Posts
mosquewatch
Stumble It!
Hello, I happen to agree with Michael Savage and his comments concerning islam and the koran. As you probably already know Imam Musa (The same Imam that declared "we will burn America down." has a plan for the Islamic State of North America no later than 2050. http://www.sabiqun.net/join.html
This is not acceptable, this is sedition and those that believe in such things will be prosecuted. The USA is Governed by the Constitution, not sharia law. This will not change. If C.A.I.R. and it's members believe otherwise, we have a problem. And that problem will taken care of by any and all legal means possible. All legal options are on the table. Furthermore if Muslims in the USA can say the desire sharia law over the Constitution, we as Americans can also say that "You can take your koran, your hadith, your sharia law are not welcome here."
Good day
-------------------------------
Support Michael Savage. Please Contact C.A.I.R. with your email. Be polite and too the point. If you disagree with Mr. Savage email C.A.I.R. anyway. If they stop him from speaking, YOU ARE NEXT.
Email C.A.I.R. HERE.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Will do. Already put a comment in Office Max.
ReplyDeletedr. savage,how is it that obama can be considered a christian when he endorces infanticide?
ReplyDeleteDear Dr. Savage,
ReplyDeleteI'm a moderate Muslim (my name is Asif and I had the privilege of having my say on the Savage Nation last Monday night at around 20.08 EST - I am deeply thankful to you for having given me a copy of "Psychological Nudity," I would love to read its beautiful prose to my friends and spread the Savage solutions across this great country), and I support your effort to save America from its enemies: namely "Islamofacism," a term rightly coined by Dr. Savage. If I was like all my brainwashed bretheren (or at least 90% of the Americans - who are supposedly eligible to vote), I would have voted for Nobama. However, I voted for Senator John McCain; it was more of a vote gainst B.O (even though I do admire McCain's heroism, which is linked with him being a Manchurian candidate. This given that he is so willing to lose or to at least conceive defeat while being told to put up a tough fight by these Republicans who not only pushed for Wall Street piracy, which uses capitalism to push for socialism. They stretched their lines, and became utterly liberal, and worst of all: they bailed out on us. However, there is hope with the conservative propositions that hint to our hope of surviving and thriving in a Pax Americana.
I do believe, unlike Obama that people should have a right to earn a living. McCain's allegorically perilous fight (whether it was tough or not) is something that the Democrat party not only refuses to accept, but probably scoffs because they are the future Godless Marxists of America). I voted for this senator only for two major reasons: national security and your endorsement.
Two books changed my life during the past few months – Bernard Lewis’ What Went Wrong? and Liberalism is a Mental Disorder by you. It’s true that what I hear both in the classrooms at Queens College and the Friday sermons across New York City are just tantamount to sedition and even treason. For example, last Thursday, my Chinese history professor said in a lecture on Mao Tse-Tung’s insane economic policies, that “Obama is not radical enough.” What? Obama is too radical; he’s undoubtedly linked with communists and radical Islam that have always been at odds with the very existence of the United States. On a minor side-note, the Barbary pirates were from Tripoli on the Mediterannean coast of Africa (capital of Qaddafi’s Libya) rather than Somalia, which is in the Horn of Africa.
My father taught me to be a patriotic citizen of the United States, and to honour the American War on Terrorism. He reminds me time and again that “we should never bite the hand that feeds us.” Not even a noble creature like a dog is capable of committing that abomination, unless it's an insane liberal, a "baggy-eyed bolshevik" as you would say, or an Islamofacist. I remember you were teaching us the other day about how Orthodox Jews feed dogs out of obedience for God. If only Muslims emphasized the spirit and not the scripture of their laws, they would realise that there is a hadeeth that reminds us that one of the Children of Israel - a sinner, who depsite being a prostitute - was sent to Paradise simply for believing in God and feeding a canine some water. Saying that "Islam is peace" is not good enough, because the double-talk that many Muslims are engaging is the hypocrisy that scares people away from Islam, rather than inviting them to it. My Muslim bretheren may not like hearing that their religion is in serious need of reform but it’s a bitter pill that they’ll have to swallow if they want to be saved from both failure in this world and the Hellfire in the Hereafter.
