Islamic Intolerance

[idb]

The left is going to get a lot of Westerners killed...

The Logic of Islamic Intolerance
And why Western illogic cannot comprehend or respond to Islamic jihad.
December 2, 2015
Raymond Ibrahim

A sermon delivered by popular Saudi Sheikh Muhammad Salih al-Munajjid clearly demonstrates why Western secular relativists and multi culturalists—who currently dominate media, academia, and politics—are incapable of understanding, much less responding to, the logic of Islamic intolerance.

During his sermon, al-Munajjid said that “some [Muslim] hypocrites” wonder why it is that “we [Muslims] don’t permit them [Western people] to build churches, even though they allow mosques to be built.” The Saudi sheikh responded by saying that any Muslim who thinks this way is “ignorant” and

Wants to equate between right and wrong, between Islam and kufr [non-Islam], monotheism and shirk [polytheism], and gives to each side equal weight, and wants to compare this with that, and he asks: “Why don't we build them churches like they build us mosques? So we allow them this in return for that?” Do you want another other than Allah to be worshiped? Do you equate between right and wrong? Are Zoroastrian fire temples, Jewish temples, Christian churches, monks’ monasteries, and Buddhist and Hindu temples, equal to you with the houses of Allah and mosques? So you compare this with that? And you equate this with that? Oh! Unbelievable, for he who equates between Islam and kufr [non-Islam], and Allah said: “Whoever desires a religion other than Islam, never will it be accepted from him, and in the Hereafter he will be among the losers” (Koran 3:85). And Prophet Muhamad said: “By Him in whose hand is the life of Muhamad (By Allah) he who amongst the Jews or Christians hears about me, but does not affirm his belief in that which I have been sent, and dies in his state (of disbelief), he shall be of the residents of Hellfire."

What’s interesting about the sheikh’s zealous diatribe is that, although “intolerant” from a Western perspective, it is, in fact, quite logically consistent and reveals the wide gap between Islamic rationalism and Western fantasy (despite how oxymoronic this dichotomy might sound).

If, as Munajjid points out, a Muslim truly believes that Islam is the only true religion, and that Muhammad is its prophet, why would he allow that which is false (and thus corrupt, cancerous, misleading, etc.) to exist alongside it? Such gestures of “tolerance” would be tantamount to a Muslim who “wants to equate between right and wrong,” as the sheikh correctly deplores.

Indeed, not only does Islam, like traditional Christianity, assert that all other religions are wrong, but under Islamic law, Hindus, and Buddhists are so misguided that they must be warred against until they either accept the “truth,” that is, converting to Islam, or else being executed (Koran 9:5). As for the so-called “people of the book”—Jews and Christians—they may practice their religions, but only after being subdued (Koran 9:29) and barred from building or renovating churches and synagogues and a host of other debilitations that keep their (false) religious practices and symbols (Bibles, crosses, etc.) suppressed and out of sight.

From an Islamic paradigm—where Allah is the true god and Muhammad his final messenger—“intolerance” for other religions is logical and difficult to condemn.

...

The net result of all this? On the one hand, Muslims, who believe in truth—that is, in the teachings of Islam—will continue attacking the “false,” that is, everything and everyone un-Islamic. And no matter how violent, Islamic jihad—terrorism—will always be exonerated in Muslim eyes as fundamentally “altruistic.” On the other hand, Western secularists and multiculturalists, who believe in nothing and deem all cultures and religions equal, will continue to respect Islam and empower Muslims, convinced that terrorism is an un-Islamic aberration destined to go away—that is, they will continue disbelieving their own eyes. Such is the offspring of that unholy union between Islamic logic and Western fallacy.

The Logic of Islamic Intolerance

The problem is, we're increasing radical Islam by attacking Islamic countries. Bush set this whole thing off in 2003. So, the problem is far greater than it would have been otherwise.

Why do you think Bush did that?

A) He's freaking stupid?
B) He's freaking stupid AND wanted to cause a global war to bring people back onto the US's side like in the Cold War?
C) He's freaking intelligent AND wanted to cause a global war to bring people back onto the US's side like in the Cold War?

And since it has started the only way to put the thing back into the box is truly beat the hell out of them. Would you agree? This is what we did to Japan and Germany during wwII.

