Video: Robert Spencer talks Islam with Laura Ingraham on O’Reilly
posted at 10:01 pm on November 20, 2006 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
O’R still hasn’t fully recovered from ballsgate so he and the boss had the night off. Subbing for them respectively were Ingraham and Spencer, who butted heads with MPAC member Edina Lekovic over RS’s new book, “The Truth About Muhammad.” Among the questions raised: Why don’t moderate Muslims speak out more? Does the Koran preach violence? And why does Robert Spencer want to drive Muslims into the sea?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Great clip!
God bless Robert Spencer. And I’ll have to listen to Laura more too!!
If only the moderate Muslims would stop screaming out against terrorism like they are, maybe we could all regain our hearing. The cry is deafening!!
Favourite line – ‘Drive the Muslims into the ocean.’ I’m going to try to dream about that type of world tonight as I go to bed. I’m sure that world would be hell. Imagine the world without all of the contributions of Muslims…. shudder.
Canadian Infidel on November 20, 2006 at 10:17 PM
Well, I pulled out my copy of the Koran to check Spencer’s cite of 9:29:
“Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given as believe in neither God nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His apostle have forbidden, and do not embrace the true Faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued.”
I read that as fight the unbelievers until they are dead who do not convert to Islam (”embrace the true faith”), who are not subdued and pay tribute to their Muslim conquerors.
So the Muslim woman on this segment was lying that this was not in the Koran.
Tantor on November 20, 2006 at 10:28 PM
Damn that logic and those facts! They just destroy any arguement based solely on emotion and ignorance. Stuff like this will make me lift my head up and start paying attention to my surroundings. i was so content to just be a grazer, worrying about nothing but that next mouthful of grass. Robert Spencer is a great person who needs to be protected at all costs.
DAT60A3 on November 20, 2006 at 10:31 PM
Aahhhh … Two of my favorite talkers talkin’ ’bout my favorite subject. … Life. is. good.
And Laura just keeps gettin’ better lookin’ all the time. Conservative women age like wine, liberal women (Rosie O) age like milk.
Thank you Laura and Robert for the service you provide to your country … no, your continent … no, your hemisphere … no, your PLANET!
Tony737 on November 20, 2006 at 10:34 PM
Its always the same, ‘ya hafta’, ‘you must’. These moderate muslims demand and command that we believe what they say and not what we see and hear. They continue to bash without any proof while Spencer always has examples and koran verses to back his words. ( the other community that demands in the same way, i.e. ‘ya hafta , you must, you gotta’ is the pro illegal immigrant community and its apologists.)
WHERE ARE THE MODERATES THAT CONDEMN THESE HORRIBLE ACTS?
I have listened to Laura many many times and she gives every chance to any muslim to call in or speak out against muslim islamofascists.
Where are they? Do they exist in numbers large enough to be counted?
shooter on November 20, 2006 at 10:37 PM
We need a working definition of “moderates” because I’m not sure I know what that term means anymore. Much of that confusion is directly linked to articles highlighted here on HotAir. So, what’s a moderate? Is it simply someone who thinks 9/11 wasn’t justified? All terrorism is unjustified? Supports peaceful co-existence with out faiths? Is against Sharia law being implemented world-wide? What exactly?
TheBigOldDog on November 20, 2006 at 10:38 PM
Great Clip! Great position by Robert Spencer!
The Muslim position seems to be to deny that which is written in their own texts. They are either in a state of denial or are using deliberate deception. I believe that they are engaged in deliberate deception.
Robert Spencer should be supported in every way in his efforts to bring sanity to the West – and his help to see the Islamofacist for what they really are.
omegaram on November 20, 2006 at 10:38 PM
I have to agree with Robert. Where are the anti-radical islamists? Yeah, sure, the MSM would not post a note of it, but many of us would have found it by now. The protest is just not there. IF IT IS in the mosques, why no coverage whatsoever??? Sounds like a lie to me
lsutiger on November 20, 2006 at 10:39 PM
The lady even denied what is written in the Quran. Let me quote it,”Fight those who do not believe in Allah or the last day; nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger; nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth,(even if they are of the People of the Book until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”
Pretty heavy stuff. Spencer is right. I quoting from my own personal Quran given to me by my friend–a devoted Muslim. Laura should have asked her whether she felt insulted by the pope’s remarks. What do you expect? Denial.
Ouabam on November 20, 2006 at 10:44 PM
Tantor on November 20, 2006 at 10:28 PM
I guess that I am not the only one reading the Quran.
Ouabam on November 20, 2006 at 10:45 PM
Edna Lekovic the woman from MPAC is a convert.
What happens is that converts respond to a spiritual and peaceful “presentation” of Islam (hippies who don’t become Krishnas).
An evangelist for Christianity for example simply ask one to “read the bible”. A muslim convert is told to memorize the Khoran in Arabic (without understanding what they are saying). They then avoid learning the rest (in their own language). When they do they refuse to put it in context of their own lives and the events in the world.
Agrippa2k on November 20, 2006 at 10:48 PM
Hmmm…I think Edina made a good point: the media needs to seek out the moderate muslims who are speaking out against intolerance and violence. If, as she claims, “they’re out there”, then let’s hear more from them on the news. After typing that comment, I realize it’s silly. Moderate voices in the Muslim community aren’t considered newsworthy by the media. However, I have to believe that there are peaceloving muslims in the world. I know we don’t see them and we don’t hear from them. I don’t know Islam – never read the Koran – but I’ll take Ouabam’s word on his above post. The radical Imam’s certainly seem to believe it, but again, let’s hear more from these “moderates” who are supposed to exist out there.
thedecider on November 20, 2006 at 10:57 PM
Edina lied, lied lied. More taqiyya from the religion of peace.
PRCalDude on November 20, 2006 at 11:06 PM
Decider, I hope you don’t wait too long for moderation to appear. The Hadith contain even more objectionable and undeniably violent and intolerant instructions than does the Koran. Hamas does a good job of concentrating the most objectionable passages from each in their charter
forest on November 20, 2006 at 11:11 PM
Wake up America! We’re at WAR! Why are we debating it? Why do we need a freakin’ draft? I mean, the recruiters oughta be turning people away!
