(Update) Ron Paul: Scaring the Sh*t out of all the “Right” People
By Mona
.
In addition to Jim’s cute link to Reason’s discussion of how Fox and Malkin simply lie about Ron Paul, also see Salon’s Joan Walsh (brief ad click through required) detail how threatening Paul is to the ubherhawks online and off in the GOP, my emphasis:
…Paul has picked up support in other quarters, and that has some Republicans irritated. He’s been Technorati.com’s top search term much of this week; he’s got more YouTube followers than any other GOP candidate, and he’s apparently got savvy enough online supporters that he won the post-debate poll at MSNBC.com and came in second at Fox. The Iraq war hawks at Littlegreenfootballs.com are not amused; they banned Paul from their poll Tuesday night when they saw he was winning, claiming his supporters were “spamming” them. Over at Pajamas Media they banned Paul from their poll, too….
Big Tent, my arse. Only Little Green Fascists, neocons and garden variety, torture-loving hawks need apply in today’s GOP. Libertarians, as opposed to glibertarians, will be pressured to STFU.
.
And do read how Rudy Giuliani — or, as Walsh puts it, the mayor of 9/11 who is running to be president of 9/11 — ever the bully, smacked Paul for stating an obvious foreign policy truth.
********
Update: In comments Hesiod notes:
Oh, and there are no such things as “Neolibertarians.”Those folks are pseudolibertarians.
If one were to dispute that, how else to describe these neolibertarian sites? They either commend the views of and therefore receive approving LGF invasions, or fail to embrace the core of Paul’s campaign positions or object to his being marginalized as he has been by LGF, and Instapundit’s Pajama’s Media? Well? (And if I missed the QandO criticism of LGF and Pajama’s Media behavior toward Paul, I will immediately highlight a retraction.)
« « It’s Chinatown, Jake, the Continuing Story | Main | The Tragedy and Lessons of Conflating Munich with Vietnam, and Now the Middle East » »
Comment by D.A. Ridgely —
May 19, 2007 @ 10:48 am
Aside from sharing “drinks” with Thoreau, it seems to be Ron Paul week over at my little bloggie thing. No insult intended to Paul, but imagine how scared these people would be of a viable libertarian challenger!
Comment by Hesiod —
May 19, 2007 @ 10:53 am
Yup.
And, yet, I am sure I will hear about how the Democrats want to steal all your money and enslave you because we want to raise the marginal income tax rate a couple of percentage points.
Comment by Gsnorgathon —
May 19, 2007 @ 11:12 am
Viable libertarian challenger?
Comment by D.A. Ridgely —
May 19, 2007 @ 11:17 am
Yeah, viable, as in “stands more than a snowball’s chances in hell of winning.”
Comment by Thoreau —
May 19, 2007 @ 12:49 pm
They hate Ron Paul for 2 reasons:
1) He’s an elected Republican office-holder who dares to appear on national TV and speak against the Iraq War. They’re trying to pretend that their coalition remains strong, and he shows the cracks.
2) More fundamentally, he represents the apostasy of the libertarian movement. We were never a large voting bloc for the GOP (perhaps a loyal bloc once upon a time, but never a large bloc), but we traditionally provided a lot of intellectual firepower for conservatives.
But after everything that has happened during the Bush administration, a lot of libertarians have become disillusioned. You hear a lot of libertarians talking about divided government and critiquing the GOP, which pisses off Republicans. This is bad for them, because traditionally we have provided intellectual firepower for them on a variety of key issues, including taxes, spending, regulations, guns, and arguably even certain aspects of foreign policy even (at least on trade and certain international institutions).
And now it goes beyond rumblins in the blogosphere and seminars and roundtables. Now a widely admired figure in the libertarian movement has actually gotten his face on national TV to declare that the emperor has no clothes.
They’re not worried that Ron Paul will win the votes of those crucial Soccer Moms or whatever, but they are worried about what he represents: The loss of a key intellectual wing of the party, one that they have used to help defend various policies, and one that they have used to pretend that they are really a “small government” party. Although small government may not be terribly popular with the public as a matter of practice (cutting stuff always causes problems), as a matter of branding it gets a lot of heads nodding. A lot of people like the sound of it, even if they don’t actually want their favorite program cut.
Ron Paul is showing how empty that label really is, and thereby causing image problems. Politics is largely about image rather than substance, and so this is intolerable.
They’d probably be happier if we just scurried off to our desks and wrote opinion pieces and policy papers critiquing the Democrats’ economic ideas.
Give ‘em hell, Dr. Paul!
Comment by Tony —
May 19, 2007 @ 1:06 pm
Ron Paul has been my hero for years for his constitutional and anti- U.N. votes. Also being conservative and anti-abortion doesn’t hamper his appeal. He is a true American!
Comment by Jonathan Goff —
May 19, 2007 @ 2:09 pm
Thoreau,
Alas they’ll always have the neolibs. And unfortunately, a lot of my libertarian friends, especially in the blogosphere are of the neolibertarian variety. So they’ll still have their court intellectuals, even if they lose all the Ron Paul libertarians in the party.
~Jon
Comment by Wild Pegasus —
May 19, 2007 @ 2:39 pm
Goff,
The difference is that no one takes the neolibs seriously. When they whinge about government spending for PBS and the Department of Education, then call for multiple massive military campaigns against people who’ve never harmed us, no one thinks there’s anything to them. Kevin Carson calls the array of neoisms a fake ideology, and I think the rest of the country is beginning to pick up on it.
A thought struck me the other day: did the Iraq War save American liberty? Think about what Americans were willing to do and what they were willing to sacrifice (at least, from their neighbors) in the wake of 9/11? Like a lot of libertarians, I thought for sure we would be the United States of Gulagistan by now. But the catastrophic mismanagement of the war reinvigorated the American mistrust of government, and hopefully the American mistrust of adverturism and war. Even a mildly competent president of evil designs (Nixon, Clinton) could have turned 9/11 into the Reichstag fire, but the Bush Administration is so unfathomably stupid, and its supporters so borderline retarded, that Americans simply said, “Maybe some day, but not you jackasses, and not now.”
- Josh
Comment by skippy —
May 19, 2007 @ 2:49 pm
It was The Onion, restated by Joan Walsh that said Giuliani wanted to “be the president of 9/11″.
[True, and clear if you click through and read her -- she combines those two refs and does attribute The Onion with the president crack as opposed to mayor one - ed. Mona]
Comment by Jonathan Goff —
May 19, 2007 @ 3:32 pm
WP,
I’m not so sure that neolibs are ignored. Maybe I’m just biased because I work in a small town (Mojave, CA), and most of what I see of the outside world is colored by the blogosphere. But at least in the blogosphere, (and especially in the space policy part of the blogosphere that I tend to frequent), the vast majority of the well known names fall under the category of neolibertarianism.
I’ll start believing that neolibertarianism is on a slide when Glenn Reynolds decides to hang up his InstaHack hat to “spend more time with his family”.
~Jon
Comment by americanism —
May 19, 2007 @ 5:36 pm
Dr. Ron Paul arrived to find the patient on his death bed. Uncle Sam had stubbornly refused Dr. Paul’s prescription for lowering his taxes and reducing his spending and was now in bankruptic shock. Dr. Paul quickly grasped the constitutional-resuscitator paddles and applied them to Uncle Sam’s chest. Dr. Paul looked to his assistants and they pulled the levers of the resuscitation machine for him. Dr. Paul won the election and the patient, Uncle Sam, recovered, living happily ever after by following Dr. Paul’s advice to take care of and obey his constitution.
Comment by Hesiod —
May 19, 2007 @ 6:10 pm
Speaking of Ron Paul: The call by Michigan GOP Chair, Saul Anuzis, to ban Paul from future GOP debates was met with an apparent firestorm of criticism.
Oh, and there are no such things as “Neolibertarians.”
Those folks are pseudolibertarians.
Comment by RH —
May 19, 2007 @ 7:22 pm
Now is not the time to debate the finer points of libertarianism. Now is the time to close ranks and support Ron Paul. Write your friends, talk to folks, appeal to whatever interest them (tax issues, small government, etc). Send money. It is a long shot, but it may be possible to change this country through the election process.
RH
Comment by Mona —
May 19, 2007 @ 7:32 pm
RH writes:
Oh, I would so totally like to agree. But what does one say or do with the “neolibertarians” who are neocons, in fact? They are not me, and their claim to be libertarians is hurting our brand label and ability to be taken seriously by allies on the sensible left and right.
They point to, say, pro-imperial war Glenn Reynolds, and say, “yeah, libertarians are just Republicans.”
Comment by Gary Farber —
May 19, 2007 @ 7:37 pm
Malkin is campaigning to get Paul thrown out of the Republican debates, as well.
May I commend to your attention the Michael Wolff piece on Rudy that I link to in the long addendum to this post?
Also, didja notice John Bolton’s fine work the other day, which the wingnuts adored?
Comment by Gary Farber —
May 19, 2007 @ 7:40 pm
Oh, yes, of course you saw the Bolton thing. Fit of absent-mindedness; apologies.
Comment by Mona —
May 19, 2007 @ 7:48 pm
No problemo Gary; I read you at least once a week, and you are often more on top of it than anyone.
Comment by Teresa Nielsen Hayden —
May 19, 2007 @ 8:28 pm
Of course the neocons and Kool-Aid junkies hate Ron Paul. He’s telling the truth as he sees it, and he’s speaking in plain honest person-to-person English.
The other right-wingers can’t appear with him without making it painfully obvious that what comes out of their own mouths is about as candid and sincere as the motivational posters you get in employee lunchrooms.
Comment by Madeline F —
May 20, 2007 @ 1:16 am
Anti-choice and he’s hailed as a libertarian? What a hypocrite. “By all means the government should stay out of all of your business… But by god, let’s force its clammy hands right into your body!”
Comment by Mona —
May 20, 2007 @ 8:44 am
Madeline F:
Not at all. D.A. Ridgely is a libertarian and he is pro-life. I also was — if that means one opposes Roe and thinks there ought to be state-by-state protections for the unborn. (My views at this point are deeply ambivalent, but for several decades I was decidedly pro-life.) Nat Hentoff is a renowned civil libertarian. He’s pro-life.
Libertarianism does no better than other isms in resolving the question of what value to vest in the entity in a pregnant woman’s uterus, and when. It is not irrational to conclude that entity is an Other, directly harmed in the abortion procedure. There may be countervailing arguments in which it is persuasively argued that the Mother’s rights trump the unborn’s; but abortion is not an issue like, say, drug use, where the only person who is directly harmed, if at all, inarguably is only the person taking the substance.
Ron Paul is an Ob-Gyn. He’s cared for thousands of pregnant women and delivered innumerable babies. That he has developed a strong interest in the health and well-being of all those babies as they grow prenataly is not the hallmark of a depraved or statist mind.
