Diatribing Islamo Fascism: an open [civilised] debate (or at least we hope so)


I am back, and finally I have access to my PC and my Internet connection. While strolling around the blogs and mail-lists that I usually visit, I have noticed that a heated discussion has sprung up around the Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week organised by the Neo-cons David Horowitz&Co. (i.e. Jihadiwatching Robert Spencer, and the other FrontPage’s pundits). One of the blogs that I co-authored ‘entered the lists’ thanks to Varisco’s post. The contention also reached ISLAMAAR, the mailing list of the Islam section of the AAR. During these two days I have caught up with the diatribe, which, meanwhile has seen an increase in the number of tensons. Hence, in the latest developments, FrontPage has labelled Tabsir as a stupid blog, and Spencer has counterattacked Varisco’s post and ended in dismissing all the academic establishment, ‘The academic establishment doesn’t work on the basis of reason — it just smears its opponents, and assumes the sheep will fall into lockstep.”

I was tempted to ignore this discussion. I wondered whether it might be useful or not to debate, and to engage in a tenson which inevitably lacks the great tradition of chivalric duels or the Greek agora diatribes. Furthermore, I have to admit that this debate has not attracted very much attention within the UK, and it appears to be one of these American (provincial) pre-presidential election games. Even our own home-grown Neo-Con, and Western Civilisation paladin, Melanie Phillips has totally ignored the event as well as the discussion, though she likes and supports the term Islamo Fascism. So, why should I comment on this event? I can tell you that, as an anthropologist, I am more interested in real people and real fieldwork, rather than fantasy-politick, in which labels are debated, discredited, defended, attacked in the old game of ‘I am right, you are wrong’. Yet there is something that really forces me to add my voice, and I hope it to be a quiet, reflexive, un-screamed, yet convincing one.

That ‘something’ is the word Fascism. Islamo Fascism is becoming a very popular expression, in particular among the right-wing western (but not only western) politicians, and it is slowly replacing more common labels, such as Islamic fundamentalism, Islamic radicalism, and even Islamic terrorism. The word is a neologism and its origin can be found not in the USA, but in the tormented land of Algeria during the extremely complex civil war of the 1990s. Yet now, Islamo Fascism is one of the key words of the increasingly less popular, and so increasingly defensive, American Neo-cons and Born Again Christians.

Fascism is a word that has a particular emotional and historical value for me. I was born in Italy, where Fascism developed from Mussolini’s ideas. Mussolini was a socialist politician, journalist, and convinced nationalist. Fascism has marked the history of my family. One of my grandfathers was a convinced Fascist; so convinced that he took part in the final and tragic phases of the Salo, Italian Social Republic. The other grandfather was part of the anti-Fascist, Catholic movement, or White Partigiani (which, despite some tensions, fought together with the Partigiani, who were communists and socialists).

In other words, I was born into a family which was the product of the successful, yet still troubled, Italian reconciliation process. Nonetheless, as you can expect, the two grandfathers disagreed nearly on everything. Only one thing united them, they believed that Americans were pathologically unable to understand what Fascism is and the differences that exist between it and Nazism. After reading, or even viewing video clips, about Islamo Fascism offered by the Freedom Center as well as Mr Spencer’s viewpoints, I tend to agree with my grandfathers. Although some ‘fundamentalist’ movements and radical Islamic ideologies may share, like many other aggressive and repressive ideologies, aspects with Fascism, the use of the terminology Islamo Fascism (or whatever other religious denomination one may wish to use as prefix) is an abuse to the historical drama that Fascism, and in particular Italian Fascism, has represented.

Fascism is a nationalist movement, based on the strong leadership of a Dux. It has an autarkic and protectionist view of economy, and is very suspicious of any form of religion, which should be controlled partially by the state. Fascism is an arrogant, strong belief in a superiority of the Roman, thus western, civilisation over any other. Fascism sacralised the secular leader and it is a very extremist secular creed (Pope and King have to stay where the state agree they can stay). Fascism is different from Nazism, and I have notice that Mr David Horowitz, as you can see for yourself here, tends to use Fascism as synonymous with Nazism. Fascism is a product of a certain way of understanding socialism, and Mussolini, like, funnily enough Mr Horowitz, swung to the far right, since he saw traditional socialism as a failure. Fascism advocated providing people with freedom, real freedom. Fascism was (and is) based on slogans and simplistic truisms, anti-intellectual and anti-academe spirit. It used to accuse scholars for disintegrating or opposing the real civilisation with their own intellectual ideas. The Fascist intellectual is the only one that Fascists recognise, the one that sees the ‘truth’ and does not ask questions, one that is practical, who is useful for the ‘cause’, one that has neither doubts, questions nor bias. The others should be demonised as enemies, false scholars and apologetics.

Of course, some readers would recognise easily some of these elements that characterise not only some Islamic movements, but also Italian, American, Dutch, and Danish right wing ones. Freedom, as well as liberty, understood in populist terms, has been often a strong slogan of Fascist ideology. So much that, by historical default, I become extremely suspicious of right-wing movements that defined themselves ‘House of liberty’, such as Berlusconi’s coalition (which by the way includes both the post-Fascist and not so-post new Fascists) or other ‘freedom labelled’ movements.

Said that, and strongly disagreeing with the propagandistic and sophistic use of the terminology which Mr Horowitz and for Spencer employ, we, as intellectuals and scholars have to recognize that within the Muslim world (and not within Islam as they advocate) there are troubles which cannot be adduced uniquely to the Palestinian issues, the War in Iraq, and the USA’s new, dangerously right wing, political approach. So, I welcome Mr Horowitz, Spencer, Kramer, and Pipes’ efforts to raise awareness of the issues we face. Yet I totally deplore and strongly criticise their approach and their views. At this stage, I even do not criticise their views of Islam. There is something more deep which makes me very suspicious and uncomfortable with their preaching style.

They, sometimes, are too reminiscent of that pre-Fascism Mussolinian rhetoric of ‘Civilization’, ‘Intellectual enemies’, autarkism, real Truths, essentialisation, and populist slogan-based rhetoric which, as an Italian and grandson of that tragic history, I have learnt to recognise and be suspicious of. As Americans, Mr Horowitz&Co. would never see the things in this way, they can be even emically offended by my etic observation, since they are just conservative pupils of the Leo Strauss school. Yet to an Italian anthropologist, British adopted, their rhetoric and the way in which they present their own argument reminds me of a very western civilizational unpleasant past.

These are cultural differences, but still they exist. So even if I can understand the reasons (beyond the fully legitimate economic ones) of raising awareness of the risk of what they call ‘Islamo Fascism’, I think that, with their methodology and style, they put us at risk of seeing old, and more western rooted, traditional Fascism, which I am sure would never affect probably the USA but rather my Old Europe. Even Israel, paradoxically and embarrassing as it may be, has seen, during these years, an increase of young Jewish Israeli descendants adhering to Fascist and Nazi ideology and movements.

