Thanks Michelle, for this great forum. You’ve provided a very valuable service to Americans, and others who believe in freedom and democracy.
Mark Steyn is exactly right, that this de-reform of Islam (Jihad) is advancing quickly and powerfully, and will be difficult to deter. I’m an optimist, but winning this long-term battle against Islamofascists will be the test of several generations. I hope Americans and freedom-loving people everywhere have the courage and tenacity to fight this fight.

liberty on October 27, 2006 at 9:44 AM

I am always amazed at the depth and breadth of Steyn’s insights. From the time I first encountered his column in Canada’s National Post newspaper I have enjoyed his writing. What amazes me is that last week when his book was released, I couldn’t find it in two major Canadian bookstores; McNally Robinson in Winnipeg Manitoba, and the flagship Indigo bookstore in Toronto. I haven’t had time to look this week.

frothmouth on October 27, 2006 at 9:52 AM

Mark’s message is hard to hear but clearly right-on. We must decide if the life and civilization we’ve built and fought for for the past 400 years is worth it and then be willing to fight the enemies within and without. Times ahead are going to get tough and tougher.

The writer of the “blue states bible” should leave this country and go where he thinks he can be simpatico.

Webutante on October 27, 2006 at 10:17 AM

What this world needs is moderate Islam leaders to denounce violence. Why wont this happen? Without condemnation from Islamic leadership, does this mean they are actually radical? Surrender is suicide. Thanks to MM and crew for all you do.

infidel on October 27, 2006 at 10:20 AM

Immigration fetish! Indeed.

WOW..the Steyn/MM mutual admiration society. That is so kewl.

I couldn’t find it in two major Canadian bookstores; McNally Robinson in Winnipeg Manitoba, and the flagship Indigo bookstore in Toronto. I haven’t had time to look this week.

frothmouth on October 27, 2006 at 9:52 AM

frothmouth: Heather Reisman is not stocking it at Indigo. It says so on MS’s web site. You can order it from Amazon (USA) or from the web site.

WriterMom on October 27, 2006 at 10:33 AM

Steyn is clearly very well informed and no matter what your political persuasion it is hard to dispute the fact he presents a thoughtful, reasonable, well-articulated argument.

I found his point about how Islamic countries in the past 50 years have become increasingly radicalized, allowing Shari law to become the law of the land and eliminating Western and secular ideas from their schools particularly interesting. It leads me to this question: Without implying any sort of Rosiesque type comparison between radical Muslims and Christian conservatives, it could be argued that Christian conservatives are becoming increasing radical, not so much in their beliefs, but in their attempts to exert those beliefs on the rest of the population and have their morals legislated into law. Now more than ever the Falwell/Dobson/Perkins crowd works to have ideas they don’t believe in eliminated from school curriculums (evolution, sex education, etc.), while pushing the government to ban practices their religion disapproves of (gay marriage, abortion).

Is it a coincidence that the world’s two largest religions are both attempting (and succeeding) at getting their beliefs put into law in their respective corners of the world? Or is this a sign of the times and a result of the world we live in? I find it fascinating that in 2006, when science explains more than many ever thought it could and where overall, religion is less important in people’s lives than maybe anytime in history, the most fundamental wings of the world’s most important religions are increasing in power and influence.

JaHerer22 on October 27, 2006 at 10:42 AM

All together now:

Islam itself always was, most definitely still is, and, unless the Koran, Hadith and Sira are extesively bowdlerized, always will be evil.

The Islamic plan is to live off of other’s work by enslaving them and collecting jizyah, so Muslims are free to strut around and be “slaves to Allah”, praying five times per day.

Women are shameful, seductive, Satan-inspired creatures (”pieces of meat, hanging out there”) who populate hell, are dificient in religion and intelligence (thus sayeth Muhammad) who should be nothing more than sex slaves and pack mules.

“Umma” means ‘unlearned’, and “ulema” means learned. The ulema are the clerics, imams, muftis, etc who control the umma. What they say Islam is, it is. Listen to them, they are telling the truth.

Islam does not belong in the West, and neither do Muslims. Without Muslims, Islam would be merely a bad dream from the past invented by a psychopath.

Just because something is old does not make it true.
Just because something is believed by a lot of people does make it true.
Just because something calls itself a religion does not make it good.

Islam must be banned as a protected religion. There is no other way. I will say it again - when Saudi Arabia (the land of the two holy places) allows full freedom of religion, then I will change my mind on Islam in the West. I am not holding my breath.