You're going to war with 1.6 billion people scattered around the world?
I'm sure it'll go well.

So you're ready to convert or die....
I think I'll pass.

You deduced that from my answer?
You're proposing a global war against 1.6 billion people and you think the only alternative is submission.
You're a political and military genius quite clearly.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

The left is going to get a lot of Westerners killed...

The Logic of Islamic Intolerance
And why Western illogic cannot comprehend or respond to Islamic jihad.
December 2, 2015
Raymond Ibrahim

A sermon delivered by popular Saudi Sheikh Muhammad Salih al-Munajjid clearly demonstrates why Western secular relativists and multi culturalists—who currently dominate media, academia, and politics—are incapable of understanding, much less responding to, the logic of Islamic intolerance.

During his sermon, al-Munajjid said that “some [Muslim] hypocrites” wonder why it is that “we [Muslims] don’t permit them [Western people] to build churches, even though they allow mosques to be built.” The Saudi sheikh responded by saying that any Muslim who thinks this way is “ignorant” and

Wants to equate between right and wrong, between Islam and kufr [non-Islam], monotheism and shirk [polytheism], and gives to each side equal weight, and wants to compare this with that, and he asks: “Why don't we build them churches like they build us mosques? So we allow them this in return for that?” Do you want another other than Allah to be worshiped? Do you equate between right and wrong? Are Zoroastrian fire temples, Jewish temples, Christian churches, monks’ monasteries, and Buddhist and Hindu temples, equal to you with the houses of Allah and mosques? So you compare this with that? And you equate this with that? Oh! Unbelievable, for he who equates between Islam and kufr [non-Islam], and Allah said: “Whoever desires a religion other than Islam, never will it be accepted from him, and in the Hereafter he will be among the losers” (Koran 3:85). And Prophet Muhamad said: “By Him in whose hand is the life of Muhamad (By Allah) he who amongst the Jews or Christians hears about me, but does not affirm his belief in that which I have been sent, and dies in his state (of disbelief), he shall be of the residents of Hellfire."

What’s interesting about the sheikh’s zealous diatribe is that, although “intolerant” from a Western perspective, it is, in fact, quite logically consistent and reveals the wide gap between Islamic rationalism and Western fantasy (despite how oxymoronic this dichotomy might sound).

If, as Munajjid points out, a Muslim truly believes that Islam is the only true religion, and that Muhammad is its prophet, why would he allow that which is false (and thus corrupt, cancerous, misleading, etc.) to exist alongside it? Such gestures of “tolerance” would be tantamount to a Muslim who “wants to equate between right and wrong,” as the sheikh correctly deplores.

Indeed, not only does Islam, like traditional Christianity, assert that all other religions are wrong, but under Islamic law, Hindus, and Buddhists are so misguided that they must be warred against until they either accept the “truth,” that is, converting to Islam, or else being executed (Koran 9:5). As for the so-called “people of the book”—Jews and Christians—they may practice their religions, but only after being subdued (Koran 9:29) and barred from building or renovating churches and synagogues and a host of other debilitations that keep their (false) religious practices and symbols (Bibles, crosses, etc.) suppressed and out of sight.

From an Islamic paradigm—where Allah is the true god and Muhammad his final messenger—“intolerance” for other religions is logical and difficult to condemn.

...

The net result of all this? On the one hand, Muslims, who believe in truth—that is, in the teachings of Islam—will continue attacking the “false,” that is, everything and everyone un-Islamic. And no matter how violent, Islamic jihad—terrorism—will always be exonerated in Muslim eyes as fundamentally “altruistic.” On the other hand, Western secularists and multiculturalists, who believe in nothing and deem all cultures and religions equal, will continue to respect Islam and empower Muslims, convinced that terrorism is an un-Islamic aberration destined to go away—that is, they will continue disbelieving their own eyes. Such is the offspring of that unholy union between Islamic logic and Western fallacy.

The Logic of Islamic Intolerance

The problem is, we're increasing radical Islam by attacking Islamic countries. Bush set this whole thing off in 2003. So, the problem is far greater than it would have been otherwise.

Why do you think Bush did that?

A) He's freaking stupid?
B) He's freaking stupid AND wanted to cause a global war to bring people back onto the US's side like in the Cold War?
C) He's freaking intelligent AND wanted to cause a global war to bring people back onto the US's side like in the Cold War?

