The killer of four U.S. Marines in Chattanooga maintained a short-lived blog that hinted at his religious inner life. Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez’s blog had only two posts, both published July 13 and written in a popular style of Islamic religious reasoning.A man used a blog format to put up a few sentences 3 days before he committed a mass murder. There's no "blog" to read. Adulazeez didn't "maintain" a blog, even "a short-lived blog." And I have no idea what counts as "a popular style of Islamic religious reasoning." The Daily Beast doesn't bother to define its term.
Abdulazeez did give us some evidence worth thinking about, but I wouldn't take the statements at face value. They were not written over a period of time, revealing a path of thoughts. And they were put up so close in time to the murders, which presumably were already in the offing, that the writing must be understood as representing what he wanted the public to think about him.
If he used a style that can, in fact, be identified as "a popular style of Islamic religious reasoning," that's reason to think about his statements not as pure reflections of his thought patterns, but as something cribbed and copied, perhaps to throw us off track or to play upon our tendency to jump to merge him with the grand, mythic mass of Islamic terrorists who have traipsed all over the American brain since 9/11.
Abdulazeez used the old story of the blind men and the elephant, which originated in India and appears in Jain, Buddhist, Sufi, and Hindu versions. He calls it "The Story of the Three Blind Men." Three? Is he mixing it up with the nursery rhyme of the 3 blind mice? I think — in all the versions — there were more than 3. According to Wikipedia, the Sufi version of the story doesn't have blind men at all. Which makes more sense. Why would blind men stay together rather than disperse themselves among the sighted population? In the Sufi version, the inability to see is achieved by putting the elephant in the dark:
Rumi, the 13th Century Persian poet and teacher of Sufism, included it in his Masnavi. In his retelling, "The Elephant in the Dark," some Hindus bring an elephant to be exhibited in a dark room. A number of men touch and feel the elephant in the dark and, depending upon where they touch it, they believe the elephant to be like a water spout (trunk), a fan (ear), a pillar (leg) and a throne (back). Rumi uses this story as an example of the limits of individual perception:
The sensual eye is just like the palm of the hand. The palm has not the means of covering the whole of the beast.Rumi does not present a resolution to the conflict in his version, but states:
The eye of the Sea is one thing and the foam another. Let the foam go, and gaze with the eye of the Sea. Day and night foam-flecks are flung from the sea: oh amazing! You behold the foam but not the Sea. We are like boats dashing together; our eyes are darkened, yet we are in clear water.Rumi ends his poem by stating "If each had a candle and they went in together the differences would disappear."
Posts
132 comments:
When Michael Brown was killed, the intelligentsia knew immediately that it was a case of entrenched hateful racism perpetrated by an out of control cop.
When someone named Mohammad kills four marines, we can only scratch our heads and wonder.
which presumably were already in the offing.
Offing is really the term you want to go with here?
Just read the comments at the beast and weep for your country.
Why would anyone "exhibit an elephant" in a dark room?
Why can't we take his word for it?
ISIS calls for the killing of American soldiers during Ramadan. A man kills American soldiers during the month of Ramadan, after making posts denoting an Islamic motivation.
And it is still a big mystery to you?
Let me guess..it was workplace violence right?
We must now, of course, ban all Islamic symbolism in public. They may, however, continue to worship freely in private, as long as they don't attempt to foist any of their beliefs off on the rest of use.
"Why would anyone "exhibit an elephant" in a dark room?"
Similar to the suburban "haunted house" shows where you amaze and scare kids by blindfolding them handing them peeled grapes. Eyeballs!
I think "a popular style of Islamic religious reasoning" is what Ayan Hirsi Ali describes in her books, and there is no reasoning involved. According to Hirsi Ali, Mohammed commands that the Koran be taken literally as written in Arabic in the 7th century (actually, the Koran was not written down until long after Mohammed's death, she says), and no questioning or "evolving" is allowed. She says that is what is wrong with it.
Islamic religious reasoning.
Now there's an oxymoron if I ever heard one.
Don't issue a fatwa! The Jinn made me do it.
Many of these Islamic killers seem to be sane, intelligent, and socially functional. That's the scary part. They're not loners or psychopaths......I don't think they have a screw loose, but rather their religion does. Muslims are to murder what Mormons are to polygamy.
"Why can't we take his word for it?"
Because it was written for public consumption, probably, and it doesn't show an individual's thinking over a period of time, but just some superficial, trite statements. The question is what does it mean, not what do the words say.
"ISIS calls for the killing of American soldiers during Ramadan. A man kills American soldiers during the month of Ramadan, after making posts denoting an Islamic motivation."
Even taking the statements at face value, they don't literally mean what you are saying. You are making interpretations, choosing your template. He, writing, either thought or didn't think about how people like you would interpret it. Why are you so eager both to take him at his word and then ignore the words? You're being irrational. Perhaps he counted on that. I have no idea how devious or intelligent he may be.
"And it is still a big mystery to you?"
I am careful about evidence and it is my way to look at words and think about the connection of words to human thought. That's what I do. Of course, the connection between words and the human mind is a great mystery, worthy of study.
"Let me guess..it was workplace violence right?"
I'd prefer to make a guess about you, based on your statements. Guess what my guess is.
The motives I find mysterious are those that cause otherwise clear thinking people to avoid defending themselves and their country from manifest threats.
I was naked in a dark room once and the woman I was with thought she felt an elephant trunk.
Sort of related.
I am Laslo.
It appears he was searching for God and could not find Him in Islam. All he had was a belief system that to die in battle for Allah gave him the best deal. So the Christians in Chattanooga let him down. He needed to meet Jesus.
In the meantime these warriors for Islam need to meet Marines carrying weapons of superior firepower.
According to Hirsi Ali, Mohammed commands that the Koran be taken literally as written in Arabic in the 7th century (actually, the Koran was not written down until long after Mohammed's death, she says), and no questioning or "evolving" is allowed. She says that is what is wrong with it.
She's right, which is why calls for the moderation of Islam are worthless. Just suggesting that Islam needs to be reformed is enough to get you sentenced to death in majority Islamic nations for apostasy and heresy.
I'd prefer to make a guess about you, based on your statements.
And you, and people just like you, will continue to do just that, right up to the point that you are the one getting your head sawed off with a dull machete.
"It appears he was searching for God and could not find Him in Islam. All he had was a belief system that to die in battle for Allah gave him the best deal. So the Christians in Chattanooga let him down. He needed to meet Jesus."
I don't know why people are so willing to believe that other people believe what they say they believe. It's hard to believe, really believe. I learned that from Jesus.
. Of course, the connection between words and the human mind is a great mystery, worthy of study
Usually, a cigar is just a cigar.