“We can’t afford to be innocent, stand up and face the enemy, it’s a do or die situation, we will be invincible. And with the power of conviction, there is no sacrifice, it’s a do or die situation, we will be invicible” – Pat Benatar
Tony737 on November 20, 2006 at 11:14 PM
My favorite part is when Ms. Lukovic talks about Islam’s teaching of equality while covering her hair. Hilarious.
JasonG on November 20, 2006 at 11:16 PM
I suppose I should say ‘while wearing a scarf covering her hair.’ It might make more sense.
JasonG on November 20, 2006 at 11:17 PM
Response to BigOldDog:
Previous Vents and comments have tried to explore the issue of what is a “moderate” Muslim and detailed conversation about a potential Islamic Reformation. You may consider reviewing:
Comments in:
Support for positions that indicate agressive intimidation and persecution of those who do not support radical Islam at: , and
I believe that the “moderate” Muslim is very rare and that most support to some degree the Islamofacist and the violent Jihad. Even if their support is passive they are contriubting to the problems we face now, and are certainly not providing a voice of reason and moderation.
I do believe that an “Islamic Reformation” is possible but the conditions must be set. Consensus among many Muslims is enforced by violent persuasion that is similar to how the Gestapo maintained unity. If you disagree with them then you are harmed to great degree. Death in those areas controlled by the Islamofacist, intimidation in those areas that are not.
The links indicated above go over these issues in detail.
omegaram on November 20, 2006 at 11:19 PM
Oops, links didn’t work out, let me try again
Support for positions that indicate agressive intimidation and persecution of those who do not support radical Islam at: http://hotair.com/archives/2006/10/26/the-price-of-apostasy/
omegaram on November 20, 2006 at 11:21 PM
Sorry for the clumsy links, here are the others
Support for positions that indicate agressive intimidation and persecution of those who do not support radical Islam at: http://hotair.com/archives/2006/10/26/the-price-of-apostasy/ and http://hotair.com/archives/2006/10/19/moderate-muslims/
Comments at this link I believe discuss some elements that it would take for an “Islamic Reformation” to be cultivated: http://hotair.com/archives/2006/10/27/michelle-interviews-mark-steyn-part-two/#comments
Off Topic: How do we get the links right in these comments to make use of previous discussions?
omegaram on November 20, 2006 at 11:24 PM
Another relavent Quran verse:
Koran 9:5: “Slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush.”
Not much room for interpretation here.
DAT60A3 on November 20, 2006 at 11:26 PM
It is called taqiyya – a so-called dispensation from Allah (I think) allowing Mo’s moon worshiping imperialistic followers to conceal their beliefs when they believe they are under threat or persecution.
With basis in the Qu’ran and Hadith, Muslims are permitted to lie to infidels. Muslims lying to Muslims is another story. Typically an offense punishable through some primitive measure.
So … when a Muslim tells you they are moderate, think you can accept the statement at face value?
Nope.
Also see hudna.
AZ_Redneck on November 20, 2006 at 11:31 PM
Along with the Steyn book, Spencer’s The Truth About Muhammad is a MUST read!
MrBuzzcut on November 20, 2006 at 11:31 PM
When pigs fly.
AZ_Redneck on November 20, 2006 at 11:33 PM
AZ_Redneck: I do believe that, yes, the Moderate Muslim really does exist but is supressed by the same tactics used by the Gestapo.
Perhaps, with an open mind, some of the discussion on http://hotair.com/archives/2006/10/27/michelle-interviews-mark-steyn-part-two/#comments really are relevant.
omegaram on November 20, 2006 at 11:36 PM
omegaram: “I do believe that an “Islamic Reformation” is possible but the conditions must be set.”
I have bad news for you. Islam has already started its reform. It’s called Islamism. The reformers are the ones making the snuff videos and blowing up the trains.
Not what you had hoped for, huh?
Tantor on November 20, 2006 at 11:48 PM
The entire seg! AP, thanks for snagging the whole enchilada when it really counts. This one’s a keeper.
RD on November 20, 2006 at 11:55 PM
Tantor:
Islam is going back to what it has always been: A cult that has domination of others based in it’s core doctrine. This is not reform, it is reversion to what it has always been.
The “Islamic Reformation” I was referring to is creating an environment where reformation really is possible, where those that are involved in Islam can be free from fear to discuss the issues that make it the basis of domination. The links above give specific examples of some Islamic figures trying to make headway in that direction but are always threatened as is documented in the links above.
The one link above also has long comments on the topic.
omegaram on November 21, 2006 at 12:00 AM
Spencer sums the entire thing up with one line, when he points out that we don’t see Muslims burning effigies of Bin Laden. Think about that for a minute, then tell me how most Muslims are peaceful and not terrorist sympathizers. I’ve used this example before. Where is the KKK? Being gay with eachother around bonfire’s in their backyards around Mississippi? Why? Because the vast majority of us think they are pieces of shit and we drive them underground and they weild no power (well, except within the Democratic Party, right Byrd?). Why is the same thing not done by all these “peaceful Muslims”? With the billion Muslims in the world, surely they could stamp out the few bad apples if that were really the true situation! Surely we wouldn’t have oppressive dictatorships and radical leaders all over the Muslim world, if the vast majority of the billion Muslims were peaceful. Wake up folks.
RightWinged on November 21, 2006 at 12:28 AM
Damn it… Commeing problems have something to do with watching the videos and then posting without a page refresh or something.
RightWinged on November 21, 2006 at 12:29 AM
Commeing = Commenting
RightWinged on November 21, 2006 at 12:29 AM
…I’ve been tardy. A great many people, more wise in these matters than I, have already hit on all the points that I’d've raised — taqiyya, Sura 9:5, things like that.
I saw the segment when broadcast, and it was a stunner. Ms. Ingraham was in rare form — a better O’Reilly than O’Reilly does — and Mr. Spencer was probably a bit less forceful than his command of the facts, which are considerable, would give him the right to be. Ms. Lekovic was a joke…more boilerplate from the “Religion of Peace”.
The media should seek out moderate Muslims to get their side of the story. While moderate Muslims would be regarded by the content-hungry and ambulance-chasing 24-hour media, finding moderates out there might be like trying to interview unicorns and get sporting predictions from leprechauns.
Part of the reason is because of the bloody and bellicose nature of their religion in the first place:
…and, lest you think that, as a Christian, get some slack as one of the “People of the Book”,
…moderate, my Aunt Fanny.
