Cult Watch
See other Cult Watch Articles
Title: Islam's 'Reformation' Is Already Here - and It's Called 'ISIS'
Source:
American Thinker
URL Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/arti ... 5/islams_reformation_isis.html
Published: May 20, 2015
Author: Raymond Ibrahim
Post Date: 2015-05-20 07:36:05 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 30530
Comments: 83
The idea that Islam needs to reform is again in the spotlight following the recent publication of Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s new book, Heretic: Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now. While Ali makes the argument that Islam can reform – and is in desperate need of taking the extreme measures to do so – many of her critics contend that Islam is not in need of reform. The one argument not being made, however, is the one I make below – namely, that Islam has already “reformed.” And violence, intolerance, and extremism – typified by the Islamic State (ISIS) – are the net result of this “reformation.” Such a claim sounds absurd due only to our understanding of the word “reform.” Yet despite its positive connotations, “reform” simply means to “make changes (in something, typically a social, political, or economic institution or practice) in order to improve it.” Synonyms of “reform” include “make better,” “ameliorate,” and “improve” – splendid words all, yet words all subjective and loaded with Western connotations. Muslim notions of “improving” society can include purging it of “infidels” and “apostates,” and segregating Muslim men from women, keeping the latter under wraps or quarantined at home. Banning many forms of freedoms taken for granted in the West – from alcohol consumption to religious and gender equality – is an “improvement” and a “betterment” of society from a strictly Islamic point of view. In short, an Islamic reformation will not lead to what we think of as an “improvement” and “betterment” of society – simply because we are not Muslims and do not share their first premises and reference points. “Reform” sounds good to most Western peoples only because they naturally attribute Western connotations to the word. Historical Parallels: Islam’s Reformation and the Protestant Reformation At its core, the Protestant Reformation was a revolt against tradition in the name of scripture – in this case, the Bible. With the coming of the printing press, increasing numbers of Christians became better-acquainted with the Bible’s contents, parts of which they felt contradicted what the Church was teaching. So they broke away, protesting that the only Christian authority was “scripture alone,” sola scriptura. Islam’s current reformation follows the same logic of the Protestant Reformation – specifically by prioritizing scripture over centuries of tradition and legal debate – but with antithetical results that reflect the contradictory teachings of the core texts of Christianity and Islam. As with Christianity, throughout most of its history, Islam’s scriptures, specifically its “twin pillars,” the Koran (literal words of Allah) and the Hadith (words and deeds of Allah’s prophet, Muhammad), were inaccessible to the overwhelming majority of Muslims. Only a few scholars, or ulema – literally, “they who know” – were literate in Arabic and/or had possession of Islam’s scriptures. The average Muslim knew only the basics of Islam, or its “Five Pillars.” In this context, a “medieval synthesis” flourished throughout the Islamic world. Guided by an evolving general consensus (or ijma‘), Muslims sought to accommodate reality by, in medieval historian Daniel Pipes’s words (emphasis added), translat[ing] Islam from a body of abstract, infeasible demands [as stipulated in the Koran and Hadith] into a workable system. In practical terms, it toned down Sharia and made the code of law operational. Sharia could now be sufficiently applied without Muslims being subjected to its more stringent demands[.] … [However, w]hile the medieval synthesis worked over the centuries, it never overcame a fundamental weakness: It is not comprehensively rooted in or derived from the foundational, constitutional texts of Islam. Based on compromises and half measures, it always remained vulnerable to challenge by purists. This vulnerability has now reached a breaking point: millions more Korans published in Arabic and other languages are in circulation today compared to just a century ago; millions more Muslims are now literate enough to read and understand the Koran compared to their medieval forbears. The Hadith, which contains some of the most intolerant teachings and violent deeds attributed to Islam’s prophet – including every atrocity ISIS commits, such as beheading, crucifying, and burning “infidels,” even mocking their corpses – is now collated and accessible, in part thanks to the efforts of Western scholars, the Orientalists. Most recently, there is the internet – where all these scriptures are now available in dozens of languages and to anyone with a laptop or iPhone. Against this backdrop, what has been called at different times, places, and contexts “Islamic fundamentalism,” “radical Islam,” “Islamism,” and “Salafism” flourished. Many of today’s Muslim believers, much better-acquainted than their ancestors with the often black and white teachings of their scriptures, are protesting against earlier traditions, are protesting against the “medieval synthesis,” in favor of scriptural literalism – just like their Christian Protestant counterparts once did. Thus, if Martin Luther (d. 1546) rejected the extra-scriptural accretions of the Church and “reformed” Christianity by aligning it exclusively with scripture, Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab (d. 1787), one of Islam’s first modern reformers, “called for a return to the pure, authentic Islam of the Prophet, and the rejection of the accretions that had corrupted it and distorted it” (Bernard Lewis, The Middle East, p. 333). The unadulterated words of God – or Allah – are all that matter for the “reformists,” with ISIS at their head. Note: Because they are better-acquainted with Islam’s scriptures, other Muslims, of course, are apostatizing – whether by converting to other religions, most notably Christianity, or whether by abandoning religion altogether, even if only in their hearts (for fear of the apostasy penalty). This is an important point to be revisited later. Muslims who do not become disaffected after becoming better-acquainted with the literal teachings of Islam’s scriptures, and who instead become more faithful to and observant of them, are the topic of this essay. Christianity and Islam: Antithetical Teachings, Antithetical Results How Christianity and Islam can follow similar patterns of reform but with antithetical results rests in the fact that their scriptures are often antithetical to one another. This is the key point, and one admittedly unintelligible to postmodern, secular sensibilities, which tend to lump all religious scriptures together in a melting pot of relativism without bothering to evaluate the significance of their respective words and teachings. Obviously a point-by-point comparison of the scriptures of Islam and Christianity is inappropriate for an article of this length (see my “Are Judaism and Christianity as Violent as Islam” for a more comprehensive treatment). Suffice it to note some contradictions (which naturally will be rejected as a matter of course by the relativistic mindset): It is precisely because Christian scriptural literalism lends itself to religious freedom, tolerance, and the dignity of women that Western civilization developed the way it did – despite the nonstop propaganda campaign emanating from academia, Hollywood, and other major media that says otherwise. And it is precisely because Islamic scriptural literalism is at odds with religious freedom, tolerance, and the dignity of women that Islamic civilization is the way it is – despite the nonstop propaganda campaign emanating from academia, Hollywood, and other major media that says otherwise. The Islamic Reformation Is Here – and It’s ISIS Those in the West waiting for an Islamic “reformation” along the same lines of the Protestant Reformation, on the assumption that it will lead to similar results, must embrace two facts: 1) Islam’s reformation is well on its way, and yes, along the same lines of the Protestant Reformation – with a focus on scripture and a disregard for tradition – and for similar historic reasons (literacy, scriptural dissemination, etc.); 2) but because the core teachings of the founders and scriptures of Christianity and Islam markedly differ from one another, Islam’s reformation is producing something markedly different. Put differently, those in the West calling for an “Islamic reformation” need to acknowledge what it is they are really calling for: the secularization of Islam in the name of modernity, and the trivialization and sidelining of Islamic law from Muslim society. That is precisely what Ayaan Hirsi Ali is doing. Some of her reforms as outlined in Heretic call for Muslims to begin doubting Muhammad (whose words and deeds are in the Hadith) and the Koran – the very two foundations of Islam. That would not be a “reformation” – certainly nothing analogous to the Protestant Reformation. Overlooked is that Western secularism was, and is, possible only because Christian scripture lends itself to the division between church and state, the spiritual and the temporal. Upholding the literal teachings of Christianity is possible