There can be no compromise with this deep sickness, and there will be blood on the streets in Europe within 5 years, mark my words.

Wishing Islam to “de-reform” is a fantasy. Islam was just taking a 300-year breather. It is now back, and must hit back 1,000 times harder for every time it hits us. Force and strength is the only thing Islam understands.

I must thank Michelle for using my words, “we must not only know who WE are, but also who THEY are.” See the above.

Ethelred - questioningislam@yahoo.com

Ethelred on October 27, 2006 at 10:48 AM

Hey! Excellent interview. I like this format - have more of them!

Steyn does hit it on the head. Jihad is the ‘reformed Islam’.

CrazyFool on October 27, 2006 at 11:08 AM

JaHerer22, every law that’s passed is essentially legislating morality. Whether it originates from an atheist or a born again Christian, it’s still society forcing its morals on the population.

Christians seem to think that “thou shalt not kill/lie/commit adultery” et al. are pretty good rules for a society to live by; that gay “marriage” is detrimental. To make the leap to moral equivalence with Sharia is shallow thinking. Objectively speaking sharia is evil in many respects (its treatment of women/everyone else in the world should pay protection money/etc). Passing laws protecting unborn humans should be looked at objectively also. Is it a bad idea just because a Christian proposed it? Is it on the same footing as sharia? That’s just silly.

jdpaz on October 27, 2006 at 11:17 AM

Excellent interview. I think that one thing we must do in combating the spread of Islam is to treat it the same way we treated the spread of communism. If you look back at history, you can see the similarities of these two scourges that have and are plaguing the world. They both have started slowly and upon the end of colonialism and empires, have exploited the masses to believe the leaders and their teachings. How long did it take us to conquer Communism? Have we really conquered it, or is it merely lying dormant until another more opportune time, just like Islam has? How long did we as a country and the whole West spend fighting it? The West needs to treat the fight against Islam the same way or the USA will really be alone as Mr. Styne so eloquently states.

ic1redeye on October 27, 2006 at 11:42 AM

Ethelred,

“Umma” means ‘unlearned’, and “ulema” means learned. The ulema are the clerics, imams, muftis, etc who control the umma. What they say Islam is, it is. Listen to them, they are telling the truth.

This is an interesting point. The Islamic Revolution in Iran was partially fomented by the fact that the imams were feeling marginalized by the Shah. The shah thought that, in order to modernize Iran, he basically needed to secularize. This is the same thing Ataturk did in the Sunni state of Turkey. The imams (the ulema), realizing they were losing power, revolted by using their ummah as a military force.

The shias blindly follow their imams even more than the sunnis, so they always have a ready army of uneducated, evil young men at their beck and call. Jihad is partially a way of the imams to perpetuate and expand their own aristocracy.

PRCalDude on October 27, 2006 at 12:08 PM

The shias blindly follow their imams even more than the sunnis, so they always have a ready army of uneducated, evil young men at their beck and call. Jihad is partially a way of the imams to perpetuate and expand their own aristocracy.

PRCalDude on October 27, 2006 at 12:08 PM

If I may add a critical point. Islam, the Quran, was by Muhammed at a time when a portion of the Arabic world was waging a war of conquest. Muhammed use his Quranic writings to recruit followers and justify his dictates, conquests, and justify all the killing and subjugation he was doing.

My point. And something we should not ingore. Is that Muhammed embarked on his efforts of conquest and subjucation before he wrote his Quran.

Interesing, no?

Lawrence on October 27, 2006 at 12:25 PM

Jdpaz,

I think all reasonably sane people, whether they be Christian, Buddhist, or atheist believe the majority of Judeo-Christian law is good and essential to modern civilization. It’s nearly impossible to argue that laws against killing and stealing aren’t universally beneficial to society. However at the same time there are aspects of Christian beliefs that are not universally beneficial to society and that reasonable people can thoughtfully debate. You are right that is silly to believe an idea is bad just because a Christian proposed it, but it’s just as ridiculous for a Christian to try convince someone with different beliefs that an idea is good or bad simply because their God said that it is. I respect Christian’s beliefs on abortion and gay marriage and believe they are entitled to their opinions. However I also believe Christians should understand not everybody has the same beliefs as them and that they should not attempt to restrict the rights of others in an attempt to legislate their beliefs. If they belief abortion is morally wrong they should simply not have abortions and encourage their friends and family to do the same; if they believe homosexual marriage is a sin they should not marry someone of the same sex. I agree that every law passed in essentially legislating morality, but believe there needs to be a distinction between laws crucial for a functioning society (no murder), and laws that only serve to reinforce the moral beliefs of a particular religion. This is what separates out free, democratic society from the Islamic states living under Sharia law.