Puritan1648 on November 21, 2006 at 12:38 AM
From the reference you provided
Luther, “Out of love for the truth and the desire to bring it to light” sought to turn the Catholic church from doctrinal corruption.
Jihad, for the love of Allah and Mo, is a means of turning non-Muslims to doctrinal purity and achieving peace.
Knowing what the Qu’ran states, for any professing Muslim that approaches me, given taqiyya and hudna, I really can’t trust’em any farther than I throw’em.
I won’t risk the lives of my family to “reach out” on that one.
AZ_Redneck on November 21, 2006 at 12:42 AM
Moderate Muslim is to Islam
as John Kerry is to Catholicism
as Fred Phelps is to Protestantism
as A Jewish ACLU Lawyer is to Judaism
- The Cat
MirCat on November 21, 2006 at 12:47 AM
RightWinged I believe you are right with most Muslims, they are either active in Jihad or passively support the concept. The vast majority of Muslims, I believe, are not “moderate” but rather “inactive”.
The issue becomes that there are those Muslims who would embrace religious tolerance, assimilate into the cultures they immigrate to, and become productive citizens of value. This would happen even if it is contrary to the parts of Islamic doctrine that demand persecution and domination of those of other faiths.
If this number is just 10% of 1.2 Billion that is over 100 Million.
omegaram on November 21, 2006 at 12:56 AM
…there’s a difference:
The Reformation was a return to Scripture, and away from 1500 years or more of the notion of “church tradition is of equal weight with Scripture”. It was a return to reading Scripture, in Luther’s time finally available widely in the original Greek and Hebrew, and not in the corrupted and skewed Latin of Jerome and any later additions by Rome.
They went back to the Bible to find out what they *SHOULD* be doing as Christians.
What have the Muslims to return to in reforming? The Koran, which teaches lie, cut, steal and subjugate.
I hate to be so stark on the subject, but jihadis are just doing what their book tells ‘em to do. *THEY* are the ones, like Luther and Melanchthon, Calvin and Knox, who returned to the book to see what it said. What the book said *IS* the problem.
Puritan1648 on November 21, 2006 at 1:03 AM
Puritan1648:
Yes, you are right about Luther and the Christian Reformation. The analogy that I am using is a loose one – an Islamic Reformation that I am referring to is to change the practice of Islam for a portion of Muslims in the following ways:
Allow for tolerance of others religious beliefs.
Provide Muslims a way to live within the laws of the countries they live in without conflict with their religious doctrine.
Eliminate reference to violent subjugation of others.
Promote equality among men and women.
Abandon the concept of conquest to establish a world wide Caliphate.
To name just a few ……
I believe that this change would happen for a percentage of Muslims if they had the opportunity – that is – if they were free from persecution and intimidation from the Islamofacist. I believe that many Muslims are kept to strict adherence of the Islamic doctrine, including domination and violence, by tactics similar to those used by the Gestapo.
The concept of Islamic Reformation needs to have fertile ground to grow – of aggressive enforcement of existing laws to allow for freedom of expression without fear from the Islamofacist.
omegaram on November 21, 2006 at 1:11 AM
that was such bullshit…Ingraham repeatedly interrupted Lekovic while letting Spencer speak uncensored and giving him the “last word”. The reason moderate muslims don’t call her show is because very few listen…what muslim would want to support a show implying that Islam is a religion of intolerance, and which caters to a republican base that believes the same thing?Even if she put a moderate on the air, she would dismiss him or her as “just one”, and she can’t be expected to give all her airtime to moderate muslims…hence the silence. And when Gates quotes little verses of the Qu’ran as if it proves a point…people use excerpts from the Bible which is about love and tolerance to turn it into a book about hate and exclusion constantly.Also, Islam lacks a single unifying figure such as the pope to speak out against abuses of the faith, which is one of the reasons the Muslim disgust with the “jihad” is under-reported. Finally this bs about most of islam passively or actively supporting jihad against america is ridiculous, there are 7 million muslims in the US, if that were true our country would be in flames…if you turn this into a holy war and hate or defame islam you’re doing just what the terrorists want, dividing the world along religious lines and causing violence because of it.
crr6 on November 21, 2006 at 1:19 AM
A moderate Muslim is like a moderate Nazi. When the dust finally settles in this war, they are going to be the ones that utter “I was just following the Koran”. When, in fact, they have the ability to marginalize the extremists among themselves. They don’t restrain them because they believe in the cause and that is a fact.
x95b10 on November 21, 2006 at 1:24 AM
I think a reason that the voices of moderate muslims aren’t heard is because there is no single unifying figure, such as the pope to serve as an authoritative voice…please don’t start with the “most muslims agree with the jihad” bs, if that were accurate than america would be in flames. there are 7 million muslims in america and even if the many of your invented “jihadists” were passive, that would leave hundreds of thousands actively seeking to destroy are country through any means necessary…from the inside, which clearly is not the case. The irony in republican rhetoric is that it is this kind of intolerace and defamation that is exactly what the terrorists want, if we divide this counrty and this world along religious lines (condemning an entire 1 billion strong-religion as a religion of intolerance) we are just perpetuating the holy war they want.
crr6 on November 21, 2006 at 1:28 AM
…their book won’t permit it. Full stop.
…again, their book — the parts I’ve read, and I’m not in any way a scholar — doesn’t appear to give them this option. You can be a casual Muslim or a sincere Muslim. A sincere Muslim, who takes his prophet at his word, *CAN’T* do what you suggest.
…that would mean both redacting their book *AND* overthrowing volumes of Hadith.
…actually, and this is going to sound bad, in light of what’s going on today, gender equality is not as hot an issue as some make it out to be. I’d sooner let their women continue to walk about in draperies and be denied drivers licenses if it meant that their men wouldn’t be blowing themselves and others to pieces and exercising the more sanguine admonisments of their book.
…that is more a cultural, historical and geopolitical manifestation of their religion, which doesn’t claim that it’s *JUST* a religion. Islam is an all-inclusive system, touching unapologetically on civil as well as spiritual mattes.
There is no “two kingdoms” doctrine in Islam, as in Christianity.
…the ground will be fertile, all right…fertilized by any and every scholar who tries to do anything even approaching recasting of the Koran or the legal and historical traditions of Islam in any way. “High criticism” won’t go in Islam. It would be blasphemy, heresy and treason, all rolled into one…and we know how our less curious Muslim friends deal with heresy and all of that.