within a secular – or any – state. Christ called on believers to “render unto Caesar the things of Caesar [temporal] and unto God the things of God [spiritual]” (Matt. 22:21). For the “kingdom of God” is “not of this world” (John 18:36). Indeed, a good chunk of the New Testament deals with how “man is not justified by the works of the law … for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified” (Gal. 2:16). On the other hand, mainstream Islam is devoted to upholding the law, and Islamic scripture calls for a fusion between Islamic law – sharia – and the state. Allah decrees in the Koran that “[i]t is not fitting for true believers – men or women – to take their choice in affairs if Allah and His Messenger have decreed otherwise. He that disobeys Allah and His Messenger strays far indeed!” (33:36). Allah tells the prophet of Islam, “We put you on an ordained way [literarily in Arabic, sharia] of command; so follow it and do not follow the inclinations of those who are ignorant” (45:18). Mainstream Islamic exegesis has always interpreted such verses to mean that Muslims must follow the commandments of Allah as laid out in the Koran and the example of Muhammad as laid out in the Hadith – in a word, sharia. And sharia is so concerned with the details of this world, with the everyday doings of Muslims, that every conceivable human action falls under five rulings, or ahkam: the forbidden (haram), the discouraged (makruh), the neutral (mubah), the recommended (mustahib), and the obligatory (wajib). Conversely, Islam offers little concerning the spiritual (sidelined Sufism the exception). Unlike Christianity, then, Islam without the law – without sharia – becomes meaningless. After all, the Arabic word Islam literally means “submit.” Submit to what? Allah’s laws as codified in sharia and derived from the Koran and Hadith – the very three things Ali is asking Muslims to start doubting. The “Islamic reformation” some in the West are calling for is really nothing less than an Islam without Islam – secularization, not reformation; Muslims prioritizing secular, civic, and humanitarian laws over Allah’s law; a “reformation” that would slowly see the religion of Muhammad go into the dustbin of history. Such a scenario is certainly more plausible than believing that Islam can be true to its scriptures and history in any meaningful way and still peacefully coexist with, much less complement, modernity the way Christianity does.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: TooConservative (#0)
The author is a Shia and he knows full well that the Sunnis would go after his people in any reformation. Also, he is spot on on American talking heads throwing out a "reformation" quip as some sort of idea - as if the State Dept can manufacture such movement.
The author is the son of Coptic immigrants. So, a Christian, not a Shi'a. The article is months old but we hadn't had it here at LF. I thought it was an important piece, given the writer. We see Egypt's new strongman prez al-Sissi saying boldly that Islam needs a Reformation. Unfortunately, that will mean he will have to feed those who object into wood shredders, like Saddam did. No doubt, the Muslim radicals are hatching serious plots to murder him and his key supporters/staff. And we will continue to hear the usual blather about the joys of Arab Spring from all the usual neocon suspects who have peddled these disastrous policies for over a decade, oblivious (or indifferent) to the suffering of millions left exposed to ISIS/Boko/Nusra/etc. And the same neocons who have destroyed what little stability and secular society that the Mideast had in countries like Iraq, Egypt, Libya, are the same turds working in major media outlets and demanding that we invade the Mideast again to fix the problems caused by their last invasions and regime-change/nation-building exercises.
The most radical expression of the Reformation was Puritan Revolution in England. Very violent.
It easier to incite extremists than to bring real peace.
Against a very violent tyrant king who was executed. Cromwell was a great man.
There was an article written by an al-jazerya commentator and had the same title. I assumed this was the article.
Against a very violent tyrant king who was executed. Cromwell was a great man. Cromwell was not a great man.
I hope you guys didn't conclude I posted this thread just so we could rehash the Reformation. You guys lost. Get over it.
The joke is on you. I am not Catholic and the Orthodox need no reforming. What happened between Catholics and Protestants was a fight between cave dwelling barbarians who painted themselves blue as far as my ancestors were concerned.
Yeah, I noticed you weren't taking sides when you took a potshot at Cromwell. Because you don't care so much.
