Friday, January 04, 2008

MUSLIMS vs JIHAD?

Who would you want on your side if gang members from the religion of peace surrounded you in a dead end alleyway?
A ‘Moderate’ Muslim?

The same people who tell us that Islam is a religion of peace tell us that Muslims are ‘our greatest allies’ against jihad. That there exists a world of evidence proving both of these assumptions to be empirically false hasn’t yet mattered to those in Washington P.C.
To call Washington’s refusal to know what makes the enemy tick a dereliction of duty is an understatement.
In a sane world, after suffering through George ‘Islam means peace’ Bush’s quarter-assed response to jihad, the current crop of candidates would be publicly quizzed about their knowledge of Islam and the Enemy as being a clear prerequisite to becoming commander in chief. As of today, only Romney has been willing to use the word Jihad.

As to ‘our greatest allies’: Muslims have proven themselves to be mere sheep to their jihadist wolves. While we never hear a peep from Muslims when Infidels are murdered by one of their own, they get jolted from their moral coma only when Islam is slighted by a non-Muslim. And they run to Islam’s rescue as if it were a damsel in distress Muslim brother in distress. They have shown themselves to be not only irrelevant against Jihad, but also sympathetic towards it. It’s something we’re going to have to come to grips with and that they’re going to have to answer for. Muslims as a group are not on our side and, according to Islam, shouldn’t be on our side in any context. I’m speaking mainly about the Muslim Collective, the submitted Muslims who aren't quite jihadists, but sure as hell are not rooting against Jihad either. Which brings me to a great quote from George Orwell that is relevant here, even though it’s about pacifism in wartime, 1942:

"Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me.' "

[The next two paragraphs are a continuation of Orwell’s line of thought, published 9/26/01 and written by Michael Kelly, the first journalist to be killed in Iraq in April 2003]

“England's pacifists howled, but Orwell's logic was implacable. The Nazis wished the British to not fight. If the British did not fight, the Nazis would conquer Britain. The British pacifists also wished the British to not fight. The British pacifists, therefore, were on the side of a Nazi victory over Britain. They were objectively pro-Fascist.

An essentially identical logic obtains now. Organized terrorist groups have attacked America. These groups wish the Americans to not fight. The American pacifists wish the Americans to not fight. If the Americans do not fight, the terrorists will attack America again. And now we know such attacks can kill many thousands of Americans. The American pacifists, therefore, are on the side of future mass murders of Americans. They are objectively pro-terrorist.”


To further make this important point: Muslim’s haven’t done anything against Jihad and they sure as hell don’t want us to do anything against their 'sacred' Jihad, objectively making them on the side of Jihadists. If Muslims aren’t for the defeat of Jihad, then they’re objectively for its victory and will not lift a finger to challenge it. They need not necessarily act against us to be against us, since some Muslims simply aren’t built to be jihadists, but instead are meant to stand by passively as the Jihad has its way with the world.
The only way we can fully defend ourselves and give Muslims an incentive to proactively reject Jihad is to ruthlessly crush it and bury it once and for all, whatever it takes. In doing so, 'moderate' Muslims will magically pop up all over the world, glad to be alive and having avoided the fate of the jihadists. It’s a start.
Only when the enemy is crushed will the non-Mohammed Muslims be able to take the stage of Islam that the jihadists owned for a thousand years. Then Muslims will be given a chance to join the civilized world and begin making the case for a pacified Islam, or scrap the whole mess entirely. Islam’s fate will be up to them at that point, unless they pull a jihad revival, and then it’ll be up to us, because we cannot allow ourselves to be at the mercy of an enemy for whom Nukes are the answer.

50 comments:

Mike Thompson said...

Beautiful play on words, Bosch, and a very well-written post. Love the image, too.

phuckie slum said...

"The only way we can fully defend ourselves and give Muslims an incentive to proactively reject Jihad is to ruthlessly crush it and burn it once and for all, whatever it takes. In doing so, 'moderate' Muslims will magically pop up all over the world, glad to be alive and having avoided the fate of the jihadists. It’s a start."

Fixed.
I'd much rather see this ideology burnt and hanged from a bridge in the west bank.

Simply excellent post, Bosch.

Bosch Fawstin said...

Mike,

Thank you, I think its important that Muslims make it clear to us And themselves where the hell they Individually stand against Jihad.