Also, I thought I made it clear that I was not comparing the crazy, backward thinking of Sharia law to Christian law. My goal was simply to point out that I thought it was interesting that the most fundamental wings of the world’s 2 major religions are both successfully exerting more and more influence on government.

JaHerer22 on October 27, 2006 at 12:55 PM

Steyn is saying somthing that I’ve believed ever since I actualy READ the Koran. There is no such thing as a Moderate Moslem. The “Islamo Facists” are actualy following the Koran as it is written, its the “moderates” who are not only in the minority, but going against written Islamic Law.

Until the West understands this, and our governments act on it… we’ve got serious problems.

Romeo13 on October 27, 2006 at 1:06 PM

Excellent Vent! Great format, clear thinking on important issues, more Please! Hot Air really is becoming the daily “must read” for those who want unbiased views not available on the Mainstream Media (MSM).

I believe the jihad variety of Muslim has been around for centuries, and the aggressive tendencies ebb and flow over time with their perceived ability to be successful in such violent activities. I believe that this violent version of Islam did not just happen in the last 50 years but is it’s natural state and has been around for centuries. We are seeing only a very mild form of what has happened in the past, and what will happen in the future, if the Islamofacist is not checked.

The Left and their notions of “multiculturalism” is the biggest problem we face in confronting this assault. Unity, common values, identification as a citizen of a proud nation – nationalism – is what we need to maintain our freedom and what the Left has consistently been trying to tear down.

Perhaps first in Europe and then later in United States I look forward to a reaction to this assault that will expose “multiculturalism” as the weakness it so clearly is.

omegaram on October 27, 2006 at 1:31 PM

Bravo, Mr. Steyn! He deserves his own show. Hopefully he will bring him back for more interviews. Or maybe he could appear weekly on Hot Air like Robert Spencer?

Free Kurdistan on October 27, 2006 at 1:42 PM

*you* will bring him back, i mean.

Free Kurdistan on October 27, 2006 at 1:43 PM

JaHerer22, you put a whuppin’ on that strawman. I don’t think you can actually point to a single case of that happening. Sure there may be some outlying nutbag who’s trying to declare yea and verily that all of society must bend to the will of God. By and large, though, the Dobson’s et al. are pushing legislation that is biblically informed but must convince the lawmakers on mostly secular grounds to get anything passed. This is healthy democracy in action and not any different than the ACLU pushing legislation that fits its worldview.

By your thinking, if I don’t have a problem with rape I should be able to go around raping people. If you have a problem with that just don’t rape anybody, okay?

jdpaz on October 27, 2006 at 2:09 PM

Anyway, we may be wandering off-topic JH22.

Mark Steyn is possibly the most articulate, intelligent person on the earth. No matter what he’s discussing he has wonderful insights to bring out. Thanks a lot and hope there’s more to come.

jdpaz on October 27, 2006 at 2:11 PM

I believe that there is one part of the solution to the Islamic Assault not explored by anyone I have heard of yet. This strategy directly addresses the concerns expressed by Melanie Phillips (melaniephillips.com) that the root cause, the belief system, of the Islamofacist is not being addressed.

The basic idea is to use the values of and laws of the United States to provide a fertile ground for a TRUE Islamic Reform. An example of this type of potential Islamic Reformation can be seen in the Christian Reformation that happen in the 16th Century begun by Martin Luther in response to corruption in the Catholic Church.

The Islamofacist maintains such complete control over so many who, I believe, do not willingly buy into many notions of current Islamic doctrine such as violent Jihad by the same oppressive techniques used by Hitler. The Islamofacist exerts control and molds consensus by using the equivalent of the Gestapo to eliminate or harm to great degree anyone they see fit, any opposition, any view that is not completely consistent with their own. In areas that are not completely dominated by the Islamofacist intimidation and criminal actions are used effectively. Examples can be seen in Europe and vivid details of this type of persecution can be described by Brigitte Gabriel at americancongressfortruth.com.