Comment by Dave W. —
May 20, 2007 @ 10:20 am
I think Ron Paul is a closet Truther, at least to some extent. He sends out those kind of vibes.
Trackback by Drug WarRant —
May 20, 2007 @ 10:25 am
Ron Paul delivers disturbing reality check…
…
Comment by shoebear —
May 20, 2007 @ 10:53 am
Why the fuss?
1. It’s a known fact that Internet polls are susceptible to being spammed. Countermeasures such as allowing only one vote per IP address are only effective against the greenest of amateur would-be spammers.
2. CJ alleges spamming on behalf of Ron Paul and produces some evidence (but not absolute proof).
3. Real polls (Gallup, Zogby, etc.) show only 1-2% support for Paul, not the 20%+ showing he gets in online polls. This corroborates CJ’s allegation.
This does not prove his case, but it makes a reasoned allegation supported by evidence.
So instead of ad hominem attacks on CJ, LGF, and neocons, why not counter CJ’s charge with a reasoned response supported by evidence? If you succeed, such a rejoinder would be far more effective in influencing people to support RP than just calling names.
Comment by lowandslow —
May 20, 2007 @ 11:09 am
The Republican Party is in trouble, first we lose the coveted Jenna Jameson pornstar endorsement to Hillary and now it appears we’re going to lose the lunatic fringe voters to Ron Paul.
Mona I’m sure if you give a neo-con fascists like me a chance I could rid you of your hate. Call me.
Comment by jhow66 —
May 20, 2007 @ 11:11 am
psst-Area 51 is open on weekends.
Comment by Mona —
May 20, 2007 @ 11:11 am
shoebear: I don’t care whether (but also do not know) some libertarian sites were directing readers to vote for Ron Paul in these polls. It is not uncommon for those who support a POV or a candidate to be directed to online polls. And so what?
Paul is the least tolerable to the LGF crowd and/or neocons, who love tough-guy warmongers like Giuliani who delivered the theatrical and wrong smackdown to Paul described in my post and by Joan Walsh.
I do not care to try to persuade Charles Johnson or any other of the necons uberhawks that Paul’s positions are correct. Such individuals as Johnson are beyond reasoned persuasion. Rather, my purpose is to show what a threat Paul is to such types for raising the issues he does, and especially to challenge “neolibertarians” to defend this treatment of Paul by LGF, Pajamas Media, Guiliani and the rest of the anti-libertarian GOP.
CJ is an authoritarian craving an Eternal Enemy — the neocon recipe — and I would not expect him to support Paul. But the neo-”libertarians,” well, what’s their excuse for finding anything good in today’s GOP, and for not speakig out against this treatment of Ron Paul?
Comment by Pablo —
May 20, 2007 @ 11:24 am
shoebear,
Mona much prefers shreiking ad hominems to neocons constructs such as the fallacy of proof. After all, such people are “part of the political pathology whose effectiveness I seek to neutralize; dialogue isn’t on my agenda.”
In other words, screeching is all she has in her quiver, and on her agenda.
Comment by Mona —
May 20, 2007 @ 11:28 am
lowandslow: I suggest to you (and the other neocons who seem to have found this post) that you read this post I wrote a few months back. Then we can also discuss the Ledeen Doctrine and other foul statements made by various neocons.
In the meantime, you are not likely to understand why reasonable, politically educated people are repulsed by neoconservative policy and its underpinnings.
BTW, I didn’t vote for Ron Paul in any of those polls. For most of my lifem however, I voted GOP, when I voted. Until ‘06 when I went straight Democratic — which I may continue to do until the neocon infestation in the GOP is cleansed. Increasing numbers of libertarians are doing the same thing, for much the same reasons.
Comment by Pablo —
May 20, 2007 @ 11:28 am
And that bastion of authoritarian conservatism/home of Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews, MSNBC.
Trackback by Blog-o-Fascists —
May 20, 2007 @ 11:30 am
LGF on Tammy Bruce Show…
Little Green Footballs
It’s Tammy-mania! On last night’s show we talked tonight about … who else? Audio: Tammy Bruce and Charles Johnson on the only man who can save America.
(Yes, we’ve been getting hammered by waves of traffic l…
Comment by Mona —
May 20, 2007 @ 11:32 am
Pablo is correct: I spent a good deal of time attempting polite dialogue with neocons of his sort as I began falling away from bush and the GOP, and found that they are beyond reasoned discourse, for the most part. You folks are not my target audience — you are beyond reach.
Engaging you and expecting you to see what it is you are in bed with — what world you would make if not stopped — is no longer on my agenda.
Comment by Pablo —
May 20, 2007 @ 11:36 am
And just what is it you know about me, Mona, other than that I see through you? How have you been getting on at Q and O these days?
Comment by lowandslow —
May 20, 2007 @ 11:39 am
Mona, I may be a Ledeen Doctrine following warmongering neocon uberhawk but not with you baby, I think we have a start to something real here.
Comment by Mona —
May 20, 2007 @ 11:41 am
Pablo: I know it is dogma in your circles that Chris Matthews is an evil member of the “liberal” MSM, Bush-hating cabal. It isn’t so. Until recently, he manifested an embarrassing man-crush on George Bush.
In any event, I didn’t say Ron Paul wouldn’t come in last in a scientific poll — I am pointing out that when we denizens of the blogosphere do polls, it is far from uncommon for all types of partisans to direct their readers to go vote for their guy/position.
Ron Paul is anathema to your type, which is no doubt among the reasons such typical behavior in support of one’s guy was so repugnant to LGF and PM.
Comment by Zumbo Mumbo —
May 20, 2007 @ 11:43 am
Vote Ru Paul for a transvestite America!
Comment by Mona —
May 20, 2007 @ 11:44 am
This is just the sort of low nonsense I ran into when I did consider it possible to respectfully engage you folks. Not being a masochist, I eventually gave up. Things just like that, and being told to “fvck off and die,” etc.
Comment by Mona —
May 20, 2007 @ 11:49 am
Since Jon Henke became inactive there, I don’t participate at QandO very often at all. People of your type gave Jon a lot of crap also, for his disgust with Gitmo and torture. Jon had me guest-post there once, and brought me into his stable at the now defunct Inactivist. The authors and readership remaining at QandO, especially without Jon’s sane influence, are increasingly part of the problem I write of. If that site in its current incarnation approved of me, I’d be worried.
Comment by lowandslow —
May 20, 2007 @ 11:52 am
I’m being respectful Mona, can’t you see, all my warmongering is for you. I don’t want you to have to be submissive to me and I certainly don’t want to see you covered in a burka.
Comment by Mona —
May 20, 2007 @ 11:59 am
There is absolutely zero danger of either of those things happening. What there is, is an increasing danger that the Middle East is going to go up in a conflagration of war, my grandsons will come of age to be sent to meatgrinder trying to contain the mess you folks started, terrorists will thrive and recruitment grow as a result, and our nation will rightly be blamed and despised by the rest of the civilized world for what we have wrought.
That all worries me, it is the path we are on, and there is absolutely no likelihood that I would ever be in a burka, short of a Halloween Party.
Comment by Dave W. —
May 20, 2007 @ 11:59 am
Since Jon Henke became inactive there, I don’t participate at QandO very often at all.
Yeah, whatever happened to that guy. Right when I needed him it was like he disappeared. Something about campaign work , but that must be over by now. *puzzled emoticon*
Comment by ak —
May 20, 2007 @ 12:29 pm
Comment by Mona —
May 20, 2007 @ 11:59 am
don’t want you to have to be submissive to me and I certainly don’t want to see you covered in a burka.
Qur’an 8:59 “The infidels should not think that they can get away from us. Prepare against them whatever arms and weaponry you can muster so that you may terrorize them. They are your enemy and Allah’s enemy.”
Comment by Mona —
May 20, 2007 @ 12:45 pm
Yada, yada. You remind me of what I so dislike in some of my fellow atheists: they cherry-pick the more heinous passages in the Hebrew Bible/OT and then denounce all believers in Judaism or Xianity as sick for adhering to scriptures containing those verses. Religions evolve and let certain passages go by the wayside. I’ve know Orthodox Jews who beleive — and their rabbi confirms — that lying to non-Jews can be acceptable. But I would not in a million years attribute that pocket of reprehensible belief system to all of the Jewish world.
My best college friend when I pursued my BA in religious studies was an Iraqi-American from a Muslim family who had fled Saddam’s Iraq in the early 80s. They were as extreme in their views of how modest she ought to be as are many Baptists of my acquaintance as well as the Roman Catholics who raised me, but not the least bit murderous — they were lovely people. (And she didn’t wear a burka or even a scarf.)
There is no Muslim nation-state capable of invading the United States and forcing extreme religious views on us by law. Spending time obsessed with such fantasies is unproductive at best, and dangerous at worst if widely entertained.
Comment by Bill Woolsey —
May 20, 2007 @ 12:53 pm
When I first heard the general description of “neolibertarian” I thought that these descriptions fit my views exactly. Accepting that “libertarian” meant late seventies-style plumbline Rothbardism, “neo-libertarian” refered to a more inclusive, libertarian vision. My only complaint is that I don’t believe that any “neo-” should be appended, and that it always was a mistake to let Rothbard serve as the arbiter of what it meant to be a libertarian.
For example, I prefer the set of economic policies advocated by the Cato institute to implementing the economic Planks of the Libertarian Platform of five years ago. Further, I don’t find the economic policies proposed by the conservative Heritage Foundation much different from those proposed by Cato. Generally, I like them too.
But what about foreign policy? There, I like Cato as well, and find Heritage wrong-headed.
I don’t favor strict Rothbadian isolationism (the supposedly plumbline libertarian position that was laid out in the Libertarian Party Platform.) I agreed with the neo-libertarians there as well.
But….
I opposed invading Iraq. After the invasion, I have favored a withdrawal after a short timeline. Pick a group of Iraqis, tell them that we are leaving after a year. Get ready. (Now that there is an elected government, there is no question as to which Iraqis we should leave in charge.) Similarly, I am very much against attacking Iran.
But just because there are no foreign interventions that I favor at this time, doesn’t mean that I can accept a hard and fast rule requiring neutrality in all foreign wars.
For example, if the tiny minority of Muslims who favor the Caliphate concept were to grow and actually take power in some Muslim state, and that state managed to subvert or conquer other staes, and this Caliphate began to actually take shape as a pan-Islamic super state, and that it, say, crushed India, China, Russia, or Europe in a war, then I would be all in favor of intervening to help the remmant of the defeated power and the other contesting states. I don’t think that it is necessary for the U.S. to wait until Islamic Mexico or Canada are hosting the invading forces.
Opposing the growth of a strong and growing empire seems like a sensible policy to me. But treating minor powers like they are a strong empire is absurd.
So, no “principled” nonintervention for me. But we have a long way to go, and many, many low probability events to occur for intervention to be reasonable.
