Terrorism in London

There is no interpretation. it means exactly what is written. And, the islamists have said this, over and over and over. They could not be clearer. And I do not mean al Qaeda and other islamic terrorist organizations only. I also mean the governments of Iran and Sudan. I mean the powerful 5th columns in pakistan, saudi arabia and elsewhere throughout the islamic world, even those in western nations.You're welcome, of course, to ignore what they say. But there is no other way to understand islamism or its terror offshoots.

Because of your antagonism, i see no reason to continue. But i will address this much: I never said that Christianity is responsible for democracy. What I did way was democracy evolved in the Christian world. Yes, its precursors were ancient rome and greece, and that should neither be forgotten nor lost sight of. But in the modern world, and in the sense that we're speaking of modern day, all inclusive, everyone votes, liberal democracy, democracy is much evolved over what existed so long before. And the key point remains: In the modern world, it developed in the Christian world, not elsewhere, and it has been widely accepted in other parts of the world, but resisted in the Islamic world.

we tend these days to see all cultures, faiths and societies as equal. Mind you, only we, in the liberal democratic west see that (although maybe that's beginning to be the case as well where western liberal democracy has been adopted elsewhere, such as korea or japan). But such is not the case. Clearly we haev evolved superior political forms and qualities of life. That is why our liberal democracy and capitalist economics, sometimes tinged with socialist measures, is so much copied elsewhere. Ancd it is precidely because it is so attractive to their fellow muslims, that islamists want to strike us down and discredit us. For demcoracy is their biggest ideological enemy. That is why Islamists have poured money, soldiers and resources into iraq to prevent democracy from arising there.The above may appear irrelevant. But I believe that it may underlie your assumption that islam and Christianity are equals and equivalent.As I've written elsewhere, there can be no question that the essential message of Christianity is peace. But a reading of the Koran is no less clear that that faith has, as a central tenet, that the world must be conquered, subjugated and converted BY THE SWORD. As I also wrote, just consider Jesus's life in contrast to mohammed's. The differnce is startling and stark. One is a polygamist, pedophile, warrior and slave owner. The other is none of these things. Truly, even a minimally objective reading of the OT vs. the Koran makes this evident. That may be ugly, but that doesn't make it untrue. It is the ugly truth. However, there is much that is good in the Koran as well. Muslims will eventually take to democracy, and, in the process, they will go into collective denial as to the ugly side of the faith.As I also wrote elsewhere, No, democracy is not a Christian concept. But it did evolve in the Christian world because the faith is not unamenable to it. Surely it is not coincidental that it evolved in one civilization but not others.Yes, Indonesia is a democracy...sort of. It's on its way, but it is not a true democracy as we know them. Of note is that indonesia is on teh fringe of the Islamic world. it is influenced by other Asina nations which have taken to democracy - because it was introduced by teh Christian world (India, japan, taiwan, Korea, etc.). It is not coincidental that the heart of islam, Arabia, is the Islamic region most averse to democracy. Even Turkey, between Europe and the ME, after 3 generations of democracy, is not all entirely secure as such.And yet, it very heartening that iraqis defied the Islamists and Saddamites to vote in huge numbers, and they stoically defy those same groups as they develop democratic institutions. They have seen what islamist theocracy looks like in next door, fellow Shiite Iran, and they know that iranians despise it. Democracy will come to the Islamic world, and iraq will lead the way.And, yes, Christians changed their interpretation of the faith...to something truly consistent with it. In contrast, Muslims will have to change their interpretation of their faith to something inconsistent with it. Indeed, the Islamists have said as much, issuing tracts condemning democracy as in defiance of Allah.the truth is in the texts. To read them is to see it.(And, BTW, the concept of separation of Church and state is American. It does not exist in other democracies. Hence, for example, why there is a Church of England, with the Queen as its head.)

here's an articel on it, with quotes:
Inside Every Progressive Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out - David HorowitzQuoe of bin Laden's withurl to follow:
The Entire Earth Must Be Subjected to Islam
"How can [he] possibly [accept humiliation and inferiority] when he knows that his nation was created to stand at the center of leadership, at the center of hegemony and rule, at the center of ability and sacrifice? How can [he] possibly [accept humiliation and inferiority] when he knows that the [divine] rule is that the entire earth must be subject to the religion of Allah - not to the East, not to the West - to no ideology and to no path except for the path of Allah? . ""As long as this Muslim knows and believes in these facts, he will not - even for a single moment - stop striving to achieve it, even if it costs him his soul . his time, his property, and his son, as it is said, 'Say [to the believers]: If your fathers and your sons and your brethren and your wives and your kinsfolk and the worth you have acquired and the trade, the dullness of which you apprehend, and the dwellings that you fancy are dearer to you than Allah and His Messenger, and striving in His cause, then wait until Allah issues His judgment. Allah guides not the disobedient people . '" [2]
'Why We Fight America': Al-Qa'ida Spokesman Explains September 11 and Declares Intentions to Kill 4 Million Americans with Weapons of Mass Destruction | MEMRIThis is typical islamist thinking: Mankind is to be muslim, and converted by teh sword as need be, and ruled according to Sharia Law (Koran), under a Muslim caliphate.