I don’t think that you can reform Islam without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. That is, however, what is needed….
Puritan1648 on November 21, 2006 at 1:29 AM
woops, sorry for the double post^^
crr6 on November 21, 2006 at 1:30 AM
The problem with this perspective is that the Koran is, religiously speaking, a substantially more powerful text than the Bible or any other text of any other world religion. Unlike these other texts, the Koran is considered to be written not by divinely inspired men, but by God himself (indeed, there is a copy of the Koran in heaven). Worse, it was not delivered in some archaic language that is ill-understood, but directly in Arabic. This is a rather stark distinction.
What it means is that, essentially, the Koran cannot be interpreted. There are no language barriers and no degrees of human fallibility of transcription to appeal to. Its words are God’s words, not ours, and God could not have been mistaken in his instructions. As such the Koran can be commented on, and discussed, but when its wording is clear (oddly, God was apparently not always a master of Arabic grammar as humans understood it…), there is no wiggle room for reform. Indeed, to attempt to dillute the intent of God’s explicit words is the path to apostacy.
Of course, not all Islamic texts are included in the Koran, and it is primarily debate over the value and meaning of these external texts that have resulted in the current differing sects of Islam. One might argue that moderate reform might hope to find a basis there. But with the Koran as explicit it is, and with its character as unchallengeable as it is, that hope is rather hard to find. Indeed, throw out all the external texts, and the Koran alone still leaves a fundamental blueprint for conquest–both physical and ideological.
Blacklake on November 21, 2006 at 1:30 AM
I applaud your intention but should this reformation actually happen, would they really be ‘muslim’ anymore?
The book is the religion, is the law, is the state. Anything else is apostasy.
Would that it were not so.
And if Entelechy is still around, please check my response back on the skerry is a dork thread. My comments in that thread weren’t directed at you, my friend.
techno_barbarian on November 21, 2006 at 1:32 AM
…I reply along the same lines, only to find that someone, probably typing as I was typing, put things so very much clearer than I ever could. Hit the nail solidly.
Kudos, B.
Puritan1648 on November 21, 2006 at 1:38 AM
The reason that there are not more Muslims actively pursuing violent action in the United States is because law enforcement is strong. The United States will not be in flames – the Islamofacist who violates the laws will be in prison for a long, long, long, long time.
If law enforcement was not strong in the United States we would have conditions that are developing in France as we speak – areas that are essentially turned into Islamic enclaves – for now. I believe that what is about to happen in France, the French retaking their country and seeing the Islamofacist threat for what it is, will not happen here because law enforcement is way ahead of the game.
The reason that there is not more “moderate” Muslims voicing their views is that they either sympathize to some degree with the Islamofacist or are subjugated by intimidation and threats.
The issue here is that the world IS being divided along religious lines, and has been for centuries (wake up fool). The difference now is that the West is coming under increasing attack and many see the next World War coming.
omegaram on November 21, 2006 at 1:40 AM
This, and your previous post are both interesting points. I don’t agree with Islam, but I understand what you’re trying to say here. It makes sense that there is no single leader of Islam – other than Bin Laden and his ilk (the Taliban) to really explain the tenants of Islam, but I think the one’s who are forefront in the world today are so radical that one can only conclude the entire religion is bunk, and anti-western. When we see everyday women in burka’s, we only see oppression. There seems to be no room for dissent without risking one’s head, or the life of a family member. This is why Islam is perceived as being radical.
thedecider on November 21, 2006 at 1:47 AM
Puritan, Techno-Barbarian, Blacklake, you are all right, Islam is deeply rooted in subjugation of others. Perhaps we should examine the alternative of encouraging an Islamic Reformation.
I think we all see where the Islamofacist assault is going to lead us – espeically after Iran has nuclear weapons. World War is coming, when and how large is the issue. The Islamofacist will not be turned from their conquest and I for one, among many others, will protect my freedoms and what I hold dear.
If there is a way to moderate such a conflict, a way to turn a significant portion of the Muslim to ways of peace, why not explore the alternative? I believe that their is foundation to the concept of an “Islamic Reformation” in the links to previous vents in this commentary.
You are right, the new belief would not be strictly Islamic by the standards you have so clearly shown. The Issue is that the Islamic doctrine would still have the elements of faith that bring so many to enlightenment – but remove the elements that demand subjugation and persecution of others.
Do you have a better idea short of increasing hostility, violence, and eventually World War?
omegaram on November 21, 2006 at 1:50 AM
As far as the unifying voice; that’s what the imams are. And they’re preaching the most violent of the koran’s and mo’s teachings.
You should hear what Brigitte Gabriel has to say on the subject. hamas, islamic jihad, and aq all have organisations in most of the states of the United States. Right now.
Your logic is flawed. They dare not rise up openly here because we are a well-armed populace.
And something else you’re failing to understand is that they will not be deterred. Their religion endorses strategic deception. They are at war with us whether you or I want it or not.
I’m not being hateful or a war monger. This is what lies in front of us. It’s been building since 1979. Remarks like yours only serve to encourage those ‘invented’ jihadis that actually happen to be out there, because you’re weak and afraid, and oh so willing to appease them. And they’re counting on that very thing, because that’s the only way they can defeat us.
So thanks for doing your part.
techno_barbarian on November 21, 2006 at 1:55 AM
Armed action against the Islamofacist by private citizens would be punished more severly than against the Islamofacist who engages in criminal acts in the current political climate.
One of the great strengths of the United States is it’s law enforcement system. Violence from any party will result in immediate prosecution and long prison sentences. This state of law and order, which so many countries lack, keeps conflicts such as with the Islamofacist from developing into a form of civil war.
I invite you to witness what is happening in France and where it will lead.
omegaram on November 21, 2006 at 2:02 AM
The key point being, an Islamic Reformation would have to move away from the texts, not toward them, in order to be of any use.
To pick up on BigOldDog’s point & question/food for thought:
Scholars like Spencer have argued before that if a “moderate” Muslim is simply someone who rejects terrorism, that is no more helpful in the long run than someone who does; the ideological foundation is still the same.