Phuckie Slum,

Touche, cremation seems more final than burial, thanks.

Fellow Infidel said...

"Crush and Bury". amen.
Thanks Bosch.

Muslims Against Sharia said...

Most of the Western Muslim establishment is comprised of Islamist groups claiming to be moderates. True moderate Muslims reject Islamic supremacy and Sharia; embrace religious equality and democracy.

What is a moderate Muslim? According to a dictionary, a moderate is a person who is opposed to radical or extreme views or measures, especially in politics or religion. Yet, majority of the public seem to be struggling with the definition of a moderate Muslim. Perhaps we can make this task easier by defining a radical Muslim and then defining the moderate as an opposite of the radical.

Muslims Against Sharia compiled a list of issues that differentiate moderate Muslims from Islamic radicals. Hopefully you can help us grow this list.
http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/ 2008/01/what-is-moderate-muslim.html

Poll: Who is a moderate Muslim?
http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/ 2008/01/poll-who-is-moderate-muslim.html

Bosch Fawstin said...

Muslims Against Sharia,

Let me first acknowledge that as far as being against Sharia Law, we’re on the same page, but your claim that the violent verses from the Koran did not come from Allah contradict Mohammed’s claims that they Did, and it brings into question your faith in the word of your prophet.

On your site, you write about your Reformed Koran:

‘With the help of our readers we went through the Koran and removed every verse that we believe did not come from Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate.’

Islam is what it is, The Koran says what it says, and Mohammed did what he did, no matter if it doesn’t comport with your Personal attitudes towards violence. It was violence, not preaching, which spread Islam. As you know, the Koran is meant to be the verbatim word of Allah and Muslims are meant to submit to it and obey it without Question. I’m curious, after your attempt to reform your Koran of the violent passages you believe aren’t from Allah, how will you come to terms with Mohammed’s violence, based on those verses you disclaim? It’s one thing to attempt to reform the violent words of the Koran, how can you reform Mohammed’s violent Actions?
Your stance leads you to necessarily condemn Mohammed.

Mohammed’s actual, historic, Koranically sanctioned violence, which inspires today’s Jihad, makes your mission impossible, but I’m glad that hasn’t stopped you from recognizing that Sharia Law and all of its antecedents are to be fought.

And let me ask you this:

If you accepted the Islamic premise that the Koran IS the word of Allah, that those violent verses Are actually from Allah, would you still be a Muslim? And if not, why not?

Muslims Against Sharia said...

“Mohammed’s claims that they Did”

Either the Prophet was wrong or, which is more likely, those verses were added/changed after his death.

“Islam is what it is, The Koran says what it says, and Mohammed did what he did, no matter if it doesn’t comport with your Personal attitudes towards violence.”

Since neither of us were eyewitnesses to the events, there is not way to know for sure was really happened.

“It was violence, not preaching, which spread Islam.”

And we believe that it was a perversion of Islam, and not what was intended by God.

“how will you come to terms with Mohammed’s violence, based on those verses you disclaim?”

9/11 was the most documented event in human history. Notwithstanding, just a few years later, you can find multiple “historical” accounts of the events.

“If you accepted the Islamic premise that the Koran IS the word of Allah, that those violent verses Are actually from Allah, would you still be a Muslim?”

Our manifesto answers this question.

phuckie slum said...

muslims against sharia said:
“Mohammed’s claims that they Did”

- (1) - Either the Prophet was wrong or, which is more likely, those verses were added/changed after his death.


“Islam is what it is, The Koran says what it says, and Mohammed did what he did, no matter if it doesn’t comport with your Personal attitudes towards violence.”

- (2) - Since neither of us were eyewitnesses to the events, there is not way to know for sure was really happened.


Answer:

- (1) - Do you dare to suggest that Mohammad was wrong to say Jews are the descendants of rats, pigs and apes or was that added/changed too? or is that still permissible in "moderate" Islam? I'd like an answer on that. Either way, "moderate" Nazis could also rewrite anything, like Hitler's Mein Kampf or speeches that were 'more likely added/changed too'.

- (2) - Again, same issue; You can choose not to believe Mohammad was a mass terrorist murderer and a rapist. It's as if a "reformed" Nazi will claim Adolf Hitler 'may' have been wrong with his absolute violence (since, quote: "neither of us were eyewitnesses to the [holocaust] events, there is not way to know for sure was really happened") but it's more likely the twisted historical documentation that was added/changed after his death.