I think some of the Muslim killers are screwballs, the elder Tsarnaev may well have been, but let's not ignore the obvious: Muslim grievance and faith can be the springboard to either radicalization or radical action.
Is it ISIS? Meh, I think it's more likely that part of this is the conflict of the obvious religious commitments and commandments Islam can place on people living in and entirely different civilization.
Maybe only a few radicalize in this fashion, but the relatively lower probability vs high consequences of attacks is worth thinking about.
The West has business, cultural, technological and military involvement and conflict with the Muslim world and the chasm between these civilizations isn't going away anytime soon.
At a certain point these sorts of meta-penumbral double-reverse-psychology rationalizations start to grow tiresome.
We have a bloody army of Jihad Sideshow Bobs with "DIE INFIDELS DIE" tattooed on their chests and the Smart Set bitterly debates whether it's racist to point out that "THE INFIDELS THE" isn't grammatically correct.
"Is he mixing it up with the nursery rhyme of the 3 blind mice? "
Maybe he was thinking of "The Three Men Who Were Determined Not To See The Elephant, and the Fog of Words They Produced".
I don't know why people are so willing to believe that other people believe what they say they believe
Oh I don't know...history?
In 1938, you'd be the one arguing that Hitler didn't really mean what he wrote in Mein Kampf, and that he didn't really believe what he said in his speeches.
It's hard to believe, really believe. I learned that from Jesus.
Yeah especially when you claim to be a Christian, but are still pro abortion. I'd love to see your reasoning for why Jesus would be OK with that.
"If he used a style that can, in fact, be identified as "a popular style of Islamic religious reasoning," that's reason to think about his statements not as pure reflections of his thought patterns, but as something cribbed and copied, perhaps to throw us off track or to play upon our tendency to jump to merge him with the grand, mythic mass of Islamic terrorists who have traipsed all over the American brain since 9/11."
Yes, a Muslim that kills four members of the US Military, and is willing to die in the effort, "wants to throw us off track."
Would you think the same if he he wrote "I hate fags" and killed four gays?
From Wiki:
""Elephant in the room" or "Elephant in the living room" is an English metaphorical idiom for an obvious truth that is either being ignored or going unaddressed. The idiomatic expression also applies to an obvious problem or risk no one wants to discuss."
So maybe we are touching one elephant while ignoring the other.
I am Laslo.
"...And you, and people just like you, will continue to do just that, right up to the point that you are the one getting your head sawed off with a dull machete."
Gahrie nailed it.
I'll continue to exercise my concealed carry permit.
It's elephants all the way down
There's not much you can do in a country that allows retards to free-range.
"It appears he was searching for God and could not find Him in Islam.
No...he was searching for God, and found him in Islam, and killed for his God as he was commanded to do.
Althouse misses a possibility. They are boilelrplate and they do reflect his thoughts. Because most religious thought is rote twaddle regurgitated.
I'm surprised there's been no Rumi tag in 11+ years
"I am careful about evidence and it is my way to look at words and think about the connection of words to human thought."
I'm more interested in the connection of words to human actions. For example: "Allah Akbar!" followed by a hail of bullets. Or a bomb. Or a man in a cage being set aflame. Or a plane crashing into the World Trade Center. Actions like that.
Philosophical debaters lose to people willing to inflict violence. At least, that is what happens every time in history, to date.
Because most religious thought is rote twaddle regurgitated.
7/17/15, 8:54 AM
Sure, Ken. "Love Thy Neighbor As Thyself" is just like "Kill the Infidels."
Idiot.
When bakers refuse to make a cake for a gay couple Althouse believes their reason. When this guy kills because of his religion she disbelieves him. Althouse is religious. She is not however a baker.
Katrina, you proved my point! No-one can or does or even tries to love their neighbour even as much as their child! You regurgitate rote twaddle, and then express your religious love with an insult. Great work!
"something cribbed and copied, perhaps to throw us off track or to play upon our tendency to jump to merge him with the grand, mythic mass of Islamic terrorists who have traipsed all over the American brain since 9/11."
Perhaps, then again perhaps not. Perhaps someone who cribs and copies prior to murder doesn't use language to "play upon" anyone's "tendency." Perhaps he actually thinks himself part of the "mass" of terrorists and actually wants to make it bigger. Perhaps instead of playing upon the tendency he actually means to traipse all over the American brain by, you know, killing people.
"I don't know why people are so willing to believe that other people believe what they say they believe. It's hard to believe, really believe. I learned that from Jesus"
Sure. And what you learned from Jesus really helps us understand the motives of a Muslim killer.
Katrina,
The real trick is to love your neighbor even though he's an idiot - very challenging
"...play upon our tendency to jump to merge him with the grand, mythic mass of Islamic terrorists who have traipsed all over the American brain since 9/11."
Althouse trolls the commentariat in classic style. Any given word, be it "tendency" "jump" "mythic" or "traipsed" can be defended, but the context seems designed leave the impression of paranoia rather than reasonable conclusion. As if the shooter's name and targets weren't clue enough.
I can't believe you don't believe Tradguy believes what he says he believes when he says he believes the killer believes what Tradguy believes the killer said he believes.
Ann, I agree that public statements made for public consumption only tell part of the story- and I agree that we should be cautious to accept that at face value as the whole story (just as we remain skeptical, for example, that what Hillary Clinton writes in Hard Choices represents the absolute truth).
But the FBI is doing the equivalent of tactical site exploitation on this guy's computer records, social media accounts and other electronic correspondence. Very soon they will have records of what he said to more private audiences- perhaps family members, perhaps close friends, perhaps just random radicalized Islamists that he met in some chat room-- and those records will tell us a little bit more of the story as he communicated with those whom he trusted and perhaps even writings that he didn't intend to reveal to anyone but himself. Very few things are actually truly deleted from your computer, so we can expect that even if he scrubbed it, we're going to find something more.
Perhaps the biggest reason why Althouse finds it so difficult to believe that Islamic terrorists actually believe what they claim to believe, is that she knows so many Progressives and Liberals who don't believe what they claim to believe.
"I don't know why people are so willing to believe that other people believe what they say they believe. It's hard to believe, really believe. I learned that from Jesus."
So then what? Judge by their actions?
Gahrie said--She's right, which is why calls for the moderation of Islam are worthless. Just suggesting that Islam needs to be reformed is enough to get you sentenced to death in majority Islamic nations for apostasy and heresy
Save it Gahrie. I've tried preaching to Althouse for years that there is no such thing as a radical muslim. There are only muslims and apostates to islam. And I didn't capitolize islam for a reason... that reason is fuck you, muslims. And the goat your prophet raped on his way into town.
Laslo said--So maybe we are touching one elephant while ignoring the other.
Maybe we're touching Laslo? Or the other way!! Who's to say!!