The notion that we should invade the generally corrupt and despotic Muslim and Arab regimes, turn them into liberal democracies, and then figure that the people will be so happy with the American way that they will not tolerate being part of this Caliphate and so stopping it before it gets started…
Well, that sounds like a policy likely to make a Caliphate even more popular among Arabs and Muslims.
Comment by Vince P —
May 20, 2007 @ 12:53 pm
>There is no Muslim nation-state capable of invading the United States
Bwahaha.. Muslims themselves are the Muslim state, the Ummah.. They are here, nitwit.
And yes,, the subjugation of Christians and Jews as dhimmis is happening.. it’s called Political Correctness.
Comment by Bill Woolsey —
May 20, 2007 @ 12:53 pm
About this “spamming” business.
I ha
Comment by Pablo —
May 20, 2007 @ 12:57 pm
Sure, it’s not like he was Jimmy Carter’s speechwriter or anything. But the point is that MSNBC is not conservative, by any stretch, and I note that you didn’t even bother objecting to their Boy Wonder, KO. You know not nearly what you think you do.
Which is what makes them all virtually meaningless, and yet you act as though Paul is, well, “scaring the sh*t out of all the ‘Right’ people” Which is pretty silly.
Actually, aside from his view of the Middle East, I thought I agreed with most of what he has to say, especially concerning property rights and border control. But thanks for straightening me out on that. Be sure to let me know everything else I think, won’t you, Mona? Now if we can just get those 9/11 investigations fired up….
Comment by Vince P —
May 20, 2007 @ 12:57 pm
If the Muslims establish a Caliphate there are many things they will also believe must then happen immediately.
Why do you think there Islamic paramilitary compounds all over the United States?
According to Surah 2:177, A Muslim must accept all these things:
QUOTE
It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces to the East and the West; but righteous is he who believeth in Allah and the Last Day and the angels
and the Scripture and the prophets
UNQUOTE
The Last Day is the most important thing after belief in Allah.
The Last Day consists of the coming of the Imam Mahdi along with the appearance of the Muslim Jesus. For the Last Day to come, the Muslims must go to war and slaughter the Jews
QUOTE
The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.
UNQUOTE
But the Muslims don’t stop there.. once that’s accomplished:
QUOTE
al-Mahdi will receive a pledge of allegiance as a caliph for Muslims. He will lead Muslims in many battles of jihad. His reign will be a caliphate that follows the guidance of the Prophet. Many battles will ensue between Muslims and the disbelievers during the Mahdi’s reign…
UNQUOTE
Harun Yahya, a moderate and very popular Muslim author refers to the Mahdi’s invasion of numerous non-Muslim lands:
QUOTE
The Mahdi will invade all the places between East and West.
UNQUOTE
In today’s world.. non-Muslims are not killed or forced to convert if they pay the Jizya in Muslim lands and agree to live as dhimmis. Well apparently even that wonderful option will be eliminated during the Muslim Last Day. I’m assuming the pigs in this quote means Jews.
Volume 3, Book 43, Number 656: Narrated Abu Huraira:
QUOTE
Allah’s Apostle said, “The Hour will not be established until the son of Mary (i.e. Jesus) descends amongst you as a just ruler, he will break the cross, kill the pigs, and abolish the Jizya tax.
UNQUOTE
Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (d. 1368) from The Reliance of the Traveller, the classic Shafi manual of Islamic jurisprudence states:
QUOTE
“… the time and the place for [the poll tax] is before the final descent of Jesus (upon whom be peace). After his final coming, nothing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus’ descent (upon him and our Prophet be peace) …â€
UNQUOTE
Ayatollah Ibrahim Amini clearly articulates this vision:
QUOTE
The Mahdi will offer the religion of Islam to the Jews and Christians; if they accept it they will be spared, otherwise they will be killed.
UNQUOTE
Sheikh Kabbani, Chairman of the Islamic Supreme Council of America clearly articulates the Islamic perspective regarding Jesus’ evangelistic role when He returns.
QUOTE
Like all prophets, Prophet Jesus came with the divine message of surrender to God Almighty, which is Islam. This verse shows that when Jesus returns he will personally correct the misrepresentations and misinterpretations about himself. He will affirm the true message that he brought in his time as a prophet, and that he never claimed to be the Son of God. Furthermore, he will reaffirm in his second coming what he prophesied in his first coming bearing witness to the seal of the Messengers, Prophet Muhammad. In his second coming many non-Muslims will accept Jesus as a servant of Allah Almighty, as a Muslim and a member of the Community of Muhammad.
UNQUOTE
Al-Sadr and Mutahhari, likewise articulate this same expectation:
QUOTE
Jesus will descend from heaven and espouse the cause of the Mahdi. The Christians and the Jews will see him and recognize his true status. The Christians will abandon their faith in his godhead (sic).
UNQUOTE
Comment by Vince P —
May 20, 2007 @ 12:59 pm
According to Surah 2:177, A Muslim must accept all these things:
The Last Day is the most important thing after belief in Allah.
The Last Day consists of the coming of the Imam Mahdi along with the appearance of the Muslim Jesus. For the Last Day to come, the Muslims must go to war and slaughter the Jews
But the Muslims don’t stop there.. once that’s accomplished:
Comment by DB —
May 20, 2007 @ 1:01 pm
ak -
Context, lest people start throwing the bible’s more violent obscenties at you.
Seriously, though. There are much more pressing worries than a caliphate being established within the United States. Like, what to have for lunch, for example.
Comment by Vince P —
May 20, 2007 @ 1:01 pm
This is why Muslims have paramilitary compounds all over the United States
They are training
Harun Yahya, a moderate and very popular Muslim author refers to the Mahdi’s invasion of numerous non-Muslim lands:
In today’s world.. non-Muslims are not killed or forced to convert if they pay the Jizya in Muslim lands and agree to live as dhimmis. Well apparently even that wonderful option will be eliminated during the Muslim Last Day. I’m assuming the pigs in this quote means Jews.
Volume 3, Book 43, Number 656: Narrated Abu Huraira:
Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (d. 1368) from The Reliance of the Traveller, the classic Shafi manual of Islamic jurisprudence states:
Ayatollah Ibrahim Amini clearly articulates this vision:
Sheikh Kabbani, Chairman of the Islamic Supreme Council of America clearly articulates the Islamic perspective regarding Jesus’ evangelistic role when He returns.
Al-Sadr and Mutahhari, likewise articulate this same expectation:
Comment by Vince P —
May 20, 2007 @ 1:04 pm
It doesn’t matter if its realistic to expect that these things can be achieved… Clearly they are absurd.
However what does matter is if Muslims believe they have to do it. And they do believe that. These are things they believe they must do.
That is why it’s important to understand what motivates them.
It isn’t the US bombing Saddam Hussein.. it’s the establishment of Justice and Peace on Earth by the imposition of Allah’s sharia on everyone.
Comment by Thoreau —
May 20, 2007 @ 1:06 pm
Vince, do you believe that Christians refrain from eating shrimp, and kill those who eat it?
Comment by Vince P —
May 20, 2007 @ 1:07 pm
Once again, people who do not understand Islam or Muslims seek to change the subject.
Thoreau: you tell me if Christians think that today.
I am telling you what Muslims believe TODAY in this time.
Comment by DB —
May 20, 2007 @ 1:11 pm
And yes,, the subjugation of Christians and Jews as dhimmis is happening.. it’s called Political Correctness.
Unless its the Christmas/holiday season debate. Then it’s Christians vs. Jews. The Right is as PC as the Left these days, what with the complaints about department stores trying to stomp out Christmas or conservative students needing special accomodation from their professors.
People like to be the underdog, even when they’re on top. It has nothing to do with lunatic islamic conspiracy theories.
Comment by Bill Woolsey —
May 20, 2007 @ 1:11 pm
About this spamming business.
I am on a Ron Paul email list and I have received several emails reporting the existence of some internet poll and asking that I go vote for Paul. I have done it several times, (though only one time per poll.) I have three voters in my household, but we don’t cast all three votes.
Libertarian Party campaigns have been doing this sort of thing for some time. Because Libertarians were more likely to be connected to the net, receive prompt news from the campaign, the result was that wheh the Libertarian actually showed up in these sorts of polls, the Libertarian would do quite well.
I think Paul is benefiting from this same sort of phenomenon.
I suppose what these blogs and websites want is to have only their regular readers vote.
Comment by Mona —
May 20, 2007 @ 1:12 pm
What it means to be “conservative” is not what you think it means any longer. By the new metrics, Bush is conservative, and Matthews was as well in his infatuation with Bush phase. Ron Paul scares your kind of “conservative” for the reasons Dave Weigel at Reason suggested: he raises issues the new “conservative” GOP doesn’t want to discuss. The dead-ender, warmongering base the GOP has to rely on in the primaries would abandon them if they went anywhere in Paul’s direction. Even many hardcore pro-lifers who hate gays will vote for Guiliani (with exceptions like Dobson) merely because hawkishness in the ME and authoritarianism in security measures at home are now the metric for “conservative.” Matthews’ speechwriting for Carter lo those many years ago has no relevance to the new political dynamic since 9/11. And is why so many of us libertarians are, as Cato’s David Boaz has documented, fleeing this “conservative” GOP.
Do try to keep up with the times.
Comment by Thoreau —
May 20, 2007 @ 1:14 pm
How many of them interpret it the way you think they do, Vince?
OTOH, maybe they were right about Jesus and the last day.
Keep in mind that the “hidden imam” is mostly a Shia thing. What will be really funny is if he turns to be a really old Zoroastrian dude.
Comment by Vince P —
May 20, 2007 @ 1:15 pm
DB:
Things like not publishing the Mohemmed Cartoons.. that’s submission to Islam
Things like being sued for reporting the “Flying Imams”.. that’s intimidation to cause other peolpe to submit
Thinkgs like refusing to serve cab passengers who have seeing eye dogs, or have alcohol.. that’s submission to Islam
Things like being called “islamophobe” or other tactics designed to silence critics.. that’s submission to Islam
In Universities its completely out of control.
The intimidation of critics of Muslims or Islam is all designed to silence all public debate about these issues.
Comment by Mona —
May 20, 2007 @ 1:15 pm
Bill Woolsey: Your positions are largely the same as my own. Well said.
Comment by DB —
May 20, 2007 @ 1:16 pm
I am telling you what Muslims believe TODAY in this time.
Here’s what Christians believe, today, in this time:
http://www.godhatesfags.com/
They even have the bible quotes to prove it.
Or maybe, a couple of nutcases are just that – outliers, that have nothing to do with the overwhelming majority.
Comment by DB —
May 20, 2007 @ 1:23 pm
Vince P-
I have to admit that your examples are profoundly undwhelming. If you consider this enslavement, or even intimidation, you’re little more than a sad-sack drama queen. If someone doesn’t want to give me a cab ride, that’s fine – they don’t get my money, either. As for cartoons, sure, people should be free to publish what they want, but if you publish something that offends people, be it Bush in a klan hood or black sambo eating some fried chicken – you’re going to piss people off. And, jesus, there’s nothing more American than stupid, pointless lawsuits.