And since it has started the only way to put the thing back into the box is truly beat the hell out of them. Would you agree? This is what we did to Japan and Germany during wwII.

You're going to war with 1.6 billion people scattered around the world?
I'm sure it'll go well.

So you're ready to convert or die....
I think I'll pass.

You deduced that from my answer?
You're proposing a global war against 1.6 billion people and you think the only alternative is submission.
You're a political and military genius quite clearly.

You just said we cant take on 1.6 billion muslims so clearly you dont believe we are capable of dealing with them.

 

[American_Jihad]

Muslim San Bernardino Killer Wanted "Hijabi" to "Live Life to the Fullest"
"We love death like you love life."
December 3, 2015
Daniel Greenfield

The favorite Muslim terrorist chant is, "We love death like you love life." So "living life to the fullest" on a Muslim dating site just has a slightly different meaning.

At that time the profile was made about six years ago, Farook claimed he was part of a “religios but modern family of 4” [sic] and that he enjoyed “doing target practice with younger sister and friends” in his back yard.

You can tell they were religious, but modern, because they used guns and bombs, instead of swords.

“I try to live as a good Muslim,” Farook writes. “Looking for a girl who has the same outlook, wear hijab, but live the life to the fullest."

And they did live life to the fullest, Farook and his Hijabi, Tashfeen Malik, by killing non-Muslims until the infidel cops took them down. Think Bonnie and Clyde with a Koran.

They died as good Muslims. Terrible Americans. But good Muslims.

The shooter, Sayeed Farouk, was described by his father as a religiously devout Muslim. “He was very religious. He would go to work, come back, go to pray, come back.” Neighbors say that he "grew a beard and started to wear religious clothing. The long shirt that’s like a dress and the cap on his head.”

...

Muslim San Bernardino Killer Wanted "Hijabi" to "Live Life to the Fullest"

 

[ABikerSailor]

Yo. American Jihad......................why do you show a picture of Hillary when you are speaking of terrorists?

Do you think that she is someday going to shoot up a gathering of people?

 

[Unkotare]

....

Do you think that she is someday going to shoot up a gathering of people?

Do you think she of "what difference does it make?" gives a shit when someone does exactly that?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The ONLY way to stop this is to pull back, leave them alone....

Myopic fucking coward.

And the notion of 'defeating' ISIS via a conventional ground war is unmitigated idiocy, doomed to failure, doing exactly what ISIS wants the West to do.

 

[Unkotare]

The ONLY way to stop this is to pull back, leave them alone....

Myopic fucking coward.

And the notion of 'defeating' ISIS via a conventional ground war is unmitigated idiocy, doomed to failure, doing exactly what ISIS wants the West to do.

That is weak defeatism in the face of an utterly inferior enemy.

 

[Rotagilla]

Yo. American Jihad......................why do you show a picture of Hillary when you are speaking of terrorists?

Do you think that she is someday going to shoot up a gathering of people?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yo. American Jihad......................why do you show a picture of Hillary when you are speaking of terrorists?

Do you think that she is someday going to shoot up a gathering of people?

Funny how a president who says he'll stand with a minority group of the US, and not go for mob rule, is seen as bad by the white old male Republican folk.

 

[American_Jihad]

Yo. American Jihad......................why do you show a picture of Hillary when you are speaking of terrorists?

Do you think that she is someday going to shoot up a gathering of people?

Typical liberal, I did not wright the article, Daniel Greenfield did ask him bikieboiy...

 

[American_Jihad]

The ONLY way to stop this is to pull back, leave them alone....

Myopic fucking coward.

And the notion of 'defeating' ISIS via a conventional ground war is unmitigated idiocy, doomed to failure, doing exactly what ISIS wants the West to do.

As long as a liberal runs the show it will be a FAIL, you c**ksuckers are pussies...

 

[frigidweirdo]

The ONLY way to stop this is to pull back, leave them alone....

Myopic fucking coward.

And the notion of 'defeating' ISIS via a conventional ground war is unmitigated idiocy, doomed to failure, doing exactly what ISIS wants the West to do.

As long as a liberal runs the show it will be a FAIL, you c**ksuckers are pussies...