Unfortunately, my father - who in spite of being a registered Democrat, voted John McCain - disappointed last night that we should simply welcome him in. The threat, my fellow countrymen, is communism, not having a Black men. I would vote for a Muslim, a Christian (whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant), a Jew, a Hindu, a Buddhist, a "Demican" a "Republocrat" (these two are also courtesy of you), a White, Black, a Semite, an African, an Asian, a Latin American - so long as he believes in the conservative Judaeo-Christian values of American society. How a person like B.O., a "stealth Marxist" as Dr. Savage most candidly describes, could do that is highly skeptical. Please note that I said MARXIST. I hate racism, in all of its manifestations, both the racism of Reverend Wright and the KKK. God must be loved and fear and hoped in, and racism – whether of blacks or whites or of any colour for that matter – is an unforgivable sin that goes against human nature.
I would like to pause and note: Dr. Savage, you're a man who loves America with all your heart, and you hope to preserve democracy and capitalism (like I do). I support you all the way, especially in your attacks on Islamofacists - given that this is tough love for the Muslim that the Muslims must learn from. I HATE the liberals that say that "Michael Savage hates Muslims," because it is the Godless liberals who hate the Muslim, not because Islam is just to diverse, because they have communist agendas which seek to undermine all religions by seeking to replace them with atheism and the New World Order. I'm an independent Muslim and because of Governor Palin, I registered Republican this year in the state of New York (even though I knew that this state would be consumed by Obamania, and now the city is already suffering some of the adverse-effects of McCain’s loss).
Obama's natural love and inclination to Islamofacism cannot be underestimated. I say what a radical Muslim, Samir Khan from Virginia (who was interviewed by the seditious New York Times on the 15th October in 2007) stated on his website
http://revolution.muslimpad.com
only a few days ago (just prior to the Election of 2008). I know how these people think, seriously, because I have talked to them - and it is simply gruesome stuff that I have heard with my own two ears. You'd expect these people to be locked up, but the government is not doing enough to prosecute the a Muslim insurgency within the United States.
By the way, as a Muslim, I have studied about my religion, only to discover that it is against the sharia for Muslims to undermine the authorities of the countries they reside, particularly the non-Muslim ones. There is a concensus on this issue in Islamic jurisprudence, and only the heretic Muslims seek to conveniently ignore or completely disregard it. What I am discussing is the "covenant of peace" signed by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) in the Treaty of Hudaibiyah. Thus, I am sick and tired of the extremist Muslims committing this abomination of starting a revolution that the Godless con-artist who fooled America (and God forbid Barry chooses to), Mr. "Nobama" hopes to plant in this country.
Muslims should be conservative Americans if they believe in God and country, but they love B.O., because they have been pushing for imposing Islam on the American people, even if the American people have overwhelmingly rejected Islam. This is important to acknowledge. Islam can be successful, if and only if, Muslims are willing to modernise - much like Turkey did (who enjoys the highest of standard living in the entire Muslim world, but even Turkey needs to Westernise and assimilate into European society). If Muslims choose to live in the Dark Ages, they would seek a communist like Junior Senator Barrack Hussein Obama II who would destroy America, because that's what they want. There's no joke about this. I'm dead serious about these things. Why do you think Muslims would wrap themselves in "change" and "hope," especially supposedly conservative ones who wear the hijab and burqa. I've been told in an American history class last summer not to listen to Daniel Pipes, when I agree with most, if not all, of intellectual insight into current events. I want the of subliminal subversion of the illiberal people to be understood by the American people for what it is: using the democratic process to destroy democracy, which is the ABSOLUTE antithesis of what America's founding fathers want - the preservation of American values.
My father immigrated from Northern India, legally may I add, to escape fundamentalism and socialism that has plagued the subcontinent. I’m looking forward to the Savage Party, and I will vote for whomsoever you nominate. I’d even be willing to volunteer for your effort to save this country. God bless the true compassionate conservatives and genuine independents like yourself - and God bless America.
A Loyal Listener to Your Passionate Monologues and Conversations with the American People, Asif Syed Zaman
Asif Syed Khaliq uz-Zaman ,
ReplyDeleteThat was impressive. I run this tiny blog, I must tell you this was one of the best posts from a Muslim I have ever recieved. Best of wishes to you and your family.