This isn’t the harbinger of invasion. It’s just the way life has always been in this complex, multicultural society.
Comment by Mona —
May 20, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
What twaddle. It is between the cab driver and his employer whether he may have such rules, and many of the same Xian conservatives who see things your way believe pharmacists should have the right not sell Plan B and other abortafacients. I agree, btw, that a pharmacy owner should have that right — and so should the Muslim cabbie. It is called freedom. In Indiana one still may not purchase alcohol on Sundays — blue law holdover from prim Xian Puritanism.
(On grounds of common carrier doctrine, however, I might compel cabbies to allow the seeing-eye dogs.)
And anyone may sue anyone in this nation. It is hardly just Muslims. For true use of litigation as a weapon to silence critics, check out the Scientologists. Should we boycott Tom Cruise and John Travolta movies and fight this heinous submission they seek to impose to the will of L. Ron Hubbard? [eyes rolling]
Comment by Vince P —
May 20, 2007 @ 1:31 pm
DB:
You haven’t countered one thing I have said. I dont care how many religions you want to compare with Islam., it doesnt change anything I have said.
I can provide 200-screensful of information backing up my position, but I won’t.
You clearly do not know anything substantial about Islam because if you did, you would be bringing up things about Islam instead of changing the subject. I wont even say “nice try” because it was very weak.
Comment by Thoreau —
May 20, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
Should we boycott Tom Cruise and John Travolta movies
Yes, but not for religious reasons.
Comment by Pablo —
May 20, 2007 @ 1:35 pm
Oh please, dear Mona! Tell me more of what I think! I’m dying to know!
No, a conservative would protect the border.
Oh, and tell me the rest of what I’m afraid of, you mind reader you. But I’ve got to tell you, I’m pretty sure that it isn’t Ron Paul.
Uh huh. The Republican base hates conservatives. Check.
Uh, yeah. Because Dobson isn’t at all representative of the hardcore Christian pro-lifer. Mona, you’re a riot!
I didn’t say it does. It’s relevant to Chris Matthews. Don’t be so dismissive.
And running headlong into the warm embrace of Rick Ellensburg(s).
That would make a great soap opera, and I know I could count on you to add just the right touch of melodrama. Times 10.
Comment by Vince P —
May 20, 2007 @ 1:37 pm
New York: Police renew focus on Muslim cabbies
Minneapolis: Muslim cab drivers tell airport they won’t bend in alcohol dispute …
London: ‘Unclean’ guide dog banned by Muslim cab driver
Oslo: Blind People Rejected by Muslim Taxi Drivers
Victoria Australia: Muslim cabbies refusing the blind and drinkers
Sorry, you people are ill-informed.
Comment by Mona —
May 20, 2007 @ 1:42 pm
And oh my god! Catholic hospitals won’t perform abortions and most won’t perform sterilizations either! Quick, the Papists have guns in the church bsements and are aiming to take over the U.S. for the Vatican!
Comment by Vince P —
May 20, 2007 @ 1:46 pm
Mona: We’re talking about Muslims. You show how little you know about them that you have no choice but to change the subject.
The point of all this is.. that if the Muslims were to believe that a caliphate was created, then they will also believe the Mahdi was involved in establishing it. And if they accept that, then they know the time for the Great Jihad has come and they will begin putting into action their global war.. that is why there are hezbellah and hamas terror cells all over the world.
Comment by Mona —
May 20, 2007 @ 1:47 pm
Honestly, the most fucking hysterical thing about “arguments” like Vince’s is that if he really thinks virtually all Muslims are intent on taking over the world and imposing “submission,” then what has been all this B.S. about “liberating” Iraq so that sweet democracy will reign and serve as alight and model unto the rest of the Muslim world? Such religious maniacs couldn’t be trusted with democracy, and at least Saddam was secular.
Comment by Vince P —
May 20, 2007 @ 1:47 pm
before i’m nitpicked, i chose those two groups at random. its not an exclusive list.
Comment by Vince P —
May 20, 2007 @ 1:48 pm
Mona: Well with all your research into this topic, please tell me where I’m wrong.
Oh, and I never said “all Muslims”, I jsut dont feel like typing like a lawyer to satisify your PC Ignorance.
Comment by Vince P —
May 20, 2007 @ 1:52 pm
For those of you who aren’t totally blinded by whatever anti-Bush ideology motivates you.. check out this video from the UK
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=EA0270E133DC8334
Dispatches: Mosques undercover
UK Channel 4
Aired 15th January 2007.
Radicalisation of UK mosques by Saudi Wahabbism
Comment by Vince P —
May 20, 2007 @ 1:54 pm
Anyone not blinded by BDS may be interested in this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peFQWuk4nuo
UK Channel 4
Dispatches: Undercover Mosque
Aired 15th January 2007.
Radicalisation of UK mosques by Saudi Wahabbism (more)
Comment by Mona —
May 20, 2007 @ 1:56 pm
In your notion that cabbies refusing to carry guide dogs or alcohol, or who resort to litigation, hold any particular significance about Muslims that a sane and reasonable person ought to find alarming.
Comment by Vince P —
May 20, 2007 @ 2:08 pm
I didnt want to copy and paste, but I guess I have to
AUSTRALIA
MUSLIM taxi drivers are refusing to carry blind passengers with their guide dogs or anyone carrying alcohol.
At least 20 dog-aided blind people have lodged discrimination complaints with the Victorian Taxi Directorate. Dozens more have voiced their anger.
And there have been several complaints that drivers refuse to allow passengers to carry sealed bottles of alcohol.
Victorian Taxi Association spokesman Neil Sach said the association had appealed to the mufti of Melbourne to give religious approval for Muslim cabbies to carry guide dogs.
One Muslim driver, Imran, said yesterday the guide dog issue was difficult for him.
“I don’t refuse to take people, but it’s hard for me because my religion tells me I should not go near dogs,” he said.
Guide Dogs Victoria spokeswoman Holly Marquette said blind people regularly reported taxi drivers refusing to carry them because of their dogs.
LONDON
‘Unclean’ guide dog banned by Muslim cab driver
A Muslim minicab driver refused to take a blind passenger because her guide dog was “unclean”.
Abdul Rasheed Majekodumni told Jane Vernon she could not get into his car with the dog because of his religion.
Islamic tradition warns Muslims against contact with dogs because they are seen as impure.
The case emerged as Jack Straw was embroiled in a controversy over Muslim women wearing veils and the row continued after a Muslim police officer was excused guard duty at the Israeli embassy. Today Mrs Vernon, 39, from Hammersmith, said: “This experience was very upsetting.
“I was tired and cold and just wanted to get home but this driver made me feel like I was a second-class citizen, like I didn’t count at all.”
Mrs Vernon, who works as a legal officer for the Royal National Institute for the Blind, added: “The owner of the minicab firm, Niven Sinclair, was also very insensitive, telling me that what had happened to me wasn’t really very important, and I should have more respect for other people’s culture. They have shown very little respect for my rights as a disabled person and have never once offered me an apology
Earlier this month Mrs Vernon supported-another blind woman who was refused a taxi ride take the case to court. Bernie Reddington, 37, had asked driver Basir Miah for a lift home after a hospital appointment at Great Ormond Street but he had refused, calling her dog “dirty”.
OSLO
Grethe Olsen, accompanied by her guide dog Isak, experienced being rejected by no less than 21 taxis before finally getting a ride. Olsen thinks the taxi drivers said no for religious reasons. The Norwegian Blind Association confirms that this is a well known problem all over the country, especially in cities with many immigrants. It arises when a blind person accompanied by a guide dog wants to take a taxi from a stand, instead of ordering one in advance.
Comment by Vince P —
May 20, 2007 @ 2:08 pm
Do you think I made it up ? You’re the insane one.
AUSTRALIA
MUSLIM taxi drivers are refusing to carry blind passengers with their guide dogs or anyone carrying alcohol.
At least 20 dog-aided blind people have lodged discrimination complaints with the Victorian Taxi Directorate. Dozens more have voiced their anger.
And there have been several complaints that drivers refuse to allow passengers to carry sealed bottles of alcohol.
Victorian Taxi Association spokesman Neil Sach said the association had appealed to the mufti of Melbourne to give religious approval for Muslim cabbies to carry guide dogs.
One Muslim driver, Imran, said yesterday the guide dog issue was difficult for him.
“I don’t refuse to take people, but it’s hard for me because my religion tells me I should not go near dogs,” he said.
Guide Dogs Victoria spokeswoman Holly Marquette said blind people regularly reported taxi drivers refusing to carry them because of their dogs.
Comment by Vince P —
May 20, 2007 @ 2:09 pm
AUSTRALIA
MUSLIM taxi drivers are refusing to carry blind passengers with their guide dogs or anyone carrying alcohol.
At least 20 dog-aided blind people have lodged discrimination complaints with the Victorian Taxi Directorate. Dozens more have voiced their anger.
And there have been several complaints that drivers refuse to allow passengers to carry sealed bottles of alcohol.
Victorian Taxi Association spokesman Neil Sach said the association had appealed to the mufti of Melbourne to give religious approval for Muslim cabbies to carry guide dogs.
One Muslim driver, Imran, said yesterday the guide dog issue was difficult for him.
“I don’t refuse to take people, but it’s hard for me because my religion tells me I should not go near dogs,” he said.
Guide Dogs Victoria spokeswoman Holly Marquette said blind people regularly reported taxi drivers refusing to carry them because of their dogs.
Comment by Vince P —
May 20, 2007 @ 2:09 pm
LONDON
‘Unclean’ guide dog banned by Muslim cab driver
A Muslim minicab driver refused to take a blind passenger because her guide dog was “unclean”.
Abdul Rasheed Majekodumni told Jane Vernon she could not get into his car with the dog because of his religion.
Islamic tradition warns Muslims against contact with dogs because they are seen as impure.
The case emerged as Jack Straw was embroiled in a controversy over Muslim women wearing veils and the row continued after a Muslim police officer was excused guard duty at the Israeli embassy. Today Mrs Vernon, 39, from Hammersmith, said: “This experience was very upsetting.
“I was tired and cold and just wanted to get home but this driver made me feel like I was a second-class citizen, like I didn’t count at all.”
Mrs Vernon, who works as a legal officer for the Royal National Institute for the Blind, added: “The owner of the minicab firm, Niven Sinclair, was also very insensitive, telling me that what had happened to me wasn’t really very important, and I should have more respect for other people’s culture. They have shown very little respect for my rights as a disabled person and have never once offered me an apology
Earlier this month Mrs Vernon supported-another blind woman who was refused a taxi ride take the case to court. Bernie Reddington, 37, had asked driver Basir Miah for a lift home after a hospital appointment at Great Ormond Street but he had refused, calling her dog “dirty”.