i don't believe Muslims as individuals are a bad people, not at all. Assuredly, they are no different than ourselves, mostly just trying to get by in life and do well by their families. Nor do i believe that most are in any way violent. I'd also wager that the majority are embarassed by Islamist terror. And yet, at the same time, i'd say they, overall, can't help but support the principle Islamist aim of seeing the world islamicized. That is a consequence of the faith and the civilization, which were born of the imperative and mission to displace the judeo-Christian worlds that preceded Islam. Even Stephen SChwartz, an American Muslim, passionate democrat, bitter enemy of the Islamists, has said: "Islam is the answer to America's moral problems." That implies that he believes America must be substantially Islamicized in order to resolve its "moral problems."As for how many I know...not many. But my son't best friend growing up was Muslim, and my younger daughter has been going to a Muslim family home after school. An uncle of mine maintained close friendships with a number of Muslims while he was doing business in the Middle East. He said nothign about being Jewish, adn they pretended they didn't know, despite visiting him at his home in Montreal ona few occasions. There is nothing personal in my view of things.And, as I've said often, I do believe democracy will come to the Islamic world, and, in so doing, it will moderate Islamdom as it moderated Christendom before. However, it remains the case that democracy was compatible with Christianity, whereas it is not with Islam - as the Islamists have repeatedly said. That means that Muslims will have to go into collective denial as to certains key aspects of the faith, as they will.Why have there been no previous attacks in GB? The islamists do not strike randomly; they have specific intent and strategy. Because the US stands in the way of their taking over Arabia, they have struck at US interests several times. That was why they attacked the barracks in lebanon, to good effect: The US packed and went home. They struck the USS Cole, not to good effect. Nor did the attack on the US embassies in Afrcia work. That may be why they tried 09/11. They thought the US would leave the ME after that. Instead their worst nightmare became reality: The US went after them in their homelands, and injected their worst ideological nightmare, democracy.They struck Spain effectively, got Spaniards to vote the governmetn that had put troops into iraq out of power, and vote for a new government that withdrew them. It hoped for similar results from london. According to military doctrine in the Koran, Muslims living as a minority in non Islamic lands are to accept the authority of those lands, until they are strong enough to assert themselves. Then they are to do that until they takeover. Hence, the islamists in most western nations preach their hate and superiority and ultimate aims, convert with zeal whomever (prisoners are a favourite target), patiently building 5th columns, but also lay back awaiting the right time to strike. That is why, unless the Islamic world demcoratizes fully and absolutely, Europe will, soon enough, be awash in horrendous islamist terror.

One can hardly compare the small minority of Christians today who do horrioble things in the name of the faith with Islamic governments, huge demonstrations of joy when terrorist attacks are carried off on the west, and worldwide jihadist groups. If you truly judge on actions, then your answer is rather clear.And, there is simply no way one can even begin to rationally suggest that Islam is comparable with Christianity. One simply cannot be objective and say that. Their essential messages are different. And, as I said, how different would Christyianity be if Jesus was a polygamist, slave owner, pedophile and warrior who personally killed. Deny this if you will, but that will mean you miss the real motivation for the strike against London: part of the war to displace Christendon (and its liberal democracy) with Islamdon (with Sharia Law).You mention the iraqis and imply that they prove Musims are amenable to democracy. I said exactly the same. I also said that Muslims need to be in collective denial as their faith in order to democratize, but that they will because democracy is so innately appealing to human anture. That. however, doesn't change the fact that there will be for a long time a great amny Muslims - even if a minority - who will take their faith accurately and battle to the very end against peace with others, tolerance of others, and democracy. We see that, too, in iraq, where much of the insurgency is jihadis desperately fighting off democracy.france does not constitutionally have a separation of Church and state - and i never suggested that in reality that is not practised outside the US. Obviously it is, including in my country.I also wrote several times now that democracy tamed Christendom, but that democracy evolved in Christendom because the faith is not unamneable to it. So, yes, i agree with you that at one time Christendon was a barbaric civlization, run putatively according to the faith. But it was not. And it is not a matter of interpretation. Not everything is subjective. There can be no question that much was done contrary to the faith. Likewise, there can be no question that much of what is ill in the islamic world is due to, not in opposition to, the faith.

