A Muslim's perspective

[FTM0305]

What? I don't get it? I'm TFB.

And that is the truth on this matter, people were not scared because of the very 9/11 situation, it would have been easy to calm them down and they were calmed down but beaten into a frenzy and scared to death over the massive threats delivered EVERY DAY by their own politicians of how Iraq was on the edge of attacking the USA.

Court martial the fucks, send them to me, i'll dispose of them like some were disposed of during the Kosovo war, they might find them in the fossil records.

But no, they are like Chavez and Berlusconi, any lie no matter how much it costs, no matter how much they profit from it, no matter how many people die from it, they are ok, ALWAYS.

It's fucking pathetic.

Dude, havn't you seen V for Vendetta? you started that paragraph just like his monologue in the movie when he takes over the TV station.

I thought it was brilliant lol.

 

[KIAman]

No, son, they were fought in other nations and BY other nations for a good two decades before the US was attacked, they have lived with it since ten years after WWII. *SNIP*

If this post was serious and not sarcastic, then I hope you realize the fact the US was attacked LONG before 9/11.

And I hope you aren't broadening the definition of "terrorists" to every extreme group since the beginning of recorded history. Stay in context.

Edit: Also, the use of the word "son" as a pronoun usually means whatever following statements can't be taken seriously as it denotes a sense of age based wisdom you think you have over whoever you are communicating with.

 

[Zebo]

FTM0305, your post is quite long, and it is difficult to address all of it. Please let me know if I failed to address any of your points.

I dont know enough of the Mormon faith to make comparisons to Islam.

The accusation that moderate Muslims are silent is an oft-used statement. I doubt "moderate" Muslims are going to have their own "tea-party" in protests. I still dont know what it is people expect of "moderate" Muslims? You want them to protest? Speak out? Go Mortal Kombat on some terrorists rear end?

I am glad you had a camaraderie-ship with your fellow Turk soldier.

To stop the building Mosque/community center on account of the false notion that Islam was responsible for 9/11 is not a good PR strategy.

When Muslims say the terrorists werent Muslim, that is exactly what they are trying to do - denounce extremists as non-Muslim. You put forth this suggestion, others say, dont deny it? This is like a merry-go-round 🙂

Lastly:

To support the attacks of 9/11 is to go against the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, and upon us all. To wage war against America means waging war against true Islam. To use terror to incite change is to lose Jihad and become an infidel. We stand together in America as Islam, Jews, Christians, and others as one. We are all the seed of Abraham, let there be peace.

There are plenty of moderate Muslims. I have many friends who are Muslim one since I was 5 years old in kindergarten from Afghanistan named Ziar. They are the ones who are victims of the fundis most not Americans or Europeans who live fairly safe in comparison. Such as 200,000 in Algeria and what not. But to claim the perps are not Muslim flies in face of what they say when they commit these acts, in the name of Allah usually. Ignores texts that could be very easily misinterpreted. Ignores Clerics calling for jihad and fatwas.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Dude, havn't you seen V for Vendetta? you started that paragraph just like his monologue in the movie when he takes over the TV station.

I thought it was brilliant lol.

Can't say that i've seen it or remember that line, it was just what popped into my mind, like YOU FUCKING RETARDS, oh i know they got the better of you and STILL you refuse to acknowledge it.

If i had made a movie, that would be the follow up to my last comment.

See, it's this simple, people believe in what they want to believe in but one thing is unprecedented, A MAJORITY OF AMERICANS BELIEVE IRAQ WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR 9/11.

And that my friend, is what is known as a nations of complete retards.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

If this post was serious and not sarcastic, then I hope you realize the fact the US was attacked LONG before 9/11.

And I hope you aren't broadening the definition of "terrorists" to every extreme group since the beginning of recorded history. Stay in context.

Edit: Also, the use of the word "son" as a pronoun usually means whatever following statements can't be taken seriously as it denotes a sense of age based wisdom you think you have over whoever you are communicating with.

Son, just sod off before you make an even bigger fool out of yourself.