Wow, what a post full of intelligence and insight.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yo. American Jihad......................why do you show a picture of Hillary when you are speaking of terrorists?

Do you think that she is someday going to shoot up a gathering of people?

Typical liberal, I did not wright the article, Daniel Greenfield did ask him bikieboiy...

Didn't write it, but posted it.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

The left is going to get a lot of Westerners killed...

The Logic of Islamic Intolerance
And why Western illogic cannot comprehend or respond to Islamic jihad.
December 2, 2015
Raymond Ibrahim

A sermon delivered by popular Saudi Sheikh Muhammad Salih al-Munajjid clearly demonstrates why Western secular relativists and multi culturalists—who currently dominate media, academia, and politics—are incapable of understanding, much less responding to, the logic of Islamic intolerance.

During his sermon, al-Munajjid said that “some [Muslim] hypocrites” wonder why it is that “we [Muslims] don’t permit them [Western people] to build churches, even though they allow mosques to be built.” The Saudi sheikh responded by saying that any Muslim who thinks this way is “ignorant” and

Wants to equate between right and wrong, between Islam and kufr [non-Islam], monotheism and shirk [polytheism], and gives to each side equal weight, and wants to compare this with that, and he asks: “Why don't we build them churches like they build us mosques? So we allow them this in return for that?” Do you want another other than Allah to be worshiped? Do you equate between right and wrong? Are Zoroastrian fire temples, Jewish temples, Christian churches, monks’ monasteries, and Buddhist and Hindu temples, equal to you with the houses of Allah and mosques? So you compare this with that? And you equate this with that? Oh! Unbelievable, for he who equates between Islam and kufr [non-Islam], and Allah said: “Whoever desires a religion other than Islam, never will it be accepted from him, and in the Hereafter he will be among the losers” (Koran 3:85). And Prophet Muhamad said: “By Him in whose hand is the life of Muhamad (By Allah) he who amongst the Jews or Christians hears about me, but does not affirm his belief in that which I have been sent, and dies in his state (of disbelief), he shall be of the residents of Hellfire."

What’s interesting about the sheikh’s zealous diatribe is that, although “intolerant” from a Western perspective, it is, in fact, quite logically consistent and reveals the wide gap between Islamic rationalism and Western fantasy (despite how oxymoronic this dichotomy might sound).

If, as Munajjid points out, a Muslim truly believes that Islam is the only true religion, and that Muhammad is its prophet, why would he allow that which is false (and thus corrupt, cancerous, misleading, etc.) to exist alongside it? Such gestures of “tolerance” would be tantamount to a Muslim who “wants to equate between right and wrong,” as the sheikh correctly deplores.

Indeed, not only does Islam, like traditional Christianity, assert that all other religions are wrong, but under Islamic law, Hindus, and Buddhists are so misguided that they must be warred against until they either accept the “truth,” that is, converting to Islam, or else being executed (Koran 9:5). As for the so-called “people of the book”—Jews and Christians—they may practice their religions, but only after being subdued (Koran 9:29) and barred from building or renovating churches and synagogues and a host of other debilitations that keep their (false) religious practices and symbols (Bibles, crosses, etc.) suppressed and out of sight.

From an Islamic paradigm—where Allah is the true god and Muhammad his final messenger—“intolerance” for other religions is logical and difficult to condemn.

...

The net result of all this? On the one hand, Muslims, who believe in truth—that is, in the teachings of Islam—will continue attacking the “false,” that is, everything and everyone un-Islamic. And no matter how violent, Islamic jihad—terrorism—will always be exonerated in Muslim eyes as fundamentally “altruistic.” On the other hand, Western secularists and multiculturalists, who believe in nothing and deem all cultures and religions equal, will continue to respect Islam and empower Muslims, convinced that terrorism is an un-Islamic aberration destined to go away—that is, they will continue disbelieving their own eyes. Such is the offspring of that unholy union between Islamic logic and Western fallacy.

The Logic of Islamic Intolerance

Don't become so tolerant that you tolerate intolerance. - Bill Maher

When they wanna force you at machete-point to become Muslim, impose their religious bullshit onto your legal system, and cover every pretty woman in a beekeeper suit, it's no longer a matter of being tolerant.

Tolerance is swell for those equally tolerant of you. But when the other person doesn't even know what tolerance is it's time to arm up.