My point stands: modern democracy evolved in the christian world, not elsewhere, adn that is not coincidental. That early Christians ignored the nascent democracy of rome and greece does not contradict that fact. Nor does it contradict my point that the faith is not unamenable to demcoracy, unlike Islam.

The "defensive" interpretation is one disengenously used by some these days. In the earlier passages, Mohammed speaks of defensive postures. But when he had power and armies, that was entirely changed. no one can read the passages I presented, or those that faith presented, and objectively and rationally say otherwise. Similarly, many quote the passage: There is no compulsion in religion." It too was written in the earlier time of the faith, but was superceded later on. In fact, islam has the concept of 'abrogation,' which states that where there is a conflict between passages, the later ones abrogate the earlier ones. There are infinitely more passages that state, flat out, that Jiahd is a war to defeat all the non islamic world for islam, than for the very few that suggest otherwise. Guess which ones were abrigated?Ugly? Yes. Also the truth.You're welcome to be in denial, perhaps motivated by good will, and perhaps motivated by relativist culture, but the truth remains: Listen to what the islamists say; they cannot be clearer.

With respect to my comment: "The Koran orders muslims, all Muslims, forever and ever to kill, kill, kill until all the world is Islamic. That is a order to war into the endless future, and it is exactly what the islamists cite as their authority for their actions," you replied:"This is surprising when we consider that the vast majority of Muslims are peace loving people, and most have openly condemned the terrorist acts that we have seen lately."First, the Koran says what it does, regardless of how Muslims see it or behave. However, we really don't know what the vast majoprity of muslims are. I'd say that those who are peaceloving in Arabia are not necessarily the vast majority. Furthermore, there have been very few condemnations of terrorism in most of the islamic world. Where are trhe fatwahs against the terrorists? But there are many insupport of them. In the west the condemnations came very reluctantly long after the fact, with a bunch of "yeah, buts," in response to the condemnation of their lack of condemnation. This much is fact: The majority of mosques, congregagation and Islamic organizations in the west have been taken over by the Wahabbis, a Sunni branch of islamism. This happened with the acquiescence of western Muslims. They did not protest, did not fire the wahabbi Imamas, did not build new mosques, did not make clear to ourselves and our press that islamist front organizations like CAIR (which has had three key members including its founder imprisoned for terrorist related activities) do not speak for them. My belief is that the majority of American Muslims cannot help in their heart of hearts but sympathize with the isalmists' goal of islamicizing our nations, even if they're reticent about their means, and even if they're willing to take a risk that, somehow, democracy will survive an Islamist takeover. Recall that islam was founded expressly to displace judeo-Christian civilziation. The Koran says that in many places. In a sense, it is also true that Christians also tend to desire for Christainaity to displace all other faiths. So the sentiment of these Muslims isn't particularly extreme. It's just that their faith provides for violent means of accomplishing aims, and demands that all mankind be ruled specifically according to the Koran. That is a huge and monstrous difference with gigantic implications.You ask: "It also makes me wonder why Islam hasnt taken over the world yet, giving that they have had 1300 years in which to make their moves."
In fact, islam has made every effort to do exactly that. And until the west developed modern thinking and the technology and political institutions to go with that, islam had made huge advances. It had spain and was at teh gates of Vienna. It had taken, and still has, Turkey. Only then did the west turn them back. (The crusades, BTW, were a western response to islamic aggression. Islam had left saudi arabia and taken over israel and other ME areas that had been Christian. The Crusades were to take back those lands.) Had the west not had a sudden surge of advancement, Isalm would have succeeded in its imperial march.You say that jesus was probably gay, and that that is no less silly a supposition than that jesus was G-d. This mixes unrelated notions. The Christian faith is what it is, whether you accept it or not (I do not), but what matters is that it is essentially a peaceful doctrine and so was jesus. This is in stark contrast to islam and Mohammed.With respect to mohammed having a 9 year old wife, you say: "But we are both projecting our modern day western views on to an ancient society, we both find it abhorrent but it was not at all unusual 1300 years ago."the point is that jesus did not have a 9 year old wife. Nor was he a slave owner or polyganist or warrior who killed. If those were the sensibilities and practises of the time, then he radically opposed them in thought and deed. mohammed did not. And thus the two faiths are radically different. Furthermore, as jesus and Christianity had already presented a more tolerant adn peaceful message, islam, which came 6 centuries later, went backwards.You say that the "Old Testament is pretty clear on the rules of owning slaves as well, and it gives explicit instructions on how to treat them, and since the Old testament is the word of God and Jesus is supposed to be God then Jesus promoted slavery."But G-d himself did not own slaves. Nor did jesus. But Mohammed did. That is a message of vital difference. Moreover, Judaism largely condemns the notion of slavery, despite a few passages with reference to slaves, and Jews ceased the practise eons ago. In contrast, slavery is still common in many Islamic lands.You say: "Well, I happen to think that the Quran is essentially a rewriting of the Bible by a guy who obviously had come into contact with Jews and Christians during his early days. I view the Quran as nothing more than Muhammads imagination running wild mixed in with a dose of wishful thinking. But I can still appreciate that it is an historical texts that reflects a lot of the background in which it was written, many of its contents appear barbaric to us but we have to remember that much of the Old Testament contains equally horrific acts. In short, all holy books can be used to justify anything you want, even the peace loving Buddhists have had their militant groups."Again you mix your personal opinion on faith with the reality of those who abide their faiths and what those faiths say. The Koran does, of course, reference Judaism and christianity. It also expropriates those faiths, says it is to displace them, and offers a view of faith that is backwards, one that predates Judaism and christianty. And, again, there is nothing in the OT that commands Jews to forever and ever kill, subjugate and conquer until all the world is Jewish adn run as a Jewish theocracy. But that is exactly what islam says. And the islamists make no bones about it.You say: "A great deal of Islamic teachings are also a force for peace, and on balance the peaceful Muslims way outnumber the terrorist ones. As has been said before, who is to say that these terrorists are actually Muslims when their actions contradict much of the Quran?"Yes, much of islam is peaceful. Mainly, though, those are the parts that have been abrogated by isalmic thinking by later passages. Sure, the majority of msulims are not terrorists. But far too many cheer them on, give money to their "charities," accept Islamists as imams, as front organizations for terrorists, and so on. One can support without actually doing the fighting. However, this is not to say that the majority is violent. they are not. But the problem remains that the faith demands violence. And thus, we have isalmism.you say, with respect to the west findign democracy first: "Again though, this may well be a cultural thing, it took Europe quite a long time to go down the democracy road, so who knows what the future holds?"Yes, it is cultural, and the culture was largely Judeo-Christian. And that is my point.Steve