Ps. Missed the obvious elephant/prophet joke! Damn! Maybe next time.
If he used a style that can, in fact, be identified as "a popular style of Islamic religious reasoning," that's reason to think about his statements not as pure reflections of his thought patterns, but as something cribbed and copied
This strikes me as a sentence which is paradigmatic of how law professors write, so I will dismiss it as mindless parroting of earlier law professors.
It's "mythic" I found most irksome. It's only mythic in the "mass of Islamic terrorists" construction with respect to the adjective "mass": a uncalled for addition and a straw man as well. No one was arguing that the manifestly Islamic terrorist was acting as part of large "mass". They are not that well organized yet, here at least. What the argument should be about are the best tactics for defense in the context of a free society. Rather the refusal to recognize and engage the enemy highlights our own weakness of will. Self absorbed pleasure seekers don't fight well.
Um, Occam's razor?
Given what little evidence we have now, I'm going with the simplest hypothesis. He was an Islamic terrorist. I am prepared to be persuaded otherwise by new evidence as it is released.
" No-one can or does or even tries to love their neighbour even as much as their child!"
The quote is "love thy neighbor as thyself." I don't see "child" mentioned at all. Where did you get that?
And yes, sparrow, it is very, very difficult to love idiots. I don't pretend to be good at it. Christianity calls on people to try to be perfect although we can't be.
The problem comes when we try to milk the elephant.
I am Laslo.
"The problem comes when we try to milk the elephant."
That will be my addition to the 'elephant metaphors' group.
Misguided enough, someone will eventually try to milk the elephant.
"Dude, you're milking the elephant."
You saw it here first.
I am Laslo.
Nobody can shove their head in the sand while being sanctimonious quite like a third rate ivory tower academic in a lily white Midwestern leftwing bubble.
Roy Jacobsen,
Until we deconstruct your use of the shorthand "Occam's Razor" through the filter of theories espoused by Derrida, et al, who were themselves stealing from others and must be deconstructed further... It quite possibly could be elephants all the way down.
Only if there is no truth, objective or otherwise, of which humans may avail themselves, discussions of this sort are pointless. If there is truth, then we might understand the world around us.
The professor is witness to a broadside attack against modern philosophy by people who care only that might makes right. It is confusing to her.
Yes, it is hard to believe, truly believe. That's why the wicked find so much comfort in words that say "do this thing that satisfies your lust and you shall be beloved in the eyes of your God." That makes holiness so much easier.
a popular style of Islamic religious reasoning
It is not an oxymoron. Those who choose not follow Allah are infidels. I will be rewarded in heaven by Allah by killing infidels, ergo I should kill infidels. Islamic scholars help choose which infidels to kill first.
I think it is very clear.
I don't know why people are so willing to believe that other people believe what they say they believe. It's hard to believe, really believe. I learned that from Jesus.
There were millions of Jews who couldn't believe that Hitler believed what he said he believed. They continued to disbelieve until they could taste the bitter almonds.
I suppose willful ignorance has its uses. It's certainly more comforting than thinking these things through to the inevitable conclusion. If you're tied to the railroad track there's no use in looking at the oncoming train, is there?
I think you should have written "mythical" not "mythic." In general usage "mythical" means "fictitious" and "mythic" means "legendary."
Apparently the blog itself has been removed.
AA: I don't know why people are so willing to believe that other people believe what they say they believe.
"What he really believes", really really, is rather beside the point here. What he really did, rather more pertinent. We can work back from there, and it won't require advanced training in psychology and neurology - much less dorm-room ruminations on the nature of belief - to come to a useful conclusion.
If he used a style that can, in fact, be identified as "a popular style of Islamic religious reasoning," that's reason to think about his statements not as pure reflections of his thought patterns, but as something cribbed and copied, perhaps to throw us off track or to play upon our tendency to jump to merge him with the grand, mythic mass of Islamic terrorists who have traipsed all over the American brain since 9/11.
There was another fellow recently - what was his name? - who also did that one-off web page thingie of "cribbed and copied" tropes before instantiating that "grand, mythic mass" [of violent white supremacist Southern racists] who have traipsed all over [the true-believin' progressives] brain since [1965].
Now, the embodied, murderous members of this particular "mythic mass" are vanishingly small in number, unlike those of the other mythic mass you invoke here, who are a tad more numerous, even within on our own borders. But, interestingly, we are apparently content to take the web page of the former at face value, as "pure reflections" of something obvious and literal, to the point of initiating a mass hysteria about purging from the universe a popular, oft cribbed and copied symbol. In fact, we don't even need a web page or manifesto to satisfy ourselves once again of the solid reality of this grand mythic mass, if the perp fits the specs.
Why the distinction? It's all very meta. I don't know if the interpreters of mythic masses really believe what they claim to believe. Perhaps Rumi could help me out here.
"the grand, mythic mass of Islamic terrorists who have traipsed all over the American brain since 9/11."
Mythic? Iraq proved otherwise.
There's no disputing the dozens and dozens of verses of the Koran which call for fighting against infidels, most of them with some rather graphic depictions of violence or which promise rewards in the afterlife to the doers. But apparently most Muslims never carry out this part of their religion- if you just look at statistics in the US, Europe and across the globe, it's very clear that the vast majority of Muslims have never killed a single person, much less an infidel, so either they don't all take it as literally as we say they do-- they don't all actually believe that it is their religious obligation to kill infidels-- or there's something else going on here.
Beta Rube said...
When Michael Brown was killed, the intelligentsia knew immediately that it was a case of entrenched hateful racism perpetrated by an out of control cop.
When someone named Mohammad kills four marines, we can only scratch our heads and wonder.
When that asshole Root went into the church and murdered 9 innocent people, a single photo of him with the (wrongly known as) Confederate flag was enough for widespread calls to banish it from history. This is yet another in a string of attacks by Muslims over the years and the FBI says they have no clue as to his motivations.
Katrina said...
Ken B said...Because most religious thought is rote twaddle regurgitated.
True.
Sure, Ken. "Love Thy Neighbor As Thyself" is just like "Kill the Infidels."
The main difference is that nobody actually does the former, and members of nearly every religion indulge in the latter at some point in the religion's history.
But what about the important issues: did the terrorist have a cake, a flag or psycho-sexual problems?
NB: Althouse's first post about Dylann Storm Roof included the picture from his Facebook profile and the NYT's explanation of the pro-apartheid flags on his jacket, without any skeptical comment.
P-Zrim@10:14 AM:
Zrimsek says in one sentence what it took that gasbag Anglelyne four paragraphs to say.
By this reasoning, we really can't say the 9/11 attacks had anything whatsoever to do with Islam.