Jeff
God bless you, Jeff. You are most certainly welcome, and my best wishes to you and your family. I'm just trying to verify what the position of Muslims SHOULD be - at least if they want to STAY in the United States. Some of them are just so arrogant (whether their burqa-clad niqaabis in Flushing or a bunch of angry men protesting in favour of jihadism with Al Qaeda's flags in Astoria) that they don't even realise why some people have enough guts to ask them to assimilate into the American culture. Adhering to "borders, language, and culture" are necessary for the survival of both America and the Muslims that have chosen to reside here. Not only would America survive, it would thrive with such a policy. We simply can't have the home-grown terror or the insurgencies of Europe; that's suicide to any nation (notice that even the liberals of Europe have clamped down on the Muslims to protect their cultures from an invasion from the south and the east - Turks in Germany, Northern Africans in France, with the Muslim melting pot in the UK), and that's why (extreme) liberalism IS a mental disorder. The Europeans should realise that their leftist tendencies created the mess in the first place, not "imperialism" like a self-hating Jew like Chomsky would say.
ReplyDeleteIf MUSLIMS are in the Dark Ages (which a good number - in fact the predominant majority of them are living in), THEY need to modernise, THEY need to change. Can we impose that change on them? I believe that this is necessary, if it is in the interest of saving America. However, my Muslim bretheren need to learn to either be grateful or to stop meddling with America's policies. It's very disappointing to know that quite a handful of the Muslim immigrants come to America with the intention of destroying it. Then why come? If anything, Muslims should modernise their own countries if they're so disappointed with their rulers. Oh, but they looooveee the liberals and have become all touch-feely with them... and they adopt all these crack-pot conspiracy theories to justify why Islam should be imposed on Western society. Liberals need to stop justifying the backwardness of the Muslim world with anthropological references, while exercising their own feminist, homosexual, and anti-White tendencies. The Islamofacists hate feminism and sodomy, they claim to be against racism [although I must say the race card is played by at least some of these people who claim to be "holier than thou."] Instead, they want to destroy the governments, and they have the audacity to take their facist tendencies to the gates of the United States. That would make sense if they were an empire like the Abbasids or Umayyads, but it sounds like ANARCHY to ME - another reason why they're in cahoots with the liberals. There was a sect of Muslims known as the kharijites in the 7th century of the Common Era; the new generation of Islamofacists seem to fit at least some of the descriptions, whether it's at least some of the rulers or a fanatic number of the subjects. This is debatable (who is a kharijite and who is not as Muslim groups will often place the label on their opponents for the sake of consecrating their theologic correcntess), but the Saudis are directly responsible for this mess by having a puritanical sect of Muslims rule in alliance with an otherwise secular Saudi family. The Saudi translation of the Qur'an, which is peddled by the imams as being the most authentic translation, is the one that is cited for being the least tolerant one. Why are the liberals looking to Sufism (a mystic, more moderate variety of Islam), and then the Muslims themselves (particularly in the poorer New York City neighbourhoods), where these same Muslims might have otherwise considered gang affiliations and drug dealing as the Imam of Dar at-Tauheed, a Mr. Abu Yusuf, told me. I used to study under him until I couldn't tolerate the kinds of things he was teaching (a chapter known as wala wal-bara on hating non-Muslims and loving Islam no matter what. This man was at least considering radicalism about a decade ago, but he cooled down somehow and became a moderate. I still consider him to be very conservative even now because he's reading the fatwas of Bin Baaz, which I just hate hearing given their radical nature - which have little or nothing to do with Islam as they claim and more with appeasing the Saudi authorities, even if they had the blood of the Arabian people on their hands) are looking to Salafism (a radical, puritanical variety). In fact, I only noticed because I had a Turkish friend who reminded me of the need to life in peace and harmony. That's right: he was a good American citizen and a practising Muslim who reminded me that it is Muslims who have to make the choice to tolerate America, not the other way around. Besides, if America is the more powerful one (we're talking about the greatest nation on Earth), it only makes logical sense for Muslims to praise America rather than to force America to praise Muhammad. Muslims either don't want to acknowledge that American society is more balanced than their own, and we could go on and on with this - but I say this to them because it's for their own good. The immense fanaticism of a significant group of the Muslims (we're talking let's say at least 5-10% of the American Muslims, and perhaps as much as 25%, of them if we use a broader definition of them) is probably the same thing that attracts the liberals to them and vice versa - because both of them are power-hungry.