Spencer has noticed that Varisco’s post and other scholars’ articles lack ‘a single actual statement to the effect that what we are saying about Islam is false.’ I think that before attempting to engage with Robert Spencer on this point, I would ask him to seriously reflect on one point: whether or not he may have a certain over defensive attitude which risks to exclude himself from any real debate, isolating his ideas in a autarkic selfishness prepacked for easy purchase by neo-Con and Christian Born Again supporters. I hope that this is not the case, otherwise, he is preaching instead of engaging in discussion and his efforts of offering an unbiased, real and passionate argument in support of ‘the Western civilization’ would reveal itself to be a tautology, a sort of ‘intellectual masturbation’ in which the end is a narcissistic glorification of one’s own beliefs.

I am sure that Mr Robert Spencer, or at least I hope, would demonstrate that this is not the case, and engage in a discussion which can challenge, and also offer some food to, the mind of whomever is methodologically sceptical or even extremely critical of his argument. If, by contrast, Mr Spencer and Mr Horowitz wish to find refuge in the historically preferred Fascist motto ‘me ne frego’ (I don’t give damn) or in still traditional demonization of whoever disagrees with them, well, I think that my most pessimistic views would be unfortunately confirmed.

So, I go back now to Mr Spencer’s invitation to challenge that what he and Mr Horowitz are saying about Islam is false. Although this may surprise some of my readers and the people who read my books and articles, I reply: Dear Mr Spencer (or Horowitz, or Pipes and so on) what you are saying about Islam is true, absolutely true. Surprised? Probably yes. But before, dear Mr Spencer, you add me to the list of the ‘enlightened’, there is a second part of the argument, which probably will be the one that you will disagree upon.

What Mr Spencer and the others say about Islam derives from their interpretation which is based on the interpretations offered by the movements and Muslims they wish to criticise. Then they essentialize it in an hermeneutic approach, which, like Gellner, and in different terms Geertz, (but unfortunately I have to say with less sophistication), views the Qur’an and the Hadith as the essence of Islam. In other words, they believe that Islam, as such, exists beyond complex elements such as individuality, emotions, environment and so on. Here is the reason for their constant reference, akin to that of a ‘fundamentalist’ Muslim, to some isolated extracts from the Qur’an and Hadith. I supposed (and please correct me if I am wrong) that Mr Spencer and Horowitz have never spent time, not days, weeks, nor months, with ordinary ‘fundamentalists’ or ‘extremists’, discussing and trying to understand the dynamics behind their way of thinking. Mr Spencer and Horowitz understand ordinary ‘fundamentalists’ or ‘extremists’ just by interpreting some extracts of the Qur’an that these Muslims refer to.

I believe that Mr Spencer and Horowitz merely read Qutb, al Banna, Afghani, the Qur’an and the Hadiths and so on, and from there, and the political views of ‘fundamentalist’ movements, they offered their own interpretation, not just of these movements or individual writers, but all Islam. They explain that Islam is a violent and blood thirsty religion through practices such as the ‘principle of abrogation’, and other traditional, but still debated, theological Islamic machineries. In other words, Mr Robert Spencer acts no differentially to those reprehensible commentators that, referring to the Talmud, wish to demonstrate that Jews are blood thirsty, power hungry, and even paedophiles. The intent may be different but the methodology is the same.

Yet try to fully discuss with ordinary Muslims, which are the majority, the ‘principal of abrogation’ or ijtihad, or even ask them for a detailed explanation of Qutb’s theory of governance, or Afghani’s interpretation of modernity, and you will discover that these elements play a very small role in their understanding of Islam. Mr Spencer, an extreme hermeneutic and also a historical unilinearalist, misses the main elements to explain, in a convincing way, the situation in which both Muslims and non-Muslims find themselves today. Therefore, the oppression of women which we find in certain Muslim countries or certain ideological views of radical movements, could not be reduced simplistically to the Qur’an and the Hadith. Indeed, Italy is not a Muslim country, but it shares, for example with North African culture, many of the misogynist views which Mr Spencer and others would consider to be a product of Islam as religion (even not as culture). How, then, would Mr Spencer explain such similarities (even in traditional sayings as well as practices)? I hope that he, or others for that matter, would not suggest that South Italy was for centuries under the Saracens.

Whoever would attempt to justify traditional Italian misogyny in such a way would attract derision.

However, Mr Spencer (along with the others mentioned above) often engage in something very similar. For instance, he attempts to link historical facts of the past to the present situation, so that Muslims, all of them, even the ‘moderate’ majority, are trying to reduce us to Dhimmitude, of the same kind experienced in Europe during the Middle Ages. Mr Spencer also uses the same historically unilinear reasoning and methodology for the case of Islamo Fascism, mentioning the meeting of some Muslim leaders with Nazi diplomats. The issues here are not that those Muslim leaders did not meet the Nazi and Fascist gerarca, they indeed did; neither is it the fact that they met them because Italy and Germany had, at the time, an hegemonic interest in the region, nor again the fact that Mr Spencer has omitted similar meetings and the flirtation of Yishuv Zionists with the same Fascists (see also my previous post on the topic).

My main problem with Mr Spencer’s argument is his idea that history does not change, his anti-Eraclidean vision of time. Mr Spencer and Mr Horowitz, willing or unwilling, seem to suggest that Muslims today still think and act as those at the time of Mohammed or the Middle Ages. I suppose that this should imply that there exists something like a Muslim mind. I do not know because they do not say if this is the case. But the idea of a Muslim mind does not make sense to an anthropologist more than the existence of a specifically Christian, Atheist, Jewish (and so on) mind. Of course, even those Muslims that refer, like bin-Laden, to historical concepts, do so in a totally different context, with totally different aims and strategies.

So, I would like to ask Mr Spencer and Horowitz some clarifying questions. I hope that they can help me to understand better their analytic viewpoints beyond the political rhetoric statements or the populist necessity of the catchy slogan and easy argument:

  1. Do you think that there is only one ‘real’ interpretation of Islam as religion so that only certain Muslims (those whom you labelled Islamo Fascists) are the ‘real’ Muslims?
  2. Do you think that Muslims think, behave and act in a certain way because of Islam?
  3. Do you believe that Western Civilization is a unitary, unilinear historical process derived from a unique historical reality?
  4. Do you believe that there is an attempt to reduce to the state of Dhimmitude the West, so that we have to assume that there exists a unitary plan and project aimed to achieve such a goal? If so, who is behind the plan?
  5. Do you believe that Muslims are a lobby trying to take hegemonic control of universities, mass media, and other key elements in order to implement the Shari’a at a global level?
  6. Is the Shari’a one? If so, could you provide a clear example of the applied version? If this is not the case, where can we find what you define as the Shari’a?
  7. Which is, according to you, the difference between Islam and Muslims? Are they the same?
  8. How do you define Fascism, radicalism, fundamentalism in general, and what kind of elements can make it ‘Islamic’?
  9. Does your definition of the West and Westerners include also the Muslim generations which are born in Europe or the US?
  10. What is your definition of Civilization?
  11. What makes the West a Civilization?
  12. Why do you refer to the flirtation of Muslim leaders with Fascists but omit any reference to the parallel relationship of Zion-Revisionists with the same Fascist leaders? What is the difference at a historical level?

