Fornits
General Interest => Tacitus' Realm => Topic started by: Stonewall on June 18, 2010, 11:05:33 PM
-
How European Tolerance Islamized Turkey
There was a time when Turkey was a modern example to the rest of the Muslim world. And there was one fundamental reason for that. It was because Turkey realized that it could either be a backward Muslim colony of Europe, or it could put Islam in its place, and reform in order to try to keep up with Europe. And there is also a fundamental reason why that brand of reform has not come to the rest of the Muslim world. It is because they never had to learn that same lesson.
While the Ottoman Empire had once threatened Europe when both were getting by on the remnants of skills and knowledge from the Roman days, but as Europe progressed, the conquerors of Byzantium could not keep up. And so the Ottoman Empire became the Sick Man of Europe, and the nations of Europe fought major wars over who would have first dibs on carving up its territory. The last of those conflicts was World War I. And so Turkey was faced with a decision. To try and compete with Europe by becoming like the Europeans, or becoming just another colony.
But while Turkey modernized, the Muslim nations of the Middle East instead followed a completely different paradigm. And they succeeded for two reasons. Oil. And the willingness of First and Second World powers to pander to them. Where Turkey had to learn to do things the hard way, to separate mosque from state and try to build modern institutions, a bunch of backward desert sheiks were lucky enough to take control of barren regions where infidel geologists found oil. Those sheiks were also lucky enough to stumble into a perfect era of infidel infighting that allowed them to play Americans against the Europeans against the Russians. Not long after the sheiks had more money than they could count, which meant that they didn't need to modernize, instead they could buy all the American and European technology they wanted, and even import actual Americans and Europeans to do the work for them.
Of course the Saudi, Emirati or Kuwaiti way was none too feasible for Muslim countries without a whole lot of oil under their feet-- but that didn't matter. Because money bought them a whole lot of cultural warfare. While US troops guarded the fat sheiks from any neighbors who were investing their money into building a military-- the Saudis spent their money on foreign investments and on building up the Islamic takeover of Europe and America. Where post-war terrorism by Muslims had begun as Soviet proxy attacks on Britain, America and Israel-- it discarded its red Marxist outer shell to reveal its green Islamist interior. Not long after the the USSR fell, Middle Eastern terrorism was swiftly taking on a wholly Islamist coloration. A coloration heavily funded by oil money.
The Saudi model showed that modernization did not require modern thinking. It showed that Muslim countries could still be Islamist, and still have all the benefits of modern living. All it took was money. While Turkey was busy being Europe's backward cousin, the Saudis were gorging themselves on Western delicacies, importing foreign architects and landscape planners, models, entertainers and huge numbers of slaves from Southeast Asia. In doing so they made their larger point, which is that Western civilization was a commodity that could be bought, and that it was possible to have it all, the raw meat of Islam and the fruits of the West on one plate. Western civilization was for sale.
Turkey had reformed because civilization had proven to be the strong horse, and Islam the weak horse. When the balance shifted, civilization was revealed as the weak force, and Islam as the strong force. And not only did we not try to turn the tide, our governments affirmed this with everything they did, both in their domestic policies toward Muslim immigrants, and their foreign policy toward Muslim nations. Call it appeasement or dhimmism, what they did not only devalued them individually and nationally, it devalued the very idea that civilization was superior to medieval barbarism, and destroyed the very forces that might have modernized the Muslim world.
A generation later, the tide of Muslim immigrants to Europe learned the same lesson as well. After some initial fuss about integration, they could also combine Islamism and Western civilization. It was possible for them to be doctors, dentists, lords and engineers-- while at the same time believing they had a duty to force their new hosts to bow to the god of Islam, first seen by Mohammed on a three day bender in the desert. And if they had any qualms about it, their local petrodollar mosques were sure to fix that. And if not them, then their children.
Turkish guest workers saw this all firsthand. Which made the idea that Turkey had to be secular in order for Turks to benefit from the modern world seem all the more absurd. That sort of thinking might have made sense back in the day when Her Majesty's Armies were administering an empire, but not when Islamist preachers were hectoring the masses and jeering at returning soldiers in the heart of her kingdom.
Western civilization had not only shown itself to be for sale, but its secularism and modernity were instead revealed to be weaknesses. Any Muslim in Europe could not help but realize that it was the very lack of principles that made it so ripe for the plucking. The way of Ataturk had ceased to make sense. The way of the House of Saud on the other hand was looking pretty good. Or even the Way of Bin Laden.
European tolerance for Islam eliminated any real reason for Turkey not to become Islamist. As Erdogan has demonstrated, it is possible to run a country that continues to deny genocide, oppresses minorities and has jails filled with political prisoners. That openly supports terrorism and Islamism-- and yet is on track for membership in the European Union. Erdogan does not need to dig up Ataturk and turn him upside down-- the Great Tolerators of Europe were already doing it for him.
Where Ataturk knew that Turkey had to modernize, the Islamist believes that modernity is a sham. That Islamic science has already discovered everything worth discovering and that what the West calls modernity is nothing more than an excuse for wanton immorality and a lack of principles. The modern European Muslim is increasingly coming around to that way of thinking. And thought that way of thinking may be a sham, it is a reasonably successful one, because Europe itself is propping up its underlying assumptions.
Where the Sick Man of Europe had to choose between modernity and Islam-- the modern Muslim need make no such choices. He can listen to Islamist preachers ranting on YouTube, compel patients at his medical office to comply with Islamic laws and have his wife cover her face when she goes outside.
Progress comes from challenges. Challenges demand that you overcome the obstacles holding you back. The Muslim world no longer has challenges. Instead the door has been thrown open for them with no demands or expectations. Islam is not held accountable in the way that other religions are. Muslims are not held accountable for one of the world's largest and longest ongoing killing sprees. Muslim countries are not held accountable for everything from the genocide of millions to barbaric acts of torture and mutilation.
This is the soft bigotry of low expectations. Nothing is expected from Muslims, which only helps the Islamists make the case that Western civilization is hopelessly decadent and weak, and that imitation it would be a mistake. All the fawning praise directed at the "Religion of Peace" feeds that cycle, reaffirming the Islamists' arrogance and sense of destiny as those they think of as enemies foolishly give way to them. That is the attitude Hitler had as he realized that the nations that seemed overwhelmingly powerful were not going to stop him. It is the same attitude you can easily see among Islamists, whose sense of cultural invulnerability is running at an all time high.
