with them.

    Inevitably things do change with time, but I am dead set against changing them artificially and by the use or threat of deadly force.

    ~ FreeThinke

    PS: And please Mr. Charles learn to restrain yourself from posting such copious amounts of repetitive cant and rhetoric. I KNOW how you feel. You KNOW how I feel. Please out of respect for AOW, if for no other reason, let's just leave it at that. Thank you. - FT

    ReplyDelete
  41. Nice deflection from a wingnut racist killer in Florida. Funny how Fox News stayed far away from that story.

    ReplyDelete
  42. "if the practice of Islam was PROHIBITED and the Jihadists removed from our midst and peacefully DEPORTED to countries hospitable to their values and mores."

    Apart from being a blatantly bigoted statement, that stinks of supremicism, it is also a statement that is illogical from many aspects. If one was to ban Islam in western countries and then deport the "Jihadists", you have taken away at most about 2 per cent of the Muslims and thus have left the rest with being unable to practice their faith - a gross human rights violation that is also contrary to say the American Constitution and what America was built on - the right to worship freely.

    Of course there is the remote possibiilty that the above statement implied that all Muslims are "jihadists" which again is not only incorrect but laughably ignorant.

    However, comments that everything was at some stage a result of domination over another is a correct statement. In fact it is so correct that it actually contradicts the previous statement.

    FT may be unaware, but the language of my country (and his) is based on the English language's ability to leech from other nations. One third of our language is in fact based on words garned from other languages almost totally from the trade with, immigration of and conquering of others. Of that one third, a quarter is based on Arabic.

    For Great Britain, since the 1830s Muslim immigrants from South Asia, Egypt and the Sudan started arriving in numbers and contributed to the nation and its ever altering identity. What is clear is that identities change and it is not to stop it but to slow the process down and to some degree steer it that counts. No matter what you try, unless your North Korean, the cultures, relations and affects of others will influence one way or another. It is how you deal with it that counts.

    FT's head-in-the-sand ideal of life without Islam and Muslims also is a denial of history.

    Our own legal system is based on Islamic influences into Norman Law that is the basis of British and therefore American Law, ie the concept of the Jury comes directly from the Islamic "Lafif". Common Trust Laws as well as Contract Law all come from copying Islamic Legal practices that were far superior to the laws that preceded it. Remebering I am a lawyer, my speciality being civil laws. Civil Law's origin is called Avali (Franco-Italian term) which comes direclty from the Arabic Hawali. Why? That is because in civil law, the concepts of "partnership" , "transferal of equivelant value" and "res judicata" is all based on Islamic Law that was suprior and thus adopted. Maritime Law was previously based on Byzantine Law and was a mess until the British copied Ottoman Islamic law that set what we now know as the laws of the "high seas", piloting and "cabotage" and merchant wage preportioning. The best one for me is that the word Magistrate is the latin translation of the word al Madrass. Interestingly the concept of a law school issuing the license to practice is Islamic in origin, and in fact, the concept of Universities issuing degrees is Islamic with those schools in the West previously providing great education but it was simply how long you stayed, not a set qualification. Shall I go on? How about the concept of an organised institution we call a hospis or hospital - Islamic.

    We must recognise the past, that is the point, not denying it. Islam has in fact influenced every part of life in the West regardless of your efforts or denials. We may well have improved and much of the Musim world has stagnated or even gone backwards, but facts remain just that.

    FT, I am not interested in some form of who's the whatever. Your view is your own and your entitled to it, I am the last to deny anyone of their rights. However, I am just as much excercising my right to point out what is either bigoted, illogical or an insult into common intelligence.

    Damien Charles

    ReplyDelete
  43. At least the killed the scum bag and he won't be able to harm another innocent person.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Damien Charles,
    Islam has in fact influenced every part of life in the West regardless of your efforts or denials.

    Well, that statement is Islamophilic in the extreme.

    Your view seems to be that every good thing in the world came from Islam or inventions by Muslims.

    I say: "To the conqueror go the spoils." As Muslims conquered various regions, they adopted some practices of the conquered as their own. The same is true of every empire that ever conquered other peoples.

    The origins of a lot of things can never be discerned.

    The two questions below are rhetorical and do not require actual answers, which may be impossible to find, anyway:

    (1) Just who designed the techniques used during the Spanish Inquisition, which was preceded, of course, by the medieval inquisition? Did Pope Whoever design those methods himself, or or did he learn them from the sons of Allah?

    (2) Were the ancient tribes of Canaan among the chosen by Mohammed? And what vile practices did those ancient Canaanite tribes have? Did Mohammed incorporate into Islam some of those vile Canaanite practices (or adaptations thereof)?