The only definition of “moderate” Islam that ought to be minimally acceptable to the West has to be one that rejects all forms of jihad (except for one’s internal struggle to lead a moral life); provides an unimpeachable theological basis for full equality of rights under the law between Muslims and non-Muslims, women and men; does not interfere with the sacred/self-evident right of humans to make man-made law; and makes it clear that Muhammad’s example is not acceptable for others to follow with regards to child rape, slavery, aggressive warfare and wanton deception toward others, as well as his other examples of devious and pathological behavior.
If we want definitions of this kind to stick, we have to start demanding them, start fighting for them in the public square. And challenging those involved to either meet those definitions or else spend their time trying to convince us why they aren’t acceptable, how that is somehow asking too much.
P.S. Notice how Edema deflected questions like the one about Saudi Arabia: she uttered not a word about the place, it was all about Muslims in the West. Nothing about non-Muslims not being able to practice their religion in Saudi Arabia, no word about the Kaaba and other holy places being off-limits. Nothing about what that demonstrates about Islamic supremacism. But she didn’t skip a beat did she…
RD on November 21, 2006 at 2:08 AM
Edina Lekovic does a better job than Jim Carrie in this new sequel of “Liar, Liar”.
Shy Guy on November 21, 2006 at 2:14 AM
Wow – several posts since I started typing above… all with excellent points (except crr6, who is misguided on several points IMHO).
Yes, and on some level (sadly) it is irrelevant (at least in the “pre-Reformed” Islam we are dealing with now) whether a nominal Muslim sympthasizes with the Islamofascist or is merely intimidated into silence. Because, as Walid Shoebat says in Islam: What the West Needs to Know, “Islam is not a religion for personal use.”
If you’re born into it, you really don’t have a choice except to go along and get along.
RD on November 21, 2006 at 2:23 AM
No-preview-button alert: that should read, “that is no more helpful in the long run than someone who doesn’t [reject terrorism].”
RD on November 21, 2006 at 2:29 AM
I just finished “The Truth About Muhammad.” yesterday. Excellent read. We need to send a copy to each and every congressman on the hill.
… and two copies to Speaker Botox.
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on November 21, 2006 at 6:44 AM
They carried the flag beautifully! I love a tag team of two good looking intellectuals stomping the Libs flat.
Thanks Allah for showing the clips! I’m still in the hills and can’t get any news except for scraps off the web on a Blackberry. When I emerge, will the world have ended?
seejanemom on November 21, 2006 at 8:35 AM
As I stated on the other thread, there are no “moderate” or “radical” muslims. They’re either fundamentalists (emphasis on mental) or they’re apostates. We have millions of muslims in this country, if they’re not killing or converting anybody it’s because they’re either A) apostates who don’t believe in that sorta thing, or B) fundies who know that they haven’t reached a level of power and numerical superiority to try to force their religeon on anyone yet. YET being the key word. The koran says do not attack until you have built up your forces enough to win the battle. And you may only retreat when outnumbered more than 2 to 1. They’re nowhere NEAR this number in the U.S. but look at how they act in London and Paris. Once they get enough of their people together in one place, they suddenly become emboldened to act on allah’s commandment that they spread their religeon through violence (and procreation, which they ALWAYS do). I believe muslims in OUR country are more likely to assimilate than they are in Fwahnce or Eeeeengland because those countries have a more structured class system than we do. But that’s a whole ‘nother topic.
Suggested reading for … um … Hotheads? Airheads? anyway…
While Europe Slept – Bruce Bower
crr, if what you said about ‘the Republican point of view on islam’ were true, we wouldn’t be liberating 50 million muslims and setting up elections for them to vote in, would we?
Tony737 on November 21, 2006 at 8:36 AM
Thanks for showing this.
As long as moderate Muslims continue to claim, “We are speaking out” they will be looked at with raised eyebrows.
She said, “They do it in the mosques” – well whoop-dee-do, they need to take it to the streets, they have enormous fund raising capabilities, they could buy air time and ink to show they are truly against it, where are the Bin Laden dummies burning in effigy?? Where are the “Bin Laden – World’s Worst Terrorist” Signs held by Muslims in protest rallies (across from the “Bush – World’s Worst Terrorist” signs)?
The lady failed to convince any non-Muslim Americans that moderates condemn terror.
flagwaver on November 21, 2006 at 8:40 AM
Every action compels an equal and opposite reaction. The action of the terrorists sets the need for that reaction pretty danged high. Right now, we have an incredible void because we’re not getting that reaction from the Muslim community. Hence, the reaction we give in order to fill that void is, “Where are all of you?” We keep asking it more and more insistently every time we ask, wait, and hear crickets chirping. We get really annoyed when the crickets get shouted down by someone who doesn’t even know the scripture she’s chosen to defend.
Ms. Lekovic, organize and lead a million-muslim march on DC to protest the acts of the terrorists and offer a new interpretation for chapter 9. Then, maybe I’ll find your words more credible.
flutejpl on November 21, 2006 at 9:21 AM
It’s hard to disagree that many verses from the Koran explicitly call for violence against nonbelievers and call for war against Christians and Jews; but, at the same time if you cherrypick verses from the Bible or the Torah you can find these same type of verses. Indeed, during the crusades and throughout much of history the Bible and the Torah were used to justify violence.
No one today though would call Christianity a violent religion, while at the same time no one would argue the Christians today are less Christian than those of 600 hundred years ago because they no longer evangalize by the sword. My point is that while it may be difficult, history has proven a religion can change in fundamental ways without abandoning its core faith. The radical Muslims of today would fit right in with the Radical Christians of the Middle Ages, unfortunately it’s 2006. I don’t think the problem is with Islam itself, but with the fact it has not evolved, reformed, and modernized the way other relgions have.
JaHerer22 on November 21, 2006 at 9:37 AM
Edina Lekovic is nothing more than a mouthpiece for Jihad propaganda.
infidel4life on November 21, 2006 at 9:48 AM
Umm… doesn’t that kind of a rhetorical statement. The problem isn’t with Islam, but the fact that it hasn’t modernized? Doesn’t that point back on itself?
Un-modernized, Un-reformed, Un-evolved, Islam bad. Yet there isn’t any other kind of Islam… so what are you trying to say?
Also, you really need to read one of Mr. Spencer’s books. I am afraid that you may not know as much as you think you know.
I can cherry pick verses from the bible as well as the next man, but with the Koran, Jihad is a main tenant of the faith.