"Moderate" Nazis don't officially exist, but there are many pockets of white supremacist "moderates" in europe who live a normal liberal life and are democratic on paper, which doesn't change the fact they virtually fail on every account as they are on a par with hardcore neo-nazis, such as the Iranian primate Ahmadinejad.

This, and "moderate" Islam are very similar. "Moderate" muslims can flounder and tamper with the overwhelming violent Koran and the culture it documents all they want, you just can't demand this awfully weird recognition. You can't deny Mohammad's sheer violent life on one hand and on the other embrace contemporary liberalism to the fullest.
Personally, you may be a peaceful and a non-violent good hearted individual, but stripping out the evil indoctrination from Islam doesn't change the fact that "moderate" muslims are more likely obsolete and unhelpful at the best case scenario.

Although, being anti-sharia is an almost good start.
By saying 'almost' I mean light years from being far.

Muslims Against Sharia said...

“Do you dare to suggest that Mohammad was wrong to say Jews are the descendants of rats, pigs and apes or was that added/changed too?”

Most likely it was changed/added, but if the Prophet said that, it wasn’t one of his finest moments. To say something like that is wrong, no matter who says that.

“or is that still permissible in "moderate" Islam?”

Apparently, you have a very vague idea of what moderate Muslims are. See if this helps. You must be a total moron to compare Muslims with Nazis. It makes as much sense as saying that all Germans were Nazis. Your stupidity is as impressive as your projection.

phuckie slum said...

"(1)You must be a total moron to compare Muslims with Nazis. (2)It makes as much sense as saying that all Germans were Nazis. (3)Your stupidity is as impressive as your projection."

(1) FYI, if you want to live up to the 'dictionary definition' of a moderate you ought to dump Ad hominem. European supremacy has lots of resemblance to Arab supremacy, or any supremacy whether you like it or not. Obviously there are deep cultural and technical differences between Muslims and Nazis (especially now 1400 years after Mo violently stamped his 'religion' all over the mid-east, asia and africa, today's common muslim isn't a clone to Mo's army of terrorists. The Nazis, however, were wiped out before every other boy in europe and elsewhere was named Adolf). Still, we cannot ignore the two lines seamlessly converging in WW2, which is a mere micro-spec in an ocean of similarities.

(2) I never said all germans are nazis nor that all arabs are muslims. So instead of swearing at me, how about you trying to convince me that generally comparing muslims to nazis is absolutely false.

(3) Your online avatar is as laughable as your self-definition.

Bosch Fawstin said...

Muslims Against Sharia,

You’d be much more effective if you resisted your temptation to suggest that the parts of the Koran that make you squirm couldn’t possibly be from Allah. Muslims who haven’t fully submitted their minds to Islam may individually have their own opinions about the moral validity of any given Muslim texts, but they cannot pretend that the texts they disagree with are untrue and the texts they agree with are true.

On your site, you acknowledge that the Koran ‘calls for mass murder of unbelievers.’
But then you subtract from that truth to add:
‘Could it be possible that the Koran itself was corrupted by Muslims over the last thirteen centuries?’
I’d say it’s the Koran itself that has corrupted Muslims over the last thirteen centuries.

People are dying Every Single Day because your fellow Muslims are taking those words that You don’t like to be associated with Seriously. This is No time to pretend that Islam is Not what it Is, that it is Not what it Has Been, in the name of your peace of mind as a Muslim. You might as well call yourselves The Skeptical Muslims and be done with it. We're at War and nothing less than the Full Truth being spoken and acted on is going to win the day.

Muslims Against Sharia said...

phuckie slum,

“you ought to dump Ad hominem”

I stand by my description of you being a fucking moron based o a simple fact that you are too stupid to see the hypocrisy complaining about any insults while having a name like this.

Bosch Fawstin,

“You’d be much more effective if you resisted your temptation to suggest that the parts of the Koran that make you squirm couldn’t possibly be from Allah.”

Our assertion is based on simple logic. We believe that Allah is the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate, and, therefore the verses in the Koran that makes us squirm cannot possibly come from him. In addition, most of those verses contradict other Koranic verses, which conflict with the doctrine of Allah’s infallibility.