Build a mosque near Ground Zero, and you prove that the West does not even value the graves of its martyred dead. Set off a bomb in a crowded cafe and snicker as the governments of the dead rush to assure you that they hold no ill will toward the same ideology responsible. Cover your wife from head to toe on pain of death and watch feminist organizations assure the public that it is the feminist thing to do. To Muslims, Western civilization has gone from a bogeyman to a pathetic joke. Which meant that the Islamization of Muslim countries that had made some concession to Western civilization was a foregone conclusion.
Paradoxically enough it was European tolerance that helped Islamize Turkey, as it has helped Islamize its own resident Muslims. Its tolerance has only fed intolerance. By acting like the conquered, they have only attracted conquerors. By failing to challenge Islam, they discredited their nations and their way of life in the eyes of men faced with a choice between honorable barbarism and dishonorable accommodation to civilization's burdens. And the children of those men are murdering them in the streets of their own cities today.
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2010/06 ... urkey.html (http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2010/06/how-european-tolerance-islamized-turkey.html)
-
Welcome, Stonewall.
Interesting argument. But I think it rests on a premis that is accepted in Israel but rejected soundly in this part of the world since before the day Columbus and his crew were found cast away on our eastern shore. That being that theocracy in any form is a legitimate form of government.
I have two responses to the issue of Islamist violence.
First, the civilized world has to recognize and quit the practice of turning a blind eye toward violence, coercion and theft perpetrated by religious fanatics with whom we generally agree. I doubt the Muslim radicals would have anywhere near the sway that they have among the general public in their parts of the world if the League of Nations had not colluded to dispossess the people of Palestine behind some kooky religious doctrine conceived by Moses during his bender up on a mountain centuries ago. I think that if the sane people of the world can come together and quit, to the extent that hairless apes are capable, fucking with the common folk in Muslim lands it would be much harder for the core zealots to convince them to kill all the infidels.
Second, continually piss them off over the stupid shit that should not draw a violent response from any civilized human being or institution.
http://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=11&sid=313170 (http://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=11&sid=313170)
I'm not sure this sort of muck raking really does a lot of good, but it sure is fun!
-
Welcome, Stonewall.
Interesting argument. But I think it rests on a premis that is accepted in Israel but rejected soundly in this part of the world since before the day Columbus and his crew were found cast away on our eastern shore. That being that theocracy in any form is a legitimate form of government.
I have two responses to the issue of Islamist violence.
First, the civilized world has to recognize and quit the practice of turning a blind eye toward violence, coercion and theft perpetrated by religious fanatics with whom we generally agree. I doubt the Muslim radicals would have anywhere near the sway that they have among the general public in their parts of the world if the League of Nations had not colluded to dispossess the people of Palestine behind some kooky religious doctrine conceived by Moses during his bender up on a mountain centuries ago. I think that if the sane people of the world can come together and quit, to the extent that hairless apes are capable, fucking with the common folk in Muslim lands it would be much harder for the core zealots to convince them to kill all the infidels.
Second, continually piss them off over the stupid shit that should not draw a violent response from any civilized human being or institution.
http://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=11&sid=313170 (http://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=11&sid=313170)
I'm not sure this sort of muck raking really does a lot of good, but it sure is fun!
Palestine; 1946 "The Exodus" yes how England and America rationalized displacing 1 million people. A entire people kidnapped from their country, replaced by Europeans.
Menachem Begin was once considered a terrorist by the Allies.
http://www.ou.org/chagim/yomhaatzmauth/begin.html (http://www.ou.org/chagim/yomhaatzmauth/begin.html)
Menachem Begin, writer Sidney Zion noted in 1983, “was run out of Poland by the Nazis, imprisoned by the Soviets, hunted by the British and nearly murdered ...
Inculcate I am not a anti-Semitic, it is impossible for me to be that. I state facts like many Israelis.
Interesting thoughts Antigen.
danny
-
Thanks
-
Welcome, Stonewall.
Interesting argument. But I think it rests on a premis that is accepted in Israel but rejected soundly in this part of the world since before the day Columbus and his crew were found cast away on our eastern shore. That being that theocracy in any form is a legitimate form of government.
I have two responses to the issue of Islamist violence.
First, the civilized world has to recognize and quit the practice of turning a blind eye toward violence, coercion and theft perpetrated by religious fanatics with whom we generally agree. I doubt the Muslim radicals would have anywhere near the sway that they have among the general public in their parts of the world if the League of Nations had not colluded to dispossess the people of Palestine behind some kooky religious doctrine conceived by Moses during his bender up on a mountain centuries ago. I think that if the sane people of the world can come together and quit, to the extent that hairless apes are capable, fucking with the common folk in Muslim lands it would be much harder for the core zealots to convince them to kill all the infidels.
Second, continually piss them off over the stupid shit that should not draw a violent response from any civilized human being or institution.
http://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=11&sid=313170 (http://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=11&sid=313170)
I'm not sure this sort of muck raking really does a lot of good, but it sure is fun!
The article is not about Israel. Has really nothing to do with Israel. Although Israel is a source of Muslim anger, so are many other things. The existence of Hindu's and Christians and Jews and Infidels, non-Muslims.
About Turkey, they tried an experiment that was bound to fail. A secular society inhabited by those of the Islamic faith. A fantasy that is always short-lived.
I see very little extremism in Muslims. Even Al Qaeda. I see them following the Islamic religion 'moderately'. It is an extreme ideology.
-
Im just shocked that Islam can be used as a transitive verb.
-
Im just shocked that Islam can be used as a transitive verb.
Why does this shock you?
-
Im just shocked that Islam can be used as a transitive verb.
Why does this shock you?
I'd never heard the term "Islamize" before, that's all. I don't doubt that it's a valid term, (I actually bothered to look it up). I guess it seems as strange to me as using the name of any religion this way. Christianize, Islamize, but they are valid words and they do indeed exist. Kinda makes me nauseous, because it's all about forcing some bullshit religion onto people who couldn't care less.
-
The article is not about Israel. Has really nothing to do with Israel. Although Israel is a source of Muslim anger, so are many other things. The existence of Hindu's and Christians and Jews and Infidels, non-Muslims.
About Turkey, they tried an experiment that was bound to fail. A secular society inhabited by those of the Islamic faith. A fantasy that is always short-lived.