I hope that you decide to enter into a discussion, which can be critical and based on disagreement, and not just, to paraphrase your sentence ‘smearing the opponent, and assume[ing] the sheep will fall into lockstep’. Here is an occasion to debate what is important from two completely different positions.

Academic, as well as intellectual, discussion is based on criticism and questioning, response and re-criticism. Any duel has its rules and chivalric code; I have thrown down the gauntlet, to you the choice of the weapon.

Gabriele.

About these ads

33 thoughts on “Diatribing Islamo Fascism: an open [civilised] debate (or at least we hope so)

  1. Stephen Shwartz, a Muslim convert, who claims he coined the term right after 9/11:

    “In my analysis, as originally put in print directly after the horror of September 11, 2001, Islamofascism refers to use of the faith of Islam as a cover for totalitarian ideology. This radical phenomenon is embodied among Sunni Muslims today by such fundamentalists as the Saudi-financed Wahhabis, the Pakistani jihadists known as Jama’atis, and the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. In the ranks of Shia Muslims, it is exemplified by Hezbollah in Lebanon and the clique around President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran.

    Islamofascism… pursues its aims through the willful, arbitrary, and gratuitous disruption of global society, either by terrorist conspiracies or by violation of peace between states. Al Qaeda has recourse to the former weapon; Hezbollah, in assaulting northern Israel, used the latter. These are not acts of protest, but calculated strategies for political advantage through undiluted violence. Hezbollah showed fascist methods both in its kidnapping of Israeli soldiers and in initiating that action without any consideration for the Lebanese government of which it was a member. Indeed, Lebanese democracy is a greater enemy of Hezbollah than Israel.”

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/593ajdua.asp

  2. Pingback: Islamofascism: a label for Dhummies « pixelisation

  3. Pingback: lungis.com // Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week

  4. Pingback: tabsir.net » Diatribing Islamo Fascism: an open [civilised] debate (or at least we hope so)

  5. Hi Gabriele. It was great reading your post and your blog in general. At the end, I found myself pondering over your position on the issue. I have also been through Spencer et.al.’s websites and blogs and as you mentioned. While a lot of what Spencer says is true, his agenda seems to be to build an ideological buttress to oppose Islam and Muslims in general with no scope for reconciliation. Spencer’s site often is stage to amusing polemic and I see that his visibility is increasing quite rapidly.

    Now, you put up a spirited critique of his methods, it is true. And I well agree with the general drift of your sentiments. Muslims have just the same rights and duties as everyone else. There are also crazy people in every community and branding Muslims in general with the actions of the fundamentalists is plainly wrong.

    But I have a little issue with your play of words in the following paragraph:
    “In other words, they believe that Islam, as such, exists beyond complex elements such as individuality, emotions, environment and so on. Here is the reason for their constant reference, akin to that of a ‘fundamentalist’ Muslim, to some isolated extracts from the Qur’an and Hadith. I supposed (and please correct me if I am wrong) that Mr Spencer and Horowitz have never spent time, not days, weeks, nor months, with ordinary ‘fundamentalists’ or ‘extremists’, discussing and trying to understand the dynamics behind their way of thinking. Mr Spencer and Horowitz understand ordinary ‘fundamentalists’ or ‘extremists’ just by interpreting some extracts of the Qur’an that these Muslims refer to.”

    I for one have spent months at the very least interacting with these “ordinary ‘fundamentalists’ or ‘extremists’” and have tried to understand their chain of thought. While I might not be anywhere close to the understanding of an expert, my observations are based on my interactions with at the very least multi-hundreds of Muslims of varying geographic backgrounds and intellectual level. I have observed that most of them don’t even know Islam as presented in the Quran and Hadith. Their ‘Islamic’ actions seem to be dictated by the environment they are surrounded by, the brainwashing they have been subjected to in the past, their notions of a common enemy in democracy and infidels and a very concerted effort to identify with an “Islamic identity/brotherhood/ummah”.

    Oftentimes, when interacting with groups of Muslims, I have found no dissent whatsoever. Even if individuals in a group might disagree with the actions of some, there is rarely a public rebuke issued. Amongst the Muslims I interacted with, I personally found the fact that a sense of identity can override pretty much everything else rather disturbing. Even the most educated ones, who spewed vehement criticism at the fundamentalists, refrained from commenting upon them in public. Maybe this was a localized phenomenon, but I failed to understand it.

    Coming to the point. When it comes to Islam I have experienced that Muslim individuality, emotions, rationality, logic, personal will, background etc, all play second fiddle to religious collectivism. A few verses are enough to silence all other factors when used skillfully by a couple of fundamentalists to pursue radical agendas. This sets a framework for a disturbing forward biased path towards fundamentalism.

    My main contention with this paragraph is that it merges Islam with Muslims. Parts of your post suggested you feel the opposite.

    I am of the opinion that Islam and Muslims are two distinct entities. Islam on its own is an anachronistic ideology that deserves a place in the annals of history, not in the world of today and as such I find myself opposed to it. Muslims are human beings, just like Christians, Jews, Buddhists etc. and deserve to be treated at par with the rest.

    In this war of ideologies, the rights of the individual are often lost. That of the Muslim adult to escape needless bias and persecution. That of the naive on both sides to be free of brainwashing. And that of the non-Muslim to escape a medieval sand nomad’s violent legacy.

  6. Quote: So even if I can understand the reasons (beyond the fully legitimate economic ones) of raising awareness of the risk of what they call ‘Islamo Fascism’, I think that, with their methodology and style, they put us at risk of seeing old, and more western rooted, traditional Fascism…

    Of course there is a danger! But it will be even worse of we ignore the hate and violence that is intrinsic to Islam. We must speak out and say those things that Muslims don’t want to hear and political correctness tries to surpress.

    Your list of questions is very good. If I may I would like to give them a try…
    1. No, there are many ‘Islams’.
    2. Yes. Muslims think and behave in a certain way because of Islam (often, not always)
    3. Yes, but there is no 1 big secret plan. Muslims, actively and passively, work for Islam to conquer the world.
    4. Yes, there is a very disorganized but determined effort to control our lives and silence all those who speak out against Islam (or haven’t you followed the news for these last 10 years)
    4. No, there is no one Sharia law, but many and none are good. In all cases non-Muslims are either dead or 3rd class citizens (behind women, the 2nd class folks)
    5. Islam is the ideology, Muslims are the people that follow the ideology. Duhhh. The ideology is about hate and violence and control. There are two types of Muslims: the radicals that preach hate and kill, and the moderates that make excuses and say it has nothing to do with Islam.
    6. I don’t like to associate the terms Fascism, radicalism, fundamentalism with islam because they may or may not apply, depending on the subject and situation. It is simplistic. On the other hand terms like “hate, violence, denial, deceit, control, oppression” fit very well with the idea of Islam.
    7. Yes, Muslims born in the US and Europe are Muslims. Duhhhh, again. As far as I know they accept the quran and believe the ahadith. These means that they, too, accept hate, violence and discrimination against Non-Muslims, even if they prefer to pretend otherwise. The only difference is they don’t have the numbers to impose their ideology.
    8. Civilization = equality and human rights, specially freedom of speech. This is, of course, not the way the tern is used in an anthropolgical or social science textbook, but I am talking about values…
    9. What makes the West a (good) Civilization? See above, because it tries to respect human rights and believes in the idea of equality — things missing in Islamic societies.
    10. Why? good question.