“I’d say it’s the Koran itself that has corrupted Muslims over the last thirteen centuries.”

We believe that, but we don’t know it for a fact, that’s why it is put in the form of question.

I appreciate your point, but we believe that our approach is the most pragmatic and will yield the best results. However, I admit that we could be wrong.

Bosch Fawstin said...

Muslims Against ________,

As to your acknowledgment of the contradictory, conflicting verses of the Koran, which you suggest leave Allah off the hook, here's Allah from the Koran, chapter 2 verse 106:

'If We abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten, We will replace it by a better one or one similar. Did you not know that God has power over all things?'

It's the Islamic Doctrine of Abrogation, and either you knew that or you hoped I didn't.

The rest of my argument against you is your last post.


Phuckie Slum,

Good stuff, my friend, keep doing it the way you do, especialy when you get a 'Moderate' Muslim who stands for 'Peace Love Light' to lose it on you in more ways than one.

1:56 PM

phuckie slum said...

"“you ought to dump Ad hominem”

I stand by my description of you being a fucking moron based o a simple fact that you are too stupid to see the hypocrisy complaining about any insults while having a name like this."


Are you kidding me? You're commenting in a blog that puts my nickname to shame. Your cause isn't that different than what I state in a couple of words. Only I curse Islam's overwhelming evil, while you deny it, whitewash it and physically alter its symbol.

That just made you hit the end of infinity for hypocrisy, arguably more than jihadists, which already passes the points of being stupid and a fucking moron.

phuckie slum said...

Bosch,

Thank you.
As always, you hit the spot with every drawing and article.

Muslims Against Sharia said...

Bosch Fawstin,

Verse 2.106 contradicts the doctrine of God’s infallibility, therefore it is invalid. We believe that doctrine of abrogation is an attempt by nefarious people to pass their words as divine.

phuckie slum,

Someone with a name like “fuck Christianity” or any variation thereof should expect to be called a fucking moron. I don’t understand why you are so surprised.

Bosch Fawstin said...

Muslims Against,

It's one thing to believe in The Good and to reject The Bad in real life, but to NOT believe the bad in Islam in principle [seeing it as untrue] and to ONLY believe the 'good' of it is your major problem and it has Nothing to do with Islam and Everything to do with your ideas about what a religion OUGHT to be.

That Islam shatters those ideas to smithereens is just the beginning of your problem.

But instead of making peace with that, you're fighting hard to maintain not so much Islam, but your ideas about what god, religion, and prophets Ought to be.
It's not between you and your god,necessarily, but moreso between your noble ideas about religion and the ignoble reality of Islam.
You've got your work cut out for you, but I will say that I truly wish that all Muslims were like you and your group. Regardless of my disagreements with you, they can remain disagreements and not turn into a death match like it would with Muslims who take Islam literally.

Muslims Against Sharia said...

Bosch Fawstin,

We think that you are wrong, but you are entitled to your opinion.

phuckie slum said...

muslims against sharia-law wrote:
I don’t understand why you are so surprised.

You also don't understand a hell of a lot.
Again, you walk into a blog that's thoroughly against Islam, its practices and laughable apologists, with pathetically anemic arguments. You can use "fuck christianity" all you want, but evidently, even if my nickname was originally, say 'phuckay dolf', you'd still resort to personal insults as we already witnessed in your first reply to me that it was my comparison between muslims and nazis -- and not at all my nickname.

Even if you slurred at my argument, aka "fucking moronic comparison", it would still be a fallacy.

Congratulations, you've hit the full-o-shit's infinity meter twice if all you choose to focus on against everything here or what I said is my nickname.

Bosch Fawstin said...

Muslims Against' said:

'Bosch Fawstin,

We think that you are wrong, but you are entitled to your opinion.'



As you would not be entitled to your opinion in a country where your religion rules.
It's not me you need to convince, it's your true beleiving Muslim brothers and sisters. But if you do try it, make sure you do so from a distance.

Muslims Against Sharia said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
phuckie slum said...

I was close to agree with Bosch's last post, but apparently 'moderates' that cannot endure criticism and immediately shut out while cluster shitting all over the place are not moderates at all.

'muslims against sharia', if you disagreed with my opinion that Islamists, who are muslims, are comparable to nazis, and at the same time disagreed with bosch's opinion but entitled him to his opinion, aren't you breaking another level of hypocrisy here?

or are you calling bosch a fucking moron?