Comment by Vince P —
May 20, 2007 @ 2:09 pm
OSLO
Grethe Olsen, accompanied by her guide dog Isak, experienced being rejected by no less than 21 taxis before finally getting a ride. Olsen thinks the taxi drivers said no for religious reasons. The Norwegian Blind Association confirms that this is a well known problem all over the country, especially in cities with many immigrants. It arises when a blind person accompanied by a guide dog wants to take a taxi from a stand, instead of ordering one in advance.
Comment by lowandslow —
May 20, 2007 @ 2:11 pm
Mona,
Do you find an Iran, lead by a genocidal maniac having nuclear weapons alarming?
Comment by Vince P —
May 20, 2007 @ 2:11 pm
Bukhari Volume 7, Book 72, Number 833:
Narrated Abu Talha : The Prophet said, “Angels do not enter a house in which there is a dog or there are pictures.”
Muslim Book 010, Number 3811:
Abdullah (b. Umar) (Allah be pleased with them) reported: Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) ordered the killing of dogs and we would send (men) in Medina and its corners and we did not spare any dog that we did not kill, so much so that we killed the dog that accompanied the wet she-camel belonging to the people of the desert.
Comment by Vince P —
May 20, 2007 @ 2:13 pm
From an Islamic website that explains Islamic rulings:
Dear sirs,
I am confused as to the position of the dog in Islam. I thought that what is najis is the nose (saliva) and that no other part of the dog is najis, except when it is wet. I also understood that keeping a dog as guard dog etc…is not haram. however, in Malaysia, there is a very strong aversion to the dog amongst Muslim communities to the extent that even in educational religious books produced from this country condemns the dog as najis (throughout) and haram to keep.
I hope you can clarify this.
Thank you.
assalamu’alaikum.
Answer:
Praise be to Allaah.
The fuqahaa’ are agreed that it is not permitted to keep a dog unless it is for a purpose, like hunting or guarding property or other uses that are not contrary to the Sharee’ah. The Prophet (peace and blessing of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever keeps a dog, except a dog for herding, hunting or farming, his reward will decrease by one qiraat every day.” (Reported by Muslim, 2948)
As far as keeping a dog to guard the house is concerned, Ibn Qudaamah said: “It is not permitted, according to the most sound opinion.” (al-Mawsoo’ah al-Fiqhiyyah, 35/124)
For more information on this matter, please see question #377.
As regards the najaasah (impurity) of the dog, the Shaafi’i and Hanbali ‘ulamaa’ say that the whole dog is essentially naajis (impure). Some scholars say that any liquid excreted by the dog is naajis (not the dog itself). The saliva of the dog is extremely naajis, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “If a dog licks the vessel of any one of you, let him throw away whatever was in it and wash it seven times.” (Reported by Muslim, no. 418).
Abu Hurayrah, may Allaah be pleased with him, reported that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The way to purify the vessel of any one of you if a dog has licked it is to wash it seven times, the first time with earth.” (Reported by Muslim, no. 420).
We must ensure that Muslims continue to be averse to dogs, even in the midst of what the kuffaar are used to do and what some Muslims have adopted of their habits.
May Allaah bestow good on you and on us. May Allaah bless our Prophet Muhammad
Comment by Vince P —
May 20, 2007 @ 2:15 pm
Here is Question 377 referenced to in the above answer:
(A Kuffar is a non-Muslim)
Question:
ALSALAAM ALAIKUM
I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT KEEPING PETS IN THE HOUSE.I KNOW THAT THE KALB(DOG)IS CONSIDERED NIJASA, BUT I DON’T KNOW WHY.
I REMEMBER A SECTION IN THE Qur’an WHERE THE PROPHET PEACE BE UPON HIM ONCE GAVE A THIRSTY DOG WATER TO DRINK OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT.
COULD YOU PLEASE ELABORATE.
THANK YOU
Answer:
Praise be to Allaah.
According to Islaamic Sharee’ah, it is not permitted to keep a dog except within narrowly-defined limits, as the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) explained: “Whoever keeps a dog, his good deeds will decrease every day by one qeeraat (a unit of measurement), unless it is a dog for farming or herding.” According to another report: “. . . unless it is a dog for herding sheep, farming or hunting.” (Reported by al-Bukhaari, al-Fath, 2322)
Dogs are extremely naajis (impure, unclean). The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “If a dog drinks from the vessel of any one of you, let him wash it seven times” (reported by Muslim, no. 279). According to another report: “. . . and clean it the eighth time with earth.” (Saheeh Muslim, no. 280).
It is forbidden in Islaam to sell a dog and to receive payment for it, as is reported in Saheeh al-Bukhaari from Abu Mas’oud al-Ansaari: the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) forbade (accepting) the price of a dog. (al-Fath, no. 2237)
The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) told us not to resemble dogs by placing our forearms on the ground during sujood (prostration), as in reported in the hadeeth narrated by Anas ibn Maalik, according to which the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Do sujood properly; none of you should spread his forearms like a dog does.” (al-Bukhaari, Fath, no. 822).
Whoever keeps a dog in his house is denied the blessing of the angels’ presence in his house, as the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The angels do not enter a house in which there is a dog.” (Reported by al-Bukhaari, 3225).
Keeping dogs nowadays is the habit of the kuffaar, who adopt them as friends, kiss them, let them lick them and their clothes, sleep with them and even leave them money in their wills. Keeping a dog is an imitation of the kuffaar. Some Muslims may claim that they need to keep a dog at home for purposes of protection, to which we respond that nowadays there are burglar alarm systems and other measures one may take for security purposes, and there is no need to keep a dog, praise be to Allaah.
It only remains for us to say that the fact that it is forbidden to keep a dog and interect closely with it does not mean that we should not be kind or feel compassion towards dogs if we see them in a pitiful state. These are two entirely separate matters. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) told us that “a man saw a dog biting the dust because of thirst, so he took his shoe and started to scoop water up with it until the dog’s thirst was quenched. Allaah appreciated his good deed and granted him entry to Paradise for it.” (Reported by al-Bukhaari, no. 174).
According to another report, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whilst a man was walking he became very thirsty, so he went down to a well and drank from it. When he came out, he saw a dog panting and biting the soil because of thirst. The man said, ‘He is suffering the same as I suffered,’ so he filled his shoe (with water), came out and let the dog drink until his thirst was quenched. Allaah appreciated his good deed and forgave him because of it.” The people asked, “O Messenger of Allaah, will we be rewarded for how we treat animals?” He said, “In every living thing there is a reward.” (Reported by al-Bukhaari, Fath, no. 2363).
We do not want to omit reminding you of the importance of reading the Qur’aan properly and referring to it. You say in your question that the story of the thirsty dog is in the Qur’aan, and that is not the case, as it is reported in the Sunnah.
And Allaah knows best.
Islam Q&A
Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid
Comment by Vince P —
May 20, 2007 @ 2:16 pm
Mona: I’ll be expecting your retraction that I am insane.
Comment by Mona —
May 20, 2007 @ 2:23 pm
I find nuclear proliferation itself alarming, and am most displeased NoKo has them. I see no evidence that Iran is led by genocidal maniacs, if by maniacs, you mean willing to behave irrationally and launch a nuclear strike that would constitute suicide. I also see that Iran concluded we behave much more circumspectly toward NoKo now that that nation has nukes, we invaded Iraq which did not have them, and so we have rendered it rational for Iran to want to join the nuclear club.
Comment by no —
May 20, 2007 @ 2:26 pm
RuPaul is a fucking idiot and so are you.
Comment by Vince P —
May 20, 2007 @ 2:27 pm
Mona: you mean you missed this … sounds really rational doesnt it:
Commandant of Iran’s elite Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, Major General Yahya Rahim Safavi, said on state television. “God willing, the 21st century will see the defeat of the U.S. and the Zionists, and the victory of freedom-seeking nations of the world. The final goal of the [1979] revolution is to create global Islamic rule and a regime of law to be led by the Imam Mahdiâ€.
The [Iranians] President’s chief strategist, Hassan Abbassi, has come up with a war plan based on the premise that “Britain is the mother of all evils†– the evils being America, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, the Gulf states and even Canada, all of whom are the malign progeny of the British Empire. “We have a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization,†says Mr Abbassi. “There are 29 sensitive sites in the U.S. and in the West. We have already spied on these sites and we know how we are going to attack them… Once we have defeated the Anglo-Saxons the rest will run for cover.â€
The IRGC chief warned that Iran was seeing through “critical days†and “fate-determining yearsâ€. He described the purpose of Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution as the “Salvation of Muslims†from the hands of the “oppressive U.S. and Israelâ€.
Comment by Vince P —
May 20, 2007 @ 2:28 pm
The founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran said this in 1980 in the Islamic holy city of Qom:
We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world.
Comment by lowandslow —
May 20, 2007 @ 2:30 pm
What? I’m beginning to think you might not be being totally honest with me. That’s not a great way to start our relationship.
Comment by Vince P —
May 20, 2007 @ 2:30 pm
I’m always amused at how people like Mona can be so cocky and yet be totally oblivious about what they talk about.
Comment by flgf —
May 20, 2007 @ 2:49 pm
I love Ron Paul and think LGF are a bunch of retarded retards… that’s not a double retard but a retard squared.
“deeerp, islam is the problem for everything.. deeeerp, invading iraq was good.. deeerp, 2 + 2 = 5.. deeerp”
Comment by Bill Woolsey —
May 20, 2007 @ 2:50 pm
When the Mahdi rises from the dead (or returns from whatever status he has had while hidden all of these centuries), I will at least consider converting to Islam. When Jesus returns and points out that the Nicene creed was all wrong and that Islam is the true religion and that I should convert, I am sure I will do so. I suspect that millions of other American Christians would do the same, and, more importantly, when the resurrected Mahdi, with Jesus by his side, proposes that we all vote in Sharia law, I guess I would do so rather than defy God. And so, Muslim rule would come to America.
I suspect even atheists and agnostics would have their beliefs shaken by such miracles.
However, I consider these to be very low probability events.
Why should we worry at all about what Shia Muslim’s believe will happen when the hidden Imam returns, since it won’t happen?
Comment by Mona —
May 20, 2007 @ 2:54 pm
It is highly unreasonable, but does not begin to suggest that a nuclear Iran would be irrational in the use of nukes, anymore than the evil despot in Pyongyang is. National suicide is sort of super, duper irrational. Various religionists in Iran and elsewhere declare all manner of outrageous belief. But whether or to what degree we ought to plot foreign policy around feverish beliefs they advocate (which they lack capacity to implement) is an entirely separate matter.
Comment by Vince P —
May 20, 2007 @ 3:27 pm
Bill: They dont believe the Mahdi will be killed. And the timing of the Muslim Jesus isnt specified.