    Dr Marranci, things on this small planet are going to get much worse. We have many problems — and Islam is a big one. In case you haven’t read the Quran and hadiths, they are not about nice people doing nice things. They are full of hate and violence. Look at Islamic societies — or maybe they have nothing to do with Islam. I know there are nice Muslims, but somehow I find that people that follow a man that killed, murdered, plundered, tortured, enslaved and raped (read Tabari, Hisham, Kathir, etc…) — and write “Praise be unto him” after his name, might not be the most honest and enlighted people in the world.

    This old man has lots of experience talking to Muslims, and the news isn’t good. I have never yet found one that is honest about what is written in their own sciptures and histories.

    Bad times are coming and it will start in Europe. Good people are going to get hurt and I blame Islam and Muslims.

    Jota Kactuz

  7. Jota Kactuz

    “This old man has lots of experience talking to Muslims, and the news isn’t good. I have never yet found one that is honest about what is written in their own sciptures and histories.”

    > are you honest about your belief system.

    “In case you haven’t read the Quran and hadiths, they are not about nice people doing nice things. They are full of hate and violence”

    being able to read is not enough im afraid, what is required is to be able to comprehend what is being written, to provide a context and to understand that context. if you have read the Koran and the Hadiths and the other scholarly works you surely understand that the Koran is not a novel, it is not linear, it providies context and cross references, it requires an education. It is why many Muslims will not comment upon issues within Islam because of a lack of understanding or knowledge.

    the fact is that Islamo-fascism is wholly a construct of the far right, the neo conservative and zionists (one cannot be a neo conservative without adhering to the zionist political agenda) it has little to do with Muslims.

    The debate is wholly, almost exclusively led by non Muslims, it is presented to the media by non Muslims at least in the west the primary source for so called Islamic (and therefore Islamic-fascism) are apparently expert Islamic scholars who also happen to be non Muslims.

    i would have thought that with a nation having around 2 million Muslims within its borders at least one suitable candidate could be found to deliver the reality and the understanding of mainstream Islamic teaching.

    curiously in our world and media there are no candidates to be found other than the likes of michael gove or anthony browne etc.

    its a self fulfilling prophecy , anti Islamic rhetoric defining and constructing an Islamo fascist ideology by non Muslims , whilst mainstream British Muslims watch from the sidewalks.

    i kinda understand now how the Jewish people must have felt under the auspices of that other self fulfilling prophet, adolf hitler.

  8. Wendy, I find your statement about the complexity of the Quran rather strange. My copy of the Quran says that it is complete, clear, simple and easy to understand (44:58, 54:17, 54:22, 54:32, 54:40). I also do not remember any verses that say that it can only be understood with the help of interpretations and commentaries! If it is not clear, maybe it is Mohammad’s fault (And We have sent down unto thee (also) the Message; that thou mayest explain clearly to men what is sent for them 16:44)

    Words have meaning. Please do not tell me that one sentence can only be understood in terms of an obscure relationship to another sentence 26 pages away, and only then if we understand the time and circumstances. As you said, the order of Quran is neither linear nor chronological. The materials are not dated. The background circumstances of passages are inferred by scholars based upon circumstantial evidence, but Islamic scholars disagree about what and when. And there is the issue of abrogation (we in the West normally would use the word ‘contradiction’). Muslims use this to explain the “kill, don’t kill” “hate, don’t hate” verses, but even they cannot agree on what is abrogated, if any, and by what verses. Allah was mighty careless.

    You know what my number 1 complaint about the Quran is?
    It is vague and badly written. Take the words ‘mischief’ or ‘confusion’. You can be killed (crucified and mutilated – 5:33) for the crime of ‘mischief’. What kind of deity would use a term as subjective and vague as this? The prose in the Quran leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to clarity and objectiveness. No wonder Muslim experts can’t understand it or agree on what it says. What you consider ‘complexity’ is nothing but old fashioned ‘confusion’. So if Muslims kill and do violence because the Quran mandates these, it is Allah’s fault, because he could not write clear, simple sentences. Is that what you are saying?

    And there is the hate and violence against non-Muslims. Tell me, are koranic verses like these a neocon construct?
    3.56: Then as to those who disbelieve, I will chastise them with severe chastisement in this world and the hereafter, and they shall have no helpers.
    3.106: On the day when (some) faces shall turn white and (some) faces shall turn black; then as to those whose faces turn black: Did you disbelieve after your believing? Taste therefore the chastisement because you disbelieved. 3.151: We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they set up with Allah that for which He has sent down no authority, and their abode is the fire, and evil is the abode of the unjust.
    3.178: And let not those who disbelieve think that Our granting them respite is better for their souls; We grant them respite only that they may add to their sins; and they shall have a disgraceful chastisement.
    9.73: O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.
    9.123: O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).
    18.29: And say: The truth is from your Lord, so let him who please believe, and let him who please disbelieve; surely We have prepared for the iniquitous a fire, the curtains of which shall encompass them about; and if they cry for water, they shall be given water like molten brass which will scald their faces; evil the drink and ill the resting-place.

    The question is then how did the Neocons and far right sneak these verses into the Quran? Shame on them! There are hundreds of verses like these in the Quran. And there are the ahadith. I suppose the Neocons also made Mohammad and his men attack villages and caravans, kill, enslave, plunder, torture and even rape women. Maybe the Zionists made Mohammad beat his wife, also! http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/004.smt.html#004.2127

    You are right about two things
    1. The debate is almost exclusively led by non-Muslims – because Muslims don’t want to talk about these issues. The hate and violence in the Quran is off limits, as are the deeds of Mohammad in the ahadith and early biographies.
    Believe me, I should know. This old man has been deleted hundreds of times, mostly on Muslim sites.
    2. There are no leaders or candidate that will deliver the reality of mainstream Islamic teaching. The problem is that we are talking different realities. My reality is the hate and violence in the Quran. My reality is the evil deeds of your dear prophet narrated in the hadith and biographies. My reality is the hate and violence preached in Islamic societies (and Mosques everywhere, in case you haven’t noticed). My reality is the vile treatment and discrimination against women, religious minorities, gays and even sects of Islam in all Muslims societies. My reality is the human rights abuses and lack of freedoms we find where ever Islam dominates.