What I described here is simply unfortunate, but this is an interesting move that I must condemn because it is morally imperative on me as a Muslim to reject this devious alliance. I wish Muslims understood that God is punishing them for failing to modernise. Instead they think that their not radical enough, which is killing them in the other place. To top it all off, their killing innocent people along with themselves. Killing just one innocent person in the Qur'an is equal to killing humanity, so why do Muslims have such a double standard? Why can't Muslims acknowledge that there are certain groups who are seeking to annihilate the Jewish population in Palestine. I hate Arafat by the way, and if he were gay, the people should have stoned him - of all people. That's probably why he died of what I suspect to be AIDS. Through Savage, Bernard Lewis, and at least some signs of hope in the western education system, I have opened up to understanding the west. If the West is so eager to accept Islam - and appologising for the Crusades - then why don't the Muslims return the favour AS A WHOLE? God bless you too, Jeff. You are most certainly welcome, and my best wishes to you and your family. I'm just trying to verify what the position of Muslims SHOULD be - at least if they want to STAY in the United States. Here’s an essay I decided to contribute to your blog. I attend Queens College of the City University of New York and here’s what I have to say:
B.O., Islamofacism, and the Enemies Within
by Asif Zaman
Some of the Muslims are just so arrogant (whether their burqa-clad niqaabis in Flushing or a bunch of angry men protesting in favour of jihadism with Al Qaeda's flags in Astoria) that they don't even realise why some people have enough guts to ask them to assimilate into the American culture. Adhering to "borders, language, and culture" are necessary for the survival of both America and the Muslims that have chosen to reside here. Not only would America survive, it would thrive with such a policy. We simply can't have the home-grown terror or the insurgencies of Europe; that's suicide to any nation (notice that even the liberals of Europe have clamped down on the Muslims to protect their cultures from an invasion from the south and the east - Turks in Germany, Northern Africans in France, with the Muslim melting pot in the UK), and that's why (extreme) liberalism IS a mental disorder. The Europeans should realise that their leftist tendencies created the mess in the first place, not "imperialism" like a self-hating Jew like Chomsky would say.
If MUSLIMS are in the Dark Ages (which a good number - in fact the predominant majority of them are living in), THEY need to modernise, THEY need to change. Can we impose that change on them? I believe that this is necessary, so long as it is in the interest of saving America. I don’t like to see Muslims get killed, but Muslims can’t expect to launch attacks in America without repercussions. That’s just being naïve on their part! However, my Muslim bretheren need to learn to either be grateful or to stop meddling with America's policies. I pray five times a day, I follow all the pillars of Islam and I try to follow Islamic laws to the best of my ability (I’m no saint, and I’m probably a sinner who is hoping for God to be merciful given that I tried), but it's very disappointing for me to know that quite a handful of the Muslim immigrants come to America with the intention of destroying it. Then why come? If anything, Muslims should modernise their own countries if they're so disappointed with their rulers. Oh, but they looovvve the liberals and have become all touch-feely with them... and they adopt all these crack-pot conspiracy theories to justify why Islam should be imposed on Western society. Liberals need to stop justifying the backwardness of the Muslim world with anthropological references, while exercising their own feminist, homosexual, and anti-White tendencies.
The Islamofacists hate feminism and sodomy, they claim to be against racism [although I must say the race card is played by at least some of these people who claim to be "holier than thou."] Instead, they want to destroy the governments, and they have the audacity to take their fascist tendencies to the gates of the United States. That would make sense if they were an empire like the Abbasids or Umayyads, but it sounds like ANARCHY to ME - another reason why they're in cahoots with the liberals. There was a sect of Muslims known as the kharijites in the 7th century of the Common Era; the new generation of Islamofacists seem to fit at least some of the descriptions, whether it's at least some of the rulers or a fanatic number of the subjects. This is debatable (who is a kharijite and who is not as Muslim groups will often place the label on their opponents for the sake of consecrating their theological correctness), but the Saudis are directly responsible for this mess by having a puritanical sect of Muslims rule in alliance with an otherwise secular Saudi family.