Guess we'll have agree to disagree.

You're mixing jesus with G-d, although i grant that christian theology is confusing on this (Faith will disagree, intelligently).Regardless, there are vital distinctions. If Allah had killed whomever, but had not left eternal commandments for muslims to kill, subjugate and conquer until all the world is an isalmic theocracy, ruled according to the koran, and if Moahmmed led a life comparable to jesus's, then we'd have a parallel. Such is not the case.

the vast majority of translations are as mine, including those most cited by islamic authorities. On the other hand, as muslims will have to go into collective denial about their faith so that democracy can arise and peace can be had between muslims and others, it's just as well that a few disingenuous translations are out there.

Overall, we'll just have to agree to disgree. As for peaceful and tolerant passages in the koran, for sure they exist, as i said myself. But as i also said, they are "abrogated" in isalmic theology by later pasages they conflcit with. Thus, the violent, imperialist, Jihadist, intolerant passages supercede the earlier ones.However, and I have also now repeatedly said, as Muslims will have to go into collective denial as their faith in order foriberal democracy to arise in their homelands, it's just as well that they see those earlier passages as havinmg equal or, even better, more weight than those that abrogated them. That is, they'll either have to deny abrogation, or they'll have to rationalize, as you and others here are doing, that the War Verses and sharia Law don't really mean what they in fact do. In other words, Muslims everywhere and in the vast majority will have do as you.

We Canadians did have a west, but, overall, haven't developed a gun culture in the way that the US has. I think a vital reason is that the US gained independence through war, whereas we got it through evolution. The US, from its birth, feared authority, and sought to check it at every turn. One means to do so was for "regulated militias" which came to stress an interpretation of the rest of that phrase, the "right to bear arms," as meaning the right of the individual to bear arms. I think it's nuts. But thus it is.

Christians may recognize the bad of their history, but they have nothing to acknowledge about the faith - other than that they acted contrary to it for ages. Muslims will have to admit the bad of their faith, or simply go into denial about it. A number of muslim intellectuals have made exactly this point, and many others are debating it.I was referring to Muslims citing various translations as more accurate than others.otherwise, this is just going to go back and forth indefinitely. i don't care whether you believe me or not, and, in any event, it is clear that you won't. So be it.