I see very little extremism in Muslims. Even Al Qaeda. I see them following the Islamic religion 'moderately'. It is an extreme ideology.
Well, I checked the source. Greenfield's an interesting commentator. Bright and bold, but definitely influenced heavily by his upbringing as we all surely are. In this day, it's Israel primarily. In days past the other crusades. I don't think it matters that much how radical the rhetoric of any particular religion. Any religion can be radicalized. See
Soldiers of God (http://http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2496622) or Culture Wars (http://http://www.rickross.com/reference/gothard/gothard1.html) or talk to folks around here who have spent years being broken in Mormon camps. It's when whatever religion becomes the law of the land that we have trouble.
Remember that the Islamic world was the crib of civilization. When Europeans were just playing with the idea of scratching a figure on a rock those 'sand niggers' as some around here call them had libraries, astronomy, advanced mathematics and engineering down pat.
There's a good book out there that touches on that era of history, url=http://www.amazon.com/Irish-Saved-Civilization-Hinges-History/dp/0385418493]How the Irish Saved Civilization[/url] by Thomas Cahill. Essentially, it's a history of Irish culture but also touches on how the people of that island, with inside help from their primary emissary from the Roman Empire, managed to take the literacy and tech offered by their conquerors while resist becoming very Romanized. (yes, a transitive verb LOL)
-
The article is not about Israel. Has really nothing to do with Israel. Although Israel is a source of Muslim anger, so are many other things. The existence of Hindu's and Christians and Jews and Infidels, non-Muslims.
About Turkey, they tried an experiment that was bound to fail. A secular society inhabited by those of the Islamic faith. A fantasy that is always short-lived.
I see very little extremism in Muslims. Even Al Qaeda. I see them following the Islamic religion 'moderately'. It is an extreme ideology.
Well, I checked the source. Greenfield's an interesting commentator. Bright and bold, but definitely influenced heavily by his upbringing as we all surely are. In this day, it's Israel primarily. In days past the other crusades. I don't think it matters that much how radical the rhetoric of any particular religion. Any religion can be radicalized. See
Soldiers of God (http://http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2496622) or Culture Wars (http://http://www.rickross.com/reference/gothard/gothard1.html) or talk to folks around here who have spent years being broken in Mormon camps. It's when whatever religion becomes the law of the land that we have trouble.
Remember that the Islamic world was the crib of civilization. When Europeans were just playing with the idea of scratching a figure on a rock those 'sand niggers' as some around here call them had libraries, astronomy, advanced mathematics and engineering down pat.
There's a good book out there that touches on that era of history, url=http://www.amazon.com/Irish-Saved-Civilization-Hinges-History/dp/0385418493]How the Irish Saved Civilization[/url] by Thomas Cahill. Essentially, it's a history of Irish culture but also touches on how the people of that island, with inside help from their primary emissary from the Roman Empire, managed to take the literacy and tech offered by their conquerors while resist becoming very Romanized. (yes, a transitive verb LOL)
The Islamic World began in the 7th Century... 1400 or so years ago. While the Middle East may have at one time been the cradle of civilization.... that was long before Muhammad. And, the religion he created has certainly stifled whatever progress might have been achieved there. Or, maybe it was not the Islamic religion, maybe just a coincidence.
The State of Israel is not a modern day Crusade.
If it were, there would be very few Arab Muslim Nations on the earth. As it is there are Arab States from the Persian Gulf to the Atlantic Ocean. With the exception of the State of Israel, it is one long chain of Arab States. Not bad considering 1400 years ago, there was one Arab State... Arabia. So, it is kind of hard to wish for another Arab State, which will surely be another failed State. I doubt it would be the lone exception of the Arab World. The one winner. Palestine. I don't think so.
-
Stonewall, you're hilarious. I appreciate a send-up of an ignorant hate-monger as much as anyone, so my hat is off to you and your talent for parody. I too have immense respect for the history of Islam. Philosophers and scientists like Averroes. The muslim physician Avicenna influenced Western medicine for hundreds of years. It brings to mind the United States, whose people have embraced and advanced science, came up with jazz and the Constitution, but also dropped one hundred thousand bombs in less than two weeks on the cities of Hanoi and Haiphong.
-
Stonewall, you're hilarious. I appreciate a send-up of an ignorant hate-monger as much as anyone, so my hat is off to you and your talent for parody. I too have immense respect for the history of Islam. Philosophers and scientists like Averroes. The muslim physician Avicenna influenced Western medicine for hundreds of years. It brings to mind the United States, whose people have embraced and advanced science, came up with jazz and the Constitution, but also dropped one hundred thousand bombs in less than two weeks on the cities of Hanoi and Haiphong.
I'm not hateful. It's more a hatred of hatred.
But, I am more than willing to be educated. You named two people who were Muslims who may have overcome their religion and actually made something of themselves. That does not acquit the religion. Does not acquit Muhammad.
-
You are on fire Stonewall. That double-speak you use is a spot-on satire of the kind of manipulative denial used by bigotted fascists for decades. I almost bought the idea there that you are so ignorant that you're unaware that the immense and sophisticated civilization of the Arab empire and how these muslims rescued and promoted the work of the Classic Western Civilizations while Christian Europe had degenerated into barbarism. But then I clued in that you were just putting everyone on! That bit about acquittal of Mohammed is clever and funny, and just as preposterous as acquitting Thomas Jefferson for the millions of Vietnamese killed during the US attack on Vietnam, or the tens of thousands of Iraqis killed in the more recent US invasion of Iraq. Using satire the way you do is a great way to point out the incoherence of the hatred directed against millions of the world's citizens for their spiritual beliefs. Acquit Mohammed and the Talmud, too. Very funny stuff.
-
Ajax. Something you should understand is that Islam itself is inherantly violent. Not all muslims follow their religion and are violent (just as not all Christians are peaceful) but it is accurate to say that the religion itself commands violence. Hear me out. Back in the beginning Muhammad was your average cult leader in Mecca. To gain followers (and not anger those who outnumbered him) his "revelations" commanded peace and tolerance. Often these are the verses Muslims will quote to prove their religion is like most other religions.
Eventually Muhammad moved to Medina and gained power. At that point his "revelations" started to command violence. He became a warlord. He raided, he plundered, he pillaged, he personally beheaded between 600 and 900 jews. Some more on his life here (http://http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/History.htm). How did he explain god's change of heart to his followers? The Qur'an states in chapter 2, verse 106 (and elsewhere):
"None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?"