 

[KIAman]

Son, just sod off before you make an even bigger fool out of yourself.

Yessir! KIAman signing out. 🙄

 

[Fear No Evil]

Can't say that i've seen it or remember that line, it was just what popped into my mind, like YOU FUCKING RETARDS, oh i know they got the better of you and STILL you refuse to acknowledge it.

If i had made a movie, that would be the follow up to my last comment.

See, it's this simple, people believe in what they want to believe in but one thing is unprecedented, A MAJORITY OF AMERICANS BELIEVE IRAQ WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR 9/11.

And that my friend, is what is known as a nations of complete retards.

What is funny is that you take your orders from a nation of retards..

























Grow up little man.. its a joke..

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

What is funny is that you take your orders from a nation of retards..





















Grow up little man.. its a joke..

I'm not under US command, the SAS has never been, nor will it ever be under US or NATO command.

This is only the fifth time i've told you this so i fully expect that 18 times more is needed for your feeble brain to even begin to comprehend what i am saying.


No one can live in pain but everyone can die in pain, if you wish, i can arrange a demonstration, how about Jenny? Deserves it, doesn't she?

 

[Zebo]

FMT - I enjoy reading your messages and that they are, IMO, spot on. I don't agree with running around saving by killing because you make a lot of enemies, cost and so forth but with young men like you in the field maybe it will all get better.

 

[Fear No Evil]

I'm not under US command, the SAS has never been, nor will it ever be under US or NATO command.

This is only the fifth time i've told you this so i fully expect that 18 times more is needed for your feeble brain to even begin to comprehend what i am saying.


No one can live in pain but everyone can die in pain, if you wish, i can arrange a demonstration, how about Jenny? Deserves it, doesn't she?

For a person who claims such big balls you certainly have very thin skin. I guess thats understandable taking orders from GWB for so long. I wonder where Obama is going to send you next.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Son, just sod off before you make an even bigger fool out of yourself.

'Sod off'? See, this is why we had to step in and stop you damn Brits from ruining the English language. Bloody hell..



Oops!

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I'm not under US command, the SAS has never been, nor will it ever be under US or NATO command.

People who serve in special forces don't talk about it. I bet your a buck private in Her Majesty's Regular Army.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

what is funny is that you take your orders from a nation of retards..

























Grow up little man.. Its a joke..

ama21

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

People who serve in special forces don't talk about it. I bet your a buck private in Her Majesty's Regular Army.

Naturally, i wouldn't discuss anything regerding any specific mission that isn't already well known, like how the US started a war in Iraq to prolong the WOT for political reasons.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Did the OP ever answer the list of questions?

 

[Infohawk]

Did the OP ever answer the list of questions?

I don't think so. But apparently the questions were unfair or something...

 

[ichy]

Naturally, i wouldn't discuss anything regerding any specific mission that isn't already well known, like how the US started a war in Iraq to prolong the WOT for political reasons.

If you actually were in the British Special Forces you wouldn't be discussing what you do, period. You're a liar and a fake.

 

[DesiPower]

 

[FTM0305]

FMT - I enjoy reading your messages and that they are, IMO, spot on. I don't agree with running around saving by killing because you make a lot of enemies, cost and so forth but with young men like you in the field maybe it will all get better.

Thanks,

Unfortunately, I am not a good example of the common soldier in a primarily infantry unit. I butted heads with leadership, officers were young and always changing. NCOs ran the show.

I had a first Sergeant accidently refer to a sweep of the city as a "my excellent compatriot" Hunt for more Al-Qedea fighters. This did not please a friend of mine, a supplies Private, who was black.

There are many things that are wrong with how the war is being fought.

The structure of our military is terrible. Individuals are punks.

After the end of combat ops for my unit during the last few weeks of packing things up to go home I was attacked by my first sergeant, put in a rear naked choke. Medics from another unit caught him doing this to me. In exchange for me not going to the inspector general they offered me a way out of the military by falsifying mental health exams. I received a "Honorable Discharge" but the type of mental health status connected to it precluded me from joining the military again, and stripped me of certain benefits. I couldn't even collect unemployment because of it. I recently applied to have my record cleared of this by contacting Army recruiting policy makers. They refused to change anything and became angry when I sent them scanned copies of medical records that were computerized forms that had hand written changes to them without the knowledge of medical authorities. They thought a lawyer had prepared the documents for me to send. I was just trying to change my recruitment status so I could re-up.