    Wouldn’t it be great if some leader stood up and asked an Imam, on national TV, to explain why Muslims write and say PBUH after the name of a man that did this:

    http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/abudawud/038.sat.html#038.4348.

    Or maybe they could explain these vile murders, as proudly listed on this Islamic source that proudly lists the people killed by Islam’s prophet: http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/alshifa/pt4ch1sec1.htm.
    That would be my idea of a good candidate or politician.

    See Wendy, some infidels take days, weeks months and years to learn about Islam. I just finished reading the history of the “four righteous Caliphs.” Interesting stuff. 4 Caliphs, 3 murdered (the second by a mistreated slave, after passing laws to institutionalize dhimmitude; the third drenched with his own blood soaking the first official copy of the Quran after the people revolted – his body was then buried in an old jewish cemetary. The last of the four, Ali, the first convert to Islam, was murdered as he prayed, after his empire had split into two and more rival factions fighting for money and power as they lived lives of debauchery and vice). Oh yes, all of these were murdered by fellow Muslims, or maybe the Neocons did it, too. This ‘glorious period’ period ended with the battle of Kerbala, called the Ashura, with the headless bodies of the defeated Muslims covering the land . The heads of 70 Muslims, including the grandson of Mohammad and even his infant great-grandson, were taken home in bags as trophies by the victorious rival Muslim army. Or did it end with the burning of the Kaaba a few years later by another rival Muslim army trying to control the untold riches that the Arabs had won in 50 years of jihad, from Persia to the end of North Africa to the gates of Constantinople. And Muslims call this the “Glorious years” of the “Four righteous Caliphs”?

    Wendy, that is your reaity?

    Take care. Think. Things are going to get worse.

    J. Kactuz

  9. Dear John,

    Thank you for your comment and for visiting my Blog. Although, as you may expect, I disagree with your viewpoint, I find that it is very important that people engage in debate, diatribes and discussions. So, thanks for presenting your argument.

    Although I am not in the position to decide whether the Qur’an has been ‘badly written’ or not and leave the decision to experts of Arabic poetry (yet I have to notice that the Qur’an is not only written…is recited and tends to have a particular relationship between word and music), I think that when just read, as you would read a newspaper, it can sound ‘confuse’.

    Yet your own assertion that the Qur’an confuse the reader may end in contradicting your may argument that the Qur’an is evil.

    Indeed, if the Qur’an, as you say, is “vague and badly written”, it means that people, unable to grasp the ‘real’ meaning, can only interpret it by starting from their own experiences and ideas, views, emotions and so on.

    If you are right with your complain N 1, it means that the Qur’an should be considered as a kind of Rorschach inkblot test (as I think that majority of texts, in particular religious, are if reported in a de-contextualized form are).

    So, I have the impression that you see in the Qur’an what you actually think of Muslims (as people) and their history.

    Best wishes
    Gabriele

  10. No doubt the soldiers of Allah love a wakademic tool like yourself to further the Islamization of EUrabia. What’s in it for you besides plates of couscous and lambchops? Free trips to Saudi Arabia, petro-dollars and flying carpets?

    If you like ‘real people’ just watch what ‘good Muslims’ do to ‘defend’ their faith, daily in 30+ theaters of jihad warfare around the world from Mindanao to Timbuktu and from the south of Thailand to Kashmir, from Sulawesi to Chechnya and from Darfur to Londonistan.

    The goal is clear: world domination, the subjugation of the kuffar and sharia as a mercy for us all.

    Perhaps you like walzing around in Arab robes, perhaps you like smoking a huka, but are you ready for the real thing? I think not.

    Cheers!

  11. Dear Sheik Yer’mami,

    Thank you for your kind comment and of course for showing that you know my academic work and opinions so well.

    Your comment shows that, rather than a rational analysis of the geopolitical and social realities we are witnessing today, it has been affected by an irrational, hysterical fear of the ‘other’.

    Sometimes we wonder how an entire, civilised, modern, nation, like Germany, ended in a delirious nightmare of extermination of millions of people, only because they were Jews (i.e. different and so feared).

    Well, your comment and delirious blog can shed some light on the topic: it was not because of the peculiarity of historical dynamics, and an evil ‘Antichrist’ Hitler that we had the holocaust, but rather for the same reason (i.e. irrational, hysterical fear) which has clearly led you to forfeit in the above comment and your blog the most human and relevant faculty: reason.
    With regards,
    Gabriele

  12. “it was not because of the peculiarity of historical dynamics, and an evil ‘Antichrist’ Hitler that we had the holocaust, but rather for the same reason (i.e. irrational, hysterical fear)”

    So I guess that entire WW II episode was quite wasteful in your opinion. Millions dying for no reason when all we really needed to do was wage war against “irrational, hysterical fear”.

    phew, that’s a relief to know.

  13. Dear Awake,

    thanks for your comment. I suppose that your supposition may be wrong.
    By the way, the WWII was not fought, unfortunately, to save the Jews and other innocents from the Holocaust.
    Everybody knew what was happening, even before WWII; Nobody really acted. Surely if Germans were saved from the ideology of hatred of the ‘other’ (Jew, gay, Muslim, Communist, disabled and so on) I have the impression that the Holocaust would not have happened.

    With regards
    Gabriele

  14. Marranci,

    Your whole diatribe on labels, I found it was hilarious to read, as you use the label “Neo-Con”, which smacks of calling them “Neo-Nazis”. Heck you even did a great PhotoShop job on that Old Nazi Era Poster to imply this label to “Conservative Movement”.

    Socialist/Communist have always been very good at the double standard of labeling their opponents while demanding the right to label their own ever shifting standards and methods. (No “Real Truth”? How about giving gravity a test and you’ll find there are absolutes).

    Nazi, Fascist, Socialist, Communist, or Islamist, they all have the same common thread of the individual being worth less then the needs of “The People” (a.k.a. the State). The product of your labor is need more by “The People”. The control of your thought more important for “The People”. And all that don’t proscribe must be made to submit to Political Correctness/Multiculturalism/Sharia Law.

    And now the real point, if I want to know what the Mohammedan are really thinking, I will listen to them and more importantly watch what they do. Actions and results speak louder then any words.

  15. Dear Mr Senor Doeboy

    thank you for your observations.
    Although I found the first part of it not really related to the discussion of the topic, as an anthropologist, I cannot do other than agree with you when you say,

    “if I want to know what the Mohammedan are really thinking, I will listen to them and more importantly watch what they do”.

    Yet, reading your expression ‘Mohammedans’, I have also to notice that if your knowledge matches your ‘ear’ it should be pretty poor (i.e. they call themselves Muslims!)

    humorously yours

    Gabriele

  16. Thank you for your kind comment and of course for showing that you know my academic work and opinions so well.

    * I had a closer look at ‘your academic work’ and I’m not impressed, Maranci. When did you say the ‘shahada?’