I don't know why people are so willing to believe that other people believe what they say they believe. It's hard to believe, really believe. I learned that from Jesus.
No. No, you didn't. You're making excuses for radical behavior in the name of Allah. You learned that from Obama.
Because it was written for public consumption, probably, and it doesn't show an individual's thinking over a period of time, but just some superficial, trite statements. The question is what does it mean, not what do the words say.
Stepping out on the shaky limb, eh? Whatever you do, don't look down. The words mean what they say. Which is what he did. Which is how we all know. Except, of course, you. You're trying as hard as you can to figure out some other intent, when the real intent is right there.
I am careful about evidence and it is my way to look at words and think about the connection of words to human thought. That's what I do. Of course, the connection between words and the human mind is a great mystery, worthy of study.
No, you're not. You choose a template long before the evidence comes in, and apply it ruthlessly even when the evidence is against you. This is why I mostly come here to read what others have to say - I have far more faith in their interpretation. By all means, keep doing what you do. But don't expect that anyone buys what you're pitching.
This man was radicalized, by choice, as they all are, and carried out attacks in accordance with what he thought would make his co-religioinists happy and guarantee himself immortal glory in the eyes of the Prophet. Like the Tsarneav brothers. Like the Fort Hood shooter. You'd probably classify the former as innocent youth acting merely out of frustration, and the latter as workplace violence.
I'd prefer to make a guess about you, based on your statements. Guess what my guess is.
Likewise. Don't bother trying to guess though. You cannot possibly fathom the depth of my disdain.
vast majority of Muslims have never killed a single person, much less an infidel,
Do most Muslims support or approve of the actions of those few Muslims who kill infidels?
Hey, give 'em a break. It took years (and a threat of legislative action) to figure out the motivations of the Fort Hood killer.
Me thinks those in power are blinder (or in a darker room) than the dudes with the elephant.
Per NY Times: The once-clean-cut student recently grew a beard. In the last two or three months, Mr. Abdulazeez had begun showing up rather regularly at Friday Prayer at the Islamic Society of Greater Chattanooga. He very recently wrote "do not let the opportunity to submit to Allah ... pass you by." I really try to keep an open mind, even when I hear that a spree shooter's name is Mohammod, but pretending that all of this stuff (including the timing and the target) does not point to religious motivation seems a little bit panglossian.
From the Daily Beast:
“We ask Allah to make us follow their path,” Abdulazeez wrote. “To give us a complete understanding of the message of Islam, and the strength the live by this knowledge, and to know what role we need to play to establish Islam in the world.”
Well, he played the role, didn't he? And four honorable men are dead because of his playing the role. Maybe he's "misinterpreting Islam". But he's still attempting to interpret Islam, and whether he got it wrong or not, he did what he thought he was commanded to do. Maybe by the Prophet, or maybe by other followers of the Prophet who gleefully handed him the interpretation. Either way, he acted out to do his small part in establishing Islam. After all, the fewer US Marines there are in the world, the easier it will be to establish Islam, since one of the most potent forces against such establishment has been the force exerted by the US Marine Corps.
Oh, sorry, I forgot. Our hostess likes the word of her Prophet. I should have said US Marine Corpse. Obama Ackhbar!!
Whew!
Up most of the night wondering. Relief has finally come from our intelligentsia who have assured me that Islam had nothing to do with this shooting.
Thank you, Virgil. I learned a new word/reference. Panglossian. I'll be using that in the future - I know many people whom that describes to a Tee. Most of them vote like our hostess does.
"The main difference is that nobody actually does the former, and members of nearly every religion indulge in the latter at some point in the religion's history."
Actually there are people who do the former. We call them "saints." They are rare, but they do exist.
And if you think secular atheists do not indulge in their own version of "kill the infidels," well, congrats on missing a very large chunk of 20th century history.
Marines winning the first and second Battles of Fallujah dared not speak to Muslims in Jesus name, but the citizens of Chattanooga for now at least have a freedom to preach and hand them the Bible without being beheaded by Sharia rules.
They should have preached to this guy while he was unprotected from truth.
Not much to add except it is worth re-reading Eric Hoffer's "True Believer." Religious fanatics are "not entirely of this [secular/distracted] world." They need to lean on an objective order, a Great Plan. This spares them struggling with ambiguity, ambivalence, the loose crap of life.
Transcendant purity. Seductively evoked, by the way, by that Rumi verse.
Such fanatics come in all stripes but only a few religions are still in the absolutist phase where there can be no secular realm, no quarter given. All who do not adhere to the dogma are apostates, either/or. They are not merely extraneous or to be pitied, they are a positive threat. Zap them!
It doesn't surprise me that much to learn that so many of these whackjobs are engineers. No slam on engineers --I love what they do-- but engineers want stuff in the world to be "right." And among them are the extremist Seekers for Absolutely Pure Results. And among that cadre are a few who will end up in a pool of blood outside the Marine recruiting office.
Roughcoat,
Do most Muslims support or approve of the actions of those few Muslims who kill infidels?
Honestly, I don't know. Even with the years I spent in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East- and being qualified in both Arabic and Dari- I couldn't give you a good answer to that.
The Muslim world is much more diverse than we actually realize and it's difficult to compare, say, an Afghan Pashto to a Malay or a Kurd to a Jordanian Arab. And then, too, the interpretation of what is an infidel varies greatly as well. All of them have laws on the books saying that it's illegal to kill, regardless of whether the victim is a Muslim or non-Muslim, so maybe on some level, many of them have to believe that it's not right (or it could be such as when laws on the books said black Americans could vote, but white Southerners decided not to let them vote anyway, I don't know).
Most is a pretty high bar, and so if I were forced to gamble and the stakes were the life or death of my niece, I would take the under on that.
According to the FBI, something like 80% of Islamist-affiliated plots are defeated by tips from within Muslim community, so obviously there's quite a few American Muslims that don't think it's okay to kill infidels, at least if you're taking the definition of "infidel" to be what many here seem to believe, which is any non-Muslim. On the other hand, if you define an "infidel" more tightly- say someone who denounces the Prophet or burns the Koran- then it's a much easier bet to make in the other direction.
Paul Zrimsek @ 10:14 AM:
NB: Althouse's first post about Dylann Storm Roof included the picture from his Facebook profile and the NYT's explanation of the pro-apartheid flags on his jacket, without any skeptical comment.
Paul, you've got some of the most consistently enjoyable, prescient, and (IMHO) on-the-money comments on this site. You are a master of artful plain speaking and in some cases, understatement.
If you don't already blog (and once I'm done typing this, Imma click your username and find out), you ought to.
Hopefully our hostess thinks you mean what you say what you mean what you really say what you really mean . . . ad infinitum. Cuz this comment basically turns her premise into a nickel, plugs it, and then melts it down into slag.