There are many things I find wrong with the military and government. Mostly a break down of the individual moral code and personal honor.

Sadly, guys like me don't mesh well units. Despite top PT scores, ASVAB sub scores that are beyond requirements for any job offered by the military, and my continued ability to go above and beyond my assignment I was not welcomed. ( I had recovered military equipment from a home that we were staying in, leadership did not care and only stated, "You get to carry it back." No other investigation of why the equipment was in a closet in this home was made).

 

[soulcougher73]

Did the OP ever answer the list of questions?

Nope. He said they were spam or something. Basically too challenging for him to tackle head on.

 

[PJABBER]

Nope. He said they were spam or something. Basically too challenging for him to tackle head on.

Don't think routan's unwillingness to answer even the simplest questions is anything unusual. It is a pattern of obfuscation that remains a defining characteristic of American Muslims.

Sometimes the best way to learn what a person really believes is by understanding the questions they refuse to answer in a debate. Typically these are questions that seek to determine an uncomfortable truth. In routan's case, I posed very simple and direct questions, and then posted them a few more times, so that we could get "a Muslim's perspective." I even answered the same questions (as modified by Loopy in a vain attempt to make a typically loopy point) myself to show how easy it is for an honest person to reply.

For old times sake, here are the questions again. How about it, routan?

(Watch Orignal Earl jump in here with a deflecting/obfuscating comment/question! It works every time I post them - I get such a kick out of it! 😀)

Do you believe sharia should be the law of the land in America?

Do you believe that sharia compliance should be a factor in how life is lived in America? For Muslims? For non-Muslims?

Do you believe a parallel system of sharia law should exist in the United States, side by side with American constitutional law?

Do you live a life bound by sharia, above and beyond the laws of the United States?

Do you believe that faithful Muslims have a right, or an obligation, to live lives bound by sharia law above or instead of American constitutional law?

Do you advocate in your community that this "right" to live a sharia compliant life is an actual obligation if you are Muslim?

How do you treat someone who only accepts part of sharia and speaks out that the part that they reject is anti-American?

How do you treat someone who is Muslim but rejects sharia law entirely for other rules and standards for a good life?

Should a faithful Muslim fall in love and marry a polytheist, will you accept the spouse as an equal in your Muslim community?

Will you welcome a homosexual couple, married under the liberalized laws of New York or the US, as Muslims, with all the benefits and privileges of being Muslims, in your mosque?

If America rejects sharia, formally and officially, wherever and whenever it rises, will you be loyal to America or to Islam?

While we wait (interminably) I'd like to post something by a reporter in Dallas, TX that went through an experience similar to the one we are having here.

Muslim Mau-Mauing

One Dallas journo’s experience

Rod Dreher
City Journal
Winter 2007

Two years after standing on the Brooklyn Bridge and watching the second tower fall, I joined the Dallas Morning News. My wife, a native Dallasite, praises our new city as “a September 10 kind of place.” She means that the anxieties attending our post-9/11 New York life simply don’t exist here. The downside is that people lull themselves into a false sense of security about the Muslim community. From where I sit, it looks to me as though the entire mainstream media also live in a September 10 kind of place. We — and I say “we” because I’m part of the dreaded MSM — really don’t want to know what’s happening among Muslims in Dallas, Brooklyn, or anywhere else.

Dallas is home to a large and relatively prosperous Muslim community. The Dallas Central Mosque is Texas’s largest. The area’s Muslims, though, have had a contentious relationship in recent years with the Dallas Morning News, mostly because of the paper’s groundbreaking 2001 reporting on the Holy Land Foundation, whose leadership is now under federal terrorism indictment. Since then, local Muslim leaders have engaged in a running dialogue with the News, with the declared aim of improving relations.