The Saudi translation of the Qur'an, which is peddled by the imams as being the most authentic translation, is the SAME one that is cited for being the least tolerant one. Why are the liberals looking to Sufism (a mystic, more moderate variety of Islam), and then the Muslims themselves (particularly in the poorer New York City neighbourhoods), where these same Muslims might have otherwise considered gang affiliations and drug dealing as the Imam of Dar at-Tauheed (Jamaica Avenue and 124th Street), a Mr. Abu Yusuf, told me on his own volition – not just to me but to all his students in general. I used to study under him until I couldn't tolerate the kinds of things he was teaching (he emphasised a chapter of jurisdiction known as al-wala wal-bara on hating non-Muslims and loving Islam no matter what). This man was at least considering radicalism about a decade ago, but he cooled down somehow and became a moderate. I still consider him to be very conservative even now because he's reading the fatwas of Bin Baaz, which I just hate hearing given their radical nature (he believes women must cover the face and that they can’t drive) – thing which have little or nothing to do with Islam as they claim and more with appeasing the Saudi authorities, even if they had the blood of the Arabian people on their hands are looking to Salafism (a radical, puritanical variety). I’m still a Muslim (perhaps even more Orthodox than I might have been, say 5 years ago when I started even praying as an attempt to discover more about my religion), but I could have sworn that if I didn’t chose to work Islam into American values, that I would either have ended in prison (like Fahad Hashmi who was associated with this imam) or as a Christian (due to the more tolerant nature of Christianity at this point in time). However, I realised that it was the brand of Islam, not Islam itself despite the tendencies in Islam to allow this madness. In fact, I only noticed all of these things because I had a Turkish friend who reminded me of the need to life in peace and harmony. Furthermore a Bangladeshi friend of mine pointed out that Muslims have had a history of criticising scientists and artists, even at the pinnacle of their success – which probably is a more rational approach to explaining the downfall of Islamic culture as Europe simultaneously awoke to the Renaissance (by no coincidence but by their own choice).
That's right: those two were good American citizens and practising Muslims who reminded me that it is Muslims who have to make the choice to tolerate America, NOT the other way around. Besides, if America is the more powerful one (we're talking about the greatest nation on Earth), it only makes logical sense for Muslims to praise America rather than to force America to praise Muhammad. I could praise him here by saying “peace and blessings of God be upon him,” but Muhammad was a man and NOT God himself. So the praise is not actually worshipping him, but a way of praising God through praising his Creation. His name means “most praiseworthy” anyway, and I can praise him with my heart by believing I love him. How do I love him? By re-interpreting his religion to fit with Judaeo-Christian values, as they should be. That’s how Islam came to power in the first place. Why can’t MOST Muslims acknowledge that? I can praise Muhammad by tolerating Jews and Christians. I can praise Muhammad by condemning Islamofacism. Aren’t these more pragmatic ways of praising Muhammad and of clearing Muhammad’s name from the extremism he’s been so associated. If I want to condemn Muhammad that’s easy: keep up the fundamentalist racket. Better yet, continue to deny there are problems with the way an influential, problematic group of Muslims are practising their religion. Of course, that’s NOT the right choice, but it’s a choice that the Muslims need to accept that they have so wrongly made. Only through accepting the problem of radical Islam (without this schizophrenic round of double-talk) can Islam liberalise see brighter days. When you’re backward, you must go forward to make up for lost changes. When you’ve become a confused liberal, only then must you conserve and consolidate. The liberal on the other hand wants you to become a Godless communist so the Islamofacist can convert you to Islam. Then what was the point of indoctrinating them Marxist hogwash in the first place?