The only thing is this… there is a caliphate which is given to the Mahdi… then the conquest begins. Nothing supernatural there.
Again.. this is why there are muslim paramilitary camps all over the United States. They are planning and training.
Comment by Vince P —
May 20, 2007 @ 3:28 pm
Mona ignores this
The founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran said this in 1980 in the Islamic holy city of Qom:
We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world.
- Khomeni 1980
Comment by DB —
May 20, 2007 @ 3:36 pm
VP-
I lived in Morocco for two years, and count Egyptians, Palestinians, Jordanians and Iraqi’s among my friends and associates. I’ve never been secretive about my atheism, and no one has ever tried to kill me for it. I don’t claim to be an authority in Islam, but I do know that a handful of radical nutcases with access to email do not a world-wide jihad make, and the fact taht you take the nutcases seriously does not make you an authority on Islam. It makes you a fool, because to be taken seriously, to be treated like the “real” religion is what radical fundamentalists of all faiths, christian, muslim, buddhist or hindu want. America itself has no lack of Christian nutcase sects, prone to the same fantasies of political dominance and low-grade violence. Just playing the numbers game, we have more to worry about from the likes of Eric Rudolph. But although they’re much more vocal than the mainstream, don’t confuse the reactionary christian sects with the majority of Christians. Don’t do the same with muslims.
The irony of all of this is that you can’t really believe it if you support the actions of the US in Iraq in Afghanistan. If we’re to have any hope they’re at all, it’s contingent on the fact that the vast majority of muslims in both countries just want to live their lives in peace, not fall on every infidel they see with a sword.
Comment by DB —
May 20, 2007 @ 3:38 pm
Again.. this is why there are muslim paramilitary camps all over the United States. They are planning and training.
So THAT’S what’s going on at Area 51. All this time, I thought it was the aliens (working with the homosexuals, of course).
Comment by Mona —
May 20, 2007 @ 3:46 pm
Uh-huh, but there is no evidence that the nation-state of Iran behaves in but a rational manner, if by that one means avoiding its severe harm or destruction. Stalin believed insane things as well, but he did not behave in a way that he knew would result in nuclear bombs getting lobbed at Stalingrad.
Islam is not going to emerge triumphant in a political sense in the world. It just isn’t, and spending three seconds pretending otherwise is stoopid. Khomenei was a vicious theocrat, but there is no evidence that he or the others who run that country now would actually engage in behavior that would guarantee its incineration. A foreign policy based on jumping through hoops based on every shrill thing uttered by some Middle Eastern Muslim would be to give them more power than they have, and to behave irrationally ourselves.
Sweet Baby Jesus, save us from this synergy of their fools feeding ours, and let the world be run by those who understand reality.
Comment by Vince P —
May 20, 2007 @ 3:49 pm
DB:
Though primarily based in Lahore, Pakistan, Jamaat ul-Fuqra has operational headquarters in New York and openly recruits through various social service organizations in the U.S., including the prison system. Members live in hamaats or compounds, such as Islamberg, where they agree to abide by the laws of Jamaat ul-Fuqra, which are considered to be above local, state and federal authority. Additional hamaats have been established in Hyattsville, Maryland; Red House, Virginia; Falls Church, Virginia; Macon, Georgia; York, South Carolina; Dover, Tennessee; Buena Vista, Colorado; Talihina, Oklahoma; Tulare Country, California; Commerce, California; and Onalaska, Washington. Others are being built, including an expansive facility in Sherman, Pennsylvania.
Before becoming a citizen of Islamberg or any of the other Fuqra compounds, the recruits – - primarily inner city black men who became converts in prison – - are compelled to sign an oath that reads: “I shall always hear and obey, and whenever given the command, I shall readily fight for Allah’s sake.”
In the past, thousands of members of the U.S. branches of Jamaat ul-Fuqra traveled to Pakistan for paramilitary training, but encampments, such as Islamberg, are now capable of providing book-camp training so raw recruits are no longer required to travel abroad amidst the increased scrutiny of post 9/11.
Comment by Vince P —
May 20, 2007 @ 3:51 pm
Mona: It’s clear you’re out of your depth
Comment by ak —
May 20, 2007 @ 3:55 pm
Ignore it and it will go away? It won’t go away it’s here to stay until you fight back.
Comment by Foster —
May 20, 2007 @ 3:59 pm
Scared?
Don’t make me laugh, the only ones that are scared are the Lefty Democrats.
Lefties are scared because the GOP has become an open forum for a diversity of viewpoints. We now have an anti-war candidate with Ron Paul and a pro-choice candidate (who’s currently the front runner ) with Rudy Giuliani, both running as Republicans.
When has the Democrat Party allowed such dissension? Certainly not with Joe Lieberman who was purged for not toeing the party line. They certainly have not had a pro-life candidate running for their party’s nomination for president (let alone being the front runner).
No, I would say that it’s the Democrats that are scared sh*tless. They don’t know what to do or how to respond to the sudden influx of such divergent candidates willing (and wanting) to label themselves with the Republican moniker and aligning themselves with the GOP.
Comment by Thoreau —
May 20, 2007 @ 4:04 pm
because to be taken seriously, to be treated like the “real†religion is what radical fundamentalists of all faiths, christian, muslim, buddhist or hindu want.
Bingo!
I’m not interested in the speeches that dictators give. Castro probably still insists that La Revolucion will spread throughout the world.
What I’m interested in is whether, as others discussed, they act in a manner that would guarantee their annihilation. Most of them love their golden palaces far too much for that.
Comment by Vince P —
May 20, 2007 @ 4:06 pm
See how Muslims intimidate people on our College campuses..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cc-qNml5Zs
First off, they had some nut Jew-hating Muslim speaker, why this man is speaking at a California university is a mystery.. so whoever the guy is who is taping this, is just sitting there, and then youcan tell peole are him are getting angry that he is filming …
If people like Mona and DB are outputs of this “education” is it no wonder why they are in complete denial?
Comment by ak —
May 20, 2007 @ 4:16 pm
At least it’s not New York as th al-Mahajiroun-NY branch would like!
Comment by DB —
May 20, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
Vince P-
Sounds like your little group is trivial next to the Scientologists, and no more relevant. In real world trends, the demographic and religious future of the United States is a bunch of Mormons named Gomez and Ortega.
The other day, I read that radical Islam was the greatest threat to the United States ever. Ever? What? A couple of years, and people have already forgotten the Cold War. I think that the LGFers here do more to demonstrate how the politics of fear manifest on the political right. We’re all familiar with how they work on the left – the planet is going to turn into Venus, we have to save the ozone layer, if we don’t save the rain forest, then there won’t be any more oxygen, yada, yada yada.
On the right, though, you get these fantasies of world conquest – the communists are going to take over the world, Red Dawn, the antichrist is going to use the UN to put Christians in concentration camps… the US is going to join a worldwide caliphate.
The amazing thing is that the same people who embrace Hal Lindsey in the 80’s seem to have completely forgotten their previous irrational fantasies completely, and are embracing a new, equally illogical, equally paranoid worldview. Just like the lefties – I mean, who thinks about the ozone layer anymore? We’ve always been at war with Eastasia!
So, my word to all fearmongers, right and left. You’re not going to wake up on Venus in a Bhurka. You’ve been wrong every God-damn time before, and you’re not doing any better now. Calm down. Go back on your meds and get a job.
Comment by sheik yer'mami —
May 20, 2007 @ 4:24 pm
Ron who?
A hick who is as clueless as a newborn baby?
We do have enemies. Not because of something we have done to them, but because they hate. They hate everything about us because we are ‘unbelievers’ and their so-called religion teaches them to hate and kill the filthy kuffar and to enslave them.
‘Filthy kuffar’- that’s US.
Don’t take my word for it.
Jihad. Thats what every Muhammedn hate-preacher preaches in every mosque where Muhammedans have been allowed to settle behind enemy lines.
No. We cannot coexist.
Wake up and smell the coffee…
Comment by Mona —
May 20, 2007 @ 4:24 pm
Of the notable terrorists in the Colorado Supermax prison are these:
And of course, any number of “Army of God” abortioinst murderers and clinic bombers have been imprisoned or executed, ans well as militia types and Xian Identity movement nutbars. That doesn’t make all pro-lifers terrorists or sympathetic to terrorism. And the Xian Identity group doesn’t convict all Xians, nor do Militia Movements — which are often linked (dubiously) with libertarianism — render the writers and libertarian readers here part of that cesspool, either.
Timothy McVeigh was not a Muslim.
Comment by Vince P —
May 20, 2007 @ 4:29 pm
nice job Mona.. you found two terrorists in the entire world who aren’t Muslim.
http://vincep312.home.comcast.net/globalattacks.jpg
That is a map of Jihad attacks globally since 2003. Each dot is an attack, the numbers are the number killed.
More maps here
http://vincep312.home.comcast.net/attacks.html
Trackback by Blog-o-Fascists —
May 20, 2007 @ 4:30 pm
We Got Mail!…
Little Green Footballs
Ron Paul followers are continuing to barrage us; we’re now approaching the grim milestone of 100 hate mails, far more than we’ve ever received in a short period for any other LGF post, surpassing our previous record …
Comment by ak —
May 20, 2007 @ 4:31 pm
No, but he was connected to Ramsi Yousef.
Hussain Al-Hussaini where are you?
Comment by Vince P —
May 20, 2007 @ 4:39 pm
ak: It’s just a coincidence that Tim McV knew the Iraqi Ramsi Yousef. I’m sure Ramsi didn’t let Tim know he was an arab muslim with an Iraq passport
Comment by Dave W. —
May 20, 2007 @ 4:48 pm
and then there was the chance meeting btwn Nick Berg and Zacharias Moussaoui:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Berg
Comment by Vince P —
May 20, 2007 @ 5:06 pm
Dave: and it happened in Oklahoma!
Comment by Mona —
May 20, 2007 @ 5:11 pm
As I suspected, this McVeigh/Iraqi/Youself business is simply modern John Birchism. From wiki:
It was an outre notion concoted by ever-creative defense attorneys that the judge found lacking in credibility. But in any event, terrorism comes in all flavors, and is not confined to Muslims, nor an indictment of the majority of them.
Comment by Vince P —
May 20, 2007 @ 5:20 pm
After McVeigh’s execution, Yousef wrote of him: “I have never [known] anyone in my life who had so similar a personality to my own.”
Comment by Mona —
May 20, 2007 @ 5:34 pm
I see, having written innumerable bizarre posts all to prove the Caliphate is upon us because some Muslims have issues with Rover (!), you now insist on a connection I cannot locate in the wiki entry for either man, and claim a quote with no link or citation to a source. You show me a credible, non-wingnut source with that data, and I’ll believe the man knew Timothy McVeigh and had something to do with the Oklahoma bombing.
However, I don’t doubt that they had similar psychological profiles. They were/are both terrorists, albeit motivated by different causes.
Comment by ak —
May 20, 2007 @ 5:34 pm
Qur’an 33:36, “It is not fitting for a Muslim man or woman to have any choice in their affairs when a matter has been decided for them by Allah and His Messenger. They have no option.”
Comment by Vince P —
May 20, 2007 @ 5:39 pm
Mona is so desperate to grasp at straws to say my thoroughly documented information is wrong so that she can remain ignorant.
http://polipundit.com/index.php?m=200407
Yousef was convicted in a New York courtroom for both the WTC bombing and the Bojinka plot, and sentenced to life in prison without parole. Judged a high escape risk, he was sent to serve his sentence at the Supermax prison in Colorado. His cellmates included the Unabomber, Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols. After McVeigh’s execution, Yousef wrote of the Oklahoma City bomber, “I have never (known) anyone in my life who had so similar a personality to my own.â€
Comment by ak —
May 20, 2007 @ 5:40 pm
Prove Jayna Davis is a wingnut? Aside from her book….lets walk thru the evidence item by item?
Comment by Foster —
May 20, 2007 @ 5:44 pm
Mainstream Christianity rose up in unison to condemn Timothy McVeigh’s act of terrorism.
The same cannot be said about mainstream Islam, who have yet to stand up in unison, and with one loud voice, condemn the actions of Muslim terrorists.
In fact, mainstream Islam’s refusal to strongly condemn terrorism makes them look suspiciously complicit in the reason that Muslim terrorism continues to go unabated.
Comment by Mona —
May 20, 2007 @ 5:47 pm
Luke 14:26:
Comment by ak —
May 20, 2007 @ 5:48 pm
Qur’an 8:39 “Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.”
Comment by Vince P —
May 20, 2007 @ 5:49 pm
Oh Mona… you ignorant slut.
The difference is, Luke’s verse has a metaphysical meaning, and the 33.36 thing is literal.
You never heard of Inshallah?
Comment by Thoreau —
May 20, 2007 @ 5:53 pm
Vince, you’re a barrel of laughs, but at the end of the day, the advice on troll feeding remains the same.
Unless Urkobold feels like showing up and dealing with you.
Comment by Vince P —
May 20, 2007 @ 5:53 pm
Mona shows herself to understand nothing about Arab culture or Islam
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htterr/articles/20070108.aspx
Arabs really have a problem with personal responsibility, which is a bedrock characteristic in any strong economy. The cause of this Arab problem is the concept of “inshallah” (”If God wills it.”) This is a basic tenet of Islam, although some scholars believe the attitude preceded that religion. In any event, “inshallah” is deadly when combined with modern technology. For this reason, Arab countries either have poorly maintained infrastructure and equipment (including military stuff), or import a lot of foreigners, possessing the right attitudes, to maintain everything. That minority of Arabs who do have the right attitude towards maintenance and personal responsibility are considered odd, but useful. The “inshallah” thing is made worse by a stronger belief in the supernatural, and magic in general. This often extends to technology. Thus many Iraqis believe that American troops wear sunglasses that see through clothing, and armor vests that are actually air conditioned. When they first encounter these beliefs, U.S. troops thought the Arabs are putting them on. Then it sinks in that Arabs really believe this stuff. It’s a scary moment
Comment by Thoreau —
May 20, 2007 @ 5:53 pm
Which is a roundabout way of saying that I’m out of here.
Comment by Vince P —
May 20, 2007 @ 5:54 pm
Mona shows herself to be completely ignorant of Arab culture and Islam
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htterr/articles/20070108.aspx
Arabs really have a problem with personal responsibility, which is a bedrock characteristic in any strong economy. The cause of this Arab problem is the concept of “inshallah” (”If God wills it.”) This is a basic tenet of Islam, although some scholars believe the attitude preceded that religion. In any event, “inshallah” is deadly when combined with modern technology. For this reason, Arab countries either have poorly maintained infrastructure and equipment (including military stuff), or import a lot of foreigners, possessing the right attitudes, to maintain everything. That minority of Arabs who do have the right attitude towards maintenance and personal responsibility are considered odd, but useful. The “inshallah” thing is made worse by a stronger belief in the supernatural, and magic in general. This often extends to technology. Thus many Iraqis believe that American troops wear sunglasses that see through clothing, and armor vests that are actually air conditioned. When they first encounter these beliefs, U.S. troops thought the Arabs are putting them on. Then it sinks in that Arabs really believe this stuff. It’s a scary moment
Comment by Vince P —
May 20, 2007 @ 5:54 pm
Thoreau:
You’re sounding dangerously like a “progressive”.. Those people are immune to information.
Comment by ak —
May 20, 2007 @ 5:54 pm
Slut…Vince? take a break…step back from keyboard!
Comment by Vince P —
May 20, 2007 @ 5:56 pm
ak: You never watched Saturday Night Live in the 70s?
It’s humor.
Comment by Mona —
May 20, 2007 @ 5:56 pm
Ohhhh. IOW, the relationship occurred AFTER the Oklahoma City bombing, when both were in the same prison, and shows no prior connection to the Oklahoma terrorism crimes of Timothy McVeigh– and thus is irrelevant to this discussion.
Says who? You? How do you know many if not most Muslims don’t vest their verse with a “metaphysical” meaning?
Comment by Vince P —
May 20, 2007 @ 5:59 pm
I just pasted a story about Arabs and military equipment that shows how Muslims view the relevent verse and how it relates to real world things.
Comment by ak —
May 20, 2007 @ 6:01 pm
Nichols admitted meeting Ramsi Yousef.
Comment by Foster —
May 20, 2007 @ 6:02 pm
Because Mona, as I said earlier, if “most” muslims believed their quote was “metaphysical” then the vast majority of them would come out and loudly condemn terrorism, just like the vast majority of Christians do.
Comment by Mona —
May 20, 2007 @ 6:06 pm
Thoreau reaches a commonsensical decision:
Ditto. I can’t beleive I spent all this time engaging a person who plasters comment after comment showing that many Muslims have some odd attitudes toward canines. Like, so what? That alone should have tipped me off that I was arguing with a fruitloop, and I shall now cease.
Comment by Vince P —
May 20, 2007 @ 6:09 pm
Mona: I was responding to your questions. Every doubt you had about Muslims/Islam I answered you with their full justifcation.
If you’re intellectually honest (and I can you are not), you would recognize that.
Tell us.. what University did you go to?
Comment by Thoreau —
May 20, 2007 @ 6:11 pm
I do have to say this much, though, because Vince’s ignorance is amusing:
If I wanted to argue that Islam was uniquely dangerous, I wouldn’t post a quote from a Muslim terrorist who says that he has a lot in common with a non-Muslim terrorist like McVeigh. That might get people wondering whether terrorism is really about a personality defect, and people who have that defect latch onto whatever ideology is convenient: Radical Islam, whatever “patriot” movement McVeigh was involved with, etc.
Comment by Foster —
May 20, 2007 @ 6:12 pm
Answer one question for me Mona:
How many Christian leaders condoned, or even tried to justify Timothy McVeigh’s act of terrorism? the answer is zero.
How many Muslim leaders justified, or flat out condoned the terrorism of 9/11? the answer is hundreds.
Comment by ak —
May 20, 2007 @ 6:13 pm
It’s a part of history…Syrian dog rituals. Let’s not equate muslims with their history! ie. Spencer’s Muslim East = Muslim West!
Mona please give us the exact co-ordinates of the caliphate start to finish, then we can all go to sleep with the fluffy bunny?
Comment by ak —
May 20, 2007 @ 6:18 pm
Archaelogy hurts, reveals the truth Mona.
Comment by Vince P —
May 20, 2007 @ 6:20 pm
Thoreu: if you’re latching onto my playful contribution to someone else’s thread about McVeigh , then you only show how completely unable you are to show that I wrong. and you are looking to convince yourself that you should ignore me. it’s your immunity to information that runs counters to your prejudices.
Comment by ak —
May 20, 2007 @ 6:35 pm
seem’s to be the dead thread…on that note:
ynet & cheers
Comment by Vince P —
May 20, 2007 @ 6:44 pm
I hope they bomb HAMAS in Damascus too and everywhere else they are
Comment by Dave W. —
May 20, 2007 @ 6:44 pm
if you’re latching onto my playful contribution to someone else’s thread about McVeigh , then you only show how completely unable you are to show that I wrong. and you are looking to convince yourself that you should ignore me. it’s your immunity to information that runs counters to your prejudices.
One time I showed T. some things that McVeigh wrote and d00d freeked. True story.
Comment by Thoreau —
May 20, 2007 @ 6:53 pm
We SO need Urkobold in here right now.
Comment by ak —
May 20, 2007 @ 6:56 pm
are they there too…say it aint so?
Comment by Thoreau —
May 20, 2007 @ 6:59 pm
For the record, Dave decided to start commenting under a terrorist pseudonym at another blog, and he did so in a manner that left some ambiguity on whether he was endorsing the statement of a mass murderer. We didn’t want any ambiguity on endorsement of mass murder, so we made a rule not to do that.
Comment by Dave W. —
May 20, 2007 @ 7:05 pm
It was McVeigh’s words under McVeigh’s name. No pseudonym involved. Freeky stuf, tho, yagottadmit.
Comment by ak —
May 20, 2007 @ 7:07 pm
Got it those aksing for permission to kill 10 million thing- they happen to be muslim, ask Osama.
Comment by Jim Henley —
May 20, 2007 @ 7:55 pm
Vince may even embarrass Karl.
Quick quiz, Vince: Translate “Que Sera, Sera.”
Comment by Vince P —
May 20, 2007 @ 10:54 pm
Whats that got to do with anything
Comment by Vince P —
May 20, 2007 @ 10:56 pm
Ask the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem back in WW-II.. He’s the one who motivated Hitler to start the ovens. He convinced a few occupied countries to send their Jews to Germany too.
Comment by Dave W. —
May 21, 2007 @ 12:29 am
When the Grand Mufti talks, people listen.
Comment by Vince P —
May 21, 2007 @ 1:11 am
ak: HAMAS has a HQ in Damascas. They’re also all over the US.
Comment by Vince P —
May 21, 2007 @ 1:50 am
1933 – Grand Mufti Al-Husayni secretly met the German Consul-General Karl Wolff near the Dead Sea and expressed his approval of the anti-Jewish boycott in Germany and asked him not to send any Jews to Palestine. Later that year, the Mufti’s assistants approached Wolff, seeking his help in establishing an Arab National Socialist (Nazi) party in Palestine.
On 21 July 1937, Al-Husayni paid a visit to the new German Consul-General, Hans Döhle, in Palestine. He repeated his former support for Germany and “wanted to know to what extent the Third Reich was prepared to support the Arab movement against the Jews.” He later sent an agent and personal representative to Berlin for discussions with Nazi leaders.