 

[American_Jihad]

The ONLY way to stop this is to pull back, leave them alone....

Myopic fucking coward.

And the notion of 'defeating' ISIS via a conventional ground war is unmitigated idiocy, doomed to failure, doing exactly what ISIS wants the West to do.

As long as a liberal runs the show it will be a FAIL, you c**ksuckers are pussies...

Wow, what a post full of intelligence and insight.

It don't take much to describe a progressive/liberal/socialist/commies...

 

[frigidweirdo]

The ONLY way to stop this is to pull back, leave them alone....

Myopic fucking coward.

And the notion of 'defeating' ISIS via a conventional ground war is unmitigated idiocy, doomed to failure, doing exactly what ISIS wants the West to do.

As long as a liberal runs the show it will be a FAIL, you c**ksuckers are pussies...

Wow, what a post full of intelligence and insight.

It don't take much to describe a progressive/liberal/socialist/commies...

No, it clearly doesn't, but it does take a lot to make a meaningful post. And.... well....... you're not putting in a lot.

 

[American_Jihad]

Yo. American Jihad......................why do you show a picture of Hillary when you are speaking of terrorists?

Do you think that she is someday going to shoot up a gathering of people?

Typical liberal, I did not wright the article, Daniel Greenfield did ask him bikieboiy...

Didn't write it, but posted it.

I was corresponding to bikieboiy not you, moron...

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yo. American Jihad......................why do you show a picture of Hillary when you are speaking of terrorists?

Do you think that she is someday going to shoot up a gathering of people?

Typical liberal, I did not wright the article, Daniel Greenfield did ask him bikieboiy...

Didn't write it, but posted it.

I was corresponding to bikieboiy...

Wonderful, but you quoted my post.... maybe next time you can actually not fuck it up.

 

[MisterBeale]

Sorry, I see propaganda from the David Horowitz Freedom Center for what it is, controlled opposition intended to gin up frothing hatred, and goad the population into a heated support for more war.

When even an avowed Jewish atheist ("former" Marxist) talks about religion, you know he is being disingenuous.

This whole thing just stinks of divide and conquer. I don't trust atheists from the far left, and neither should you. Manipulative POS.

David Horowitz Is Homeless
The 1960s radical decades ago switched his politics, fleeing the New Left to become a conservative provocateur. Then the right wing left him behind.
David Horowitz, New Leftist Turned Right Winger, Has No Friends Left


As Horowitz and I continued our dialogue, skipping from topic to topic with a pronounced lack of urgency, he kept urging me to read his books—specifically, three short recent memoirs, all written over the past decade, each one focused on Last Things and surprisingly devoid of certainty. And so I did.

The End of Time (2005), a collection of personal reflections written in the wake of Horowitz’s battle with prostate cancer, is consciously modeled on Pascal’s Pensées. Mournful and emphatically agnostic, the book continues Horowitz’s refusal of the consolation myth of historical progress, reaching the conclusion that “We are creatures blind and ignorant, stumbling helplessly through a puff of time.” It also extends Horowitz’s lifelong struggle with his father’s radical legacy, providing a new frame: “My father’s disappointment was the gift he gave me. … His melancholy taught me the lesson he was unable to learn himself.” In the book’s most provocative passage, Horowitz compares his father’s embrace of Marx’s secular prophecy to the murderous theological zeal of Egyptian terrorist Mohammed Atta, ringleader of the Sept. 11 attacks. “Even though my father prided himself on being a practical man without illusions, he shared with Mohammed Atta and his believers an impossible dream. Their dream was to change the world. What Mohammed Atta wanted was an escape from this life.”

This is not an unusual Horowitzian rhetorical gambit, and Horowitz has elsewhere written at length about an apparent “unholy alliance” between the political left and radical Islam. But to read on is to find Horowitz caught in a rare but welcome humanist gesture:

Some may regard these speculations as unreasonable. How can a man invoke his father in the same sentence as Mohammed Atta? My answer is, How not? Was Mohammed Atta not flesh and blood; if you pricked him did he not bleed? What did Mohammed Atta hope for but a better world; and what progressive soul does not wish for that? […] The act that ended Mohammed Atta’s life and thousands of innocent others was surely evil. But except for the terrible deed itself, there is not an inconsiderate gesture attached to his memory. He appears to have been an ordinary man who was seduced into committing a great crime in the name of a greater good. Is this not the most common theme of the human tragedies of our time?