You know how people said the McCain camp was too negative? I think not! The poor guy had several Judases in his campaign, and even Governor Palin realised that. I expect to see her rewarded in the future (but she must learn from the mistakes made this time, and get more of something called experience); I disagreed with Dr. Savage on this issue, but I’m glad to know he respects her. However, Savage is probably right about this, and McCain should and could have turned to him for advice. Muslims are the ones being negative here with the da’wah (the call to Islam), but history has shown that people were more likely to convert to Islam when Islam had something to offer, NOT by the sword. I can give you a few instances: Sub-Saharan West Africa under Mansa Musa, the Muslims of South India and the Maldives, and Indonesia. The more radical types did use what we’d call ethnic cleansing, but only at the expense of alienating the non-Muslims who remained in these areas – where conflict is brewing. This conflict is perpetuated for two reasons, in my own opinion: (1) radical Islam from Saudi Arabia and (2) centuries-old grudges have been transformed into nationalist and ethnic disputes, which may or may not be initiated by the Muslims themselves. The West has only recently had to deal with great numbers of Muslims, and perhaps they should be aware of what some fanatic Muslims are capable of. Being small in numbers doesn’t trivialise the situation. Islam should spread democratically, and not because people are afraid of Islam or seeking new customers. That’s being a phony Muslim anyway; it’s theologically wrong on another front. That feeds the hypocrisy that Islam has come to be associated with. If people want to be true Muslims, it shouldn’t be out of an urge to cater to Muslims but a personal choice. How the Islamist nuts made it their mission to kill or convert is probably because a wolf in sheep’s clothing told them to hijack the religion rather than fading away with time. I remind the non-Muslims that the Prophet Muhammad can be seen incorrectly in dreams (especially since Muslims don’t know what Muhammad looks like, and most don’t), and sometimes is Satan in the guise of Muhammad. So that’s something to be careful about, for Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
It’s only human nature that the former (free acceptance) will be received better than the latter. Whatever happened to Baraqah 256, “Their shall be no compulsion in the religion.” Muslims cannot simply debunk western thought in the West, they must offer something to Western society rather than a crypto-Muslim like Obama or the Islamic “Thinkers Society.” This group, interestingly enough (I’ve seen how they think first-hand and what they did with my two eyes before my own mother and father told me to stop associating with them or they’d throw me on the street when I was at the age of 20, and I noticed their double standards rather quickly on) is that they publicly condemn 9/11, but praise the attacks secretly. Talk about people who think! If they knew anything about Public Relations, don’t they know if that such things leak that they would be in seriously trouble. I’m calling on the American people to do some research and be educated. Don’t accept Islam because you fear them. Accept Islam because you like it. You don’t have to like it if you don’t want to. I’m perfectly fine with that. What God wants is up to debate (I’m not saying that I say all religions are acceptable), since we all are using His Holy Name. It should be a personal choice between a person and God. That’s how it should, would, and can be if it isn’t.
CAIR has even told their leader about the lawsuits they plan after Obama is inaugurated. If you saw their websites, you’d think CAIR and ITS hate each other. Not true! That’s what they want you to believe. Well, I believe that HONESTY IS THE BEST POLICY (if Muslims want to promote Islam they have to condemn the extremists whoever they are), unlike these groups – both of whom publicly condemn each other (I’m sure www.islamicthinkers.com would make you believe that CAIR doesn’t have “true Muslims,” and that CAIR probably condemns extremists), but at the end of the day, you’d see how that CAIR was probably seeking to look the other way under GWB, but now that BHO their purported friend in the White House (I doubt he’s actually sympathetic to the Muslim issues anyway, just like all those other frauds in the Islamic world), will be in power – they probably will conclude a peace that will call for Iraq and Afghanistan to be in pieces, may God forbid. Just like Saudi Arabia, we have Muslim groups intimidating Muslims to follow their brand of Islam (of course it’s more subtle so that you could judge by the buildings and the dialogue that we were living in America without noticing the apartments filled with Islamofacist ranting being streamed on Paltalk from Britain).
However, the public doesn’t seem to do a thing about them regardless of that. Why, may I ask? The Islamic Thinkers Society however are “peaceful” sympathisers, but just imagine if someone actually put their ideas into practise from their group. They don’t give money to any terrorist group, to the best of my knowledge. If they did that, only then, would they be screwed for good – unless B.O. decides to change his mind after reading what the Feds delivered him today. That’s an important condition, but if Barrack Hussein Obama wants however to look the other way for revealing the true rusty colour of “change” and “hope,” God forbid, I pray for this country to be safe from its enemies. Cuba and Venezuela are linked by socialism, with Iran tied to this in recent “conservative” reforms in Venezuelan society following a warming in relations over the last few years. Then there’s Bolivia and the Marxists of Latin America, not to mention a proxy that Iran has been eying on for years: Lebanon. Let’s not get started about them…
Muslims either don't want to acknowledge that American society is more balanced than their own, and we could go on and on with this - but I say this to them because it's for their own good. The immense fanaticism of a significant group of the Muslims (we're talking let's say at least 5-10% of the American Muslims, and perhaps as much as 25% of them, if we use a broader definition of the more subtle varieties of fanaticism that they seek to cover-up because of their fear of being suspected) is probably the same thing that attracts the liberals to them and vice versa - because both of them are power-hungry.