Yeah, I noticed you weren't taking sides when you took a potshot at Cromwell. Because you don't care so much. Cromwell carried outa near genoicde on the Irish, banned public music an theater and was a dictator - it has zero to do with him being Protestant. And talk about war on Christmans, Cromwell banned Christmas. He banned drinking in public, he banned sports. He was like a Muslim fundamentalist - he sounds like a Wahhabist in his puritanical views. The Brits were glad when he died.
I'm glad to see you still aren't taking sides in the English Reformation. My only criticism of Cromwell is that he failed to create an opportunity to execute that treacherous pope along with the king. I don't doubt that he would have executed the pope if given any chance to do so; I fault him for not finding a way to do it. I assume you want to keep posting off-topic about the English Reformation instead of posting a comment on the futility of the much-wished-for but illusory Islamic Reformation we hear bandied about by the libs and academics.
Right wingers mention that a lot also. Before the invasion of Iraq I proposed on FreeRepublic that the west should just quarntine itself from Islamic nations. Trade with them as minimumly as possible. Ban the sale of any high tech or know how. Let them wither on the vine rather than invade them and change them - a futile effort. I even propsed periodic invasion of Muslim lands as a sort of Viking raid that would last a week or so and then end as punishment for any terrorism - do this every couple of years to keep them down. I would not take their land. I would not steal their resources. They can sell us oil for food, etc. And when I mean ban on technology that would include airplanes, etc.
Good article. This should put to rest many of the specious arguments of folks here comparing the Qur'an to the Bible.
“Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.” (Matthew 11:28)
I even propsed periodic invasion of Muslim lands as a sort of Viking raid that would last a week or so and then end as punishment for any terrorism - do this every couple of years to keep them down. I would not take their land. I would not steal their resources. They can sell us oil for food, etc. Not bad. I also would not allow them to immigrate and they would head the deportation list as subversives devoted to a totalitarian cult fundamentally incompatible with American laws and ideals. Muslims are fundamentally more incompatible with America than even communists were in the Marxist era.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/secrets-of-the-vatican/ https://www.google.com/search?q=The+jews+and+their+lies https://www.google.com/search?q=Religious+affinity+Fraud etc. What do your temple Vatican eunuchs have to do with Christian Scriptures? Nothing.
“Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.” (Matthew 11:28)
The only reason I posted it. I was surprised we hadn't had it before. Arab Spring, my patootie.
Article dated 12 May at the site. So only 8 days old.
“Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.” (Matthew 11:28)
Oh, you're right. My reading comp is lame lately, it seems.
That may have worked in the 80s but with the rise of China needing fossil fuels and then Russia always flirting with the Muzzies, they would get their tech and economic markets there. Don't count out the Whore of Babylon, Europe. They do business with any one to earn a Euro.
“Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.” (Matthew 11:28)
I also would not allow them to immigrate and they would head the deportation list as subversives devoted to a totalitarian cult fundamentally incompatible with American laws and ideals. Muslims are fundamentally more incompatible with America than even communists were in the Marxist era. This was part of a manifesto (a dropped master's thesis in economics when I switched majors) where I came up with an alternative trade system than the one we have now. It basically is based on a scale where we allow free trade with countries that are like us (The UK, France, Germany, etc) in terms of their legal and political systems and openess of markets and then go down the scale till its a total embargo. China would not be granted free trade status until they reformed their system - this was written during the uprising back in day so it was fresh off that. Any nation can improve their prospects as they approach our way of life. And I would count protection of "our similar peoples" like Christians and Western settlers (like in the old Rhodesia). I think that is a better system than we have now. Mexico scored like a 75 or 65 on my scale - their corruption and restrictions on religion (religions don't own the churches that were confiscated during their revolution, etc). I would not hold it against countries that restricted immigration and this would help keep religious nations like India feering that Americna missionaries would convert their people away because of their wealth, etc. So there are some compromises to internal religous sensativities. But if local repression happens then they are downgraded on the embargo list.