    Your comment shows that, rather than a rational analysis of the geopolitical and social realities we are witnessing today, it has been affected by an irrational, hysterical fear of the ‘other’.

    * Not. Living in Muhammedan countries, working with adherents of the Muhammedan faith, has taught me that irrationality, hatred, superstition and hysterical fear breeds and festers entirely in their camp. Churchill called it ‘a fanatical frenzy more dangerous than hydrohobia in a dog.’ I tend to agree with him.

    Sometimes we wonder how an entire, civilised, modern, nation, like Germany, ended in a delirious nightmare of extermination of millions of people, only because they were Jews (i.e. different and so feared).

    * Have you got a mandate to speak for German Jews, Maranci?
    I think not. The Jews were murdered for their wealth and their influence, not because they were feared. Tell me, Maranci: why does Indonesia, this ‘moderate Muslim nation’- every ten years rape and murder their Chinese minorities, steal their wealth and rape their women? Why did ‘moderate’ Turkey wipe out the Armenian Christians and the Greeks?

    Well, your comment and delirious blog can shed some light on the topic: it was not because of the peculiarity of historical dynamics, and an evil ‘Antichrist’ Hitler that we had the holocaust, but rather for the same reason (i.e. irrational, hysterical fear) which has clearly led you to forfeit in the above comment and your blog the most human and relevant faculty: reason.
    With regards,

    * Maranci: in all my dealings with Muhammedans ‘reason’ was a rare commodity. Their ‘reason’ is entirely based on the Koran and the hadith. It is not me who calls to ‘wipe the unbelievers out to the last’- it is a command for the Muhammedans. What you are doing is projecting.

    * One more thing, Maranci:

    ‘My delirious blog’- simply reports the daily atrocities committed by the RoP around the world. Its educational and informative. You make it your business to engage in obfuscation, equivalence and taqiyya. Your smear doesn’t stick.

    And Muhammedans worship Muhammad, Maranci, although they always deny it. In fact, every believer seeks to emulate the caravan raiding pedophile prophet who was also a serial rapist and genocidal mass-murderer among other things. ‘Allah’-or rather Al-Ilha, the pagan moon-god of the ancient desert Arabs, was simply Muhammads alter ego. Without Muhammad no Muhammedanism.

    Your humor is appreciated, Maranci. I shall remind you, however, that according to Ayatollah Khomeini there ‘is no humor’ in Islam.

    Keep that in mind next time you smoke that weird stuff.

  17. Mr. Marakini, of course being Italian you are high authority in study of fascism and when you suggest that “Freedom, as well as liberty, understood in populist terms, has been often a strong slogan of Fascist ideology. “ we have to buy into it . But not all Americans know nothing about history and this one has to say that your proposition is les then half true and is manipulative. You made it up to link with fascism your political opponents: Berlusconi’s party and more importantly American values of Liberty. But it is a lame construction, because in the essense fascism was not espousing Liberty. Did not Mussolini say that he had raped Liberty? Did not Hitler wrote:
    • Mein Kampf:56 They see force, brutality, and the aim of the doctrine to which they finally and always submit.”
    “They will not recognize the outrageous curtailment of their human liberties, for in no way does the delusion of an intolerant doctrine dawn on them.
    • Mein Kampf:104 “The invention of democracy is a crying shame…. A majority can never replace the Man.” Mein Kampf:106 “The one true leader, provided by Fate, is to be placed in that position.”

    Historical forms of fascism were linked to believes in superiority of Western civilization. So far so good. But what if a non Western ethos or culture, such as Arabs or Muslims have believes in their superiority along with other features of fascism, like the high goal of dominating the world, disregard to the others? Would not it be appropriate to use term fascism as historical parallel? The problem is that structurally Quran/Suna and Mein Kampf have structural similarity. Below is the point by point comparison of two doctrines. Obviously not all Muslim even know what is written in Quran and many do not espouse those views, but the doctrine is in place and those who study Quran to the letter get it very well. Here are the points and similarity speaks for itself.
    • By David Hollins, from http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1167

    • Mein Kampf:104 “The invention of democracy is a crying shame…. A majority can never replace the Man.” Mein Kampf:106 “The one true leader, provided by Fate, is to be placed in that position.”
    • Qur’an 4:65 “They can have no Faith, until they make you (Muhammad) judge in all disputes, and find in their souls no resistance against Your decisions, accepting them with complete submission.”
    • Mein Kampf:1 “The distress of the nation gives us the moral right to acquire foreign soil and territory. The sword is then the plow. From the tears of war there grows the daily bread for generations to come.”
    • Qur’an 13:41 “Do they not see Us advancing from all sides into the land (of the disbelievers), reducing its borders (by giving it to believers in war victories)
    • Mein Kampf:51 “I knew that I must rid the world of her.”(speaking of all other polital sysytems, which he saw as being one)
    • Qur’an 8:39 “Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.”
    • Mein Kampf:56 “They will not recognize the outrageous curtailment of their human liberties, for in no way does the delusion of an intolerant doctrine dawn on them.
    • Qur’an 33:36 “It is not fitting for a Muslim man or woman to have any choice in their affairs when a matter has been decided for them by Allah and His Messenger. They have no option.”
    • Mein Kampf:56 They see force, brutality, and the aim of the doctrine to which they finally and always submit.”
    • Qur’an 9:29 “Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission.”
    • “Mein Kampf:56 “The technical tools of Social Democracy became clear to me. I understood the infamous mental terror which this movement exercised on the population which could neither morally nor physically resist such attacks. There was a bombardment of lies and calumnies toward the adversary who seemed most dangerous, till finally the nerves of those who had been attacked gave out and they, for the sake of peace, bowed down to the hated enemy. But these fools will not find peace after all.”
    • Ishaq:461 “Muhammad besieged them for twenty-five nights. When the siege became too severe for them, Allah terrorized them. Then they were told to submit to the judgment of Allah’s Messenger.”
    • Bukhari :V5B59N448 “They surrendered to the Prophet. ‘I give my judgment that their men should be killed, their women and children should be taken as captives, and their properties distributed.”‘
    • Mein Kampf:58 “The importance of physical terror against the individual and the masses also became clear to me.”
    • Bukhari:V4B52N220 “Allah’s Apostle said, I have been made victorious with terror.”
    • Mein Kampf:58 “In the ranks of their adherents the victory gained is looked upon as the triumph of the righteousness of the cause. While the beaten adversary despairs entirely, viewing all further resistance futile.”
    • Qur’an 33:22 “When the faithful saw the retreating allied armies this enhanced their faith and obedience…Allah drove the infidels back in their fury so that their resistance was futile.”
    • Mein Kampf:60 “The battle against them has to be fought with weapons to have any hope of success…. The struggle for the abolition of evil will be decided in favor of the stronger force.”
    • Qur’an 8:59 “The infidels should not think that they can get away from us. Prepare against them whatever arms and weaponry you can muster so that you may terrorize them. They are your enemy and Allah’s enemy.”
    • Mein Kampf:63 “In politics, the application of economic means of pressure permits extortion so long as the doctrine is reckless and the people are stupid and sheepish.”
    • Qur’an 8:65 “O Prophet, urge the Believers to fight. If there are twenty among you with determination they will vanquish two hundred. If a hundred, they will slaughter a thousand infidels: for these are a people devoid of understanding.”
    • Mein Kampf:64 “So great was the fear that people dreaded war. So the doctrine can ratchet up demands higher and higher. It’s a devilish attempt to weaken or even paralyze the victim’s holiest claims. Considering the limited thinking power of the masses, the success of this strategy is not surprising”
    • Ishaq:470 “We attacked them fully armed, sharp swords in our hand, cutting through heads and skulls.”
    • Ishaq:471 “We were steadfast trusting in Him. We have a Prophet by whom we will conquer all men.”
    • Mein Kampf:123 “But once it is in danger of being oppressed, it is justified in fighting with all available weapons…. For any man who is not willing to fight, righteous Providence has already decreed his doom. The world is not intended for the cowardly.”
    • Qur’an 2:191 “Oppression is worse than killing.”
    • Qur’an 8:15 “Believers, when you meet unbelieving infidels in battle while you are marching for war, never turn your backs on them. If any turns his back on such a day, unless it be in a stratagem of war, a maneuver to rally his side, he draws on himself the wrath of Allah, and his abode is Hell, an evil refuge!”
    • Mein Kampf:135 “The mission of a successful movement is to gain leaders and fighters. It must embrace its destiny with force, defiance, and martyrdom. It must fight, not negotiate.”
    • Qur’an 9:88 “The Messenger and those who believe with him, strive hard and fight with their wealth and lives in Allah’s Cause.”
    • Qur’an 9:5 “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.”
    • Mein Kampf:127 “With religious conviction…the bearers of the new doctrine must declare themselves ready and willing to fight.”
    • Qur’an 8:65 “O Prophet, urge the faithful to fight.”
    • Mein Kampf:128 “The will to fight using all instruments of power gains favor and draws the greatest possible advantage to the movement.” Mein Kampf:132 “Greatness wins new fighters for the cause and they are rewarded with success.”
    • Ishaq :325 “Muslims, fight in Allah’s Cause. Stand firm and you will prosper. Help the Prophet, obey him, give him your allegiance, and your religion will be victorious.”