What I described here is simply unfortunate, but this is an interesting move that I must condemn because it is morally imperative on me as a Muslim to reject this devious alliance. I wish Muslims understood that God is punishing them for failing to modernise. Instead they think that their not radical enough, which is killing them in the first place. To top it all off, their killing innocent people along with themselves. Killing just one innocent person in the Qur'an is equal to killing humanity, so why do Muslims have such a double standard? Why can't Muslims acknowledge that there are certain groups who are seeking to annihilate the Jewish population in Palestine. I hate Arafat by the way, and if he were gay, the people there should have stoned him (as Savage) - of all people. That's probably why he died of what I suspect to be AIDS. Through Savage, Bernard Lewis, and at least some signs of hope in the western education system, I have opened up to understanding the west. If the West is so eager to accept Islam - and appologising for the Crusades - then why don't the Muslims return the favour AS A WHOLE?
The fact of the matter is that there might be, God forbid, a greater number of Muslims who indulge in extremist activities than the numbers of Muslims who are giving Islam a good, or maybe even respectable name (though it’s hard to think of more than a handful of the latter). Why are the Muslims attacking the media, when the media is the same one who is praising them? See what I mean. That’s why the American people are subscribing to less newspapers and finally doing what it should have done years ago, listen to independent conservative radio stations like Dr. Savage’s. Savage does his research, and he amazes me with his well-rounded knowledge. He’s better than Karl Rove, because he’s NOT a part of a political machine – but the voice of the American people, instead, and God bless him for that. Whatever the case, the number of Muslims who conveniently ignore the extremists within their own religion is much greater than ones who sympathise with the terrorists.
Either the liberals think that that Sufism represents Islam better [it does; that’s my answer through my analysis of Muslim groups], but the problem is that most of the people that take these classes are nice, tolerant Jewish liberals who end up believing this to be mainstream Islam. They even convert to Islam, at least some of them. It might be that Sufism is mainstream, democratic Islam, but Salafism (which I was referring to earlier) is the more radical, legalistic understanding of sharia that does not allow for tolerance. Salafism ironically allows for the Wahhabi hypocrisy that has alienated Saudi Arabia from the masses of Muslims. Muslims get very emotional about Arabia, because it is where Islam sprung up from, but they don't realise that Arabia was out of touch with the rest of the Muslim world as early as 661, when the capital was transferred to Damascus (I believe the caliphate of Ali had a non-Arabian capital as well) in Syria, with the establishment of a more liberal Muslim dynasty, the Umayyads. My definition of Arabia here is the Arabian peninsula, and does not include Iraq (which was known as Mesopatamia until the break-up of the Ottoman Empire), Greater-Syria Palestine.
If we notice, the more tolerant Muslims are in Turkey, because the Ottomans did enjoy European culture, and the Kemalists tried to some extent to modernise and secularise their country (Mustafa Kemal encouraged the Muslims there to stop conquering and start reforming, although perhaps he was considered too nationalistic to be considered a model for all Muslims as a whole). The radical fatwas, the 9/11 hijackers, the Saudi dynasty, and even Islamofacism as an ideology all come from or are associated with the Salafis.
I don't understand why this group of Muslims would seek to destroy a society so badly, unless they want to - God forbid, destroy America in order to replace it with an Islamic society. This society would not be liberal by any means, but an extremely conservative reaction to the same people who they befriended. They even remind you on the BBC that the Europeans took Islamic culture and then dumped the religious aspects of it in history (which is not necessarily true given that there are native Muslim populations in the Balkans from Ottoman times and many loyal servants of the British and French empires did come back after World War II), but they conveniently forget to remind you of the present: where they seek to Islamise Europe while discrediting the Judeo-Christian foundations of European society. Why lose the forest for the trees? Why ignore the present to look at the past? As a Muslim, I feel outraged that my religion is being maligned with the destruction of Western civilisation.