The basic premise is that there are many Muslims who are peaceful, good, God fearing people who recognize evil and would begin the equalivent of the Protestant Reformation if they were free to do so. An example, and perhaps a leader of such an Islamic Reformation would be Hersi Ali.

The basic action is to provide asylum for these persecuted Muslims, provide them with full protection as provided by existing law, and encourage them to speak their minds (freedom of speech) and initiate an Islamic Reformation that emphasis the good and decent and removes that which is not tolerant of others. Violent Jihad, oppression of women, capricious and arbitrary decisions by Islamic religious clerics, and death to those that convert from Islam are examples of reforms that would allow Muslims to not only become peaceful, but assimilate completely into Western Countries that embrace religious freedom.

Not only does this notion of Islamic Reformation address the root causes of the assault we face but is cost effective: It uses existing laws and resources to provide the freedom, the security, for change to take place.

Of course the left, such as CAIR and ACLU would immediately oppose any such efforts, but this is to be expected.

This post is way way way to long to go further but I think I got the basic idea out. I also thing the idea is worth exploring.

omegaram on October 27, 2006 at 2:15 PM

jspaz please read what I write before responding. The ban on rape clearly falls into the category of laws crucial for a functioning society.

JaHerer22 on October 27, 2006 at 2:17 PM

HaJerer22, whereas abortion does not fall into that category? And very arguably gay marriage does not?

jdpaz on October 27, 2006 at 2:27 PM

You’ve said a mouthful, Lawrence. Very nicely put.

jdpaz on October 27, 2006 at 2:35 PM

EFG! How dare you use such an insensitive term. Did everyone else feel as sick as I did when the read the 7th word from the end in EFG’s 2:13PM post?

chicanery

EFG’s a Raaaaaacist! and I will not tolerate him using any form of inflamatory terms like “chicanos.” Oh. Wait. Sorry. Thought I was still on the Tom Tom post section.

Um - back to reality.

The ban on rape clearly falls into the category of laws crucial for a functioning society.

JaHerer22 on October 27, 2006 at 2:17 PM

You’re kidding right? You’re telling me that “abortion being the murder innocent babies” is a “religious” belief that I’m trying to advance. Abortion harms no one? So just don’t have an abortion? Rape hurts people?? According to who? Yeah…some muslims believe that Rape can be used to restore honor to a family AND to the victim. Careful what you legislate away.

You can’t have it both ways. This nation is founded on the 10 Commandments. Period. That’s where the moral laws we have in this country get their moral foundations. If we erode that underpinning by saying “our laws are based on those necessary for the survival of society,” man, that’s a scary place to live. Slavery used to be justified because it was “necessary” for the survival of society. After all, the slaves had no true “society” of their own, and they got to learn ours and all. Yeah, I guess slavery was good and needed - using your logic.

It ain’t about society dude. It’s about right and wrong - 10 Commandments style. And yes, abortion is murder. Don’t believe me? Take it up with the Man when your time here comes to an end. As for me and my house, we joined His team some time ago. May you also.

y2church on October 27, 2006 at 2:43 PM

omegaram, I think Ayaan Hirsi Ali is an atheist, which, in part, illustrates the problem. But I agree that it would be ideal if those who are adamant that Islam is peaceful strongly confront the radicals and their ideology. Alas, that seems unlikely.

I think moderates have the opportunity and support outside their community, but what seems to be lacking is the will to confront their own community and actively work against the goals of the radicals, rather than just passively condemn their means.

Bryan wrote a bit about the Christian Reformation analogy applied to an Islamic Reformation, which you might find interesting: “When Atheists and Secularists Quote Scripture” posted at 12:10 pm on September 18, 2006 by Bryan.

Kevin on October 27, 2006 at 3:02 PM

“this is a fantastic thing you’re doing” said Mark about MM (and by extension - Allahpun (PBOH)).

Agreed. Props to Hot Air.

sbvft contributor on October 27, 2006 at 3:24 PM

Good post, Ethelred! There is no reform, in the Lutheran sense, for islam: this violent form of islam IS their reformation. I do not believe there is any negotiation possible with this ideology. I’m afraid that unless we are prepared to reduce islamic society to the level of Axis societies circa 1945, civilization is doomed and The Dark Ages, Part 2 will be upon us.

dcs2244 on October 27, 2006 at 3:39 PM

Nag Feminists are Commies that seek power, nothing more.

If a country needs Doctors, Nurses, Plumbers - cut taxes and work with the people of the country.