This is similar to concepts in other religions, but the difference is that while in christianity for example, where God suddenly became a pacifist in the New Testament, in Islam God became a tyrant. When reading the Qur'an, realize that it is not arranged chronologically, but from biggest book to smallest. The final chapter, chronologically, is Sura 9. You can read it for yourself but basically what it commands is that Unbelievers be given a choice: Christians and jews have the choice to either convert to Islam or submit to Islamic rule (follow all islamic laws) and pay tribute (Jizya). If they refuse to pay tribute they are killed. Atheists, agnostics, pagans, and everybody else on the other hand have only the options of conversion or death. This is not up to interpretation. The chapter is crystal clear on what it commands and if you read it for yourself you'll agree. Chapter 9 is hardly the only example. Here (http://http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm) are some more.
Islam commands (http://http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/003-wife-beating.htm) husbands to beat their wives. Islam commands hatred of Christians and Jews (but especially jews). I realize you're Canadian and dislike "hate speech" but you should understand that the Qur'an itself, by any standard, is just that (http://http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Articles/Quran_Hate.htm). The danger of Islam is not that some extremists will take things out of context and blow themselves up. The danger is when people interpret it correctly and follow all it's commands as "Allah" very clearly and explicitly orders.
It's not fair to judge muslims by Islam as many are casual in their beliefs and do not know fully what it commands. Often this is because the Qur'an must be recited in arabic and while many memorize, not all understand or care to. Other muslims simply choose to ignore the violent parts. Some Muslims are only Muslims because apostasy in Islam is a crime punishable by death (http://http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/012-apostasy.htm). In the same respect it's idiotic to judge Islam itself by the peaceful Muslims you know.
-
hatred directed against millions of the world's citizens for their spiritual beliefs.
It isn't hatred of a people. It's not even fear of a people. It is fear of an ideology. Islamophobia is a misnomer because a "phobia" implies an irrational fear. It is entirely rational to fear of an ideology that commands such violence and intolerance.
-
You are killing me. Reminds me of Jonathan Swift or Oscar Wilde. That litle spin-o-rama where you claim that your fear of an abstract idea is not a phobia because it's rational is hilarious. You have definitely demonsrated the absurdity of alleging a rational fear of an ideology rather than a people, when of course no ideology can perpetrate violent acts, only people can. And then, just when it looks like you can't top that crystalline piece of anti-logic, you throw in that hilarious bit of stereotypical deduction about Canadians and hate speech. Some people object to the use of so-called "sock-puppets", but I think that you were quite adept at demonstrating bigotry and manipulation. Provocative, and funny as hell.
-
You are on fire Stonewall. That double-speak you use is a spot-on satire of the kind of manipulative denial used by bigotted fascists for decades. I almost bought the idea there that you are so ignorant that you're unaware that the immense and sophisticated civilization of the Arab empire and how these muslims rescued and promoted the work of the Classic Western Civilizations while Christian Europe had degenerated into barbarism. But then I clued in that you were just putting everyone on! That bit about acquittal of Mohammed is clever and funny, and just as preposterous as acquitting Thomas Jefferson for the millions of Vietnamese killed during the US attack on Vietnam, or the tens of thousands of Iraqis killed in the more recent US invasion of Iraq. Using satire the way you do is a great way to point out the incoherence of the hatred directed against millions of the world's citizens for their spiritual beliefs. Acquit Mohammed and the Talmud, too. Very funny stuff.
I'm not putting anyone on. And, one thing I won't do is attack you.
I understand that your attacks on me are based on ignorance.
I do not fear Islam... at all. I understand Islam. It's not very difficult. Even a caveman can do it... and they do.
What you have to ask yourself is why you would defend Islam. Why would you defend a Pedophile? A Murderer. A thief. A liar.
I would have an easier time defending the followers of Charles Manson.
-
The laughs keep coming with you Stony! You jumped right in and equated Islam, an abstract series of ideas, with a person. Or is the pedophile, murderer, thief and liar more than one person? It's great to see someone with such a sense of humor poking fun at prejudice. You do a tremendous job pretending to be illogical and hate-driven.
-
The laughs keep coming with you Stony! You jumped right in and equated Islam, an abstract series of ideas, with a person. Or is the pedophile, murderer, thief and liar more than one person? It's great to see someone with such a sense of humor poking fun at prejudice. You do a tremendous job pretending to be illogical and hate-driven.
Islamic Law does not come from an abstract series of ideas.
It comes from Muhammad.
Islam is the religion of Muhammad. He created it.
Don't blame me...
-
Stony, you are one wacky ol' Hasbaranik. Pretending that the fact that Islamic law coming from Muhammed was mutually exclusive of the fact that it is a series of abstract ideas. That is some hilarious stuff. You must slay them in the Catskills!
-
Stony, you are one wacky ol' Hasbaranik. Pretending that the fact that Islamic law coming from Muhammed was mutually exclusive of the fact that it is a series of abstract ideas. That is some hilarious stuff. You must slay them in the Catskills!
What is the basis of Islamic Law?
-
Or is the pedophile, murderer, thief and liar more than one person?
Pedophile: Muhammad married Aisha when she was 6 and had sex with her at 9. This is stated very clearly in the Hadiths and since Muhammad is the ideal muslim, his actions are what justifies child marriage in the middle east today.
Murderer: He personally beheaded between 600 and 900 jewish men in one sitting. He was a warlord.
Rapist: He took the women as slaves or "wives" and raped them. He permitted his followers to take captured women as "war booty" and to rape them.
Thief: He was a raider early in his career.
Liar: In addition to pulling an entire religion out of his ass he also permitted his followers to lie in order to deceive the enemy or assassinate those who insulted him.