Killing unbelievers is not a tenant of any Christian faith that I am aware of.
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on November 21, 2006 at 9:54 AM
x95b10, the “moderate Nazi” analogy is perfect. It is time we challenge our moderate muslim friends to action.
Valiant on November 21, 2006 at 10:05 AM
Yep… and a long-term one at that… not likely to evicted any time soon, JaHerer22.
RD on November 21, 2006 at 10:10 AM
I’m trying to say that Islam in its current state may be bad, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be changed and modernized. Many seem to concede Islam is evil by nature, Muslims are irrational, and thus we might as well eliminate them all before they kill us. Compare the Islam of today with the Christianity of 1000 years ago and there are many similarities. Christianity has changed significantly whereas Islam has not, just as Western society has changed signficantly while Middle-Eastern not nearly as much.
I agree, but that doesn’t mean the Bible did not tell it’s followers to kill nonbelievers, we have just moved on and evolved as a religion, something Islam could learn from.
“But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee: That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the LORD your God.” (Deuteronomy 20:16-18)
JaHerer22 on November 21, 2006 at 10:34 AM
I saw this link on Drudge and thought it was pertinent to thos thread:
http://torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Burnett_Thane/2006/11/19/2417550-sun.html
Troy Rasmussen on November 21, 2006 at 10:42 AM
The subtle meanings in words used in Islam can make a huge difference. For example, ‘peace’ to Westerners means no war, no violence, sort of along those lines. To a Muslim, ‘peace’ means ‘rule by Islam.’ So they are the ‘Religion of Peace’ which means ‘Religion of Rule by Islam.’ But as was mentioned, they will hide/lie about the truth when confronted with it.
Jonathon on November 21, 2006 at 11:01 AM
Laura said she had a 101 degree temperature before the show. She’s one tough cookie.
Kevin M on November 21, 2006 at 11:09 AM
Actually, there’s no place in the Bible which prescribes such actions. There are passages in the Old Testament that describe such actions taking place (usually against specific peoples who no longer even exist), but not in the form of instructions for all Jews who ever live to behave similarly. (And there is nothing at all like that anywhere in the New Testament.)
But that’s a moot point. Even if the Old Testament did explicitly prescribe violence against non-Jews, or if Jesus had been quoted as having ordained the beheading of all Italians, the bible is not perceived as having been written by God. As such, over time it is possible to de-emphasize most (if not all) passages as having been the result of human failings, and hence “reform” the religion to adjust to changing political sensibilities over time.
The reason that Judaism and Christianity have changed and “modernized” over the past 1300 years and that Islam has not is that such interpretations of the Koran are simply not possible. The Koran is believed to have been literally written by God, who is incapable of error. As such, no portion of it can be “interpreted” by humans, even in ways that can lead to substantial disagreement, let alone to significant reformation. When it comes to the critical issues of expansionism and subjugation, Islam simply cannot change.
Blacklake on November 21, 2006 at 11:22 AM
Sure. I’d recommend all Muslims convert immediately to Buddhism. But the ball really isn’t in our court.
Blacklake on November 21, 2006 at 11:28 AM
…and, if there were any “Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites” still around, resisting the will of the Almighty by their idolatry or even by their presence, I suppose that this would be an issue.
You can also see, I hope, that Christians and Jews aren’t rushing around killing off Jebusites today. There *ARE* however still a host of Christians and Jews around, and Muslims are killing them.
…as to Islam “evolving”, who has the time for them to come to maturity as a people? They’re killing people *NOW*.
Can Islam evolve? Not according to elementary programming technology. Garbage in, garbage out, remember. If the *BASIC* document of the faith mandates subjugation, beheadings, warfare and destruction unless nonbelievers relent, convert or accept second-class status, reformation will only ever be a form of mutation, not of genuine evolution. Islam, then, will “re-form”, as in change shape…not get any easier to live with.
Puritan1648 on November 21, 2006 at 11:29 AM
Before allowing the girl to even get started, Laura should have asked her if she thought Israel has a right to exist. This should be the policy of any discussion show with guests which brings on any Muslim guest.
urbancenturion on November 21, 2006 at 11:38 AM
“Slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and bang ye 8-year-old girls and make thee your wife as Momhammed, and all shall hail our gutter religion.
Or maybe not.”
Teddy on November 21, 2006 at 11:44 AM
Slightly OT:
AP-whenever the remark about no muslims in the future pops up, you manage to nip it in the bud before it grows into a weed. I offer to your toolbox the movie Pitch Black with Vin Disel. There are three muslim characters and I think the lead actor’s name is Keith David. He was also in Armageddon and The Chronicles of Riddick.
allie on November 21, 2006 at 11:45 AM
I don’t know enough about the Koran to debate its specifics and what they mean but my basic point is this:
In the Bible, God instructs his followers to kill and conquer nonbelievers. We accept this but do not interpret it as a call to do the same b/c of the teachings of Jesus, thousands of years of history, etc.
In the Koran, Allah commands his followers to kill and conquer nonbelievers and Muslims do interpret this as a call to do the same. Hence, interpretation is key and reform is possible. Certainly not easy or quick, but possible. Claiming Muslims are by nature violent, incompatable with our society and need to be destroyed or stopped is a cop out. Unfortunately, a clash of the civilzations may be inevitable. Many people here seem to be looking forward to it though, all too ready to resort back to the days of Holy Crusades, killing Muslims for the glory of God and the West. This is just sad.
JaHerer22 on November 21, 2006 at 11:55 AM
Ms. Lekovic’s own organization spends more pixels and breath condemning Jews and Israel and GITMO than it does condemning Islamofascistic Terrorism.
Just click over to the MPAC website:
You’ll see press releases (they call them “commentaries”) such as:
U.S. Jews at Home in Politics
Town Hall with the FBI
Ellison Becomes First Muslim Congressman
MPAC Condemns Israel’s Violation of American Law
MPAC Honors Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of IAEA, for Bolstering Human Security
From the Executive Director: What Should Muslim American Leaders Expect from US Gov’t Iftars?