China would not be granted free trade status until they reformed their system - this was written during the uprising back in day so it was fresh off that. I've thought the same for a long time. As it is, we execute trade status agreements like MFN and GATT and others. The TPA/TPP is yet another trade agreement on top of these others. We should instead simply ratchet up our MFN requirements, not keep passing more and more treaties. This is particularly evident when we have such a grossly unqualified negotiator as Lurch and a lawless prez like Obola.
Stop this crap about the Russians flirting with the Muslims. The fucking USA went to war twice in Europe to create Muslim lands out of Slavic Christians dear to Russians. The USA looks the other way as Muslim Turks control a third of Christian Cyprus. The USA would invite Muslim Chechens to the State Dept as Russia fought them. The USA is the biggest enabler of Islam in the world. Russia does back Iran as a counter the USA and Saudi Arabian Wahhabist influence. Also, it makes sense because Iran is Shia and 95% of Russia's Muslims are Sunni so no fear Iran can influence Russia's people against her. Russia has backed secular Muslim countries like Syria - and there the USA is in league with Islamist rebels that they try to pawn off as moderates. So spare me this Russia flirts with Muzzies BS.
Nothing unfortunate about it, probably some real nasty folks disappeared into the maws of Saddam's wood shredders. Good article BTW, reminds of some of Michael Scheuer's writings, he wrote about this in one of his books.
It would be like a Bretton Woods agreement - where the NATO nations agree to trade based on human rights and standards of law. This would prevent France from trading behind our backs, etc. Japan was a 90 or 95% on my scale. She got dinged because of unfavorable import practices - but scores high on internal human rights and rule of law.
Why is that unfortunate?
The war crimes against Serbia were the worst. Russia also fights Muslim separatists as a means of maintaining the territorial integrity of the CIS. There is a lot of self-interest there. Not that I blame them. I would do the same. Most of Russia's interest in Syria is tied to that puny Russian resupply/repair base in Syria. Again, self-interest that I don't fault them for but I don't praise them for acting in their self-interest either.
With appropriate penalties for any nation breaking the agreement. Like France. Or Germany. The penalties should scale sharply toward losing their own MFN status if they conduct forbidden trade.
Unfortunate in the sense that historic Egyptian co-existence with various flavors of Islam and the sizable Coptic minority did not require such extreme methods in past decades. At some point, we really have to take on radical imams and drop a few smart bombs down the chimney of their mosques while they're preaching jihad to a crowd on a Friday afternoon. You'll notice that al-Sissei has closed a lot of the small mosques, largely for this reason. Interesting that the bastion of secularism in the Mideast is no longer Turkey but that Egypt is taking a stronger secular stand than even Turkey ever did. Of course, no one offers much praise for al-Sissei's courage and leadership.
That was only because the Russians keep flirting with the Muslims.
“Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.” (Matthew 11:28)
No doubt. But also some innocent ones caught up by the secret police. One of the problems with a despot and his secret police is that the Gestapo is always out to prove they are catching the Bad Guys. And they're perfectly willing to frame the innocent to keep their numbers up. After all, a tortured corpse can't tell the dictator they were innocent all along. Even so, Saddam's Iraq was safer and happier for all than the sad weak regime we established and called "democracy". And the people knew better than to ever test Saddam as they knew him to be utterly merciless toward all subversives of any flavor.
Here's a sweet photo of one of Vlad's hippie friends, flirting with the Chechens in Grozny.
I have to say that is Russian efficiency there...to heck with LOAC and just level the entire neighborhood.
“Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.” (Matthew 11:28)
The “Islamic reformation” some in the West are calling for is really nothing less than an Islam without Islam – secularization, not reformation; Muslims prioritizing secular, civic, and humanitarian laws over Allah’s law; a “reformation” that would slowly see the religion of Muhammad go into the dustbin of history. Such a scenario is certainly more plausible than believing that Islam can be true to its scriptures and history in any meaningful way and still peacefully coexist with, much less complement, modernity the way Christianity does. Now back to the article. Somehow Cromwell and Putin got into the conversation:)
“Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.” (Matthew 11:28)
They leveled the entire city and killed off almost every man of fighting age. They have rebuilt it though. The new Grozny is quite a beautiful and modern city. And those Chechens who survived the wars know better than to test Vlad again. Or to blow up schools or subways or theaters in Russia. Vlad was cruel but he had cause. We should keep in mind that the top leadership of ISIS are all expatriate Chechens. Just as the Boston Marathon bombers were.
There were a lot of Chechens who sided with Russia in the wars. The first time not so many because it was seen as a nationalist struggle but many defected and changed sides as the Islamists took over. By the second war many Chechens switched sides (more than the first) because the Wahhabists were taking over. The current strong man of Chechnya was the son of a respected religious leader who sided with the Russians because he saw the Wahhabists as a greater threat and the jihadist killed him. His son went Chechen on them shortly.
He did not let any moss grow under his feet. Only two weeks after being appointed as Prime Minister the 2nd Chechen campaign began. I'm sure old Boris had little to do with that.
“Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.” (Matthew 11:28)
No, The USA was bombing Serbia. The Chechens probably thought if they acted up now maybe NATO would get involved - it was the plot of a Tom Clancey novel at the time also. The Chechens probably thought that with NATO in the field and Yeltsin losing his health and power and a newbie Putin coming in that now was the time to strike. The Chechens were acting up before Putin came to power.
I recall the Stain trying to warmonger and gin up another tragic war in Chechnya. What a downright evil person he is.
Comments (41 - 83) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: TooConservative (#0)
(Edited)
"...who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time;
--Thomas Jefferson, 1786
#3. To: Pericles (#1)
(Edited)
The author is a Shia and he knows full well that the Sunnis would go after his people in any reformation.
#4. To: TooConservative (#0)
#5. To: Pericles (#1)
as if the State Dept can manufacture such movement
#6. To: A Pole (#4)
The most radical expression of the Reformation was Puritan Revolution in England. Very violent.
#7. To: TooConservative (#3)
#8. To: TooConservative, A Pole (#6)
The most radical expression of the Reformation was Puritan Revolution in England. Very violent.
#9. To: Pericles, A Pole (#8)
#10. To: TooConservative, A Pole (#9)
I hope you guys didn't conclude I posted this thread just so we could rehash the Reformation. You guys lost. Get over it.
#11. To: Pericles (#10)
What happened between Catholics and Protestants was a fight between cave dwelling barbarians who painted themselves blue as far as my ancestors were concerned.
#12. To: TooConservative (#11)
What happened between Catholics and Protestants was a fight between cave dwelling barbarians who painted themselves blue as far as my ancestors were concerned.
#13. To: Pericles (#12)
Cromwell blah-blah-blah...
#14. To: TooConservative (#13)
(Edited)
I assume you want to keep posting off-topic about the English Reformation instead of posting a comment on the futility of the much-wished-for but illusory Islamic Reformation we hear bandied about by the libs and academics.
#15. To: TooConservative (#0)
How Christianity and Islam can follow similar patterns of reform but with antithetical results rests in the fact that their scriptures are often antithetical to one another. This is the key point, and one admittedly unintelligible to postmodern, secular sensibilities, which tend to lump all religious scriptures together in a melting pot of relativism without bothering to evaluate the significance of their respective words and teachings.
#16. To: Pericles (#14)
(Edited)
Before the invasion of Iraq I proposed on FreeRepublic that the west should just quarntine itself from Islamic nations. Trade with them as minimumly as possible. Ban the sale of any high tech or know how. Let them wither on the vine rather than invade them and change them - a futile effort.
#17. To: VxH, TooConservative, liberator (#2)
Ya sure it does --
#18. To: redleghunter (#15)
Good article.
#19. To: TooConservative (#3)
The article is months old but we hadn't had it here at LF. I thought it was an important piece, given the writer.