    Credit Islam with all that you wish. But also remember that giving such credit could open Pandora's box and reveal that Islam is the source of all evil things too.

    As much as you love and admire Islam, sir, I fail to understand why you haven't converted to Islam.

    ----------

    This discussion is at a dead end as far as I'm concerned. You have stated your view, others have stated theirs. I think that we should leave it at that. We'll all live to fight another day and should more on to other matters now.

    I can close comments, but I think that you have enough etiquette and respect for me not to have to take that step.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Liberalmann,
    Nice deflection from a wingnut racist killer in Florida.

    Deflection? Are you nuts?

    My choice of topic is my own. My blog, my property, my rule.

    I do not watch Fox News.

    Cockoo [sic] for cocoa puffs!

    Speaking of yourself, huh?

    ReplyDelete
  46. Just as leftists, who have always felt free to hurl thunderbolts at those with whom they differ, hold themselves immune from criticism, know no shame when caught with their pants down, and remain militantly impervious to logic, I -- and a host of others like me -- no longer feel intimidated, embarrassed or in any way favorably impressed by the aggressive name calling, self-righteous posturing and absurd accusations indulged in by the left.

    In fact every syllable of ridicule, rejection, scorn, contempt, and derision -- and every failure to acknowledge or show respect for my point of view -- only serves to add strength to my convictions.

    I refuse to allow myself to be bullied, abused, harassed, insulted, seduced or cajoled into committing suicide so those dedicated irritants and intellectual termites determined to destroy the Civilization I love may do so unhampered by meaningful opposition.

    So by all means in honor of our sainted First Amendment get up on your soapbox and shout your threats and curses, rattle off your statistics, and tell us of your withering scorn to your heart's content. Only don't be surprised when the day arrives -- sooner than you think -- that forces fed up with your calumny and ceaseless bombast kick that soapbox out from under you and toss it aside while the crowd you'd been badgering turns on you and forces you to run for your life.

    Of course, it would be far more appropriate, if that crowd simply yawned its head off and became somnolent. Unfortunately, mobs don't react that way. Once sufficiently aroused they inevitably become violent.

    So, be very careful when you work to stir up trouble, because it may wind up troubling you far more than it does the objects of your stern, purse-lipped disapproval, tedious ramblings and ferocious invective.

    Sooner or later all tyrants are toppled from their thrones -- especially those who cloak themselves in the purple raiments of assumed righteousness and superior wisdom.

    ~ FreeThinke

    ReplyDelete
  47. Our own legal system is based on Islamic influences into Norman Law that is the basis of British and therefore American Law, ie the concept of the Jury comes directly from the Islamic "Lafif".

    False.

    Æthelred the Unready was no Muslim, and the Danelaw had absolutely nothing to do with Islam.

    Common Trust Laws as well as Contract Law all come from copying Islamic Legal practices that were far superior to the laws that preceded it. Remebering I am a lawyer, my speciality being civil laws. Civil Law's origin is called Avali (Franco-Italian term) which comes direclty from the Arabic Hawali. Why? That is because in civil law, the concepts of "partnership" , "transferal of equivelant value" and "res judicata" is all based on Islamic Law that was suprior and thus adopted.

    Pacta sunt servanda. It's of Roman origin, not Islamic.

    Maritime Law was previously based on Byzantine Law and was a mess until the British copied Ottoman Islamic law that set what we now know as the laws of the "high seas", piloting and "cabotage" and merchant wage preportioning.

    You got something right! Admiralty laws of the Romans and Byzantines did adopt some superior Ottoman standards. Hmm. The Western tradition seems to trend towards advancement and improvement, huh? What were those Tripolitan Barbary pirates thinking?

    The best one for me is that the word Magistrate is the latin translation of the word al Madrass.

    Bwhahahahahahaha! Wrong. Etymology of "magistrate" :

    late 14c., "civil officer in charge of administering laws," from O.Fr. magistrat, from L. magistratus "a magistrate," originally "magisterial rank or office," from magistrare "serve as a magistrate," from magister "chief, director" (see master).

    Interestingly the concept of a law school issuing the license to practice is Islamic in origin, and in fact, the concept of Universities issuing degrees is Islamic with those schools in the West previously providing great education but it was simply how long you stayed, not a set qualification.

    Wrong. Academic degrees (including legal degrees and licensing) have their roots in apprenticeship and guild standards of the Middle Ages in Europe (not Islamic).