Reformation of Islam? - Christianity, period. Ann Coulter knows best.

With Japan it took a Nuke but with Islam it might take some “Muslim crusades” countered by a few smack downs; plus Christian missionaries.

ar_basin on October 27, 2006 at 3:41 PM

Ehh, let’s see if I can fix that last post of mine…

chicanery

EFG’s a Raaaaaacist! and I will not tolerate him using any form of inflamatory terms like “chicanos.” Oh. Wait. Sorry. Thought I was still on the Tom Tom post section.

It’s true. My bias manifests itself in strange and mysterious ways.

EFG on October 27, 2006 at 3:47 PM

EFG on October 27, 2006 at 3:48 PM

omegaram: I don’t think the analogy holds, nor that the results are predictable, for reasons mentioned previously. In any case, the reformation must occur from within Islam itself rather than from outside of it.

Kevin on October 27, 2006 at 3:50 PM

Response to Kevin

omegaram, I think Ayaan Hirsi Ali is an atheist, which, in part, illustrates the problem. But I agree that it would be ideal if those who are adamant that Islam is peaceful strongly confront the radicals and their ideology. Alas, that seems unlikely.
I think moderates have the opportunity and support outside their community, but what seems to be lacking is the will to confront their own community and actively work against the goals of the radicals, rather than just passively condemn their means.
Bryan wrote a bit about the Christian Reformation analogy applied to an Islamic Reformation, which you might find interesting: “When Atheists and Secularists Quote Scripture” posted at 12:10 pm on September 18, 2006 by Bryan.
Kevin on October 27, 2006 at 3:02 PM

The basic concept is to create the conditions for Islamic Reformation to emerge by aggressive enforcement of existing laws in the United States. A necessary premise to this concept is that there are many Muslims that are good, decent, God fearing people who do not believe in violence, conquest, do believe in tolerance of others, and wish to assimilate into Western Countries that hold freedom of religion as a core value.

Hirsi Ali is one clear example of a leader that emerged from the Muslim community with ideas of reform. The ones that do emerge, if the basic premise that there are good and decent Muslims is correct, may be unknown to us but will have the qualities mentioned as core values they believe in.

This idea of creating the conditions for an Islamic Reformation by encouraging those Muslims who truly are moderate to speak and lead is new to me and I don’t have all the answers. What I am hoping to do is to stimulate conversation and analysis on the topic.

omegaram on October 27, 2006 at 3:51 PM

Omegaram,

The only who for Muslims who TRULY want peace is to leave Islam and rejoin the human race (to quote Ali Sina. The more educated a Muslim is about the contents of the Koran and Hadith, the MORE likely he is to become violent.

Muhammad is the example, and “Kill the Infidels wherever you find them.” is a command from Allah for all time: past present and future.

Ethelred

Ethelred on October 27, 2006 at 4:08 PM

Response to Kevin

omegaram: I don’t think the analogy holds, nor that the results are predictable, for reasons mentioned previously. In any case, the reformation must occur from within Islam itself rather than from outside of it.
Kevin on October 27, 2006 at 3:50 PM

I think that the possibility of significant Islamic Reform is minimal or non-existent without creating the environment for change in Islamic doctrine to happen. I submit this text again as the primary reason for that conclusion:

The Islamofacist maintains such complete control over so many who, I believe, do not willingly buy into many notions of current Islamic doctrine such as violent Jihad by the same oppressive techniques used by Hitler. The Islamofacist exerts control and molds consensus by using the equivalent of the Gestapo to eliminate or harm to great degree anyone they see fit, any opposition, any view that is not completely consistent with their own. In areas that are not completely dominated by the Islamofacist intimidation and criminal actions are used effectively. Examples can be seen in Europe and vivid details of this type of persecution can be described by Brigitte Gabriel at americancongressfortruth.com.

Aggressive, definite, proactive, consistent, and determined enforcement of the laws of the United States by Federal and State authorities with regard to freedom of speech and freedom of fear for voicing such beliefs by those advocating Islamic Reform is a requiste for this movement to happen. Such an effort cannot take the form of a complaint after threats or violence has occurred, it must be planned and executed in a deliberate fashion to create such an Islamic Reformation to develop.

I agree that such an Islamic Reformation would have to come from those who are already Muslims, in good faith, with pure motives for legitimate change. Again, one of the basic premise is that there are indeed Good, decent, Good Fearing Muslims who desire assimilation into a Western Country that values freedom of religion.