It was in that spirit that Sayyid Syeed, then head of the Islamic Society of North America, came in, together with a local delegation, to see the editorial board a few months after I arrived from New York in 2003. Syeed made a laborious presentation about how journalists needed to join with the organization in promoting peace, tolerance, and reconciliation. I knew something about ISNA and asked Syeed why — if his group truly supported peace and suchlike — its board included members directly linked to Islamic extremism and anti-Semitism, including the notorious Wahhabi-trained Brooklyn imam Siraj Wahhaj. The professorial Syeed dropped his polite mask, shook his fist at me, told me that I would one day “repent,” and compared my question with a Nazi inquisition.

Hysterical indignation, I soon learned, is the standard operating procedure for Islamic groups in dealing with the media in this town. Shortly after the Syeed meeting, I published a column in the News decrying the media’s evasion of legitimate questions about Islamic figures and organizations, hoping to shame journalists into posing them. That’s how I became, in the designation of one (now-defunct) Muslim website dedicated to criticizing the News, “the new face of hate.”

I then joined that Islamic site’s e-mail list — which contained several prominent Dallas Muslims — under my own name. Before the site operators discovered my presence and booted me off, I printed out e-mails in which participants discussed a plan to approach business and religious leaders in town and persuade them to lean on the News’s publisher to fire me as a danger to Muslims. “Dreher needs to be ruined,” one e-mailer wrote. “When people here [sic] the name ‘Rod Dreher’ the image of David Duke should appear in their mind’s eye. So, a campaign must be planned and carefully executed to expose this hate-monger and render him a joke.” Naturally, I publicized the plans and made sure that copies of the e-mails got into the hands of the newspaper’s lawyers. That apparently ended that.

I kept making a pest of myself, though, pointing out in columns and editorial-board blog postings inconvenient truths about Dallas’s Muslim community — that, for instance, the leading local imam, who positions himself as an avuncular ecumenicist, had praised on his website the radical Islamists Hasan al-Turabi and Yusuf Qaradawi as the kind of scholars American Muslims should consult.

I also helped get into the News’s editorial pages disturbing facts: that the Dallas Central Mosque had participated in a contest that assigned the best-known work of the fanatical Islamic revolutionary Sayyid Qutb to teenage readers, for example, and that some local Muslim leaders had attended a “Tribute to the Great Islamic Visionary” — that would be the Ayatollah Khomeini — at a suburban mosque.

This December, another delegation of local Muslim leaders trooped into the News to meet with the editorial board, mostly to complain about, well, me, and to clear up misunderstandings that my supposedly biased rantings might have caused among my colleagues. It was a classic performance. The group obfuscated and bullied, seeking to skirt some tough questions — such as whether they wanted sharia imposed as the law of the land — and trying to make the journalists on hand feel guilty for even asking. What the Muslims were counting on: 1) a lack of specific knowledge about Islam and Islamic figures on the audience’s part; and 2) the audience’s ideological sympathy for them as members of a mistrusted minority.

Luckily, we had in the room a News reporter recently reassigned from our London bureau. He speaks Arabic and had covered the London subway bombings. When the Muslim group tried to claim that Sayyid Qutb was a fringe figure, my newsroom colleague said no, he’s not, and one can easily find his work in Islamic bookshops in England, where it has contributed to the radicalization of British Muslim youth. So it wasn’t just that right-wing Dreher guy from New York — traumatized by 9/11, alas for him — asking these questions. It’s amazing how undone these Muslim leaders become when informed journalists, refusing to be intimidated into embarrassed silence, confront them with the facts.

Later, after I blogged about the meeting, the group’s leader fired off an e-mail to me and my supervisors accusing me of single-handedly burning every bridge built between the Dallas Muslim community and the newspaper. I’d hate for that to be true. But far worse for those bridges to remain standing if built on the dangerous notion that the news media should always publish happy-clappy news about local Muslims and shun any healthy suspicion about things such as Khomeini tributes, anti-Jewish and anti-Christian hate literature showing up in mosque libraries (as happened here), and the like.