Bobby,
Do enough of the Muslims actually take those verses literally, and subsequently act on them, that it poses a significant problem? - Yes
Do enough of the rest of the Muslims believe in the validity of those verses that there is a solid support base for those in category 1? - Yes
Are there enough Muslims who don't fall into either of the above categories who are willing to speak out and act against the above that progress is being made in this war? - Apparently not, unless there is a huge amount going on behind the scenes. And if that is the case, then the first category is even larger than we think.
"Paul, you've got some of the most consistently enjoyable, prescient, and (IMHO) on-the-money comments on this site. You are a master of artful plain speaking and in some cases, understatement."
Indeed. He nailed it here.
"but just some superficial, trite statements"
Meh, superficial, trite, statements, ideology of massacre. Pa-tay-to, pa-tah-to.
We have a bloody army of Jihad Sideshow Bobs with "DIE INFIDELS DIE" tattooed on their chests and the Smart Set bitterly debates whether it's racist to point out that "THE INFIDELS THE" isn't grammatically correct.
Or sexist to point out it's the wrong gender. (I think. I don't know, gender was my biggest stumbling block when trying to learn languages a million years ago in high school.)
"I think you should have written "mythical" not "mythic." In general usage "mythical" means "fictitious" and "mythic" means "legendary.""
I meant "mythic."
"'It's hard to believe, really believe. I learned that from Jesus.' Yeah especially when you claim to be a Christian, but are still pro abortion. I'd love to see your reasoning for why Jesus would be OK with that."
When did I claim to be a Christian? I come from a Christian background and I think it's hard to believe according to the standard that Jesus spoke about. How can you add that up to a claim to be Christian?
You're not trying to read accurately, Gahrie, so I really shouldn't respond to you. You say I'm "pro abortion" but that is also false.
You don't seem like a Christian. You're just using the word in political arguments. I don't think Jesus would be okay with that.
exhelodrver1,
There's like 1.6 Billion Muslims worldwide, so even if 99.9% are in the "peaceful" camp, -- something we'd all call the "vast majority," I'm sure -- that's still 1.6 Million, which is more than enough to recruit, plan, finance and carry out enough attacks that we think it's a significant problem.
But I guess the real point is, what needs to happen for the rejectionists to increasingly isolate and remove the extremists in their midst? I wish I knew the answer to that. But I doubt saying things like "these terrorists are what Islam really is about" or "all Muslims believe it's their religious duty to kill non-Muslims" has much of a place in the solution.
Way to go Katrina at 10:42 I was going to post almost the same thing before I saw yours.
There's a reason love your neighbor is rare: man is fallen, so sainthood is only possible through grace. Or to say it more simply: nothing is impossible for God: even I can become decent, if He wills it.
Kyzernick said... "Paul Zrimsek @ 10:14 AM: 'NB: Althouse's first post about Dylann Storm Roof included the picture from his Facebook profile and the NYT's explanation of the pro-apartheid flags on his jacket, without any skeptical comment.' Paul, you've got some of the most consistently enjoyable, prescient, and (IMHO) on-the-money comments on this site. You are a master of artful plain speaking and in some cases, understatement."
Here is my first post Roof. The quote from the NYT is "Mr. Roof’s Facebook profile picture shows him wearing a jacket decorated with the flags of two former white supremacist regimes, in apartheid-era South Africa and in Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe." That's not an "explanation" of the flags, but a simple statement identifying the flags. What is there to be "skeptical" about? I did accept the identification of the flags. You don't mention that my post goes on to quote a high-rated comment that give a bullet-point list of possible reasons why this happened, basically all left-wing theories (guns, unemployment). Highlighting that comment was a way of saying: Here's how the NYT crowd is framing this. That's critical of the spin.
I have a later post that raises questions about who Roof was, comparing him to Anders Behring Breivik, who (as The New Yorker put it) "consistently referred to a large organization, of which he claimed to be a prominent member but which does not exist; in his manifesto he interviews himself as if he were a hero; and the impression this gives is of a person who has erected a make-believe reality, in which his significance is undisputed." So there's the same idea: Was this individual part of something or a mentally off loner?
Kyzernick, the fact that you found Zrimsek's attack on me "enjoyable, prescient" is pretty disgusting. People were murdered. It's not fun time, whether the discrepancy Zrimsek thinks he sees is really there are not.
I tend to believe suicide notes. I don't believe that they are necessarily objectively true ("Everyone was mean to me, and NOW you'll suffer"), but I do believe that they reflect the thinking processes of the person that wrote them, as long as they are written close to the suicide.
I may not be understanding your post. Perhaps you really mean to suggest that one suicide-murder might have been generated in the same way as another in the psyche of the suicide-murderer. You might be right about that - it's hard to distinguish this sort of thing from that kid who attacked the sorority in CA.
But I think one cannot possibly evade the idea that there is a template in Islam into which some persons in distress might fall (attacking the infidel and going to heaven, because suicide in despair is a great sin in Islam), and many of the commenters here seem to be rightly focusing on that fact.
Some posters here seem to be claiming that this is the ONLY possible way for someone to interpret Islam. It is not. To most Muslims, the writings posted would suggest living a right life rather than killing semi-random people.
Of course one may be a good believing orthodox Muslim and not commit mass murder. The problem for the US, and for the western world, is that one may not be a good believing orthodox Muslim and choose to support a secular state over a shariah state. One may only claim that the shariah state isn't really a genuine shariah state.
Since the average Muslim really doesn't want to have people crucified for daytime eating in public during Ramadan, I would suspect that religious Muslims are quietly evolving a series of religious justifications for why ISIS isn't a shariah state. The only problem for us is that, when falling under the power of an ISIS-like regime, they aren't going to publicly express these concerns.
Thus, the only thing for the rest of the world to do with the Boko Harams and the ISIS whacks is to kill them. Otherwise, this cancer grows and grows - it can only grow until it is killed.
Since it's not a very attractive state to live in, the western world could afford to back off and just watch the snuff flicks in consternation, knowing that all the other Muslims would be generating a counter-ideology, and that the thing would ultimately fall of its own weight.
But because the Western world has a lot of Muslims, it can't afford to do that. It can simply arm the populace, or distribute an awful lot of armed guards among the populace, and ignore ISIS because you kill the Islamic whack jobs as they pop up. That's the French solution and the GA solution.
Or it can try to eject them, as the Australian government is now seeking to do. Not possible for a country like ours with an open border. Anyone can walk into this country now. As long as you are not armed or carrying a kilo of cocaine when you do, you're in.
So I suspect that gun control legislation is kinda dead. Like it or not, we have to deal with this, and most people don't want any more of a police state than we have already, nor can we afford one.