-
Sockpuppet, I can't address the veracity of your claim about Mohammed's beheading of his enemies, but if true, then in addition to your descriptions of him as thief, pedophile etc., one must certainly add the title of athlete. Six to nine hundred beheadings in one go is a feat of physical prowess of some remark. As for the uncertainty in the number of 50%, it causes me some degree of dismay about the whole story. Nonetheless, whether the total is six hundred or six thousand, the slaying of one's enemies does not seem out of step with the zeitgeist of the sixth or seventh century. It brings to mind the behaviour of other folks in the realm of the long-dead and ultra-violent:
While the Israelites were camped at Acacia, some of the men defiled themselves by sleeping with the local Moabite women. These women invited them to attend sacrifices to their gods, and soon the Israelites were feasting with them and worshiping the gods of Moab. Before long Israel was joining in the worship of Baal of Peor, causing the LORD's anger to blaze against his people. The LORD issued the following command to Moses: "Seize all the ringleaders and execute them before the LORD in broad daylight, so his fierce anger will turn away from the people of Israel." So Moses ordered Israel's judges to execute everyone who had joined in worshiping Baal of Peor. Just then one of the Israelite men brought a Midianite woman into the camp, right before the eyes of Moses and all the people, as they were weeping at the entrance of the Tabernacle. When Phinehas son of Eleazar and grandson of Aaron the priest saw this, he jumped up and left the assembly. Then he took a spear and rushed after the man into his tent. Phinehas thrust the spear all the way through the man's body and into the woman's stomach. So the plague against the Israelites was stopped, but not before 24,000 people had died. (Numbers 25:1-9 NLT)"
-
Sockpuppet, I can't address the veracity of your claim about Mohammed's beheading of his enemies, but if true, then in addition to your descriptions of him as thief, pedophile etc., one must certainly add the title of athlete. Six to nine hundred beheadings in one go is a feat of physical prowess of some remark. As for the uncertainty in the number of 50%, it causes me some degree of dismay about the whole story. Nonetheless, whether the total is six hundred or six thousand, the slaying of one's enemies does not seem out of step with the zeitgeist of the sixth or seventh century. It brings to mind the behaviour of other folks in the realm of the long-dead and ultra-violent:
While the Israelites were camped at Acacia, some of the men defiled themselves by sleeping with the local Moabite women. These women invited them to attend sacrifices to their gods, and soon the Israelites were feasting with them and worshiping the gods of Moab. Before long Israel was joining in the worship of Baal of Peor, causing the LORD's anger to blaze against his people. The LORD issued the following command to Moses: "Seize all the ringleaders and execute them before the LORD in broad daylight, so his fierce anger will turn away from the people of Israel." So Moses ordered Israel's judges to execute everyone who had joined in worshiping Baal of Peor. Just then one of the Israelite men brought a Midianite woman into the camp, right before the eyes of Moses and all the people, as they were weeping at the entrance of the Tabernacle. When Phinehas son of Eleazar and grandson of Aaron the priest saw this, he jumped up and left the assembly. Then he took a spear and rushed after the man into his tent. Phinehas thrust the spear all the way through the man's body and into the woman's stomach. So the plague against the Israelites was stopped, but not before 24,000 people had died. (Numbers 25:1-9 NLT)"
Actually it is quite easy to find Islamic sources for descriptions of Muhammad's beheadings.
Perhaps you are right that in the seventh century this was normal behavior. Unfortunately when it is commanded that Muslims view Muhammad's life as perfect and a life to be emulated, it should be no surprise that his followers bring the 7th Century into their daily lives.
-
You're swinging for the bleachers again Stony. Now with Mohammed having drawn his last breath a couple of hundred years before the Battle of Hastings, it is certainly requires a leap of faith, so to speak, to imagine that any of his followers are alive today.
-
Yes, Ajax, there is a lot of violence in the old testament but unless you are a Moabite, a Hittite, or whatever, you have nothing to worry about. There are no current commands to kill anybody. In Islam the commands to kill (or beat your wife) are current and have never been abrogated.
All good Muslims must fight:
Qur'an (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."
Qur'an (9:38-39) - "O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place."
Muslims who do not fight or make friends with Unbelievers are considered as low as Unbelievers themselves:
Qur'an (5:51) - "O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people."
Qur'an (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."
Why terrorism is allowed as a tactic in Islam:
Qur'an (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"
Qur'an (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority"
Unbelievers, including people of the book (christians and ews) must convert, pay tribute (jizya) and live under islamic rule, or die (the entire of Sura 9 is about this):
Qur'an (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
These verses, and hundreds like it, are current and abrogate all chronologically previous peaceful verses. I challenge you to find one current command to kill anybody in the Bible.
I can't imagine you approve of wife beating either:
Qur'an (4:34) - "Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great."
Allah is Great indeed /sarcasm
::fullofshit::
And the massacre I'm referring to by Muhammad was at Qurayza, though the killing of jews was hardly limited to there. Khaybar is another good example and remains an inspiration to Muslims today. Take the "peaceful" protesters on the Marmara who not only declared their wish for martyrdom but aslo sang wonderful songs such as "Remember Khaybar, oh jews, the army of Muhammad is returning".
-
PLEASE. Lets not for get. Nazi Germany was a white christian nation.
-
[attachment=0:m3dl4vxu]TERRORIST.jpg[/attachment:m3dl4vxu]
-
Sockpuppet, you are going to have to work on your act if you want to follow up Stony. The part where you claimed that Allah was great, qualified by the word sarcasm, and then called the Marmara protesters peaceful, with no such qualifer, is entertaining, but it's not in the same league with Stony. I do put your account of the singing on the Marmara up there with the six hundred, or nine hundred, beheadings in an afternoon workout.
Now I must confess to being a little dubious about the singing on the Marmara. Here's an account though, from someone who was there:
"I said this straight to Israeli agents, probably of Mossad or Shin Bet, and I say it again now, on the morning of the attack I was directly involved in the disarming of two Israeli Commandos. This was a forcible, non-negotiable, separation of weapons from commandos who had already murdered two brothers that I had seen that day. One brother with a bullet entering dead center in his forehead, in what appeared to be an execution. I knew the commandos were murdering when I removed a 9mm pistol from one of them. I had that gun in my hands and as an ex-US Marine with training in the use of guns it was completely within my power to use that gun on the commando who may have been the murderer of one of my brothers. But that is not what I, nor any other defender of the ship did. I took that weapon away, removed the bullets, proper lead bullets, separated them from the weapon and hid the gun. I did this in the hopes that we would repel the attack and submit this weapon as evidence in a criminal trial against Israeli authorities for mass murder."
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/21006 ... -Detention (http://www.sott.net/articles/show/210062-Irish-American-Ken-O-Keefe-Recounts-His-Experience-On-The-Mavi-Marmara-And-In-Israeli-Detention)
Here is something that I found truly remarkable, in light of Stony's prior claims about the potential martial prowess of the IDF:
“They weren’t up to0 Marine Corps standards, not by a long shot. I disarmed one of their commandos who had just murdered a camera man who was filming their attack, shot him in the forehead at point blank range.