Coming from the man who invented “Islamofascism Awareness Week,” this impressive and deeply personal feat of moral relativism seems downright treasonous.

His more recent mini-memoir A Point in Time (2011) continues to court and then sidestep the possibility of personal and historical redemption through careful readings of Dostoevsky and Marcus Aurelius, and displays a mature and uncondescending attitude toward religious faith. “Can we dispense with this reverence for impossible worlds as atheists insist we must? Dostoevsky’s answer is that we cannot. … What can he have meant by this? Perhaps that if we were not inspired by an ideal world we would be reduced to the savagery of this one. Or, if we did not look forward to something better, we would not look forward at all.” He recognizes the human need for comforting stories while acknowledging that we are the only ones who can tell such stories. Unlike Leo Strauss or Irving Kristol, who prescribed religion as a political tool for the sustaining of moral order, Horowitz seems despondent that he cannot take the metaphysical leap of faith.

In his gestures toward the spiritual, Horowitz drew considerable inspiration and feedback from his daughter, Sarah, the subject of his most poignant and challenging memoir, A Cracking of the Heart (2009). Born with Turner Syndrome, a debilitating illness that impaired her hearing and eyesight, Sarah was a Democrat, a crusader for human rights and social justice, a poet, and an observant Jew. Despite her physical frailty, Sarah stolidly refused the role of victim, while devoting her life and resources to any individual or group she perceived as less fortunate. Sarah died unexpectedly at age 44 in her apartment, the day before Nextbook.org, the previous iteration of Tablet magazine, published the first interview with the activist poet.

Sarah’s passions made her one of David’s most spirited interlocutors, and at times A Cracking of the Heart serves as an object lesson in political empathy—making it a poignant outlier in Horowitz’s oeuvre. In an earlier memoir, he attested to his inability to internalize the monotheistic religious prophets’ agreement that all human beings, no matter their trespasses, are incarnations of the divine spirit: “ cannot embrace this radical faith. I feel no kinship with those who can cut short a human life without remorse; or with terrorists who target the innocent; or with adults who torment small children for the sexual thrill.”

Sarah, who respects her father but harbors little patience for his bluster, hand-writes a response that aims to cut him to the quick. “First, have a little humility,” she begins. “You are not smarter than Moses, Jesus and Buddha.” She continues by articulating as eloquent a plea for understanding across ideological lines as I’ve ever heard:

If you see someone in the fullness of their humanity, you see how they are acting out their own confusion and suffering. This does not justify hurtful or evil acts. It doesn’t even always inspire forgiveness. But if you see someone this way, you respond more in sadness than in anger. And that is simply a more excellent state of being. Even if you’ve never had this experience (and more’s the pity), respect the experience of those who have.

She did not send her father these words. “Or if she did,” he writes, “I failed again to understand them.”

<snip>

Though Horowitz has an obvious partisan imperative to oppose President Obama, and can certainly market himself as the conservative best equipped to root out a secret Marxist master plan, I find his criticism of Obama, the world’s most prominent radical son, somewhat confusing. Despite his campaign rhetoric, the president is hardly a utopian, and his administration has repeatedly demonstrated its aversion to radical solutions. On questions of race, Obama, like Horowitz, is publicly skeptical of policies based on entitlement and victimhood.


Horowitz never stops testifying to his own break from progressive idealism, but he sees anyone else as irrevocably tainted by past associations. There is only room for one radical convert, and political sympathy has no place in hand-to-hand combat. But Horowitz can no longer deny that his origin story and its lessons have lost much of their cultural explanatory power. And the story was always the point. Horowitz pieced together a philosophy from the wreckage of personal disappointments and lost illusions, yet he knows that fatalism isn’t an easy sell.


“I came out of the left through a lot of pain and a sense of enormous waste,” Horowitz said. “I was an emotional powder keg. I had gotten to age 35—and I’m a very hard worker, and had written a lot—everything that I had done was a waste.”


This is the part of the story when the apostate sees the light. Horowitz isn’t sure he still does.


“Now that I’m older, I see that it’s all a waste. I gotta live with that.”

 

[irosie91]

an idiot who sings for his supper is not a source