That is pretty much the entire reason Trump is soaring in the polls. The ineffable self-congratulatory stupidity of the intelligentsia is beginning to wear on the Average Joe's nerves.
Kyzernick, the fact that you found Zrimsek's attack on me "enjoyable, prescient" is pretty disgusting. People were murdered. It's not fun time, whether the discrepancy Zrimsek thinks he sees is really there are not.
You're losing it, Althouse.
Polls conducted by Muslim polling organizations of Middle Eastern Muslims have shown overwhelming support for the establishment of sharia law worldwide. Does this support for sharia translate into support for jihad? I think it does, and even if that support is passive, or takes the form of mere acquiescence, such support is significant. But in fact I think Bobby is soft-selling the threat. I think that a lot more Muslims than he believes are strong emotional supporters of jihad. I think a lot of Muslims, even peaceful Muslims, and especially Middle Eastern Muslims, would be quite happy to see the West, and Christianity destroyed, and that in the privacy of their own thoughts they are thrilled by the deeds of the jihadists. "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing," and in the Muslim world there are many men, many of whom are undoubtedly good, who are doing nothing to stop the spread of radical Islam. This is not an opinion. This is an objective fact. The voices of moderate Muslims are scarcely heard, and their silence is deafening, so much so that one must doubt if "moderate Islam" even exists; or, if it does exist, whether its adherents exist in significant numbers.
I don't know why people are so willing to believe that other people believe what they say they believe.
I'd be less willing to believe this guy believed he had a religious duty to murder Americans if he had confined himself to writing that he had a religious duty to murder Americans rather than also murdering Americans.
Uh oh, Althouse is going to cry again!
Pointing out your hypocrisy is an "attack" and someone enjoying the comment of another person is "disgusting."
Boo fucking hoo.
What is really disgusting is how these Islamic fanatics that you make excuses for would do to your son if they had the chance.
If you don't read his blog you don't know his motivations. And therefore you can make the argument that Islam had nothing to do with it and that he's just a loon. Reading the blog would require the author to question the baseless premises, on which operates.
If this were the blog post of the guy who shot up the black church you can bet that not only would he have read it, but he'd demand WE read it as well. To tell us about the worldview that he assumes other whites share. (Read, Republicans)
So, its only important to read the blog post if it confirms your world view. If its challenging, then bury it under the rug.
I meant "mythic."
Okay, that clarifies matters. You're using it the same way that Kipling used it "The Ballad of the Red King's Jest," and in a not-dissimilar context. E.g.:
He hearked to rumour, and snatched at a breath
Of `this one knoweth', and 'that one saith', --
Legends that ran from mouth to mouth
Of a grey-coat coming, and sack of the South.
Althouse wrote:
"You're not trying to read accurately, Gahrie, so I really shouldn't respond to you. You say I'm "pro abortion" but that is also false."
Um, no its not. You're simply using a different set of words to not have to say you are pro abortion. You are not pro abortion, but you are pro choice. About abortion. Mean you are for abortion. Meaning you are pro abortion.
"You say that I am pro the death penalty but that is false"
"But you said you think its ok that there is a death penalty!"
"But that doesn't mean I"m FOR it."
"But are you against it?"
"I think it should be legal"
"Then you are for it"
"Nuh-uh"
Where are all the Muslim public intellectuals, in America especially but elsewhere too, who are speaking out against jihad and the agenda of radical Islam? Who are they and why are they not publicly advocating a more moderate Islam? In one of the posts above it was pointed out that many acts of domestic terror by Muslims in America are nipped in the bud by tips from the Muslim community. All well and good, but tips are not enough: are in fact, indicative of the power that Muslim radicals wield over the Muslim community, which itself is indicator of a certain level of support by that community for the radicals. An Islamic version of "omerta" silences most. Whether omerta is forced upon them or is voluntary is indeterminable--a circumstance that goes to my point.
Althouse used her reasoning to decide to vote for Obama in 2008. She reads and quotes from the NYTimes and the New Yorker as if they were the Bible. She denies she's a Christian.
She's a Dhimmi hoping to have her head severed last.
Thanks to Anglelyne, Kyzernick, and Katrina for the kind words. (No, I don't blog-- too lazy.)
It was great that Althouse's first Dylann Roof post pointed out some attempts to hijack the Charleston shootings for left-wing purposes, but that's not really relevant to what I wrote. What does matter is that there was nothing like "Roof did give us some evidence worth thinking about, but I wouldn't take the jacket at face value."
What does matter is that there was nothing like "Roof did give us some evidence worth thinking about, but I wouldn't take the jacket at face value."
That's going to leave a mark.
"perhaps to throw us off track"
I think you give him too much credit. I don't think most of these men, willing to do what he did, are that complicated.
"the grand, mythic mass of Islamic terrorists who have traipsed all over the American brain since 9/11."
I can agree with this to a point. I think there's a mistake in connecting 'brain' with 'turf.' Our homeland has been relatively untouched by more Islamic terrorism in the vein of 9/11.
I'm frankly shocked that Al-Qaeda and their offshoots have not tried to play 'small ball' to foment terror here in the States with a series of small attacks (car bombs, gunmen) aimed at simply destabilizing everyday life enough to shake us. They'd rather go all-in for the big attack (9/11).
Where are all the Muslim public intellectuals, in America especially but elsewhere too, who are speaking out against jihad and the agenda of radical Islam?
Mostly dead.
'It's hard to believe, really believe. I learned that from Jesus.' Yeah especially when you claim to be a Christian, but are still pro abortion. I'd love to see your reasoning for why Jesus would be OK with that."
When did I claim to be a Christian? I come from a Christian background and I think it's hard to believe according to the standard that Jesus spoke about. How can you add that up to a claim to be Christian?
Well most people who read: "I don't know why people are so willing to believe that other people believe what they say they believe. It's hard to believe, really believe. I learned that from Jesus." would assume it was written by a Christian. That is kind of the definition of Christian, someone who believes in Jesus.
So..you aren't a Christian? I'm not...I'm a Deist.
You're not trying to read accurately, Gahrie, so I really shouldn't respond to you.
No...you're the one who believes that words don't have meanings. I assume that you mean what you write, and not in some hiddeen, transcendent "message".
You say I'm "pro abortion" but that is also false.
I have never, ever seen you write anything in opposition to abortion. So..are you pro-life?
You don't seem like a Christian.
I'm not.
You're just using the word in political arguments. I don't think Jesus would be okay with that.
I don't understand this. Do you mean "The Word" referring to the word of God?
Jesus made lots of political arguments.
jr565,
Um, no its not. You're simply using a different set of words to not have to say you are pro abortion. You are not pro abortion, but you are pro choice. About abortion. Mean you are for abortion. Meaning you are pro abortion.