The alternatives to actively creating the conditions for an Islamic Reformation lead to a World War that, I believe, will bring horrors exceeding any that have happened in the past.

omegaram on October 27, 2006 at 4:11 PM

omegaram,

All Muslims are already TERRIFIED of Allah. They are taught that this life means nothing and that only the afterlife is worth anything.

They have NO IDEA if their efforts at “following the rules” will please Allah and hence Allah sends them to paradise and not hell.

What is a Muslim to think when he reads the command from Allah to “Kill the Infidels wherever you find them”?

For that matter, what does a Muslim think (if he thinks at all) when he is told that Allah created and loves the whole universe, but hates women, dogs, pigs and Infidels?

A Muslim checks his brains at the door. You should really read more of Ali Sina’s writings.

Ethelred on October 27, 2006 at 4:23 PM

nope. :) You’re laughing with me, right? I’m not sure an embedded blockquote is possible.

Kevin on October 27, 2006 at 4:28 PM

Moderate Muslims reforming Islam is an ideological pipe-dream.

It is like if a Medieveal Muslim tried to convince Martin Luther to reform the Catholic Church. It just doesn’t work that way.

Lawrence on October 27, 2006 at 4:40 PM

Someone needs to tell those two (Steyn and Malkin) to start releasing audio versions of their books.

p0s3r on October 27, 2006 at 4:56 PM

Omegaram,

While it would be nice for us that a Moderate Muslim reformation happen, there is no movement from within Islam to do so. If they do reform, as noted previously, they would be reforming back to the fundametals of the Quran, which is what the current Jihadi movement is actually doing.

But what you and I discuss is not Reform, it is Change.

What this entails is for a large portion of the Muslim population to break away and start a new Muslim denomination that denounces portions of the Quran that promote violence. This just isn’t realistic on a worldwise scale at this point in history.

There is a slight chance that something like this could occur within Western nations. But there is no chance of such a change occuring in the Middle East or Africa at this time.

Lawrence on October 27, 2006 at 5:16 PM

omegaram, I’m curious, what specific aggressive enforcement of free speech laws are you proposing? Do you have any example scenarios in the U.S.? How would it work?

I agree with your premise that there are good and decent Muslims. I just think they are overwhelmingly more inclined to protect and gently distance themselves from the radicals, rather than confront and reform them. Of course, even beyond religious idealogy, there’s also a great deal of politics attached to Islam. For example, I don’t often hear of Muslims who are pro-Israel.

Discussing and investigating Islamic Reformation is good, and while I may be pessimistic, I don’t want to discourage efforts in that vein.

Kevin on October 27, 2006 at 5:54 PM

Kevin

Those that would advocate “change” to the doctrine of Islam and propose an “Islamic Reformation” would inevitably be subjected to threats, intimidation, and be harmed or killed if the Islamofacist had a chance. Aggressive enforcement of the law by Federal and State authorities would move to provide the security requisite for such ideas to be voiced and for an Islamic Reformation to begin. In previous post I have mentioned the methods used by the Islamofacist to silence opposition. The security I speak of would have to be a deliberate and determined effort to keep those that would start, and participate in, such an “Islamic Reformation” safe and reasonable free from fear by knowing that the United States Government is deadly serious about enforcing it’s laws on it’s own soil.

A side benefit, at least for me, would be the satisfaction of knowing that the Islamofacist who exposed themselves by voicing such threats or attempting such violence, by expressing their hate for anything other than those with their own beliefs, would be hunted unmercifully by Federal and State Authorities. For some reason it makes me smile to think that the Islamofacist would feel the fear they try instill, to know what it is to be hunted for crimes they commit, to feel the only thing they relate to is truly being applied to their detriment: Power and the willingness to use it.

Kevin, I am not advocating enforcement of free speech laws as much as enforcement of those laws in the United States that protect people from harm and fear, and the additional penalties prescribed to those that initiate such crimes based on hate.

I do not have any examples, these are all new ideas at the moment. The concept is that Federal and State authorities would deliberately protect and monitor the safety of those engaged in an “Islamic Reformation” because of the high risk of such activity. How it would work is coordination between those that seek protection from persecution from the Islamofacist, and being allowed to develop their ideas, their “Islamic Reformation” for lack of a better term, and with close protection and monitoring to insure their safety.

omegaram on October 27, 2006 at 6:25 PM

Lawrence

You are absolutely right, we are discussing change and not reform. I believe you are also correct in assuming that a large portion of the Muslim population breaking away to start a new, although related, religion on a worldwide scale is not likely. I also believe you are correct that ANY chance of reform is highly unlikely in the Middle East or Africa at this time.