Muslims Against Sharia said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bosch Fawstin said...

Damn, you Are Muslims, all right.

Bosch Fawstin said...

Muslims Against,

You’re part of a religion that has the blood of millions and the suffering of untold millions on its record. And in the face of such monumental evil, the most important thing to you and your group is that Islam and Allah and Mohammed take NO moral responsibility for it, as if your conspiracy theory that it was evil Muslims who corrupted Islam somehow gives you peace of mind as a Muslim.

And for the record, Phuckie Slum did Not say that Muslims are Nazis, as you so desperately want to make it seem that he did. But when Mein Kampf [My Struggle/Jihad] is a best seller in the Muslim world Today, there’s definitely a clear sympathy between the ideologies, least of all the murderous hatred of Jews. There’s a direct history as well between Nazism and Islam. Besides the Muslim world rooting for the Nazis, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and Hitler were bedfellows in Germany, with the Mufti enthusiastically helping to expedite the holocaust against the Jews. That he was the uncle of the weapon of ass destruction, Arafag, is even more fitting.

Muslims Against Sharia said...

“You’re part of a religion that has the blood of millions and the suffering of untold millions on its record.”

If you are a Christian, right back at you. But unlike you, I understand that blaming you personally for the atrocities of your coreligionists is simply idiotic.

“the most important thing to you and your group is that Islam and Allah and Mohammed take NO moral responsibility for it”

No, the most important thing is that you have reading comprehension problems. Our banner, which is posted on top of every page, clearly states: “Accepting Responsibilities.” Our manifesto reads: “we must acknowledge evils done by Muslims in the name of Islam and accept responsibility for those evils.” But it is obvious that it doesn’t matter what we say, because you already have your preconceived notion and no amount of facts will change it.

“And for the record, Phuckie Slum did Not say that Muslims are Nazis, as you so desperately want to make it seem that he did.”

No, but from the following excerpt his implication is very clear: “is that still permissible in "moderate" Islam? I'd like an answer on that. Either way, "moderate" Nazis could also rewrite anything.”

I have no problems with calling Islamist Nazis. I do it all the time.

“But when Mein Kampf [My Struggle/Jihad] is a best seller in the Muslim world Today, there’s definitely a clear sympathy between the ideologies, least of all the murderous hatred of Jews. ”

The ideologies are almost identical, but you are confusing Islam, a religion with Islamism, a political ideology. The religion is a private relationship between human and God and has no place in public arena.

Muslims Against Sharia said...

More on the subject of idiocy of preconceived notions. See comments on this post. Unless we can be dirty taqiyya-practicing Muslims and loony neocons at the same time.

Bosch Fawstin said...

Muslims Against,

I wrote:

'..... the most important thing to you and your group is that Islam and Allah and Mohammed take NO moral responsibility for it[a millenium of atrocities], as if your conspiracy theory that it was evil Muslims who corrupted Islam somehow gives you peace of mind as a Muslim.


You responded with:

'No, the most important thing is that you have reading comprehension problems. Our banner, which is posted on top of every page, clearly states: “Accepting Responsibilities.” Our manifesto reads: “we must acknowledge evils done by Muslims in the name of Islam and accept responsibility for those evils.”

My point stands:

You blame Muslims
NOT Islam
NOT Allah
NOT Mohammed

That's not taking responsiblity, that's shifting it away from your sacred trio.

Let's try something elementary:
Do you accept that Mohammed answered his critics with assassination and that he spread Islam with his sword?

Muslims Against Sharia said...

"My point stands:

You blame Muslims
NOT Islam
NOT Allah
NOT Mohammed

That's not taking responsiblity, that's shifting it away from your sacred trio."

For centuries of anti-Semitism,

Do you blame Christianity?
Do you blame Yahweh?
Do you blame Jesus?
Or do you blame Christians?

“Do you accept that Mohammed answered his critics with assassination and that he spread Islam with his sword?”

Yes. But we consider Muhammad God’s messenger, not a perfect human being. Blaming Muhammad for the ills of today’s Islam makes just as much sense as blaming Jesus for the ills of yesterday’s Christianity.

As soon as you stop using double-standards, you will realize that what we do makes sense.

Bosch Fawstin said...