My sister and her husband-- very strict vegans, primarily on the grounds of animal ethics (but also for health and the environment)-- once told me (as I consumed a delicious Polish sausage) that they would never lobby the government nor even want the government to ban human consumption of meat. They consider eating meat a matter of conscience best decided by the individual and not the state. I suppose, because they stop short of demanding a government prohibition of meat, that one could define them as being "pro-animal killing" but labeling them as such would probably seem ridiculous to most people. Few things in life are as binary coded.
"Highlighting that comment was a way of saying: Here's how the NYT crowd is framing this. That's critical of the spin."
Skepticism of right wing Roof motivation implied not stated.
"... that's reason to think about his statements not as pure reflections of his thought patterns, but as something cribbed and copied, perhaps to throw us off track ..."
Skepticism of Islamic motivation explicitly stated.
These are equivalent.
Althouse you magnificent bastard, I read your blog!
" the FBI is doing the equivalent of tactical site exploitation on this guy's computer records, social media accounts and other electronic correspondence. Very soon they will have records of what he said to more private audiences- perhaps family members, perhaps close friends, perhaps just random radicalized Islamists that he met in some chat room-- and those records will tell us a little bit more ...
These materials may tell the FBI something about his motives, but will the public ever see what the FBI has seen? Or will we see only FBI statements about them which the FBI has approved for public consumption?
Few things in life are as binary coded.
True. However abortion is one of the ones that is. Either you oppose the killing of innocent human life, or you don't. Pro-choice is effectively pro-abortion. Nobody gets to choose murder.
Roughcoat - CAIR promptly condemned the attacks yesterday. Very few people are really into this sort of thing unless in their hearts, they admire such a gesture.
Roughcoat,
Does this support for sharia translate into support for jihad? I think it does, and even if that support is passive, or takes the form of mere acquiescence, such support is significant.
To even begin to consider whether what you think is actually accurate, we would first have to define what "jihad" means -- most Westerners seem to equate it with "violent fighting," there's no shortage examples where the Koran refers to it as such, and, frankly, that's precisely how the radical extremists want it defined (as it supports their agenda). But the Koran also uses it in a much broader context that does not necessarily have to be violent -- the equivalent in English, for example, of saying a cancer patient is "fighting for his life" where we understand, you know, he's not literally armed with a handgun and shooting cancer cells as they attack him. (Incidentally, it's this latter definition that the West needs the worldwide Muslim population to adopt or our war never ends -- short of eradicating the Muslim population through annihilation and/or universal conversion, I suppose, which are technically options). I've had numerous Muslims in numerous countries explain jihad to me, and it's not clear to me what's the dominant interpretation, or if there even is one. I'm sure others know much better than me, though.
Regardless, the problem set is -- either (1) Islam rejects a violent interpretation of jihad, or (2) we destroy Islam in its entirety (or at least bring the population down significantly- like if Zoroastrians were radical extremists, we wouldn't care as much because there's not that many of them), or (3) we face an endless or near-endless war. And if we accept that problem set- and here I'm ruling out the second option as too difficult politically and the third as less desirable than the first- then our efforts need to be to support whatever needs to happen for ever-greater numbers of Muslims to reject the radical extremist interpretation of Islam. That's going to take generations, and it may never be successful. But Western leaders saying things like "Islam is an evil religion" or "terrorists are not against Islam- they are practicing the true form of Islam" is unlikely to help drive a wedge between the radical extremists and those Muslims who are more likely to reject violence against Muslims. I would say, on the contrary.
I think that a lot more Muslims than he believes are strong emotional supporters of jihad. I think a lot of Muslims, even peaceful Muslims, and especially Middle Eastern Muslims, would be quite happy to see the West, and Christianity destroyed, and that in the privacy of their own thoughts they are thrilled by the deeds of the jihadists.
Yeah, you asked if "most Muslims support or approve of the actions of those few Muslims who kill infidels." To me, "most" means 50%+1. If you define "infidels" as someone who speaks ill of the Prophet or desecrates the Koran, then I'd say, you're right. If on the other hand, you're defining infidel a little more tightly, and you're telling me that across the globe, 800 million (plus one) Muslims believe that just in the matter of course of being a Muslim it's a good thing to go about killing any random non-Muslim, then no. I think you'd see much, much, much more violence if 800 million (plus one) Muslims actually believed that.
The voices of moderate Muslims are scarcely heard, and their silence is deafening, so much so that one must doubt if "moderate Islam" even exists; or, if it does exist, whether its adherents exist in significant numbers.
So one problem I face in answering this question is the definition of "moderate Islam"-- so many people seem to define it so differently. Tell me how you define "moderate Islam" and I might be able to point you to some examples, but otherwise I guarantee we're going to be ships passing in the night.
CAIR promptly condemned the attacks yesterday
Did they cut their ties to terrorist organizations at the same time?
(3) we face an endless or near-endless war.
Islam has been trying to destroy Western Civilization for well over a thousand years. Look up Charles Martel, Vlad III and El Cid.
Islam is explicitly at war with anything non-Muslim, and has been for the entirety of its existence.
Gahrie,
Either you oppose the killing of innocent human life, or you don't. Pro-choice is effectively pro-abortion. Nobody gets to choose murder.
Is it possible that someone could have the genuinely-held belief that "human life" doesn't actually begin at conception, and therefore it's not "murder"? I'm not asking whether you believe it, just if it is possible that someone else could honestly believe it?
Gahrie,
Islam has been trying to destroy Western Civilization for well over a thousand years. Look up Charles Martel, Vlad III and El Cid.
Islam is explicitly at war with anything non-Muslim, and has been for the entirety of its existence.
Well, you clearly know more about the history of Islam than do I. However, I would point out that some of that fighting might have been done for political aggrandizement and geostrategic expansion, that is might have happened even if there was no religious component, and that such fighting can and did occur before the emergence of Islam- that is, a southern Empire was likely to fight a western Empire regardless of the religious implications (consider, for example, the Romans and Carthaginians). Oh, also, El Cid might not be a great example as he fought for and against both Christian and Muslim rulers during his time... in fact, he might actually support my "it's about more than just religion" thesis.
Well, you clearly know more about the history of Islam than do I. However, I would point out that some of that fighting might have been done for political aggrandizement and geostrategic expansion, that is might have happened even if there was no religious component
True. Except that the Koran, Hadith and Sura all explicitly demand that the world be converted to Islam. The very first thing that the original Muslims did was fight a religious war against the tribe that controlled Mecca.
Why do Muslims still claim Spain, more than 500 years after they were finally defeated and kicked out? Because their religion states that once a person or a place becomes Muslim, it is forever Muslim.
Pro-choice re "a woman's right to choose" is deceptive.