I took his pistol from him, unloaded it and took him into custody. He had a minor injury, in fact, hadn’t put up much of a fight at all. We got him medical care but what I noticed most of all was that he just wouldn’t stop crying. These were not combat vets, they weren’t even disciplined soldiers.”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/07/24 ... l-illness/ (http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/07/24/gordon-duff-israel-claims-no-ptsd-in-idf-jews-immune-to-mental-illness/)
-
Pork chops and swine flu for everybody.
-
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/)
-
Ajax. I could care less what some blatant and open antisemites (http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PzifNN0Ysg) have to say about what happened on the Marmara. The facts are that:
- Other ships were boarded without incident. The Israelis were admittedly naive enough to believe that the Marmara would be the same and therefore were not well prepared. That being said there is no reason to believe the situation wouldn't have been as bad even with greater numbers and more preparation.
- When the Marmara was boarded the passengers attacked the soldiers with pipes and kitchen knives. This is on video and indisputable (http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYjkLUcbJWo). The soldiers only fired back with lethal force when every other option was exhausted. Metal pipes are lethal weapons and nobody should be expected to just sit there and be beaten to death by a mob.
- They were given the option to dock at Ashdod and have their goods shipped to gaza by truck (http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dE2StbDL_Q). If their goal had actually been to provide aid they would have done this. (note the comments such as "go back to Auschwitz" on the radio).
- Their open and publicly stated primary goal was not to provide aid but to breach the blockade (a military blockade).
- Many of the passengers as well as the organizer of the event (http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSYjuDEZw1w) declared their desire to be martyred on video (http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTmF3njCZf8). This was nothing less than suicide by cop to make the Israelis look bad. Their desire was to force the Israelis into a situation where they would be required to fire on "peaceful protesters".
- The Israelis have good reason to block shipments of what could potentially be rockets. Every time they give the Palestinians what they want, life gets worse for them. For example, immediately after Israel withdrew from Gaza, rocket attacks increased dramatically and stayed that way. Short of flattening gaza and everybody in it, a blockade was the only way to stop the attacks (unless you can think of a more humane way).
(http://http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r55/TomThe/Misc%20for%20Blog/Qasam_graph2002-2007svg.png) - The ultimate desired outcome for the Marmara protesters was to make Israel look bad so international pressure would force them to lift the Gaza blockade, allowing shipments of weapons and rocket attacks to resume.
- Palistinian leaders have openly admitted to using women and children as human shields (http://http://www.peacewithrealism.org/headline/admit.htm). The engineered suicide of a few protesters is hardly a reach.
-
Sockpuppet, the video to which you refer has been disputed since the moment Israeli intelligence released it and began distributing it through the Hasbara. Certainly the on-camera execution of one of the passengers by IDF forces is indisputable. And it is indisputable that former US Marine Ken O'Keefe was present when the Israeli commandos were seized after executing passengers. I couldn't hope to guess what it is that "the Palestinians" want, since there are a few million of them.
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq (http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq)
"The Significance of the Iraqi Death Estimate
The Lancet study already demonstrated that, as of July 2006, the deaths caused by the U.S. invasion of Iraq rivaled the death toll of the 1994 Rwandan genocide. Our update suggests that it has now surpassed even high estimates of deaths in Rwanda. (Note that this does not even include Iraqi deaths attributable to the 1991 Gulf War or the sanctions imposed on the population between the two wars.)
Realization of the daunting scale of the death and suffering inflicted on Iraqis should add urgency to efforts to end the occupation and to prevent such “pre-emptive” invasions or “interventions” in the future. The American people need to rein in their government and create a new kind of foreign policy, one based on cooperation, law, and diplomacy rather than violence and aggression"
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/deathcount/explanation (http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/deathcount/explanation)
-
Iraq was wrong. I won't dispute that. It was not a threat and had little if anything to do with terrorism. As far as the Marmara goes. Are you trying to argue that just because a person was a marine that they're incapable of lying?
-
Sockpuppet, it's hilarious that you brush off the invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation, and the ensuing chaos that has cost the lives of millions of Iraqis, not to mention a few thousand Americans, and sum it up with it was "wrong'. Clearly US imperialism is a much more lethal force than any Islamic terror. The curious thing about this terror, is that it always leads back to Western intelligence. A fellow whom I knew for many years was blown to pieces outside a nightclub in Bali by one of these "muslim" terror groups. But like all such cases, this terror group had curious links to US intelligence. The tendency is for a small group of terrorists to commit an act, or series of acts, and then lo and behold it is incumbent upon an Imperial entity to respond with military force to the terror act. Works the same all over the world. The Russians do it, the Chinese, the Americans, the British, the Frenche, etc.
I couldn't tell you whether or not Ken O'Keefe is a liar. I do know that his account is more in keeping with the known facts, specifically that Israeli commandos used fire-arms to kill people on the Marmara; some of the IDF soldiers were seized by the passengers; none of the IDF soldiers was executed by heavy iron bar, edged weapon nor mop.
-
Sockpuppet, it's hilarious that you brush off the invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation, and the ensuing chaos that has cost the lives of millions of Iraqis, not to mention a few thousand Americans, and sum it up with it was "wrong'. Clearly US imperialism is a much more lethal force than any Islamic terror. The curious thing about this terror, is that it always leads back to Western intelligence. A fellow whom I knew for many years was blown to pieces outside a nightclub in Bali by one of these "muslim" terror groups. But like all such cases, this terror group had curious links to US intelligence.
Oh yeah, i'm sure. Now you're sounding like Iran. "The CIA did it!" Bet they did 9/11 too. No wait. That was the Jews! Seriously. That's what many in the middle east believe. The simplest and most logical explanation isn't good enough. It has to be a conspiracy! There have been over 15,000 Islamically motivated terror attacks since 9/11. Are you really saying the CIA is responsible? What would be the motive? to make Islam look bad? All one has to do is read the Qur'an or some ahadith out loud to make Islam look bad. Islam commands it's followers to kill, terrorize, enslave, convert, or subdue Unbelievers. When they do so it's not because the CIA made them do it. It's because Allah commanded it, Muhammad did it, and he's the example all "good" Muslims follow (most are admittedly peaceful hypocrites).