    Shall I go on? How about the concept of an organised institution we call a hospis or hospital - Islamic.

    Wrong. Ancient Greek, not Islamic.

    Did you get your "degree" from a Cracker Jack box?

    Was your bar exam multiple choice?

    ReplyDelete
  48. "As much as you love and admire Islam, sir, I fail to understand why you haven't converted to Islam."

    If I'm not mistaken Damien told us that he is a British Conservative party member at a different blog. I couldn't tell if he was saying that with a straight face though.

    ReplyDelete
  49. AOW,

    I have not said every good thing comes from Islam - that is you putting words in that was not uttered from me.

    What I am saying is that denying what comes from WHOMEVER is a very bad habit that seems to come from those on blogs like this.

    Since people are sticking their heads in the sand and ignoring their history then it is my belief they have no moral integrity or right to start commenting on others.

    That has always been my point and that is still why I argue on behalf of what can only be described as specially targetted rubbish.

    Today will be my last time on this particular thread, I will respond to some total idiots here and that will be tha from me.

    Damien Charles

    ReplyDelete
  50. AOW,

    I am not a Muslim because I do not believe, it comes down to that. I am Christian and am faithful to that.

    As for admiring, to a small degree yes. I admire the best of all that has come out of faiths and ignore (and learn) from the negatives of all those faiths - that includes my own. What I have learnt over all my years, comes down to the acts of man, not actually faith itself.

    Your remark regarding Biblical Tribes. I find it rather futile to base any judgements from biblical times other than what history has accurately documented.

    Damien Charles

    ReplyDelete
  51. AOW,

    I am not a Muslim because I do not believe, it comes down to that. I am Christian and am faithful to that.

    As for admiring, to a small degree yes. I admire the best of all that has come out of faiths and ignore (and learn) from the negatives of all those faiths - that includes my own. What I have learnt over all my years, comes down to the acts of man, not actually faith itself.

    Your remark regarding Biblical Tribes. I find it rather futile to base any judgements from biblical times other than what history has accurately documented.

    Damien Charles

    ReplyDelete
  52. Beamish.

    I hate to brake it to you but you can attempt to "wiki-and-wish" all you like but get the facts straight. English legal heritage is clear enough in all academic instutions.

    Æthelred the Unready and Danelaw did not create the Jury system. It was copied and modified from the Lafif system observed when we took control of Sicily from (1068–1194 - look up Norman Sicily.

    "Pacta sunt servanda. It's of Roman origin, not Islamic."

    Just because it was written in or has a latin name does not mean the laws themselves came from Rome. Look up the term Alavi.

    Yes Maritime Law is based on the Ottoman's pigheaded desire to run everything by beaurocracy.

    As for Magistrate. That is debated. Though yes the line to Latin is clear, so is the Aramaic and it comes to the chicken versus the egg issue. What seems to have occured is a double-back of language. Not used, then re-used and then reinterpreted. Most certainly the modern Arabic word comes from the Old-English that comes from the French-Latin, but then again, did the Romans get it from the Jews?


    "Wrong. Academic degrees (including legal degrees and licensing) have their roots in apprenticeship and guild standards of the Middle Ages in Europe (not Islamic)."

    No. What do you consider middle-ages? Name the oldest universities and do a bit of research. Whilst everyone knows Oxford and Leiden are old, in actuality the oldest contiguous universities are in Fez (Morocco) and Cairo (Egypt). Whilst the original students - actually residents and apprentices - attending the original Oxford did not get a paper or did they pass a set criteria to be a graduate. They spent a certain time and left and said "I was at .... " or was known to have studied there. On the other hand the two, plus Damascus and Baghdad (and later Istanbul) provided a set course and a certificate (qualification).

    They were first and when the two collided, the European institutions followed suit.

    There is no blame game, or "we are better than you" BS, history is history.

    "Wrong. Ancient Greek, not Islamic." (Organised hospitials).

    No Beamish, just because the word we use comes from Latin or ancient Greek it does that much. "Valetudinaria" was a place to look after the sick, it was basic in every way, it was better than at home and a place for healers to gather. It was used for war vertans. Byzantine "Basilias" was almost there, it was more coordinated and divided areas to different illnesses (mostly to separate leppers).

    My comment was on the coordinated, sanctioned and a professional institution which was established in Damascus in the first decade of the 8th century. Arguably it took the good from Byzantium, the professionalism of the Sassanids (pre Islamic Persians). The term was "Bimarestan" which I suggest you look up. It basically means house of the ill. That word is Persian, the Arabic is "Dar al-Shifa." Also I suggest you look up Ibn-Sina and Ibn-Razi, the former is considered a grand-father of medicine to the academics.