Given that America is facing a series of external and an internal threats, at least one of which President-Elect B.O. is associated with, a policy of "borders, language, and culture" would protect America's security without undermining diversity (except for that seditious, imposing one that is associated with Islamofacism, militant homosexuality, communism and other threats). I guess we'll have to wait and see how things turn out on 20 January, but it's always better to be safe than sorry. Dr. Savage is like a philosopher to me, and I'm really grateful to both him and to you, Jeff, because you act as a check and / or a balance by being a conservative watchdog, when all three branches of government have adopted very socialist agendas (given that an otherwise moderate centre-left government is being run by the extremists, the "hard-liners " dare I say, within their own party).
Please note that after listening to Dr. Savage and reading his works – I admire his in-your-face approach that I have started speaking, talking, and writing like him. However, everything I said in this paper was written by me. My research was not done here and now, but rather I have made a reflection over several experiences in my life, and I’m sharing what I know with the public at large. If I knew anything more threatening than this, I would have alerted the FBI or Homeland Security immediately, but I have not heard any planning for any incidents or anything of that sort. As an American first, it is my civic duty to make sure the United States is kept safe from its enemies, either real or perceived. The radical Muslims are not only perceived enemies; they are the real enemies. Note my use of radical. I don’t know how all these people can get away with it, but my fear is that Obama would want to spread not only your wealth to poorer, or at least lazier people who don’t deserve it (members of his party as I suspect, or at least illegal Muslim immigrants posing as Mexicans), but Islam – and not the peaceful kind either. I love America, and I want Muslims to learn to love it. This cannot be said enough. Only one in fourty Americans is a Muslim, why force the other 39 out of 40 (some 97.5%) to learn about Islam – when it is easier, and more effective, to encourage American patriotism, assimilation, and learning of English for the Muslims. Many of them already speak English better than the Mexicans, and are surprisingly many are literate in both their native and learned languages. They are very religious (some of them), and some of them (I would myself, but I live too far from a mosque) even pray 5 times a day in the mosque. Why then do they hate America, and give ITS salutary neglect? Didn’t America give them that right to enter that mosque and praise Allah. Not a single prayer is complete with asking for guidance (as in Fatihah), or praising Muhammad (the Darood Shareef) or praising Abraham (also in this Darood Shareef). The older immigrants were filtered out through a process of assimilation (it was flawed, but better than today’s system); Dr. Savage is a model citizen and he exemplifies this given that he’s a product of immigrants who learned to love America. Does that have to be such a bad thing, even when National Pubic Radio is so quick to point out?
The Muslims – particularly the ones since the 1960s, and from the 80s onwards – are doing a great disservice to this country by coming with pre-conceived notions of usurping rather than sharing resources, and condemning differences rather than welcoming them. It is completely insane for the liberals to appreciate them; they justs get so happy when the jihadists come to protest against Israel’s existence (I saw this on the 60th anniversary of Israeli Independence) by saying sick and perverted things to the children. Is this the race war that Obama wants to start? What the hell is wrong with these people? Don’t they realise what they’re doing? Obama and all this; it’s hard to fit him into the equation if a blind eye is being turned to the radicals in the country the militant Muslims hate the most: the United States of America. The fear of lawsuits makes people paranoid, and my parents sare still rendering my bills, given that I’m in my final year of undergrad. How did Christianity become the dominant religion of the Roman Empire and its Christsian successors? Appealing to Roman values! By appealing to American values, Muslims in America can succeed in this world and the next, God willing. Thank you for giving me a chance to express my views, and God bless America.
Where I talked about Arafat, I meant to say "as Savage (said himself). This is in his chapter (#4 I believe), Traders vs. Traitors. If there is anything wrong that you feel I said, I am ready to correct it (in case it was a typo). I don't want to be misunderstood for a simple grammatical or punctuational error. That would be stupid on my part and defeating the purpose of dialogue. I'm so glad you people are open-minded, and Muslims must learn from what Lewis himself referred to it in "What Went Wrong," thank God our professor Dr. Martin Pine of the history department, made it a required reading for our "Four Contemporary Crises," though he used Chomsky at the end, which kind of counter-balanced Lewis' argument. I tried to keep the piece that I just wrote interesting, but entirely true. Now sunrise is coming, I don't want to miss my dawn prayer! I hope this piece answers more questions than it may raise. I am trying to portray Islam as it is - as an independent conservative American and a moderate Muslim too.
ReplyDelete