MPAC Disheartened by Passage of Senate, House Bills on Rules Governing Detainee Treatment
MPAC Urges President, Congress to Uphold Geneva Convention in All Cases
MPAC Decries Swastika Flags on CA, FL Freeways
Styopka on November 21, 2006 at 12:17 PM
From what little I have read, there are basically three threads in modern Islam today:
1.Conservative Scholars (most Wahhabi)don’t know where they are;
2.Saudi Establishment Clerics who frequently disagree with the Jahadis and threaten their ideology and are supported by the House of Saud;
3.Jihadi Theorists who follow Sayyid Qutb who wrote “Milestones” (similar to Mein Kampf); Palestinian theorist, al-Maqdlsi, a cleric from Jordan; Abd Allah Azzam the organizer in Afghanistan.
What does this all mean? If you all would take the time to read Martin Amis’ “Horrorism”..it is very long, and has the typical securlar slant and a small rant against religion, you can begin to understand what we are up against. You can find the Essay at The Observer, UK and it is worth reading every word. We should replace the word jihadi with QUTBISTS.
Under Qutbism, there is absolutely no negotiation or moderation possible. They want the world under Sharia Law and they are the ones in the forefront.
I would also bet 99% of the Muslims don’t even know or could begin to understand what it is they are trully raging against. They have no idea what it is they are advocating, including Edina. If only 50% of the Muslim population on the planet could stand up and decry the terrorists we might get somewhere, possibly. But, I doubt it. Torture and death not only to oneself but to one’s entire family is too horrorific for them to contemplate.
sharinlite on November 21, 2006 at 12:23 PM
JaHarer22
HotAir ate an earlier response of mine to you.
The Crusades were not just Christians killing Muslims for the glory of God. They were a direct response to over 350 years of relentless and extraordinary violent expansionism by islamics. The West finally stood up and beat them back, before being conquered completely.
Do I agree and revel in the glories of those times? No. Did they happen for a very good reason? Yes. Did a lot of really bad and un-Christian things happen during those dark times? You bet. Am I proud of that? Nope.
As I said to omegaram earlier up the thread, it is nobel that we seek and root for non-violent ways of islamic reform. But if you really study islam, the koran, the hadiths and other key islamic teaching/governing documents you’ll see that the religion has boxed itself in and not left very much room at all for peaceful reform.
The religion/state condones and encourages islamic peoples to deceive the non-muslim until they have the numbers and power to attempt political and military victories against all infidels. I wish it were not so. But there it is.
Look at the demographic trends in europe, and russia, and many other countries. Infiltration. Feeding on the host until they’re strong enough, and have inserted themselves into the legal systems of the host countries and peoples. It’s a pattern that has repeated for 1400 years.
I think you misunderstand the belief and intent of many here. But at least you are reasonable in your posts and responses. And I very much welcome that level of discourse.
techno_barbarian on November 21, 2006 at 12:29 PM
As I was quickly scrolling down the homepage, the headline my eye misconscrugulated was “Robert Spencer talks with Imam Laura Ingraham…”
Uh…maybe not.
eeyore on November 21, 2006 at 1:10 PM
[crr6]
First, why are people always presuming power and omnipotence that doesn’t exist? We don’t wield such power over the minds of other men in other lands. We can no more make a Muslim a jihadist by calling him names than we can turn a Thai Buddhist into a jihadist by doing the same. (Call a Buddhist intolerant a million times, and he’ll still just look at you strangely, nod his head and be on his way. He doesn’t need your validation to confirm his self-worth or righteousness.)
Second, WE are on the defensive here. If there’s holy war, it is because it will have been brought TO us.
RD on November 21, 2006 at 2:32 PM
JaHerer22 I’m with you in spirit, but the big problem is your lingering optimism in the face of insufficient knowledge about the Koran and the Hadith. The basic point of disagreement is, Christianity and Islam are *not* equivalent with respect to [re]interpretation. Even a short amount of exposure to the epistemology behind Islamic doctrine will wise you up quickly.
That’s at best a conjecture – a hopeful one, but a conjecture nonetheless. Are you willing to concede that? (FWIW “Might be possible” makes a stronger argument than “is possible” but what do I know :-)
Once/if we were to agree that reform might be possible, then we’d collectively have to consider each point of Islam’s belief structure in turn in order to evaluate how likely it is that Islam would reject jihad/Sharia/jizya/ghanimah/taqiyya/nasikh in toto, and if so, exactly what steps it would take to accomplish. (From my point of view, it would require the shattering of the notion that the Koran is a perfect copy of an eternal book, kept in Heaven for all time, and dictated to the prophet Muhammad word for word over a 20-something year period by the angel Gabriel. Why that’s the case, ask me some other time :-)
And it would require inviting severe criticism of the prophet Muhammad as an immoral and misguided being who brought great harm and injury to the world he was ostensibly trying to “improve”.)
The resulting dialogue would begin to flesh out the contours of a possible reform angle, assuming there is one.
Or, we could simply point to the inhumanity of Muhammad’s example and begin challenging Muslims to defend him. The resulting cognitive dissonance might begin to rupture the fabric causing many people to apostasize. Only then – with the actual example of millions of apostates staring them in the face – would “scholars” begin to dare to consider that perhaps Muhammad ought not to be taken literally. But the shame of defending a psychopath – and the apostasy that follows it – will have to come first IMHO.
RD on November 21, 2006 at 2:49 PM
crr6
The reason America is not in flames – yet – is “pushback.” Jihadis try something and see how much pushback there is. In Europe, there is less and less pushback, so they can increase the intensity of their actions. If over 100 cars a night were being torched by “disaffected youth” (as the French call them), they know they would get pushback here. When Norwegian women were gang-raped for not wearing head coverings, an Oslo professor blamed Norwegians for not dressing more appropriately in their newly multicultural country. And in Spain, the Madrid bombings actually changed the outcome of the national elections, so there was actually what might be called “pushforward”.
If World Trade Center 2001 had been treated the same way WTC 1993 had been, things would be moving much more quickly here on the jihadi front. And knowing they face so much opposition here, they also may not want to waste violent actions on small fronts. I would be very suprised if there is not intense planning for actions much larger than 9/11 going so that the severity of the damage will be worth the inevitable level of intense pushback they will certainly receive.
eeyore on November 21, 2006 at 3:05 PM
An excellent idea, RD! Convienient though, isn’t it, that islam forbids depictions of big mo in any form. It allows them to get sidetracked and outraged at the depiction and consistantly deflect any direct questions being posed. Still, it needs to be done. Robert Spencer has taken a BIG step in that direction. Others need to follow and not cower in the inevitable propaganda attempts to change the subject.