    "Did you get your "degree" from a Cracker Jack box? Was your bar exam multiple choice?"

    Tsk, tks, Beamish. Internaughts and Bloggers all think they know everything via a "click".

    I suggest a taste of real study, from books, lectures and work not to mention getting out of your chair, go see the world.

    Damien Charles QC
    Harrow School
    University College London (UCL) undegraduate. LLB.(Hons)
    University of Portsmouth (Guildhall) Legum Doctori (Social Justice)
    School of Oriental and African Studies GradDip Islamic Studies (http://www.soas.ac.uk/)
    University of Al-Karaouine (Fez) Graduate in Arabic Letters

    ReplyDelete
  53. RWT,

    yes I am a long-standing paying member of the British Conservative Party. Not that you would know, the party no longer has representation here in Gibratlar as the local independant-identity movement is powerful here. We, (there are about 200 of us, consider that to be irrelevant as though we are independantly governed) we are still mostly controlled by the British Parliament.

    The BCP is not like the Republican Party in the United States and I have had this conversation (not finished) with AOW over what you consider Conservative over there and what we do here (considering we were Conservative before you had your independance).

    Tradition, Values and Rule of Law are the beadrock of British Conservatism. You over there tend to add and put emphasis on "individualness", "liberty" and "freedom". We would argue that the individual has his liberty and freedom but not at the cost of the Rule of Law. That the protection of our hard-earned traditions are paramount to ensuring both the Rule of Law and liberty is are given. The other element, which comes from our own short civil war and burst of republicanism is the subject of Values. Values, that they etched in concrete for all, not for the few and not at the cost of our traditions.

    Somehow, RWT, I think I am wasting my time even responding to someone whom assumes that if I am not a southern baptist angry anti-Obama islamophobe then I cannot be a Conservative.

    Damien Charles

    ReplyDelete
  54. It's so hard to believe that you're a Conservative Damien, but you keep telling us, maybe one day someone will believe you. Let I'll give you an opportunity to lend some evidence to your claims.

    You said - I admire the best of all that has come out of faiths and ignore (and learn) from the negatives of all those faiths - that includes my own.

    So can you point to some blogs where Christianity is bashed about where you have defended your own faith as vehemently as you have defended islam here? And don't worry, I'll remember to ask you elsewhere.

    "Today will be my last time on this particular thread, I will respond to some total idiots here and that will be tha from me."

    Can't stand up to the white-hot lashings from Beamish can you, so declare all who oppose you as idiots and slink away.

    "Somehow, RWT, I think I am wasting my time even responding to someone whom assumes that if I am not a southern baptist angry anti-Obama islamophobe then I cannot be a Conservative."

    Damn you are arrogant. I know I'll be wasting my time telling you what's on my mind, you've already made your assumptions about it and claim to know what I know and all that. Besides, there is a certain amusement from watching your strutting around on your high horse lecturing everyone.

    See you around Damien.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Damien Charles,
    FYI...Your comment ended up in the spam folder. I have now published your comment.

    ReplyDelete
  56. RWT

    1. I chose not to continue on this thread because AOW considered it dead.
    2. Your assumptions are more than my own, try looking at your own posts...
    3. Enough said, try somewhere else.

    DC

    ReplyDelete
  57. ..." FT with his basic desire to "cleanse" the west of Muslims - his words not mine. If he did so in public and not in the anonimity of the bloggosphere, could face charges in most countries."

    And THAT -- right there -- is THE MAIN REASON Western Society is swirling rapidly down the drain into the sewers of history.

    Not only to be FORBIDDEN -- but to be under the threat of dire PUNISHMENT for speaking what-one-earnestly-believes-to-be-the TRUTH is the QUINTESSENCE of TOTALITARIANISM.

    ISLAMISM is TOTALITARIANISM.

    LIBERALISM is TOTALITARIANISM.

    The ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH in its heyday practiced TOTALITARIANISM.

    So are ALL forms of THEOCRACY, which shouldn't be called that, because Theocracy is every bit as UNGODLY as all the other forms of TYRANNY.

    ~ FreeThinke

    ReplyDelete
  58. I had a feeling you didn't really mean to leave Damien.

    So let's cut to the chase shall we, can you point to some blogs where Christianity is bashed about where you have defended your own faith as vehemently as you have defended islam here?

    Otherwise your claims about how you are a conservative, a Christian and that you - admire the best of all that has come out of faiths and ignore (and learn) from the negatives of all those faiths - seem like bald-faced lies.

    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