 

[Infohawk]

If you actually were in the British Special Forces you wouldn't be discussing what you do, period. You're a liar and a fake.

So what do you think his real deal is?

 

[FTM0305]

So what do you think his real deal is?

I don't think you are a real hawk... :hmm:

 

[PJABBER]

While we await the response of our resident Muslim representative(s), perhaps another scholarly article to inform and amuse us?

Misunderstanding Muslim “Tolerance”

“The ‘proud tradition’ would have surprised the several thousand Jews massacred in Grenada in 1066.”

by Bruce Thornton

September 24, 2010

Our understanding of modern jihadism has been compromised by a false narrative in which a noble religion has been "hijacked" and distorted by extremists.

These Muslim renegades, so the tale goes, are just old-fashioned totalitarians who warp Islamic doctrine in order to justify their violent grab for power.

Accompanying this story is the parallel historical myth of a pristine Islam that allowed Christians and Jews to practice their faith, thus demonstrating tolerance at a time when Christian Europe was mired in anti-Semitism, xenophobia, and bigotry. Andalusian Spain has particularly been evoked as an example of an interfaith tolerance unknown to Christians, as President Obama claimed in his June 2009 speech delivered in Cairo, when he extolled Islam’s “proud tradition of tolerance.”

As many historians have shown, the historical facts of Islamic rule in Spain and elsewhere belie these claims.

The “proud tradition” would have surprised the several thousand Jews massacred in Grenada in 1066, or the 300 Christians crucified, per Koranic injunction, in 818 during a three-day rampage of killing and pillaging in Cordoba, or the 700 Christians slaughtered in Toledo in 806. These are just a few examples of numerous Muslim massacres of Christians and Jews in Spain, whose lives were circumscribed by prohibitions on everything from the sorts of animals they rode to the height of their houses.

Apart from these inconvenient facts, claims of Muslim tolerance suffer from a failure to consider more thoroughly the very notion of tolerance.

In fact, there are two kinds of tolerance: the tolerance of principle, and the tolerance of expediency. Confusing the two, as both apologists and propagandists for Islam do, amounts to a rhetorical bait-and-switch.

The tolerance of principle is an ideal that took centuries to develop, for it runs counter to the more usual human habit of distrusting and excluding those who are different. Its origins lie in the intellectual curiosity of the Ancient Greeks. Despite their chauvinism and disdain for “barbarians,” the Greeks nonetheless were curious about peoples different from themselves in a way impossible to document elsewhere at that time. Indeed, the “Father of History,” Herodotus, later earned the scornful nickname Philobarbaros (barbarian-lover), because of his interest in the customs and culture of other peoples. Later, such curiosity evolved into an acknowledgment, evident in Stoicism, of a universal human nature more essential than differences of custom or language. This recognition in turn made easier the “live and let live” attitude that characterizes true tolerance. It holds that the strange differences among peoples are not as important as the similarities of human nature.

Such is the idea most of us mean when we speak of tolerance. It rests on a philosophical principle: people share a human nature that entitles them to certain rights, one of which is to live according to their lights without interference from others who live differently. The only restriction is that their way of living doesn’t interfere with other ways.

The tolerance of expediency is quite different. Over the centuries, many rulers have found that from time to time some measure of tolerance is more efficient at maintaining public order and protecting their power than oppression or violence. Particularly those who rule over polyglot multicultural subjects frequently find that it is more cost-efficient to allow some latitude to minorities in their private lives than to destroy them. The Roman Empire was brilliant at this sort of tolerance, allowing subject peoples to worship as they please as long as they paid their taxes, acknowledged Roman power, and kept quiet. When they didn’t, then the Romans would employ brutal violence to restore order and protect their power, as they did against the Jews in the 1st and 2nd Centuries.

Islamic tolerance, whether Arab or Ottoman, was like Roman tolerance: an expedient method, useful for keeping order, but discarded when more brutal methods were called for. Islam divides the world into two mutually exclusive categories, believers and infidels. It is the destiny of the latter to convert or, if they refuse conversion, to be destroyed or sold into slavery. The “People of the Book,” Christians and Jews, may live and even practice their faith, but they will do so at the indulgence of their Muslim overlords, subject to restrictions on their lives and the payment of a tax.