In 1938, though Anglo-German relations were a concern, Al-Husayni’s offer was accepted. From August 1938, Husseini received financial and military assistance and supplies from Nazi Germany and fascist Italy. From Berlin, al-Husayni would play a significant role in inter-Arab politics.
Husayni aided the Axis cause in the Middle East by issuing a fatwa for a holy war against Britain in May 1941. The Mufti’s widely heralded proclamation against Britain was declared in Iraq, where he was instrumental in “the pro-Nazi” Iraqi revolt of 1941.
Comment by Vince P —
May 21, 2007 @ 1:52 am
1933 – Grand Mufti Al-Husayni secretly met the German Consul-General Karl Wolff near the Dead Sea and expressed his approval of the anti-Jewish boycott in Germany and asked him not to send any Jews to Palestine. Later that year, the Mufti’s assistants approached Wolff, seeking his help in establishing an Arab National Socialist (Nazi) party in Palestine.
On 21 July 1937, Al-Husayni paid a visit to the new German Consul-General, Hans Döhle, in Palestine. He repeated his former support for Germany and “wanted to know to what extent the Third Reich was prepared to support the Arab movement against the Jews.” He later sent an agent and personal representative to Berlin for discussions with Nazi leaders.
In 1938, though Anglo-German relations were a concern, Al-Husayni’s offer was accepted. From August 1938, Husseini received financial and military assistance and supplies from Nazi Germany and fascist Italy. From Berlin, al-Husayni would play a significant role in inter-Arab politics.
Comment by Vince P —
May 21, 2007 @ 1:53 am
1933 – Grand Mufti Al-Husayni secretly met the German Consul-General Karl Wolff near the Dead Sea and expressed his approval of the anti-Jewish boycott in Germany and asked him not to send any Jews to Palestine. Later that year, the Mufti’s assistants approached Wolff, seeking his help in establishing an Arab National Socialist (Nazi) party in Palestine.
On 21 July 1937, Al-Husayni paid a visit to the new German Consul-General, Hans Döhle, in Palestine. He repeated his former support for Germany and “wanted to know to what extent the Third Reich was prepared to support the Arab movement against the Jews.” He later sent an agent and personal representative to Berlin for discussions with Nazi leaders.
Comment by Vince P —
May 21, 2007 @ 1:53 am
In 1938, though Anglo-German relations were a concern, Al-Husayni’s offer was accepted. From August 1938, Husseini received financial and military assistance and supplies from Nazi Germany and fascist Italy. From Berlin, al-Husayni would play a significant role in inter-Arab politics.
Husayni aided the Axis cause in the Middle East by issuing a fatwa for a holy war against Britain in May 1941. The Mufti’s widely heralded proclamation against Britain was declared in Iraq, where he was instrumental in “the pro-Nazi” Iraqi revolt of 1941.
In Europe in 1941 al-Hussayni submitted to the German government a draft of such a declaration, containing a clause:
Comment by Vince P —
May 21, 2007 @ 1:55 am
Hitler refused to make such a public announcement, but “made the following declaration, requesting the Mufti to lock it deep in his heart:
1 He (the Führer) would carry on the fight until the last traces of the Jewish-Communist European hegemony had been obliterated.
2 In the course of this fight, the German army would – at a time that could not yet be specified, but in any case in the clearly foreseeable future – gain the southern exit of Caucasus.
3 As soon as this breakthrough was made, the Führer would offer the Arab world his personal assurance that the hour of liberation had struck. Thereafter, Germany’s only remaining objective in the region would be limited to the Vernichtung des…Judentums ['destruction of the Jewish element', sometimes taken to be a euphemism for 'annihilation of the Jews'] living under British protection in Arab lands..”
On March 1, 1944, while speaking on Radio Berlin, al-Husayni said:
Comment by Vince P —
May 21, 2007 @ 1:58 am
Dieter Wisliceny testified during his war crimes trial in 1946 that …
Among the sabotage al-Husayni organized was an attempted chemical warfare assault on the second largest and predominantly Jewish city in Palestine, Tel Aviv.
Husayni noted that “Our fundamental condition for cooperating with Germany was a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world. I asked Hitler for an explicit undertaking to allow us to solve the Jewish problem in a manner befitting our national and racial aspirations and according to the scientific methods innovated by Germany in the handling of its Jews. The answer I got was: ‘The Jews are yours.’â€
The Grand Mufi is Yassir Arafat’s uncle.
The mantle of the Earth’s most vile Anti-Semitism passed from Hilter to the Grand Mufti to Yassir Arafat to HAMAS.
Comment by Vince P —
May 21, 2007 @ 1:59 am
And that my friends is the effect of ONE MUSLIM HOLY MAN. He was only trying to follow his religion’s teachings… one of which , is to kill all the Jews.
Comment by dhex —
May 21, 2007 @ 11:36 am
so where does that leave the legacy of martin luther?
you know, the german guy? the german christian guy? the german christian guy who wrote “on the jews and their lies”?
Comment by Vince P —
May 21, 2007 @ 12:14 pm
dhex: that’s all you can say?
How about this … how many 100s of years back will you go to think of something you think is clever?
Here is how the Democrats are boosting the confidence of the jihadists
This is from a Jihadi in Iraq
the-gathering-storm.blogspot.com/2007/05/winds-of-war-straight-from-camels-uh.html
Comment by Jim Henley —
May 21, 2007 @ 1:47 pm
So, Vince. You’re typing a lot but not providing much sourcing. Where do these long passages on the Mufti’s relations with the 3rd Reich come from?
I note that Dieter Wisliceny’s affidavit at Nuremberg appears to not mention the Mufti or “Jerusalem” at all. So when did he say these things?
Comment by Mona —
May 21, 2007 @ 2:37 pm
You are a better man than I, Gunga Jim. After all the Muslims-don’t-like-Spot comments (which prove they are jihadists), and then the misleading nonsense — it rises to the level of a lie, actually — that an Islamic terrorist was in cahoots with Timothy McVeigh, I decided Vince and company are in thralldom to an insane delusion; an idée fixe as it were, and beyond my ability to help. And yet here is patient you, still trying to drag him/them into the light.
Comment by Donald Johnson —
May 21, 2007 @ 4:30 pm
I didn’t read the 166 comments, but my impression is that the Mufti was pretty much a Holocaust-sympathizing war criminal, or would-be war criminal. I thought that was old news. Whether all of Vince P’s specific accusations are true I don’t know.
I also don’t know what the relevance of any of this is, unless someone wants to dig up the Mufti and try him for his crimes.
Comment by Mona —
May 21, 2007 @ 4:41 pm
Well, let us be clear here: Many revolting Americans sympathize with Hitler’s extermination of the Jews. That is not a war crime or a crime of any other sort, except a moral (metaphorical) one given free speech and thought. Nor is it a crime to be a wannabe war criminal.
In any event, Vince has made a lot (oh, just reams) of assertions, at least one of them false or misleading to the point of being a lie, and he is utterly preoccupied with how many Muslims regard dogs as being unclean. That’s just bizarre as a reason to believe jihadist cells are upon us.
Comment by Thoreau —
May 21, 2007 @ 6:09 pm
If we’re going to get into this whole collective guilt thing, and base it in part on WWII, is there anything that I, as a Catholic of Italian and German descent, should be doing to atone?
Comment by Thoreau —
May 21, 2007 @ 6:13 pm
Oh, and in regard to collective guilt for terrorism, I should note that some of the violent anarchists of the late 19th/early 20th century were Italian.
I’m also part Irish. And the one time I was in London I accidentally left the remains of my lunch on the subway. (Fortunately, nobody freaked out and mistook my litter for a bomb. Although, given the things the British have faced, you couldn’t blame them if they had freaked had.)
I fit a lot of profiles, I guess.
Comment by Mona —
May 21, 2007 @ 6:48 pm
Me, mostly, Irish-Catholic. Well, decades ago the IRA received training at PLO camps. We Micks should all be on no-fly lists, if not interred at Gitmo.
Comment by Miles Berkedge —
May 24, 2007 @ 2:30 pm
Did you see who they caught in the Dix terror attempt? Albanians.
When Clinton was bombing the Serbs, Giuliani corralled a bunch of
Albanians to protest at midnight resurrection services outside of
the Manhattan Serb Cathedral. TO their credit, even the Albanians were reluctant. What you get is the politicians who won’t tow the Vatican line on one issue have to toe it even more on other issues to make up for it. Giuliani was tied into the muslims because Saladjic lived near Molinari. But McCain had the soldiers write “Happy Easter” on the bombs. THe Catholics love the muslims, because they vote like them and hate democracy, commerce and Jews.
This is why 9/11 was definitely Rudy’s Yugo Blow Back.
Comment by Jim Henley —
May 24, 2007 @ 6:33 pm
If Brits were easily scared by food, the bastards would never eat, given the parlous state of their national cuisine.
Comment by Torchbearer —
May 24, 2007 @ 9:54 pm
StrawPoll (halfway down the page)
race42008 . com
(remove the spaces in the url)
Comment by Keane —
June 5, 2007 @ 7:41 pm
Let’s examine the camp of the current regime. At the head, we see Prescott Bush, a yankee who managed a bank tied to the Nazi party of germany (finaly shut down in 1942). (PS, granpa Bush was never jailed).
Then there is Poppy, a carpetbagger who took some of daddys money to Texas to do this and that, and worked for the cold war CIA. Sent troops to fight a regime that was propped up by his old alma mater. And then there is Jr, following up on the old mans crusade. Look closer at the camp, and all of the supporters and freinds of the Bushes (look close, they hate publicity). The shills are Fox, Limbaugh and Billo. The stooges are the lay republican masses, not seeing that the party of Lincoln had been bought, not stolen, by party-less things like corporations and rich familys, who are the enemys of the middle class. They, the old family establishment, are not concerned so much with the interests of America because the globe is their playground. The establishment only loose sleep over their own fortunes that grow daily from the profits of war. “W” is nothing more than a son of a yankee carpetbagger. Ever the cheerleader for his team, the establishment who sold opium to the chineese, smuggled booze durring prohibition, hired mercinaries to fight elected governments and make cocaine; cocaine sold to fund other mercinaries to fight our cold war enemy. Today, that global establishment seeks domination over the remaining reserves of oil, at the expense of those whos land where it is found, and of the common man tricked into the scheme to steal it with offers of college money and reenlistment bonuses. Take your tin foil hat off, stooge, and read what Jefferson and other anti-federalists had to say. I say its time to break the establishment chain, and to hell with H&R Block, Goldman-Sachs, and United Technology. Join thinking Americans and say no to corporate state facism, and vote as such.
Comment by lindsay truempy —
January 9, 2008 @ 8:57 am
Prayer and Ron Paul and those who follow the Constitution are the only hope this country has.
Things will be heating up in SC very soon.I urge those who are fighting the good fight to head to SC and wave your signs..wear your Ron Paul shirts-hats-buttons…Let the truth be heard