The tendency is for a small group of terrorists to commit an act, or series of acts, and then lo and behold it is incumbent upon an Imperial entity to respond with military force to the terror act. Works the same all over the world. The Russians do it, the Chinese, the Americans, the British, the Frenche, etc.
I couldn't tell you whether or not Ken O'Keefe is a liar. I do know that his account is more in keeping with the known facts, specifically that Israeli commandos used fire-arms to kill people on the Marmara; some of the IDF soldiers were seized by the passengers; none of the IDF soldiers was executed by heavy iron bar, edged weapon nor mop.
Maybe not, but many were seriously injured and I have no doubt that they would all have been killed had they not responded with lethal force. These weren't exactly pacifist hippies on the boat. If they were peaceful protesters they wound't have provoked the soldiers to begin with. If you beat a cop with a pipe and he resorts to using his firearm as a last resort it's your fault and nobody else.
-
If any of you haven't read "Sleeping With The Devil: How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude" yet...highly recommended... you really should! It makes some interesting assertions concerning the scenario of cause / effect concerning 9/11, among its other historical observations. A great read, written by former Central Intelligence Agency officer Robert Baer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleeping_with_the_Devil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleeping_with_the_Devil)
-
Sockpuppet, terrorism has been a tactic used to provoke a specific response. So who is doing the provoking and what is the desired response? In the era of what is described as "Islamic" terror, it is not hard to tally up the score and see who has suffered the most and who has benefited the most from the terrorist acts.
IDF personnel shot people to death on the Marmara. Subsequent to that shooting, IDF personnel were taken prisoner by the passengers on the Marmara, but no IDF personnel were killed by the passengers.
-
I would just like to point out that typically when people are losing an argument or feel insecure about their position or take their views too personally they resort to insulting or belittling the persons character, in this case calling Islamisviolent a sock puppet, i.e. (ad hominems).
Ajax13, why don’t you express your opinion without trying to attack Islamisviolents’ character? Why are you threatened by this poster disagreeing with you to the point that you have to resort to name calling? Let him express his opinion. It is just as valid as your own.
...
-
Well, Whooter, here's my opinion. My opinion is that Islamisviolent is a sockpuppet for John D. Reuben. I believe very firmly that you, Whooter, are John D. Reuben. If you feel that using a sockpuppet is demonstrative of a character flaw, then it certainly begs the question as to why you use this particular tactic. In my opinion Reuben, you're a propagandist, and the use of Sockpuppets is intended to further your effort to influence readers on Fornits.
-
Well, Whooter, here's my opinion. My opinion is that Islamisviolent is a sockpuppet for John D. Reuben. I believe very firmly that you, Whooter, are John D. Reuben. If you feel that using a sockpuppet is demonstrative of a character flaw, then it certainly begs the question as to why you use this particular tactic. In my opinion Reuben, you're a propagandist, and the use of Sockpuppets is intended to further your effort to influence readers on Fornits.
I am glad you expressed it as an opinion, Ajax13, out of all the people in the world that could come to fornits why would you believe that Islamisviolent is John Reuben? Is there a connection of some sort? That is very curious.
If you have been reading here at all , over the past year or so, you would notice that there are people who think I am John Rueben also, lol. This leaves us with the possibility that you think that everyone that disagrees with you must be this John Reuben fellow. He is becoming the standard icon of disagreement here.
It must suck to think that everyone that disagrees with you is the same person because in your own mind more than one person could never disagree with you. There are alot of fresh ideas out there, dont close your mind to the possibility that there are several people who disagree with you.
...
-
I have no doubt that many people disagree with me. I have the same lack of doubt about you Whooter. Like I said, I believe very firmly that you are John D. Reuben and that you are also Islamisviolent.
-
I have no doubt that many people disagree with me. I have the same lack of doubt about you Whooter. Like I said, I believe very firmly that you are John D. Reuben and that you are also Islamisviolent.
....and thats okay, Ajax13, if that make you feel safe. You could easily be yet another one of Dysfunction junctions aliases, but that doesnt matter to me how many logins you have. I express my opinions honestly and dont resort to attacks because someone disagrees with me.
If you want to continue to believe that Islamisviolent is me then that is fine, there is no way to prove or disprove what you chose to believe, just debate him on equal ground without attacking him for his beliefs. If you think about it, on an intellectual level, it really doesn't matter does it?
...
-
Whether or not you think it's okay, or fine, I think that you, Whooter, are John D. Reuben, and that Islamisviolent is a sockpuppet that you use in your effort to dispense propaganda on Fornits.
-
Whether or not you think it's okay, or fine, I think that you, Whooter, are John D. Reuben, and that Islamisviolent is a sockpuppet that you use in your effort to dispense propaganda on Fornits.
.. and that is okay, Ajax13, I am not criticizing you for this, I can believe that you are one of RobertBruces' sockpuppets too, which I believe you are. I just dont choose to point it out on every post. You have to remember that his is an open forum and we are all free to believe what ever we want. That is one of the strengths of having it open like this.
Think about it, Ajax13.
...
-
IslamIsViolent, Stonewall, Ajax, Robert Bruce, and Whooter are all different individuals, just FYI. There is very little sock-puppetry going on around here.
-
IslamIsViolent, Stonewall, Ajax, Robert Bruce, and Whooter are all different individuals, just FYI. There is very little sock-puppetry going on around here.
Thanks Psy!
...
-
Whooter, the ontology of a sockpuppet is the prime determinant of it's effect. If the sockpuppet is determined to be such, the effect is reversed. I will continue to point out the fact that in my determination, Islamisviolent is a sockpuppet, and if you raise the issue, I will also point out my firm belief that you are John D. Reuben. While I appreciate Psy's input, and I am certainly open to the idea that Islamisviolent is a separate Hasbaranik, I am not convinced. If that detracts from my credibility, so be it.
-
What I think you struggle with, Ajax13, is that you cannot separate yourself from your beliefs and therefore feel threatened and take it personally when someone disagrees with you and you find the need to attack them personally. Try to step back and try to see the other persons point of view, not everyone is is evil who holds an opposing point of view.
Who cares if I believe you are RobertBruces sockpuppet or you think I am john reuben. The point is that we need to focus on the debate and the specific points we are discussing. If you are open minded enough then it doesn’t matter who the person is behind the posting.
Do you see what I mean?
...