Muslims Against,

'Religious' Islam is there to act as the trojan horse for 'Political' Islam, until it scraps the pretense and goes by Islam. Mohammed was a crafty one, I'll give him that.

Bosch Fawstin said...

Muslims Against,

Were it not for Mohammed murdering human beings in the name of Islam and justifying it by the word of Allah in the past, there would BE no Muslims murdering non-Muslims in the present. The twin towers would be standing today.
Of Course he's to get the bulk of the blame, he unleashed this evil.

Double Standards? What is Islam's moral code, if not a double standard between Muslims and Non-Muslims.

If I didn't already, I want to thank you for new the material.

Muslims Against Sharia said...

"What is Islam's moral code, if not a double standard between Muslims and Non-Muslims."

I dare you to find it in our Koran

We discussed at length what scumbags the Muslims are. Would you be willing to discuss the degenerates who made the rise of radical Islam possible? The same degenerates who continue to pump billions of dollars into Wahhabi regimes even after 9/11. I bet you, personally, along with dumbfucks like phuckie slum, provide financial support for terrorism.

phuckie slum said...

So our very valid argument is that Islam is indiferrent both politically and religiously. It's not something we think is like that. Just take a look at all the Islamic paradises on earth, Islam isn't just a religion between man and god, it's a path of life with its own social construct / justice system and a political state, all integral pieces of one hot steaming pile of ummah.

The difference between our argument is that you think the only thing comparable to Nazism is political Islam, which we all agree on passionately. But you suddenly go ape shit when we include the entire evil collective in the equation.
Additionally, Christianity's antisemitism IS solely blamed on evil/corrupt Christians, because Christianity's golden rules are to unconditionally love; it does not teach, preach or indoctrinate murderous hate, violence and superiority at its core and beyond. Same goes for judaism and others. These religious frameworks are compatible with contemporary democracies, while Islam is a collective of its own. Speaking of which, "moderate borgs" is a hilariously pathetic concept.


Bosch,

I got a good laugh from the "ass destruction" and "Arafag"

phuckie slum said...

Wait, so you seriously hate Muslims. Why can you and not us? Does that validate my previous comparison or does that make you, quote: "a dumbfucking inbred moron"?

Great, now the moderate Muslim accuses us of financially supporting terrorism. Is this troll the worst yet or what?

I love it when you call my name, troll!
I'm done here.

Bosch Fawstin said...

Phuckie Slum,

Yeah, it's pretty fitting that the biggest killer of Jews since Hitler was the nephew of Hitler's little helper. I remember reading about the rumors about Arafat being gay prior to his dropping weight and dying in a French hospital of a ‘mysterious illness.’ When a reporter asked a French official at the hospital if Arafat was dead, he replied, ‘I wouldn’t say that.’ No doubt Assar Arafat accused ‘The Jeeeewwwws’ of making him gay and so they had to pay even more. Now it’s said that one of his Aids died of AIDS. It's all But confirmed that Arafag was indeed The Weapon of Ass Destruction. The Palestinians claimed he was poisoned, and here I assumed he was the rapist. He likely poisoned many who will die a painful death because of him. Even in death, he kills.
Do you remember seeing this disgusting creature giving blood on a video on 9/11, allegedly for us? He must have known then.

Bosch Fawstin said...

Muslims Against Reality,

You wrote: 'I bet you, personally, along with dumbfucks like phuckie slum, provide financial support for terrorism.'

My argument, see above.

Bosch Fawstin said...

Muslims Against,

I wrote:

"What is Islam's moral code, if not a double standard between Muslims and Non-Muslims."

You replied:
'I dare you to find it in our Koran'

It's not enough to edit words, [I wonder how many pages 'your' Koran is] it's going to take the end of the state sponsor of Jihad, beginning with Iran, whatever that takes. After that, it's going to entail us Not allowing Islam into the political system of those countries, ala World War 2 with Shintoism and Nazism not being part of the postwar governments in Japan and Germany. From the ashes of the destruction of the enemy, 'your' Koran may come in handy. Until then, it's a vanity project to make yourselves feel better about being part of a religion where you have to hide all the ugly parts from those you want to fool as much as yourselves, no matter what your stated intentions are. You are not truthseekers, you are defenders of Islam 'till the end. That is of NO help against Jihad.