The conditions for such an “Islamic Reformation” to develop, I believe, could only be created in the United States. Europe does not have the courage, the police technology, the will, the backbone, or ability to host such a movement. I believe that anywhere else in the world the Islamofacist would destroy, kill, or intimidate to such a degree that positive “reformation”, or “change” would not be possible.

I think the concept of an “Islamic Reformation” could attract enough support to become significant if those that developed such modified Islamic doctrine were pure in motive and intelligent enough to understand what to keep and what to change. Islam does have many good things to be said about it’s doctrine but this is overshadowed by so much evil, so much directive to impose harm on others, to dominate, to deny others not in a position of privilege even basic elements of human development.

There are many who believe that “Love is the most powerful force in the Universe”. Islamic doctrine in it’s current form is not consistent with that force for obvious reasons. Those of pure motive, pure heart, those truly Good and God Fearing Muslims that believe in this power have the ability to make changes to basic Islamic Doctrine. Such “Moderate” Muslims that are capable of “change” or “reform” can make a tremendous contribution to the world, the Islamic belief system, and make a significant contribution to World Peace.

This “Islamic Reformation” does not have to sway huge numbers of Muslims in the short term, although it just might. It might achieve this change in doctrine because it makes sense, and because Love really is the most powerful force in the universe that transcends all language and culture.

It is possible that such a movement could begin here, in the Untied States, if the conditions were prepared in such a way to allow for freedom of expression in a faith, that at present, is oppressed by the Islamofacist in a barbaric way that can accurately be compared to the Gestapo.

omegaram on October 27, 2006 at 6:57 PM

THANK YOU Michelle

sonnyspats1 on October 27, 2006 at 8:55 PM

Islam needs an Enlightenment. Merely ‘reforming’ the traditionally vicious tenets (sura 9:5, etc.) of Mohammadism would be like pouring the same old poison back into the new cocktail last instead of first. It remains a fatal Koranic concoction.

An Enlightenment would mean that humane interests trump supernatural dogmas. And, when the words of the “prophet” (who was illiterate) are plainly self-destructive, hateful or irrational, then modern skeptical-analytical thought would demote them to “historical curiousity” status.

Jesus rendered the paralyzed Orthodox Jewish rituals (”kosher” foods; or miltantly “doing nothing on the Sabbath”) ultimately and self-evidently meaningless with simple appeals to human decency and common sense. And did it with great wit. (”It is not what go into a person’s mouth, but what comes out of it, that makes them ‘unclean‘, etc.) Thus, his example allowed the Western Enlightenment’s minds to use his precedent to foster new understandings of petrified dogmas in the Biblical story.

Islam accepts “Isa” (Jesus) as a prophet, but they expurgated (or did not know) 99% of what he said from their ‘bible’ (the al-Qur’an). A Muslim Enlightenment would have to reinstate “Isa”/Jesus’ influence upon Islamic thought if they are to have any chance at overthrowing the murderously retrograde thinking of Mohammad and his current literalistic followers.

If Muslims fail to temper the homicidal jihadist vein within their creed, all of their veins will be opened in this growing Imperialistic Islamic War against Freedom-loving Humanity.

The rest of the world may take a long time to strike back against this rising, intolerant theocratic tyranny, but once they do, Muslims will regret having failed to rein-in their fundamentalist maniacs.

The Koran must be Transformed, not reformed. And Enlightened Muslims must do it. Or have the apocalytic wrath of those (who they now harm with their faith’s militant jihadism) rain down on their heads with all of the brutal ingenuity of modern science and primordial fury of ancient animal anger.

I wish them Illumination, not Incineration.

It is their fateful choice.

profitsbeard on October 27, 2006 at 10:39 PM

Viewing this installment was probably the most enjoyable 5 minutes I have ever spent on the internet … Vent has gone from good, to very good, to absolutely the very most goodest …

I think Michelle has given wings to MKH who is also hugely enjoyable and growing better with each installment of her HamNation … Ladies, I tip my hat and say superbly done!

pbary on October 29, 2006 at 7:34 PM