    About the Jews
    • Mein Kampf:66 “When I came upon the word ‘Jew’, I felt a slight dislike and could not ward off a disagreeable sensation which seized me whenever they were in my presence. Their external apperance had become human, but they had a strange religion”
    • Qur’an 2:64 “But you [Jews] went back on your word and were lost losers. So become apes, despised and hated. We made an example out of you.”
    • Mein Kampf:75 “The physical uncleanliness of the chosen people(Jews) was as repelling as their moral blemishes.”
    • Ishaq:240 “The Jews are a nation of liars…. The Jews are a treacherous, lying, and evil people.”
    • Mein Kampf:76 “Jews are a spiritual pestilence – infected with a disease worse than the Black Plague. They are spiritual and moral poison, the carriers of the worst sort of germs, infecting the minds of the world.”
    • Qur’an 5:44 “They are fond of listening to falsehood, of devouring anything forbidden; they are greedy for illicit gain!”
    • Qur’an 5:64 ” they(Jews) strive to make mischief on the earth.”
    • Mein Kampf:79 “Jews were cursed by Fate. They were hit so hard by Fate they have no understanding…. Their boundless hate for themselves soiled their history and abused their heroes.”
    • Ishaq :264 “The Jews denied what they knew. They were obstinate. So Allah revealed, ‘People of the Book, believe in what we have sent down or We will efface your features, turning your face into your ass, cursing you.’”
    • Mein Kampf:81 “It isn’t possible to free a Jew from his convictions. I naively tried to make clear to them the madness of their ideas. I talked until my tongue was weary but it only served to strengthen their determination. They refused to understand…. Their glibness of tongue and skill for lying caused me to hate them.”
    • Ishaq :248 “Allah has sealed their hearts and their hearing, blinding them so that they will never find guidance. And that is because they have declared you a liar and they do not believe in what has come down from their Lord. For opposing you they will have an awful punishment.”
    • Mein Kampf:82 “They(Jews) are seducers who condemned truth and denied the word. They are not to be pitied, but to be given their due – to smash the seducer and corrupter against the wall.”
    • Ishaq :254 “We will not remove a Jew from the punishment. They know the shameful thing that awaits them.”

    To summ it up: Islam has more similarity with fascism than GOP. Yet you taunt GOP and defend Islam. I wonder why? Do you have other reasons besides you personal Communist?left-liberal political goals? Should Anthropology be driven by political goals?

    Thanks,
    Neozionist NeoNeocon

  18. Hey RZ#4, you were wrong. Spencer did answer each of those questions quite succinctly, and intellectually. I especially like the answer to number 6. Each of the 4 schools of Sharia has its own epistle, recorded by varous authors in the form of Risalas. You can even look them up and read them online – they are straight forward statute-containing law books, which you can quote chapter, section, paragraph, line, ect…just like traffic laws.

    For example, from the Risala Al-Maliki as recorded by Abdullah ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani (922-986A.D.) Chapter 37.19:
    The apostate is killed unless he repents. He is allowed three days grace; if he fails to utilise the chance to repent, the execution takes place. This same also applies to women apostates.

    This particular fiqh, or law, is not significantly different in any of the other 3 Sharia epistles, and in fact, is based dierctly on the words of Mohammad (PBUH) himself.

    Its as clear as Catholic Dogma regarding the assumption of Mary, the transubstantiation ritual, the election of the Pope, ect…

  19. #19 Dear Gabriele, it would be a strange old world indeed if we only called other people, groups & organisations that which they label themselves. I think you too would find that most dull & somehow unsatisfying to your own requirements. The term “Mohammedan” has a long enough history in the English language, is well enough & commonly understood, & it simply means of the cult of Mohammed, or again, a Muslim “as they call themselves”.

    And by the same token, if you consider someone’s raising of your own use of labels – whilst you yourself are in the act of objecting to particular labeling – is not pertinent to the discussion, you should in all fairness dismiss your own objection to others’ use of them as being equally pertinent. You are engaging in what you decry & have labeled ‘fantasy-politik’ I believe. Perhaps that stems from a sense of innate Roman superiority on your part, that this does not apply to you, perhaps not.

    But in any case, you are quite right to admit your reasoning on the subject of fascism is clouded by emotion & by your ties to your country of birth & your family. Here in Australia, my Grandfathers were both clear-sighted enough to recognise fascism, nazism & shintoism well enough to help make at least one of your Grandfathers happy.

    Islamofascism is a perfectly good descriptive term when I come to think of it. There is none of the intellectual dishonesty about it as with terms such as ‘islamophobia’ for instance.