#20. To: redleghunter (#19)
#21. To: Pericles, TooConservative (#14)
Before the invasion of Iraq I proposed on FreeRepublic that the west should just quarntine itself from Islamic nations. Trade with them as minimumly as possible. Ban the sale of any high tech or know how. Let them wither on the vine rather than invade them and change them - a futile effort.
#22. To: TooConservative (#16)
Not bad.
#23. To: Pericles (#22)
It basically is based on a scale where we allow free trade with countries that are like us (The UK, France, Germany, etc) in terms of their legal and political systems and openess of markets and then go down the scale till its a total embargo.
#24. To: redleghunter, TooConservative (#21)
That may have worked in the 80s but with the rise of China needing fossil fuels and then Russia always flirting with the Muzzies, they would get their tech and economic markets there. Don't count out the Whore of Babylon, Europe. They do business with any one to earn a Euro.
#25. To: TooConservative (#3)
We see Egypt's new strongman prez al-Sissi saying boldly that Islam needs a Reformation. Unfortunately, that will mean he will have to feed those who object into wood shredders, like Saddam did.
#26. To: TooConservative (#23)
We should instead simply ratchet up our MFN requirements, not keep passing more and more treaties. This is particularly evident when we have such a grossly unqualified negotiator as Lurch and a lawless prez like Obola.
#27. To: nativist nationalist, TooConservative (#25)
We see Egypt's new strongman prez al-Sissi saying boldly that Islam needs a Reformation. Unfortunately, that will mean he will have to feed those who object into wood shredders, like Saddam did.
#28. To: Pericles (#24)
Stop this crap about the Russians flirting with the Muslims. The fucking USA went to war twice in Europe to create Muslim lands out of Slavic Christians dear to Russians. The USA looks the other way as Muslim Turks control a third of Christian Cyprus. The USA would invite Muslim Chechens to the State Dept as Russia fought them.
Russia has backed secular Muslim countries like Syria - and there the USA is in league with Islamist rebels that they try to pawn off as moderates. So spare me this Russia flirts with Muzzies BS.
#29. To: Pericles (#26)
It would be like a Bretton Woods agreement - where the NATO nations agree to trade based on human rights and standards of law. This would prevent France from trading behind our backs, etc.
#30. To: Pericles (#27)
(Edited)
Why is that unfortunate?
#31. To: Pericles (#24)
Stop this {omitted potty talk} about the Russians flirting with the Muslims. The {omitted strong potty talk} USA went to war twice in Europe to create Muslim lands out of Slavic Christians dear to Russians. The USA looks the other way as Muslim Turks control a third of Christian Cyprus. The USA would invite Muslim Chechens to the State Dept as Russia fought them.
#32. To: nativist nationalist (#25)
Nothing unfortunate about it, probably some real nasty folks disappeared into the maws of Saddam's wood shredders.
#33. To: redleghunter, Pericles (#31)
That was only because the Russians keep flirting with the Muslims.
#34. To: TooConservative (#33)
Here's a sweet photo of one of Vlad's hippie friends, flirting with the Chechens in Grozny.
#35. To: TooConservative (#0)
Unlike Christianity, then, Islam without the law – without sharia – becomes meaningless. After all, the Arabic word Islam literally means “submit.” Submit to what? Allah’s laws as codified in sharia and derived from the Koran and Hadith – the very three things Ali is asking Muslims to start doubting.
#36. To: redleghunter, Pericles (#34)
...to heck with LOAC and just level the entire neighborhood.
#37. To: redleghunter, TooConservative (#36)
#38. To: TooConservative (#36)
Vlad was cruel but he had cause.
#39. To: redleghunter, TooConservative (#38)
(Edited)
He did not let any moss grow under his feet. Only two weeks after being appointed as Prime Minister the 2nd Chechen campaign began. I'm sure old Boris had little to do with that.
#40. To: Pericles (#39)
The Chechens probably thought if they acted up now maybe NATO would get involved...
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]