-
(http://http://www.hollow-hill.com/sabina/images/bush-turkey.jpg)
-
It does matter who is behind what is being said. If it didn't matter, then no one would ever use a sockpuppet. But since people do use sockpuppets, clearly what you said is untrue.
-
ajax13,
Just go back to your debate, please. It was very interesting.
Frodie thanks for plugging the book, I went and bought it today.
-
Since we are dealing with propaganda, in my opinion it is certainly within the realm of the exchange to address my use of the term Sockpuppet for Islamisviolent. It is an example of inductive reasoning, and if my conclusion is incorrect so be it. As to the debate, there was none. I stated the facts that IDF personnel shot passengers to death on the Marmara. IDF soldiers were captured by passengers on the Marmara after the shooting deaths, but no IDF soldiers were killed by the passengers on the Maramara.
-
Mr. Socko[attachment=0:1oikfotk]mrsocko.jpg[/attachment:1oikfotk]
-
Mr. Socko[attachment=0:2d4c9ipj]mrsocko.jpg[/attachment:2d4c9ipj]
Ha,Ha,Ha... there you go, Ajax13, there is your sock puppet !!! Great find None-ya!!! perfect timing.
...
-
Since the post was put up in response to my raising of the issue of sock puppets, why would you say it's perfect timing, Whooter? Or for that matter, say "there is your sock puppet", when again, the post was clearly made in response to my allegation that Islamisviolent is a sockpuppet?
-
You see,
There are more than one of us[attachment=0:gzoh1r7u]puppet12.jpg[/attachment:gzoh1r7u]
-
Ed Koch
Former Mayor, New York City
Posted: August 16, 2010 04:10 PM
"President George Washington's Letter to the Jews of Rhode Island Applies to the Muslims of New York".
President Obama was right to express his views on constructing a mosque near Ground Zero, the site of the 9/11 catastrophe:
As a citizen and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan in accordance with local laws and ordinances.
The president is also right to oppose as he does the efforts by some to amend the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution to bar babies born to illegal immigrants from becoming citizens.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who was first to take up the fight to protect the legitimate rights of American Muslims to build a mosque near Ground Zero, was right and courageous to lead the way and point Americans in the right direction.
President Obama, according to the New York Times of Aug. 15, is now "faced with withering Republican criticism of his defense of the right of Muslims to build a community center and mosque near Ground Zero." Those leading the charge against the president, according to the Times, "including Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, Representative John A. Boehner, the House minority leader and Representative Peter King of New York, forcefully rejected the president's stance."
The president's position will be remembered by later generations of Americans with the same high regard as President George Washington's letter in 1790 to the Jews of Rhode Island who built the Touro Synagogue in that state. Moses Seixas of the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island, wrote to George Washington:
Deprived as we heretofore have been of the invaluable rights of free Citizens, we now with a deep sense of gratitude to the Almighty disposer of all events behold a Government, erected by the Majesty of the People -- a Government, which to bigotry gives no sanction, to persecution no assistance -- but generously affording to all Liberty of conscience, and immunities of Citizenship: -- deeming every one, of whatever Nation, tongue, or language equal parts of the great governmental Machine: -- This so ample and extensive Federal Union whose basis is Philanthropy, Mutual confidence and Public Virtue, we cannot but acknowledge to be the work of the Great God, who ruleth in the Armies of Heaven, and among the Inhabitants of the Earth, doing whatever seemeth him good.
President Washington responded as follows:
... The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent national gifts. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support. It would be inconsistent with the frankness of my character not to avow that I am pleased with your favorable opinion of my Administration, and fervent wishes for my felicity. May the children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid. May the father of all mercies scatter light and not darkness in our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in his own due time and way everlastingly happy. G. Washington
Let us not do again, albeit in different form and to a different group, what we did to Japanese-Americans during World War II when we rounded them up without cause. No Japanese-American was ever charged with treason, notwithstanding that they were placed in internment camps for the balance of the war.
I am a proud Jew. Proud of my religion and my culture. Columnist David Brooks, also Jewish and similarly proud, in a New York Times article of January 12, 2010, wrote of our people's accomplishments:
Jews are a famously accomplished group. They make up 0.2 percent of the world population, but 54 percent of the world chess champions, 27 percent of the Nobel physics laureates and 31 percent of the medicine laureates. Jews make up 2 percent of the U.S. population, but 21 percent of the Ivy League student bodies, 26 percent of the Kennedy Center honorees, 37 percent of the Academy Award-winning directors, 38 percent of those on a recent Business Week list of leading philanthropists, 51 percent of the Pulitzer Prize winners for nonfiction.
We Jews also have our share of thieves, predators, child molesters, Ponzi-schemers, traitors and profiteers. Muslims have their share of great world accomplishments -- the concept of zero, advancements in mathematics, medicine, chemistry, botany and astronomy. They also have their share of crazies, tyrants, homophobes, those holding hostile and irrational attitudes towards women, vilification of Jews, Christians, Hindus and other so-called infidels.
Let's be calm now and not need the passage of time to bring us to our senses and years later apologize. Of course, those who suffered the loss of loved ones, and those exposed to the catastrophe of 9/11 have every right to hold opinions opposing the building of the mosque. They are grieving and rightfully enraged at anyone associated in any way with the 19 Muslim terrorists who were responsible for the deaths of nearly 3,000 Americans killed on 9/11, and all of us must sympathize with them and their feelings.
But Americans must never forget who we are and why our Founding Fathers and those who built the original 13 colonies came here. It was primarily to find and create a new country in which they could practice religious freedom, denied them in England. Jews found that freedom of religion in New Amsterdam, where the East India Company of Holland directed the first public anti-Semite in that city -- its Governor, Peter Stuyvesant -- to let them in, he first refusing to do so.
I believe we are locked in battle with fanatical Islam and will be for the foreseeable future. I do not believe the vast majority of Muslims, and American Muslims in particular, are fanatics or enemies of the American people.
Government should neither favor nor hinder the efforts of religious institutions, other than to protect their rights to engage in carrying them out as permitted under the First Amendment of the Constitution.
A final word on those seeking to end the concept of American citizenship by virtue of birth, led by Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC):
Don't they understand that the concept of citizenship by birth is one of the great American ideas of which we have been justly proud and which distinguishes us from many other countries and has served us well? They should not fear the Know Nothings, whose voices are loud, but whose numbers are small. They should not shame themselves by joining these violators of American values and traditions.