Muslims Against Sharia said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bosch Fawstin said...

Muslims Against Themselves,

I want to thank you for making the case against your group better than I could have.

Muslims Against Sharia said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
phuckie slum said...

With your permission I should also thank you, particularly for your last absurdly ironic quote, for validating my M&N comparison.

Westward Ho said...

Bosch Fawstin

“You’d be much more effective if you resisted your temptation to suggest that the parts of the Koran that make you squirm couldn’t possibly be from Allah.”

Muslims Against

"Our assertion is based on simple logic. We believe that Allah is the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate, and, therefore the verses in the Koran that makes us squirm cannot possibly come from him."


Interesting.

Is this Islam 2.0, and Koran 2.0?

This trendy naming pattern has proven sticking power, you might use it.

Anonymous said...

Muslims Against Sharia:

Can you stop using the F-word to attack these guys? You aren't helping your argument by swearing at them.

Bosch Fawstin said...

Interesting:
Verboten Discussion?-Hitler, Muhammed, and Islam
by Andrew Bostom

Bosch Fawstin said...

Update:

1: True to form, as they're doing with 'their' Koran, 'Muslims Against Sharia' have deleted the posts that made them look even worse than the ones where they didn't curse.

2: Even the blood donation pictures of The Weapon of Ass Destruction were fake, in order to counter the video of the disgusting Palestinians celebrating 9/11, which can be found lower on the linked page.

George guy said...

If Islam were to eliminate every totalitarian rule from the Sharia, every violent verse from the Koran, and the doctrine that Muhammad (police be upon him) was the ideal man, what remains would not be significantly different from a liberal form of Judaism.

Bosch Fawstin said...

George guy,

'police be upon him', Hah, that's a damn good one.

And you're right about Islam being an unoriginal sin if not for Jihad, Mo's only real religious 'innovation'.

phuckie slum said...

Aw what do you know, "muslims against sharia" deleted his last couple of posts.

I forgot that when one debates with Islamists or Islamists apologists (or muslims who blame the west for funding terrorism like our 'moderate' Islamiac), one has to quote their posts. Often the losers bail to whitewash their satanism.

SIREN said...

I'm sorry you had the visit from "Muslims Against Sharia"....
Their job consists of going from blog to blog harassing people.
Make sure you always keep their nonsense in your inbox because they will delete their comments sometimes...

Here is one of the best video series in the world that will tell you the farce of islam from their own texts. All of them, the Sunnah, Qur'an, all Hadiths, Tsafir, etc.. The best one out there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzowBYXiOY&feature=PlayList&p=F233FE8490CEE45C&index=0&playnext=1

If it doesn't work, you can find it in my youtube channel, it's one of the playlists right above Brigitte's playlist. Here is my channel Cymbaline
or click on

http://www.youtube.com/cymbaline90210

My main video will give you a hint of what's in those 114 surahs. I also have one called "The Qur'an is an entire lie" and "A Message to the World from the "Religion of Peace" and others....

PS. Sorry Mr. Fawstin, I didn't mean to impose, but I too had my own experience with "Muslim Against Sharia" -- it is funny and ironic how they claim to be against sharia and moderate, however they are very harsh, insulting, and offensive towards women and men bloggers. They also had Wafa Sultan as one of what they call "Prominent Moderate Muslims" LOL
Wafa Sultan is no muslim, she denounced that backwards, violent, horrid, and putrid so-called religion.

Aspy4u2 said...

What is a radical Muslim? A radical Muslim is capable of harming kafirs. A radical Muslim is a Medinan Muslim, but a Medinan Muslim follows Mohammed’s actions. So killing kafirs is not radical. Harming kafirs follows Mohammed’s example and is pure Islam, not a radical interpretation.

To reform the Koran, all of the hateful, cruel, and bigoted references to kafirs would have to be removed. If the kafir material is removed, then only 39% of the Koran remains. The greatest part of the part of the Koran, 61%, is devoted to negativity about kafirs.

The Sira (the life of Mohammed) has about 75% of its material devoted to jihad.

The Hadith has 20% of its material devoted to jihad. There is no one positive reference to kafirs.

If you delete 61% of the Koran, 75%of the Sira and 20% of the Hadith, you will have reformed Islam. You will also have destroyed it. There is a very good reason that Islam has never been reformed. It is impossible.