We already know that intercourse carries a risk of pregnancy. We choose to take that risk.
We also know that birth control is not 100% effective. We choose to take that risk too.
Trying to pretend your "choice" has been taken from you, when you have already made at least TWO choices, is dishonest.
Women need to start being accountable for the choices they make. Its one of the reasons men don't respect them.
(and before you counter - we already have laws on the books to corral dead-beat dads, and they are regarded as pariahs)
Is it possible that someone could have the genuinely-held belief that "human life" doesn't actually begin at conception, and therefore it's not "murder"
Sure. I can actually respect that position while disagreeing with it.
What I cannot respect is someone who claims to be anti-abortion but is pro-choice. That is intellectually and morally bankrupt.
Tell me how you define "moderate Islam" ...
Allow Christians to worship openly in Saudi Arabia. Allow churches and cathedrals to be built in Mecca and Medina. Allow all religions to be openly worshiped in all Muslim majority countries--which means, effectively, eliminating sharia. Allow full citizen status for all non-Muslims in Muslim majority countries and change the laws to provide for the emancipation of women. Be unequivocal in defining jihad as a spiritual not a military undertaking. Stop waging war and committing acts of terror against non-Muslims and use military action to suppress those who would: in other, don't just moderate your religion, but also police it.
Just for starters.
But I don't believe there is a moderate Islam. I believe that Muslims can moderate their behavior but not their religion.
One niggling point: concerning the issue of killing infidels, you write, "If you define "infidels" as someone who speaks ill of the Prophet or desecrates the Koran, then I'd say, you're right." You should find that troubing, very troubling indeed. If, as you seem to be admitting, that a majority of Muslims stand ready to murder non-Muslims who offend their Islamic sensibilities in any way, we have a problem. And the problem is a religion that is intolerant like no others with equally intolerant followers. For example, I don't like Serrano for creating "Piss Christ," but I don't want to murder him and I don't think Christians should be allowed to murder him and, more's to the point, I don't think that Christians should be taught that murdering him is a religiously righteous act.
John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, claimed for several years that he was not a real Christian. Mostly because he could not live up to what he thought a Christian should be. I suspect that is the kind of non-Christian Althouse is. Maybe she will go on to found a new denomination of Christianity, like he did.
If John Wesley actually said and believed that, he was wrong. Being unable to live up to what a good Christian should be, and realizing it, is fundamental to the faith. In making this claim, Wesley was practicing a form of spiritual mortification, flagellating himself with a figurative whip--a most un-Methodist thing to do. Perhaps he spoke thus while suffering indigestion after consuming a heavy Methodist meal of pot roast and boiled potatoes on a hot Sunday afternoon after church services.
I read this in a biography of Wesley, "The Elusive Mr. Wesley." His early thought was steeped in 'works-based' justification--I was surprised.
Maybe if he had some Lutheran Lutefisk, it would have cleared his mind.
The question is what does it mean, not what do the words say.
This, at the core, is exactly what is wrong with Althouse's and the Left's "thinking".
Roughcoat - you asked a question about why Muslims didn't condemn it, and I pointed out that they did, quite promptly:
http://www.click2houston.com/news/watch-live-cair-condemns-killing-of-marines-in-tennessee-offers-condolences/34218086
Another one:
http://www.click2houston.com/news/watch-live-cair-condemns-killing-of-marines-in-tennessee-offers-condolences/34218086
Note that a radical non-US imam spoke favorably of the Fort Hood massacre because he was upset that Muslim authorities were condemning it!
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/34579438/ns/us_news-tragedy_at_fort_hood/t/transcript-interview-al-awlaki/#.Val5-_nC9L8
There is other proof about your relationship with Nidal; from those is that you commended Nidal’s actions three days after he carried out the operation?
Agreeing with the operation was because what brother Nidal did was a heroic act, and I was careful to express my opinion about what happened because many Islamic organizations and advocates in the West condemned the operation, so it was crucial that an independent voice connected with Muslims in America and the West is heard, to clarify the truth, especially in regards to what Nidal has done, despite that the media attempted to connect him with me from the beginning.
As Joan of Arc said, come up on this hill and fight, or something close to it.
So she was burned at the stake for believing God was real and told her to fight for the King of France.
Or was she a deluded child? The King of France wouldn't lift a finger to help her when the Catholics condemned her as a witch for winning all her battles to save France. It seems that being a courageous warrior is not always that popular among the cowards of the governmentally privileged REMFs.
So, Althouse, you do not claim to be a Christian yourself, but you consider yourself qualified to stand on the outside and judge whether others "seem" Christian. Gahrie doesn't "seem" Christian to you, so gee, I guess he's not.
No, you're not a Christian Ann. Christians know they are supposed to embrace humility. (Yes, I have a tough time with it myself. I find being Christian to be incredibly difficult. People who think religion is some sort of easy cop-out haven't tried being a Christian. Good God, I have a tough time getting though a day trying to follow its precepts.) Like most elites, that concept is foreign to you. And that's one reason the West is dying - hubris. We can't grasp that our ancestors might have been right about some things. No, we insist we are wiser and more enlightened in every way.
While we in West delight in tearing down and degrading and insulting our ancestral faith (part of the Western self-hatred that is at the root of our decadence), radical Muslims have no qualms about embracing their ancestral faith. As ISIS knows very well, Islam did not spread from Arabia to Indonesia and Spain because Muslims politely preached the word of Mohammad. It spread through the sword.
"However, I would point out that some of that fighting might have been done for political aggrandizement and geostrategic expansion, that is might have happened even if there was no religious component"
Bobby, you miss the point. Islam has never, ever been separate from political aggrandizement and geostrategic expansion. There is no "render onto Cesar what is Cesar's, render onto Gods' what is Gods'" in Islam. Jesus never commanded an army. In Western Christendom, the state and church sometimes worked together and sometimes were bitterly opposed, but they were never the same thing.
How silly do we have to be to consider it likely that a radicalized Muslim who quotes from popular bits of radical Muslim literature before he kills someone is only doing it to "throw us off the scent." He couldn't possibly believe any of that stuff, now could he?
Just how long will it take for our so-called intellectuals to understand that many Muslims hold Western values in contempt and would see us all dead or conquered, if they could?
"I will not and cannot "Read Chattanooga Shooter’s Blog."
You are, then, cold coward.
"You are, then, cold coward."
Yep, That is Ann. A coward.
Ann, please tell us why you are not a coward.
Ah, no, you never will.
Five hundred and sixty-two words to excuse not being curious about Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez’s blog... Nobody said jamming square pegs into round holes would be easy.
CAIR promptly condemned the attacks yesterday.
Political expediency certainly requires this minimal effort. But, as asked above, have they severed ties with more openly radical elements?
Post a Comment