  20. Thank-you for deleting the post which led up to my last post and thereby rendering that which I said as disconnected nonsense.

    Why am I not surprised by this tactic?

  21. Dear OliverPCamford,

    I am sorry but you send so many posts that they end in the spam filter.

    I have sent an email to you. Yet I think that I cannot post more than one comment unrelated to the topic. I think that I have post the most relevant. Do not worry, all comments are read.

    Best wishes
    Gabriele

  22. “Surely if Germans were saved from the ideology of hatred of the ‘other’ (Jew, gay, Muslim, Communist, disabled and so on) I have the impression that the Holocaust would not have happened.”

    But alas, they were not and it did happen. That was the point of my comments. Arguing about why WW II happened is off-topic. What is on-topic is how your removed the evil from an entity, as in Hitler’s case, and reduced it to a rather innocuous sickness of irrational fear of the unknown and the different.

    This is suicidal thinking. I am quite sure, as opposed to having the impression, that Theo Van Gogh would agree for I certainly would not blame his murder on his own weakness of irrational fears.

    Your entire argument about Islam is deeply flawed. Case in point, your exception to Spencer is noted, but in reality, his conjecture is limited and the sources he uses are primarily from the Islamic community. You would have a point if wave after daily wave of the news articles his site puts forth were not true, but lying ears and eyes be damned…they are.

  23. Marranci,

    I do wish to encourage you to continue to write, your insights into the differences between Italian Fascism and Germanic Nazism was in depth (I still find the similarities too great to ignore). I find them both to be equally vile Authoritarian systems of Government.

    I just found, what I perceived as your attempt to link “Conservatism” with “Nazi” through imagery rather odd. This given that Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei means National Socialist German Workers Party a “Progressive Movement”, (they unofficially called themselves Nationalsozialisten or National Socialist, a.k.a. Nazi). Still it’s an Authoritarian belief system like Socialism/ Communism/ Fascism/ or Islamist.

    Now on the subject of word usage, Christian is the English word for followers of Christ’s theology. Buddhist is the English word for followers of Buddha theology. Mohammedan is the English word for followers of Mohammed’s theology (the spell checker in Microsoft word has it in the lexicon as does my dictionary and many online dictionaries). And the residences of the Iberian Peninsula are called Spanish in English, but they call themselves Espanol/a.

    Does this mean I must alter my language and customs for them? Would that not be cultural submissiveness to whole-sell cast away your own heritage and language on such a flimsy premise? The word “Muslim” has direct meaning and connotations in Arabic, meanings I do not subscribe to and as such will not alter my society to inscribe it into my lexicon. So once again, the English word for the followers of Mohammed’s theology is “Mohammedan”, and their term for me is “Kafur” (typically their noun for me is attached to extremely colorful and derogatory adjectives followed by violent verbs linked with mind-numbingly painful adverbs). Hmmm… seems my ‘ear’ does work well as does my knowledge of my own culture and theirs. (Was that a Trotskist method of dismissing a position you used on me?)

    Next when you quoted me in saying, “I want to know what the Mohammedan are really thinking, I will listen to them and more importantly watch what they do.” You seemed to have missed the most important part, “ Actions and results speak louder then any words.” I care little if you speak to me of peace, while preaching something else and using cleaver legalese arguments for doing so or worse yet, just doing violence instead.

  24. Fascism:
    A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

    Islamofascism:
    Fully implemented, Islam is a system of government (the Caliphate), marked by centralization of authority under a dictator (the Caliph), stringent socioeconomic controls (Sharia law) , suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship (the system of dhimitude for Non-muslims) , and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism (Jihad) and racism (Islamic supremecy).

  25. #22 Jimmy the Dhimmi:

    Firstly there is no such thing as a “shari’a epistle” – fiqh is the process of scholarship first of all, not the end result. The Risalat of Abi Zayd is an early Maliki text laying out the basics of the madhhab – one does not look at early texts and seek to apply the area of mu’amalat (social affairs) verbatim – what of the contemporary scholars today? Why would they need to exist if one only looks through old books and applies what is found therein?

    Let’s look at an important contemporary Maliki scholar and discuss this issue – Tahir Ibn ‘Ashur, the late mufti of Tunis and head shaykh of Zaytuna (d. 1973) wrote a number of key texts, the most important and influential of these being his text “maqasid al-shari’a al-islamiyya” which discusses the objectives of Islamic law. First among these is “hafz al-din” – the protection of religion – which he clearly explains is tantamount to freedom of religion in the modern sense, and also that apostasy in the early period was not the same as simply leaving the religion.

    And as for your other assertions – the Hanafi madhhab has always stated that women should not be killed for apostasy, and other legitimate opinions from other early scholars also disagree with what is contained within the Risalat Abi Zayd and that particular Maliki opinion. So to state that there is no “significant difference” may show your own reading and “interpretation”, but certainly not all, nor that of contemporary Muslim scholars today or in the near past.

  26. Here are some quotations of Werner Reimann aka Sheik Yermami, he isn’t a very bright fellow :

    “No Muslims, no Wuslims: Internment and Deportations instead!….
    ..Why should we be concerned when Muslims get hit with
    earthquakes and tsunami’s?”
    “Anyway, its far from over and internment and mass-deportations haven’t even begun.”
    “May the “Arab world” suffocate in its own filth: There is always Meccah-cola for you Nasseem, with lots of slaughtered goats and frenzied masses of Mobots who ’stone Satan’ and trample each other to death while dancing around a monolith…”

    http://hatinghate.wordpress.com/2006/01/16/spencer-bans-racists-another-lie-exposed/

    “Maranci: in all my dealings with Muhammedans ‘reason’ was a rare commodity. Their ‘reason’ is entirely based on the Koran and the hadith. It is not me who calls to ‘wipe the unbelievers out to the last’- it is a command for the Muhammedans. What you are doing is projecting.”

    He is very angry about a mosque coming up in his town. As you can see in the link below Sheik Yermami is a deluded fellow, who compares himself to Salman Rushdie. I will eagerly await his next novel.

    http://hidebehind.com/B45BE8

  27. It’s just so wierd. One moment far-Right Muslim-phobic cultural warrioirs claim that Islamists and the Left are aligned. The next they claim that the Koran reads like Mein Kampf.

    Methinks the real problem isn’t with Islam or those who are allegedly plotting to take over the world. Methinks that the problem is that cultural warriors seem to be living in a world where “Team America” represents reality.

    Seriously, if you wish to believe that 1.3 billion people (including Shias and Sunnis shooting each other in Lebanon and Iraq) are united in a robotic plot to create a caliphate (even if Shias don’t believe in Caliphates) then be my guest.

  28. I have never seen so much filth and hatred from this yermami’s mouth! he thinks he can beat the spirit of Islam with his hatefull site , many poeple in the past, and now ,try to combat Islam they never could!!! Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world ,not me saying it ; the statistics! there must be a reason!!!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s