This is codified in Koran 9:29 which instructs, “Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book [Jews and Christians], until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.” And Muslim rulers can unilaterally end this “truce” at any time, at which point Christians or Jews are legitimate objects of conquest, plunder, slaughter, or enslavement. This happened numerous times in Andalusian Spain when Muslim rulers perceived a threat to their power or to the faith.

American tolerance has been a mix of principle and expediency. Expediency was an important factor, at first because of the variety of Christian denominations in the Colonies, and later because of immigration. As someone once put it, early America comprised “islands of intolerance in a sea of tolerance.” Yet the tolerance of principle, an inheritance of Classical civilization and post-Reformation Christianity, has always been in our cultural DNA, no matter how frequently it was violated by bigotry and prejudice. Despite these failures, we managed to achieve the ex pluribus unum, a civilization that accommodates a great variety of differences while demanding only that we all adhere to the rights and rules of the Constitution.

But this American ideal of tolerance drew the line at including any ideology or group identity that challenged the rights of others to their way of life, or that contradicted the fundamental political principles of the Constitution. However, contemporary identity politics and the multiculturalist fetishizing of cultural difference have combined to redefine tolerance in America. Today our traditional toleration of other ways of living has morphed into the demand that we approve of them, foster and support them, and even acknowledge their superiority, no matter how inimical to the American order or our Constitutional rights. Also, tolerance has become a convenient rationalization for those whose beliefs have atrophied into indifference. Because they stand for nothing, they demand we tolerate anything and put up with everything.

These distortions of traditional American tolerance have characterized our encounter with Islamic jihad, most recently in the “Ground-Zero mosque” controversy. The traditional Muslim tolerance of expediency has been repackaged as the tolerance of principle, despite the fact that Islamic doctrine does not allow for that principle and indeed scorns it. The American tolerance of principle has degenerated into the demand for approval, easy to extort from people who have no core beliefs worthy of defense.

Worse yet, we acquiesce in Muslim demands that we show a tolerance for Islam that Muslims rarely if ever extend to Christians or Jews, and we afford Islam a protective sensitivity and respect never allowed to Christianity or Judaism. This is the cringing appeasement that people like New York mayor Michael Bloomberg dressed up as “tolerance.”

This debased tolerance of principle becomes a disguise for a shortsighted tolerance of expediency and becomes extortion. We put up with jihadist aggression and Muslim chauvinism so that they don’t blow us up, even though our serial appeasement insidiously chips away at our foundational beliefs, and cedes more and more of the public square to an Islam that does not recognize any separation of religion and politics.

The net result is a failure to understand accurately the ideology of those who want to destroy us, at the same time we send them a message that we are weak and vulnerable, unwilling to defend our beliefs with the same passion that they use to advance theirs. In the end, our contemporary notion of tolerance is neither principled nor ultimately even expedient. It is just a form of cultural suicide.

*****************

Bruce Thornton is a professor of classics and humanities at Fresno State University. He is also a National Fellow at the Hoover Institution. He is the author of eight books, and his numerous essays and reviews have appeared in both scholarly journals and magazines such as The New Criterion, Commentary, National Review, The Weekly Standard, and The Claremont Review of Books. He has lectured at many colleges and universities and at venues such as the Smithsonian Institute and the Intercollegiate Studies Institute.

 

[FTM0305]

While we await the response of our resident Muslim representative(s), perhaps another scholarly article to inform and amuse us?

Reading the article wanted to see if mormons were safe from muslims (other than the belief in Christ thing).

What exactly does Muhammad prohibit (besides artist renditions)?

EDIT: Add on

Also, the article seems to bring to mind affirmative action. You can have scholarships for a number of different racial groups, but if you are white, male, and have no disabilities you are out of luck. No special treatment for you. Unless you already have money, but then again you wouldn't need a scholarship. WM w/o $ r SOL.