Good post, RD.
techno_barbarian on November 21, 2006 at 3:09 PM
…not being an expert in the Koran — is anyone here? — or the Bible limits the weight of ones argument, but taken at its word, the Koran is, in my experience, easier to interpret and discuss than is the Bible. The Koran is anything if not blunt.
In the passage of Deuteronomy you cite, the Israelites, wandering from Egypt until the Egyptian vestige died out, were being instructed to take posession of the land promised to them by the God of Israel. They were to cleanse it and supercede life there. The practices of the people there offended God, but that explains these harsh measures to the Children of Israel, and was their “marching” orders…then…back in the 13th Century BC.
The orders given were pretty explicit, and not much interpretation was need. Kill ‘em, sweep land clean of ‘em…then they were to get on with your lives.
It should be noticed that, once the land promised was taken, folks did settle down. That were the usual Middle Eastern “misunderstandings” — the word “Philistine” comes to mind — but those were specific instances.
They spend the subsequent 34 books of the Old Testament (Joshua though Malachi) failing again and again to follow the ordinances of their God, even to the point of exile and ruin.
The teachings of the The Christ may color or soften the stories of the Old Testament to some, but the lessons of the Old Testament were the buttress both Christ and later Paul would use in speaking to the Jews of their day, and to us today…meaning that the tales of Joshua’s marching orders to whack the Jebusites has something to teach us.
After all, in Luke 24:27, on the road to Emmaus, the risen Christ tutors followers on that road of his ministry:
The Man himself did the interpreting.
Mohammed, on the other hand, was — if you believe the source of the Koran as being Allah speaking through a venerated secretary — said to kill and conquer *ALL* unbelievers, until they were either Muslim, subjects or dead. Check back in Deuteronomy again, and you’ll see no call for conversion. Furthermore, the order has a “wear-out date”: when the Amorites, Perizzites and Jebusites, etc., are swept from the land, go ahead and put the banner up, and “Mission Accomplished”.
…differences in the root document, then, in the revelation itself if you will…not differences in interpretation.
For that matter, Muslims aren’t even *ALLOWED* to reinterpret their source documents or their laws. I thought I’d seen it on this thread, but maybe it was on another, either way there was an *EXCELLENT* simple treatment of that by a HotAir poster. In that post, it said that, unlike the inspired writings of the Tanakh/Bible, the Koran places *ITSELF* in another league. It’s not even supposed to be translated! You can’t fiddle with it. Furthermore, discussion of it can only go so far.
There was a guy recently who reviewed the Koran, written in what I’ve heard described as tortured Arabic, hardly transparent. He said that the whole “72 virgins” thing was a mistranslation of what might instead have been “72 white grapes”. We’ve of course all heard of this, but my point isn’t Koranic falliblity, but that the guy who pointed this out was excoriated as being an apostate, a questioner of the unquestiionable, a rocker of Islamic boats, and in general a guy who’d best seek out employment in a bunker somewhere…with a pretty heavy security detail.
If you can’t even criticize what, even to casual eyes, is a bellicose and bloody-minded document, let alone the body of legal and social traditions which’ve grown out it, you’re counting too much on human nature to think that reformation is possible.
You may think that man’s intrinsic and basic goodness will win out. As a Calvinist, I’d have to point out that you’re waiting in the station for a train that never set out…because it doesn’t exist. Consider this from the standpoint that mankind will take revealed truth and screw it *ALL* up.
Mankind’s they tried to do with Christianity — the gnostics, Marcion, Pelagius, Arian, the medieval Roman church, the modern evangelical movement by and large — and you see my point. When you start from something which might have little truth in it from the first place, you might see that, however many people esteem Islam, any attempts to reform would be attempts to fix a broken watch that ran backwards in the first place.
Puritan1648 on November 21, 2006 at 3:34 PM
Miss Lukovic forgot to mention what happens to moderate muslims like Lebanon’s Hariri when they actually do speak out against those jihadist pigs.
And Where TF was all the Islamic tolerance and respect for all faiths – that she was barking about – while Gemayel was getting his head blown off today?
Teddy on November 21, 2006 at 4:19 PM
Yes, it is clear you do not know much about the Koran (or for that matter the bible), or you would see that the other things you say don’t follow. There is no equivalence to be drawn between the Koran and any other religious text, anywhere, because no other religious text is construed to be the literal instructions of god handed down for humans to read–and, on top of that, a prescriptive blueprint for bringing the entire human species under Islamic rule, both by force and by conversion. It’s really not a subtle distinction. It something quite unique to Islam.
It is possible to be a bad Muslim and not follow the dictates of the Koran (as do many in the west), and it is possible for an individual to reject Islam altogether (as do some in the west). But it is not possible to reform Islam away from the words of the Koran anymore than it is possible to reform Christianity away from the notion that Jesus was the son of God. The infallibility of the verbal instructions of the Koran is absolutely fundamental to the very meaning of the faith, and it is those instructions that direct Muslims to behave in a manner hostile towards non-Muslim peoples, not any “interpretation” of them.
Blacklake on November 21, 2006 at 8:06 PM
Nah, they’re cowards. After they got stopped at Viena (1683), they hadn’t done much of anything for almost 300 years until we started pumping oil money into them. In terms of casualities, apart from one unlucky day in 2001, what they have been enable to inflict on the west is miniscule, even in camparison to what they do to each other daily in Iraq, but especially compared to the ‘thumping’ they would get if they tried 9/11 again. What we are trying to due in Iraq is far more ambitious than our plans were for Vietnam, and our casualties are less than 1/10 of that.
They are stuck with a hopelessly broken religion and it must really irk them. The Protestant Reformation and Catholic Counter-Reformation, and the Protestant Remonstration, started out as quibbles about the Eucharist and existance of free will and led to the 100 Years War. That eventually led to the separation of church and state, because that’s what Jesus said in the first place. But Islam says the opposite, so there can be no Islamic Reformation beyond what the Wahabists have already done to end their 300 year slumber. They could go the way of Reformed Judiasm, which is to basically to blend into Christian style culture, but what are the chances they will follow the example of the Jews? Hopefully they will, for the first time in their 1300 years, come up with a innovative solution that will actually help humanity.
pedestrian on November 22, 2006 at 12:47 AM
Comment pages: