1101. Why Islam Is Unfunny for a Cartoonist

Comment #223495 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 2, 2008 at 2:40 pm

But as long as they do not, they are as guilty as any other politician of using religion as a way to gain votes. If not more guilty for their attempts to spread hate against a group of immigrants.

...There is a simple reason for this, Xom. In our time, no other religion pulls stunts like Islam does. No other religion uses terrorism or death threats to this kind of extent. And no other religion poses a civilizational threat.

In fact, it's really more accurate to say that Islam isn't a religion, not the normal sense of the word, a system of personal spirituality. Islam is a Total System. It is first and foremost a system and type of government, a totalitarian rule of every aspect of human life.

That's the difference. It's not to do with immigrants. Noone I can think of is genuinely frightened of Sikh or Hindu immigrants. But Muslims are a different proposition.

---------------------------------------

thrutraffic

So how long do we wait before drawing that line?

*exhausted* I don't know. I see some positive signs, some beginnings of resistance. Geert Wilders is one. The SVP, the Swiss People's Party, though condemned as 'far right' doesn't seem to be of the same stripe as the BNP, but it has a clear idea of Islam and what it means.

In general you're right though. The lights seem to be going out, one by one, all over Europe.

I mean, we know the reasons why our politicos are so gutless. Everyone screams 'Nazi!' when you mention this. But, just to take one example, one of the really nasty organisations in Germany is the 'Grey Wolves', whose founder was a deep admirer of Adolf Hitler.

1102. Why Islam Is Unfunny for a Cartoonist

Comment #223486 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 2, 2008 at 2:29 pm

Border Collie

InYourFaceNY ... That's probably perfectly true and accurate. However, no matter how passionately the Dutch government ass-kisses the Muslims, the Muslims are going to blow it up anyway.

That's the central truth that Muslims don't want Infidels to grasp: When you realise that nothing that they can threaten us with is worse than what they are going to do anyway, you loose your fear.

1103. Why Islam Is Unfunny for a Cartoonist

Comment #223471 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 2, 2008 at 2:02 pm

This is not good, not good at all. Our politicos are falling over themselves in order to surrender to Islam. Why don't they just doff the yellow star or blue ribbon or whatever it is that atheist dhimmis have to wear, and be done with it?

am seriously considering violent backlash soon. If only I wasn't so damn rational. These fucking nut jobs have it all their own way. The ability to totally lose it and behave however they like. It's enough to drive a sane man to killing people in the street. I suppose I should just take up religion and it'll all be alright then.

*gloomily* This is the horrible truth: fanaticism works. That kind of violence and terror is effective in getting your own way.

I have a feeling that if this problem isn't stopped or reversed soon, rather nastier figures will deal with it in a less pleasant manner.

About 6% of Holland's 16.3 million people are Muslims, and nearly half of Amsterdam's population is of foreign origin. Some predict the city could have a Muslim majority within a decade or so.

Uh-huh.

1104. Breeding for God

Comment #223453 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 2, 2008 at 1:31 pm

Your statement that they would be unlikely to do this is just an assertion. It needs to be backed up by hard evidence

So your assertion is that self-declared Sharaih supporters don't support Shariab, but in fact will vote against it and vote measures against it - and I'm the one who is supposed to bring evidence?

That depends on the constitution. People don't vote for laws. They vote for law-makers. We have a representative democracy in the UK.

And when we have those much higher numbers of Muslims - what then?

Because you assert that those who "support Shariah" are unlikely to do anything about it.

Actually, I didn't. I said those that support Shariah are going to do something about it, and that something won't be limited to ballot boxes. What I said is they - given that they say they support Shariah (what's with the scare quotes, anyway?) will not oppose it. This seems to me to be straightforward.

--------------

Nairb, thanks for the link. It's late now, so it'll take me a while to hash through it all. Where's the excel tool, btw?

My understand in the UK is that acceptance of Islam amongst nominally muslim people born in the UK is falling fast - at the same rate as belief in christianity, If a nominally muslim chield is brought up by muslim parents there is only a 50% chance that they accept Islam in adulthood. In other words, with no more immigration, Islam will largely die out.

Roger Stanyard the problem is that leaving Islam isn't like leaving Christianity. Apostates face persecution at best, murder at worst. Islam's a honeydew: you can get in, but not out.

1105. Breeding for God

Comment #223404 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 2, 2008 at 8:14 am

You don't make something true by declaring it true "by definition". You asked how those with a low attachment to Sharia could be persuaded to act against those with a high attachment.

Er... Steve we were talking about those who said they wanted Shariah. I pointed out that these guys were, or at least were highly likely to, pull the lever for Shariah in any election of consequence. Am I missing something here? This seems to be perfectly straightforward.

And there's a flip side to this. You seem to be implying that it'd be legit to vote for Shariah. Okay, then if a democratic referendum votes for expulsion, then that's okay too, yes?

There are good people here in the UK who used to be members of dreadful organisations

And this comment is different from my oft repeated point of helping Muslims escape their mental prison how exactly?

Nairb, I can't comment on those studies yet, as I can't open those documents on this computer. I'll take care of it later on.

1106. Breeding for God

Comment #223375 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 2, 2008 at 5:37 am

Nairb just on the subject of those who don't think there's a problem, I came across the following article from the inestimable Mark Steyn

Money quote:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0702/steyn071002.asp

Hmm. Egyptian Muslim kills Jews on American national holiday. Best not to jump to conclusions. Denial really is a river in Egypt. "It appears he went there with the intention of killing people," said Richard Garcia, the Bureau's agent in charge. "Why he did that we are still trying to determine."


CNN and The Associated Press all but stampeded to report a "witness" who described the shooter as a fat white guy in a ponytail who kept yelling "Artie took my job." But, alas, this promising account proved to be a prank. Saudi Arabia's popular Arab News suggested that Mr. Hadayet had made the mistake of doing business with El Al and that "the Israeli airline had been late in paying for two limousine rentals from the Egyptian immigrant's company." If a couple of late cheques were a motive for murder, Izzy's and Conrad's heads would now be stuffed and mounted in my trophy room. But, sadly, this cautionary tale about the Jew bloodsucker's commercial wiles proved also to be false.


That left the police with no leads. Nothing to go on. The trail's stone cold. All the FBI has is an Egyptian male, who'd complained to his apartment managers after his neighbours post-9/11 began displaying the American flag; who'd posted a banner saying "READ KORAN" on his own front door; who told his employees that he hated Israel, that the two biggest drug dealers in New York were Israelis, and that Israel was trying to wipe out the Egyptian population by flooding the country with AIDS-infected Jewess prostitutes.


Could even the most expert psychological profiler make sense of such confusing and contradictory signs? Beats me, Sherlock. But, as Agent Garcia says, there's no indication of "anti-Israel views or any other type of racial views." Orange County's Muslim Public Affairs Council has praised Agent Garcia for his exceptionally advanced levels of sensitivity. Any moment now, they'll be demanding to know why Governor Gray Davis has failed to visit a mosque to reassure Muslims.

Steve, but by definition these guys already support Shariah, and will pull the lever for it, even if they don't fully understand it. My parallel stands.

On the subject of declaring these guys pariah (a considerably more modest proposition than deporting them, btw), I'm sorry, but I fail to see why not. We already treat neonazis and clansmen as pariahs, why not those who support something that is at least equally horrible?

1107. Breeding for God

Comment #223365 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 2, 2008 at 5:05 am

There is also the question of motivation for saying that one supports Sharia, and the attachment one has to the idea.

It may be that, in many cases, declaring support for Sharia is part of identification with a culture rather than a deep attachment to a particular approach to legal systems.

True, but what difference does this make in the end? I mentioned this myself. The parallel is with the German nationalists who swept Hitler into power who didn't really embrace his views, but then found themselves powerless in the face of what they unleashed.

How are those who 'kinda' support Shariah but don't really know what it entails going to stand against those who really do support Shariah?

1108. Breeding for God

Comment #223352 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 2, 2008 at 4:39 am

Its easy to see (with little math skills) that in 25 years a population will not reach double.
Population of France = 64 Million
Muslim Population = 5 Million.

Its clear that even doubling the muslim population has little effect.
There will never be a muslim majority. The muslim population will stabilise around 16% in Europe.

Nairb could I ask for your source for that figure? Since you've calculated it yourself, could you give me the sources of the assumptions that went into it and the basic math used?

Interestingly though, while discussing this with you, I came across an article in the Asia times that argues that there is a thirty-year window for Islam to achieve its objectives in Europe before it hits the demographic wall itself. You can read it here:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GH23Aa01.html

Your link is very revealing. It shows an increasing consciousness of the Government and elected officials and a concern to address the issue. This is very positive.

*nods* That's true. You're right more generally, the problem isn't insoluble.

Though I'd disagree with your statement that there aren't any who say there isn't a problem. They exist, but more and more people are waking up to the nature of the problem.

----------------------------------

One thing that has puzzled me is this technique of calling plain disagreement "evasion".

Steve, this isn't a matter of plain disagreement. Nairb and I are having a plain disagreement, and you may notice that I haven't called any of his responses evasive.

On the other hand, let's just take one example: al saying I knew nothing about the schools of jurisprudence. I challenged him to name one of the orthodox schools that wasn't a problem from an Infidel point of view. There was no answer to that challenge, just another round of abuse and an attempt to pull rank on me. That is evasion - evading a simple question and acting as though it isn't important. It is.

Would you like me to list the questions I posed to which I didn't get a straight answer? Can be done.

-----------------------------------

You received the abuse because you went on and on and on about it

I held you to what you said, and you maintained that position for quite some time before trying to retrench. Again, I submit myself to rational judgement: Does that quote or does it not suggest that tribalism is preferable to capitalism as it allows this 'self-sufficient' family business?

I do notice, however, that you are taking me up on my data. Great. That's what I was asking for right from the start. Would it really have been so difficult to do this at first?

If it was just that one poll, I wouldn't be worried. But if the poll is truly not representative, then you'd expect to find other polls contradicting its worrysome findings. However, I really don't know of any poll that gives pleasant results, and a whole slew that give considerably less pleasant ones. If all these polls, from the most diverse sources, paint the same picture, then isn't it rational to conclude that there's something to it?


-----------------------------

EDIT: blackwolf how exactly did al show this about the Shariah? Which of the orthodox interpretations, that is the schools of jurisprudence rejects such things as the subjugation of the dhimmi, the imperative of Jihad, the inferior status of women? And how can they, given what the Qur'an and Hadith say?

1109. The moment of truth

Comment #223310 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 2, 2008 at 2:07 am

I've heard the BJP described as 'Pat Robertson with 300 million Jesuses' - a concept that boggles the mind.

that Western converts to Islam are stark-raving bonkers. ;-)

*nods* There's a reason for that. Alof of 'traditional' Muslims societies managed - at least until globalism and telecomunication and oil wealth allowed the Saudis to call their recalcitrant brethren back to the straight path - to ignore or submerge large sections of Islam, or combine it with other forms of belief (e.g. worship of saints - Fareed Zakaria has noted this). The 'traditional' Muslim, from Indonesia, for example, has a good chance of just inhereting, say, the five pillars and the rituals.

On the other hand, the Western convert gets his Islam neat. The results are predictable. One of the most important figures in the history of Jihad is Muhammad Ibn Abd-al-Wahhab, who similarly reduced Islam to its fundamentals and gave us one of the nastiest strains in the world today: Wahhabism.

1110. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #223306 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 2, 2008 at 1:30 am

*chuckles* Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear... I get the feeling he isn't going to cave, anytime soon.

It's a problem inherent in human intelligence, unfortunately. It's volitional, not automatic. There's no way to force someone to think who has decided not to.

1111. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #223303 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 2, 2008 at 1:06 am

Okay, I'll bite - how come this thread has gone on so long?

1112. Breeding for God

Comment #223297 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 2, 2008 at 12:39 am

GAH! Internet just crashed.

Here we go again.

First things first,

Goldy I asked which system in history had a better track record than capitalism in solving any societal problem. You responded:

Probably small family groups in a self sufficient lifestyle. I believe some tribes in the Amazon and the Andaman Isles are exceedingly enamoured of this lifestyle, to the extent of killing foreigners

I submit myself to the judgement of anyone else reading this: Does this or does this not look like an endorsement of tribalism? Especially when I specified those systems that in fact and not in theory existed.

I received the usual torrent of abuse in response. Anyone can look at that debate if they want.

Laurie Fraser

I've been following this thread without having anything to say, but I think you, Steve, Al, Bonzai et al have quite successfully demonstrated Fanusi's limited grasp of the issue. Well done

Laurie. how, exactly have they demonstrated this? Insults, ad hominems, swear words do not make up a rational argument. The guy who is now bringing rational arguments is Nairb.

My views never make me popular, but that's not my business. My business is to state the truth to the full extent of my capacity to do so.

Yes but the real question is what impact does this have.
Fanusi if you mean 1 child more then Europeans converging to the same as Europeans in 50 years then this difference is too small to have an effect demographically
It would take about 50 years for them to grow by 50% their numbers. For example the Muslims in UK are about 1,5 million. In a 2060 years they would be 2.25 million.
If you add in about 30K of muslim immigrants every year then the muslim population will be multiplied by about 3. So 4.5million muslims in UK in a 50 years

I hope you're right about those numbers, but I'd quibble about them. The U.N. report, "Replacement Migration: Is It a Solution To Declining and Aging Populations" argued that Europe's population would drop by 124 million by 2050 and that's if birthrates increase again. If not, then the loss will be 174 million. That's alot.

Sam Harris said that France would be Muslim majority in twenty-five years and that's if immigration stops tomorrow.

Again, I hope that you're right, but some of these figures are worrying.

But the real problem isn't even the absolute numbers: it's the numbers of the young, specifically young men. These are always the fighting force in any revolutionary movement. What I'm worried about is when the number of men aged below, say, 35 or 30 becomes close.

Again, even a small group of radicals can cause immense damage and pull entire populations with them.

I have not noticed being treated in a heinous manner by the muslims I worked with or met. On the contrary I found them quite friendly and good natured. When my mother in law had a very minor car accident recently with my 2 kids in the car. The person who bumped into her (2nd generation muslim) insisted on bringing her to the hospital in Sarcelles and staying until I arrived.

*dryly* People keep telling me that there's a difference between Islam and Muslims. It's one thing when Infidels dominate. It's another when Islam is dominant.

Hey, I have worked alongside Muslims myself, and liked their company. But if you read I Shall Bear Witness you find Victor Klemperer continually mentioning all these Germans and Aryans who hated and were horrified by the regime. It didn't change what happened.

I am interested. I don't believe this at all.
If you had some links to some stidies I would be interested.

I thought you didn't want opinion polls. But alright, here's one:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1540895/Young,-British-Muslims-'getting-more-radical'.html

Basically, of the 16 to 24s 40% said they wanted Shariah law, while only 17% ove the over 55s did.

The numbers are way too small to be considered a disaster. And even these numbers assume immigration remains the same as today

Today perhaps. But what about ten, twenty years down the line? At the very least, Muslim immigration has got to stop.

Actually expulsion for Sharia supporters will have almost no effect on demographics. You would have to expel 30000 every year to make a dint. I am sure you agree there isn't so many sharia supporters.

True, but without Shariah supporters the rest aren't a threat. This is why I specified that it needs to be one of many measures taken.


Anyway, thanks for a decent bit of argumentation. Could I please, please ask al, Steve, Goldy and others what is so difficult about having this kind of a discussion without the endless smears, slurs, insults and evasions?

1113. Breeding for God

Comment #223093 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 1, 2008 at 12:49 pm

1.1) Muslims like any other religious group pick and choose. As it has been mentioned to you, Pope's dislike of condoms does not apply to all Catholics.

Sorry, but that wasn't the question. The question was what the schools of Islamic jurisprudence teach, and whether or not I answered al. That was the question, and I gave my response.

Now as to the question of what Muslims believe, I have cited a large number of studies that show that. But you say that opinion studies are out. How else, exactly, are you supposed to assess these opinions? Well?

I have not limited my response to those polls, btw. I routinely bring eyewitness reports, personal testimonies, and documentaries to the debate. What more do you want?

You also have not addressed how well these muslim immigrations are being assimilated. As I once asked, this can be easily done by a comparison of fourth generation muslims to 1st and 2nd generation immigrants.

And how are you going to do that, without polls? Not to mention the minor fact that those polls back my point of view up.

1.2) You reply is too short. Something which we expect from someone who does not have a full comprehension of the topic of discussion

Say you. Al's comment was that I knew nothing about the schools of jurisprudence. I challenged him to name one of the orthodox schools that isn't worrysome for infidels. If you are complaining about my short response, what do you say about his non-response? His total lack of response? And his torrents of abuse?

As regards the point that even Islamic birthrates are declining, yes, that's true, but they are still high and that doesn't help us if our birth rate are already down the tube.

As to your complainst that I'm ignorant because you have these scattered individuals fighting against the evil inherent of Islam - just how effective are they? How will they be able to stand against the fundamentalists who have the scripture on their side?

1114. Breeding for God

Comment #223085 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 1, 2008 at 12:34 pm

*sighs* Still no answer to my question, just a cheap aside. Steve I have given a very clear description about what the consequences of Islam would be, with extensive reference to real-world examples. Tell me what those consequences would be, and I will answer you.

1115. Breeding for God

Comment #223078 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 1, 2008 at 12:26 pm

That is the point. You have to clearly establish and convince us of the consequences.

Of course. But the statement I made to which you objected wasn't about the hypothetical, it was about al. Specifically, it was about his views, as stated here, quoted back at him. That's not really debatable; anyone can read those comments for themselves.


Nairb

Islam is the threat. Islam - the idea, the religion. Not Muslims. They are just people. They can't even agree on what Islam is themselves. By attacking everyone who is a Muslim, you are encouraging them to radicalise as they huddle deeper into their own communities and allow themselves to become open to poisonous political aims cloaked in a veil of religion.

Of course. That is why I specify Shariah supporters. As for the rest, that's why I argue for a program of cultural imperialism to help them break the mental shackles of Islam.

That is the flip side of my point. Such a situation, where Shariahist were cracked down on - and remember, I did say that you'd see a decrease in support for Shariah once it became clear there were consequences for that support - far more Muslims, those that really have preserved human decency from the corruption of Islam, would be able to escape that mental prison. That escape isn't easy or painless, and I think it's incumbent on us to help that as much as possible.

On ending Muslim immigration you need to say what you are trying to avoid. If its population explosion you know there is no supporting evidence

Er - The United Nations itself has said that this is one of the fastests populations explosions in history. The fact that Muslim populations multiply quicker than European ones isn't really a matter of debate, but one of fact.

Prosecuting illegal incitekment to violence I believe is already a law �quot; so no change

Seizing assets of criminals already exists though I presume the imam may not be the owner of the mosque. However close monitoring and taking action against imams has already occurred in France at least

True, but it isn't really enforced. After Undercover Mosque demonstrated what was going on, how much prosecution happened? Our gutless, dhimmi political establishment isn't doing much.

Anything less then that is on a slippery slope of ambiguity. Anything becomes possible.

I'm not sure that's really so. The major horrors of the twentieth century weren't slippery slope results. Hitler was always upfront with what he preached. Ditto the Communists. The danger isn't the slope, it's when people announce their intentions and they are ignored.

I don't think that a piecemeal approach (starting with gangs like Hizb ut-Tahrir) would necessarily entail too much harshening of our liberal way of life. And, here I return to a point of Steve's, that which did happen would be survivable. Other generations would come and be able to continue - in the same way that we bear no problems from the actions in WWII such as the firestorm of Dresden. Civilization would endure.

I don't see it enduring if the influx of Islam continues unabated.

The views of the others you mention are explicitly awful. Most people in the West would not tolerate them in any way.

The trouble is that these views seem to be spreading like wildfire amongst Muslims. How many people can I reach, really? But how many does someone like Abu Usama reach? Are my views still more dangerous?

Though let me take this moment to boot the ball into your camp, Steve and others. How do you think that this problem should be solved? Can't just hack on me the whole time - what's your solution?

1116. Breeding for God

Comment #223045 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 1, 2008 at 10:30 am

Really brief reply to you, Steve:

Please stop this. You have to first establish the validity of your premises.

Actually, I don't, because this returns to the question I asked, whether or not, if that is what it came down to, al would sanction expulsion. At the time he said yes; the posts are there for anyone to check. He then tried to wriggle out if it, but just recently said that he'd given me his answer, and that was the only answer I had received, so I chose to take him at his word. And that word says, simply, that he hopes like hell that expulsion won't be necessary, because if it is, he'd sooner see Europe fall to Islam than endorse my views.

I said it before: if the response was, yes, if that's what it comes down to, but you don't think it will, and every other option must be thoroughly exhausted before this is even considered - well, who'd argue with that? Not me. But that wasn't the statement- the statement was, even if it came down to that, he'd sooner see Europe burn than expel fascist thugs. Well, nuts to that. That is not a point of view that commands any respect from me.

Why is it so bad to take someone at their word? This is what I mean by adherence to reality.

Incidentally, I'll answer that one if you tell me what the consequences of feline rule are - I'm afraid I'm baffled.

1117. Breeding for God

Comment #223037 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 1, 2008 at 10:09 am

Oh, another quick shot: So, knowing full well what Saudi Arabia is like, you'd sooner see Europe become like it than expell Shariah supporters? I like this pit you're digging for yourself, al. Please keep at it.

quomak! At last, the list I've been asking for:

1) You have not engaged Al on different meanings of Shari'a to different muslims.

Actually, I did. I challenged him to say which one of these rejected the imperative of Shariah, dhimmitude, or any of those things that causes Infidels some concern. No answer. None will be forthcoming.

2) You have not addressed the objection that why it is meaningful to extrapolate these polls to 50 years in future

Well, the trends are towards greater radicalization, and I don't know of any situation where a Muslim majority nation has been a good thing for the Infidels living there. Even in secular Turkey, the infidels have been squeezed out, plus there was that incident of genocide.

I just don't think gambling the future of Europe on Muslim goodwill is a smart move.

3) There are other issues that you have failed to acknowledge. You extrapolate the opinions of university/college students to the whole nation; we all know what happens in college.

True, and if it was just one study, I wouldn't be worried. But there is a whole slew of studies that all paint the same picture. If you like, I can dig them up for you.

In none of the polls the significant majority of muslims support a barbaric regime that shoots women in the stadiums. You fail to address how do you move from an opinion pool on some significant minority of muslims supporting some backward shari'a code-system to the destruction of Europe.

*digs through his comments* I have addressed this before, though not on this thread. Mind if I just repost my points from the Dalai Llama one?

The point about Muslim moderates is that they are moderate. Now, ask yourself: in what revolution, in what grand struggle in human history have 'moderates' of any stripe been worth a damn? Which barricade was manned, and what man stood tall on it and said "Brothers, we shall not give an inch, we shall fight to the last - for moderation!"

In short, I think that the moderates will be no help whatsoever in this fight, that there are two kinds of Muslims, largely, those who support Shariah and Jihad and those who will do nothing to stop it.

There's a real confusion about the nature of evil and evil ideas. You know the saying 'For evil to triumph, it is enough for good men to do nothing'? Well, the trick of all evil in all times has been to get good men to the point when they do nothing.

If you imbide a toxic doctrine such as multiculturalism or relativism, it will do no immediate damage. No immediate damage. But there will come a point in your life when you need every scrap of your courage, every piece of your integrity to do the right thing - and that's when the booby trap in your brain will go off, providing you with countless reasons to keep your mouth shut and your head down.

And that's the first step into the darkness. The effect of Islam on moderates will firstly be to paralyse them in the face of the radicals - and then to slowly turn them into radicals themselves. Because cowardice is inherently unstable. It is very, very difficult to be able to say "I know this is wrong, I know I should speak up - but I'm just too damn scared", and effectively impossible. The temptation to think that maybe, just maybe, the evil ones have a point. Of course, not that you'd agree with everything, but...

And that's the formula of moral corruption. Look around the web, and you can see it happening. A moderate Muslim webzine, 'The American Muslim' had an article on 'Islamism as a viable political philosophy'. Who are they trying to convince? Themselves. They are trying to drown out their batter conscience with that kind of thing.

This is why we see former moderates become fully fledged fanatics.

I'm currently reading I shall bear witness by Victor Klemperer, a Jew who survived the Holocaust. It's his diaries of the time. What you see very, very clearly is how a determined group of radicals can sweep an entire population with it, and then keep it under control, even if they hate the regime. This is a pattern we see time and time again in history. Fanaticism works. It's terribly effective.

Incidentally, Steve? This is exactly what I was asking for.

--------------------

I would say yes, they are.

Okay, just to take Ahmadinedjad for a second. His views are that the Messiah is about to return and he should be heralded by a nuclear firestorm. Yet my views are more dangerous than this? This is piffle.

And if it's about the fragility of democracy - well, that's my motive. I seem to recall you saying that our laws could still be enforced when the UK was 10, 20, 30% Muslim. Who is unaware of the fragility of democracy here?

We have seen in places like Boznia how easy it is to persuade people that some of their neighbours and friends are "other", and what horrors that can lead to.

Which, for the umpteenth time, was a point I made. If we don't deal with the problem now, we'll see it dealt with by considerably uglier methods.

-------------

Barry mind if I read that essay later?

1118. Breeding for God

Comment #223025 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 1, 2008 at 9:35 am

Only a short reply - I've got three hundred and twenty more files to correct...

For the record; If I've "slung mud" at you, that was not my intention. Please accept my apology if you feel I've attacked you. I strenuously disagree on this current point but I believe in your right to present it.

*blinks* I wasn't referring to you. Please accept my apologies if I gave you that impression. I was referring to Certain People who refer to me as a 'little snake', call me a nazi etc.

This is exactly the type of comment Al was talking about. You present a hypothetical. We don't agree. Now it's a reality you need to save us from?!

It's myself and those I love I'm trying to save. But, and I'm sorry if I gave the wrong impression, I think the hypothetical is correct. I merely asked al and so on to say what they're views were, if they also thought I was correct.

Bonzai, could I take you up on the integration business? The problem I see is, ironically, illustrated by this little altercation. As I understand it, 'integration', is about convincing Muslims to accept the standards and mores of Western civilization in lieu of those of Islam (free speech over censorship, women's rights over women's subjugation etc.). That is, it's about convincing Muslims.

But here's the problem. Look at this argument. If guys like al and whatnot can't convince me, a born Westerner, what chances are there with people raised in a madrassah who routinely go to the Mosque? What chance does it have against that kind of raw fanaticism?

One of the most depressing lines from Lee Harris was the following:

There is something touching about those who invoke natural rights. These may exist, in the way that natural numbers exist, but they can't even be used to settle disputes amongst friends and family. Your enemy could care less.

It's a very depressing thought.

That include most Muslim immigrants. I disagree with Fanusi's insinuation that there is a global Islamic conspiracy and that Muslim immigration represents some kind of first wave troop deployment of Islam HQ.

Sorry if I gave the wrong impression, but I don't believe in an conspiracy. There are certain plans, like the Muslim Brotherhood's, but there isn't anything like what a conspiracy theorists say. What is going on is something much more sinister: Oligarchial Collectivism. That's the term that Orwell used to describe the ultimate tyranny of the Party.

Oligarchial Collectivism doesn't need any top-down conspiracy or control. It just needs large numbers impregnated with the same ideology. Such a structure is hideously resilient, since even taking out portions of it will not damage the thing in any significant way.

And now, I've been restraining myself, but now I can't resist one quick, cheap shot:

get really sick of some armchair wannabe scholar

You know, if I wanted to make the point cheaply and painfully, I'd point out that when the scientist speaks, the humanities student gets to shut up. But I know many first rate scholars and humanities students whom I'm proud to call my equals, so I won't.

Still, it's odd: you have all this experience with Islam, you know the full horror of Saudi Arabia, and you still say that my views are more dangerous than those of any Muslim. Really? My views about the expulsion of Shariah supporters are really more dangerous? Than, say, Ahmadinedjad's? Bashar Assad's? Abu Usama's? Bin Laden's? Hassan Nasrallah's?

Pull rank all you want, there ain't no way to square that circle.

1119. Breeding for God

Comment #222980 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 1, 2008 at 7:20 am

al I will return to read his comment later, but for the moment I notice that you aren't even claiming that you managed to bring facts or reason to the table.

I am sorry, but I am afraid I just don't believe you any more. I don't see it as my task to summarise this thread because you seem to refuse to accept what people post.

Really. Well, here's what I believe: You don't repost them because you can't. Because you have no evidence, no facts to bring to it. You make assertions, and when I ask you to back them up...

Do you understand why people refuse to answer the hypothetical you present. Because in the past you have posted hypotheticals and then suddenly swung them about and pretended they are true to claim moral high ground and abuse those who don't agree.

"Moral high ground" - that's rich, coming from the ones who have been slinging mud and invective this whole thread.

I have not and did not say that granting the hypothetical in order to answer the question meant conceding it in fact. Of course I think it's right - why the hell would I argue otherwise? But the reason I asked it, and I am repeating this for about the sixth time, is to know whether or not people could at least understand why, given what I think is correct, I come to these conclusions.

I said, repeatedly, that then we could argue about whether or not the hypothetical was correct. Yet I was promptly subject to guttersnipe abuse for asking a straightforward question.

Your ideas are a greater threat to my liberal way of life than any Muslim.

Then al you are a fool and a willful fool at that. I invite you to once again look at the Undercover Mosque documentary, and see some of those views, and then try and see whether you can square your comments with reality.

I am sorry, gentlemen, that I will be obliged to save your goddamn necks along with my own.

---------------------------

Now, switching to a far more decent debater, keith:

personally suspect that things really aren't quite that serious

I hope you're right, I really do. Believe me, I have no wish to think that there is a terrible threat to everything I hold dear.

The trouble is that, when not hardly a day passes when another aspect of this insanity doesn't come up, a certain gloom takes hold.

We can argue about how draconian those measures can be before they tip over into paranoid racism and religious-style witch-hunts. However, the other extreme of waiting until the next bomb goes off, exploded by a predictably dangerous group, strikes me as being negligent.

*nods* Which is my other worry. Sam Harris noted that the ones speaking most clearly about Islam in Europe were actually fascists, and that this didn't bode well for civilization. When you see the rise of gangsters like Le Pen or seeing Sikhs making common cause with the BNP - then something dark is brewing.

1120. Breeding for God

Comment #222961 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 1, 2008 at 6:53 am

Yes, but when presented with evidence to the contrary, you have not changed your views.

So I consider your statement here to be economical with the actualite.

For the fourth time - at least - what evidence? Have I missed something? If so, could you repost it? Give me a list? I'd appreciate it, and if you give me a numbered list I will read it and comment on each in turn, to the best of my ability to do so.

1121. Breeding for God

Comment #222956 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 1, 2008 at 6:49 am

al, read. Take a look at my post above, second paragraph, first line.

You have not answered my question, but rephrased it. This is the question, once more: If the alternative was the fall of Europe to Islamic barbarism, would you or would you not support expelling Shariah supporters?

1122. Breeding for God

Comment #222950 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 1, 2008 at 6:41 am

*stretch* Have few moments.

It has gone from "assume this is correct for a minute" to "this is how it is". A sneaky and dishonest tactic to get people to accept his hysterics as fact.

I have stated, multiple times, that I am willing to listen to evidence that runs contrary to my point of view. You still haven't answered the question. You keep ducking and avoiding it.

As regards your question: I would never cede all my rights to the government. What I have said advocate that does not imply that. I have cited, time again, the case of the expulsion of the Sudeten Germans as a parallel. This is about one, clearly defined group.

As regards your quibbling over the definition of Shirk - polytheism, as it is commented on in the Qur'an, is terrible because it isn't the True Faith and amounts to a denial of Allah; hence, unbelief. I have trouble seeing any difference between the two definitions I cited, not least because one was given as part of a discussion, i.e. a brief aside, rather than a full commentary.

I think it's worse than that. It also includes

"Agree with me or you are irrational"

I get tired of this nonsense. Have I or have I not said, repeatedly, that if I am presented with evidence to the contrary, I will change my views? Well?

What I call irrational is this inability to address questions, being unable to give straight answers, and thinking that invective, obfuscation, ad hominem and the rest is a substitute for rational argumentation. It isn't.

And you can see it again. I come back to see that the discussion is once more all about slurs, invective, ad hominems, nudge nudge, wink wink style dialogue, and all the rest. This is why I harp so much on this one question.

There are many people I profoundly disagree with, but I don't call them irrational, because they don't go in for this kind of nonsense, but argue based on facts, reason, and logic. This drivel is evasion, pure and simple.

You think I'm being unreasonable? Well, I don't particularly like wasting my time with those who dodge all direct questions and think that calling me 'a little snake' is somehow a decent argument. Sorry.

I'm still confused about the details of the original supposition.

Gregg, a brief summary:

1. There is no question that Islamic populations in Europe multiply far faster than the native ones, leading to what the United Nations calls one of the fastest demographic transformations in human history.

2. This is bad news, because Islam is an inherently tyrannical, fascistic doctrine that is incompatible with progress or freedom and always treats Infidels in the most heinous manner.

3. Islam is actually more extreme amongst second or third generation immigrants than it is amongst first generation immigrants. There is a variety of studies and surveys that backs this up.

Now, I propose point 4:

4. This means a disaster of Lebanese proportions, at the very least, if these trends aren't stopped and reversed.

5. I argue that certain harsh measures, including but not limited to, the expulsion of Shariah supporters, are necessary if this disaster is to be avoided.

That is my chain of reasoning, put briefly. If you're confused, it might be because of the torrent of invective and evasion that certain people are throwing this way.

1123. Breeding for God

Comment #222888 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 1, 2008 at 4:26 am

For the fourth time, YES.

Good. Then there is a basis for a rational discussion.

No. Suppose there were no "Islamic" countries willing to accept anyone from the UK of any nature.

What would you do then?

An interesting question... *thinks* You could definitely stop Muslim immigration as a way of preventing them from swelling their numbers. Seize and tear down shariah-supporting mosques, and seize the assets of groups that advocate it. Also, there would be penalties for shariah support. Loss of the right to vote, for example (precedent: many US states rule that those convicted of drug offenses loose the right to vote), being disbarred from the police or military (precedent: The UK military already disbars members of hate groups). Things like that.

We could also find political ways of leaning on countries to take them up.

----------------------

Barry Pearson

Yes, perhaps we need harsh measures. But whatever they are, we have to get there from here. When I see what you suggest, I believe we can't get there from here.

Point. For the moment we should cut down if not completely eliminate Muslim immigration. Expose all preachers of Jihad and Shariah (Undercover Mosque is a good start). Seize assets of those involved in spreading Jihad (we already do this with drug money). Demand that the rights of apostates be protected, ditto women in Muslim communities and so on, and make sure that not just those who carry it out but those who incite it are prosecuted.

Perhaps we really are all doomed without those extreme measures. In which case - we are all doomed! Because they are unlikely to happen. Unless you or someone else can show a realistic way for them to happen (without screwing the rest of us up).

*gloomily* There is a third alternative - resurgent fascism and Christian fundamentalism in the wake of a CBN attack or the collapse of a European state. That's a real danger.

In the meantime, it would be productive to identify what can be achieved without decommitting from those human rights.

Good idea. Could you throw some on the table for the moment?

Oh, and I'm not sure that the political will is entirely lacking. I recall Christopher Hitchens writing a review of Mark Steyn's book, America Alone:

I might quibble about Steyn's assessmentâ€"Amis has written brilliantly about Mohammed Atta's death cult, for example, while Jack Straw made one of the best presentations to the UN of the case for liberating Iraq. But it's more useful to point out two things that have happened between the writing of this admirably tough-minded book and its publication. Jack Straw, now the leader of the House of Commons, made a speech in his northern English constituency in October, in which he said that he could no longer tolerate Muslim women who came to his office wearing veils. The speech catalyzed a long-postponed debate not just on the veil but on the refusal of assimilation that it symbolizes. It seems to have swung the Labour Party into a much firmer position against what I call one-way multiculturalism. Prime Minister Tony Blair confirmed the shift with a December speech emphasizing the "duty" of immigrants to assimilate to British values. And Martin Amis, speaking to the London Times, had this to say:

There's a definite urgeâ€"don't you have it?â€"to say, "The Muslim community will have to suffer until it gets its house in order." What sort of suffering? Not letting them travel. Deportationâ€"further down the road. Curtailing of freedoms. Strip-searching people who look like they're from the Middle East or from Pakistan. . . . Discriminatory stuff, until it hurts the whole community and they start getting tough with their children. . . . They hate us for letting our children have sex and take drugsâ€"well, they've got to stop their children killing people.

I know both of these men to be profoundly humanistic and open-minded. Straw has defended the rights of immigrants all his life and loyally represents a constituency with a large Asian population. Amis has rebuked me several times in print for supporting the intervention in Iraq, the casualties of which have become horrifying to him. Even five years ago, it would have been unthinkable to picture either man making critical comments about Islamic dress, let alone using terms such as "deportation." Mark Steyn's book is essentially a challenge to the bien-pensants among us: an insistence that we recognize an extraordinary threat and thus the possible need for extraordinary responses. He need not pose as if he were the only one with the courage to think in this way.

1124. Breeding for God

Comment #222880 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 1, 2008 at 3:39 am

That is just a rant.

That isn't an answer. I'm asking, for the third time: Which facts? Which questions would you like answered?

Suppose there were no countries that would accept these people you wish to expel - what would you do with them then?

*laughs* You mean, if there were no countries on earth in which Shariah supporters were welcome? In that case I'd have no problem with them staying. Because that would be a situation where the war had already been won, where Islam was defeated.

I do not accept the foundations for your motivations as being accurate.

For crying out... Look, I'll try again. Of course you think you're rationally correct. I grant you that. What I want to know is if anyone is willing to grant me the same thing. So, you think you're right but I don't think you are, and the converse is true. Else, why would we hold these views? So, granting you the premise of rationality, from my point of view, the only rational thing to do is to discuss and bring evidence to the table until one or the other is proven wrong.

That is my premise. I want to know if you - and others - grant me the same courtesy, or if you think my views are ruled out no matter what the evidence. That is why I asked that hypothetical and that is why I am furious at the lack of straight answers.

-------------------------

I'm well aware that moral considerations are not playing any part in this bit of theatre you are putting on.

Actually, they do. You see, to me, morality is something real. It's about dealing with reality. Finding real, actual ways to preserve liberty and civilization, to find a way for human beings to live on this earth.

What you, on the other hand, call your morality is just mouthing empty formulas, high-minded sentiments that do nothing and pave the way for disaster, while patting yourself on the back. That's not morality, that's narcissism.

As regards your question about EU Muslims, yes, their immigration would need to be stopped. No solution is perfect, but it's better than none at all. Whereas you seem to be fine with seeing Europe become Eurabia, and all the horrors that would entail. Anything as long as your self-love isn't damaged. What a high-standard of morality!

1125. Breeding for God

Comment #222876 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 1, 2008 at 3:20 am

I am afraid I see no point in further discussion. Whenever anyone challenges you with clear facts and arguments, you accuse them of both being absolutist and evasive.

Such as what exactly? Which clear facts? You said why you found expulsion troubling - I responded. Is there something I've missed? If so, what?

But take a look at the length of my responses and compare it with those critical of me. I think that says alot about who brings what to this discussion.

I have asked whether or not, given the horror that I see as the alternative, people could understand the basis for my view. No answer. You have said I should respond to al's questions. I asked which ones? No answer. I have cited historical precedent - no answer.

You say that I have an 'obsession' with expulsion. Yeah, sure, an irrational obsession, instead of an unpleasant conclusion reached after a hideous amount of research and thought. That's what I mean by refusing to grant the premise of rationality. I have asked you whether you do or do not accept my stated motivations as being accurate, that is whether or not you think I'm lying about my motives. No answer.

Could I get some answers to these questions? If not, why?

1126. Breeding for God

Comment #222873 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 1, 2008 at 3:04 am

Despite my moral distaste for your ideas Fanusi,

You can get one thing straight: Your moral distaste means nothing to me, not when it's weighed against the survival of civilization. If you think your distaste is more important than the survival of civilization, that's for your conscience to deal with, not mine.

I am afraid that isn't part of the rules of discussion. You don't get to define what can and can't be discussed rationally.

Stop avoiding the question. If you have selected this opposition to expulsion as an absolute that can't be question, then there's no basis. No matter what facts or consequences there might be, no matter what data I may bring, you'll evade them to fit reality to this absolute. That is the logical consequence. I am not going to waste my time arguing in the language of reason when reason isn't held as an absolute.

You can see this in the discussion here: no treatment of the facts I bring to the table, no straight answers - just continual evasion.

For example, you say that it's dehumanizing, as is the death penalty. Why? The death penalty was in force for a long time, and our civilization flourished. America seems to manage fine with it in place.

I don't see how expelling Shariah supporters will damage our civilization irreparably. On the other hand, if this mess continues, and we do see the collapse of some countries into civil war and the rise of true fascism in others - that's a different story. A very different story.

I have said this time and time again: either we take harsh measures now or face the unthinkable later.

1127. Breeding for God

Comment #222868 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 1, 2008 at 2:52 am

How would you judge who is a muslim? If they come from a predominantly muslim country? Someone who wants to get into the country for the purposes of terrorism or inciting unrest could easily just lie

First of all, the devout will be uneasy about denouncing Islam. Secondly, if they were found to be lying, they could be expelled (and DON'T say that this is wrong: if Ayaan Hirsi Ali can be expelled for lying about her last name, we can damn well expel those who lie about their allegiances). And thirdly, there are many countries that are wholly Muslim. No immigration from there.

1128. Breeding for God

Comment #222862 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 1, 2008 at 2:42 am

Al has given you nothing but straight answers in the clearest possible language

He has not. He first said, yes, he'd sooner see Europe burn than support the expulsion of Shariah supporters. Then he launched into a whole song and dance about how my scenario was impossible etc. etc. This isn't playing things straight.

When I challenged him to tell me which of the schools of Islamic jurisprudence is tolerant towards Infidels (rejects Jihad, dhimmitude etc.), he insulted me and cited their names and didn't provide an answer. Call that being straight?

Which questions would you like answered?

I can't see any rational basis for your views on how to solve the problem.

Okay, let's take it from the top. Take a look at that documentary about Afghanistan under the Taliban. Read about what the Muslims did during the Lebanese civil war (Lebanon used to be 80% Christian, btw). Now, that horror descending on Europe is the alternative I see to measures that include but are not limited to the expulsion of Shariah supporters. Now: can you understand that basis? If you can, then there's rational grounds for argumentation.

Just as an aside, leaving expelling Shariah supporters to one side for a moment, what are your views on my other points:

1. Ending Muslim immigration for at least twenty years, if not indefinitely.

2. Harshly prosecuting any persecution of apostates or honour killings or similar - not just the perpetrators, but those who cook this stuff up. In Denmark, for example, the entire family is prosecuted for murder in the case of honour killing, because it is usually decided by the family, and assigned to one man. Similarly, if an Imam incites members of his congregation to murder apostates, he should be prosecuted.

3. A corollary to 2, Mosques where this is incited should be seized and torn down.

4. There should be a broad based effort to expose Islam for what it is, a process of cultural imperialism.

You can't get away from the fact that expulsion of cultural groups (or even subsets of such groups) has overtones.

Of course not. I don't try to. But there is a phrase: "the lesser of two evils". I don't see how sacrificing the rights of innocent Infidels and, yes, moderate Muslims, to Shariah supporters is moral.

-----------------------------

EDIT:

If I mispelled your name I apologise. There was no intention to do so, and nothing should be implied by it.

Thanks.

1129. Breeding for God

Comment #222851 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 1, 2008 at 2:14 am

Have you answered Al's questions yet?

Which questions? I still haven't gotten a straight answer out of him.

And they would not be radicalised overseas?

Of course. But - you see, it's harder to hurt people when you cannot physically get to them. Not to mention that the poverty and stagnation of the dar al-Islam would make it more difficult.

Incidentally, what did you think I was implying when I talked about motivations for expelling people?

Something suitably slimy: racism, unfounded xenophobia, longing for fascism... As is implied by your misspelling of my name. You want to sling mud? I'm capable of that; it's just that I have a greater respect for the human mind than doing it. I stated my motivations clearly. Are you saying I'm lying? Are you saying my motives are different from the ones I have stated? If so, out with it.

You have no rights to impose such a choice.

Why not? The liberal, pluralist democracy works only as long as everyone subscribes to certain basic ground rules. Those who don't, threaten the rights of all in it. I have drawn a number of parallels that you don't even try to address.

That is why I insist on a straight answer to my question. If you can't even concede that there might be a rational basis for my views, no matter what the evidence, then you are naturally going to retreat into fog and evasion, into smears and slurs. Sorry, doesn't work with me.

1130. Breeding for God

Comment #222840 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 1, 2008 at 1:44 am

No, sorry, not good enough. This is a non sequitur.

No, it is not. You may a slimy insinuation about my 'motivation'. That was my reply to that. That is the sum total of my motive.

You may have noticed that I don't tolerate wriggling.

So please answer my question - why do you need these people physically removed from the borders of the UK, as against physically removed from society (such as by imprisonment?)

First of all, there is the matter of practicality. If we were to incarcerate groups like Hizb ut-Tahrir, they'd radicalize and convert their fellows.

Secondly, expulsion is more moral. We're not confining them, just giving them what they keep asking for - Shariah law. If they want it, there it is, in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia or Iran. It will also have the beneficial effect of forcing people to choose: You can have Shariah or you can have the benefits of the West, but not both.

1131. Breeding for God

Comment #222803 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 31, 2008 at 11:38 pm

Your dichotomy is the only thing divorced from reality.

Maybe it is and maybe it isn't, but the way you try to wriggle away from a simple question says quite clearely who is trying to avoid facts. Insults like the following mean nothing:

As to the names I throw about, you wouldn't have a clue would you. You don't even know the difference between shirk and kufar, how are you to be trusted in analysis.

Nonsense. Shirk is the associationg of other gods with Allah (an accusation oft leveled at Chrisitans for believing in the trinity), also broadened to mean unbelief in Allah. The kuffar, the kaffirs, are the non-Muslims who a reviled throughout the Koran.

This sort of invective means nothing.

Incidentally, what question did you ask? Some of us have work to do, and I'm not bothering with your points until I get a straight answer.

--------------------------------

don't think you are understanding what I am saying. It doesn't matter if what you suggest happens in a mass roundup or slowly. What matters is the general principle that citizens should not be thrown out of their own country.

Okay, but why? Or, what defines a citizen? These are guys who do not hold any loyalty to the basic values and laws of that state, but wish to see them replaced with totalitarian ones, and whose loyalty is primarily to the Muslim nation, the Ummah. Again, the parallel I note is the expulsion of the Sudeten Germans.

I would like to get your response to my previous point, too. You said that this would spell the end of Europe anyway. I argued that the Reconquista, the Greek War of Independence and the firebombing of Dresden didn't spell the end of Europe, so why should this?

There is one thing which would, though: the arising of a Milosevic style tyranny. And that is a real and horrible possibility. I've pointed this out before: if the problem isn't dealth with now, then it may well be dealt with by much uglier methods. What will happen when CBN terrorism is used, or one of Europe's nations collapses into civil war? Do you care to imagine the kind of forces that will be swept into power after such a disaster?

--------------------------------

There is no need for exaggerations. Nobody here disagrees that Islam is a problem. You don't need to prove that "Islam will lead to the destruction of Europe" to get us motivated in fight against Islam.

quomak that's an argument I'm more than happy to have. As I keep saying, if I'm proved wrong, I'll happily abandon this stance. But that's not the stance of certain people. They are saying that even if I'm right they'd rather see the unspeakable horrors of Islam here than agree with my perscriptions. This isn't a point of view I have much respect for. If you want to see why, take a brief look at the following documentary:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WrGFzkFSaU

But even that stance I have more respect for than this endless, insuferable evasion, the attempt to escape the reality and necessity of moral choice. Here's a parallel: I consider pacifism an immoral position. Ghandi's response to the plight of Germany's Jews was to say they should all commit suicide and thus rouse the world to outrage. I have some blunt views on this point of view, but whatever else you may say about it, you can't accuse it of hypocrisy or a failure to try to deal with reality. It is a logical consequence of pacifism, and he didn't shy away from it. The people I really have no patience with are those who, when confronted with tyranny and genocide will shrug their shoulders and say 'there must be a better way'. There isn't. This is just an attempt to escape reality.

Once again, I am happy to have the argument about whether or not my views of the future of Europe are right or wrong, but I won't have it with people who keep evading the fact that both scenarios have implications. Because that's just a waste of time; no matter how many facts, studies and articles I bring, I'll just be dismissed on the grounds that the implications are just so horrible that I can't be right.

--------------------

Is Fanusi advocating for the expulsion of Sharia supporters in general, or just the rabble-rousing imams?

kkelly in general, but, as I said, I think that if we start with the rabble rousing Imams and gangs like Hizb ut-Tahrir, support for Shariah will evaporate pretty damn quickly.

-----------------------------------

hawt4dawk nice to have a decent question to respond to:

Fanusi, before people are asked if they will do something they clearly think is ugly, inhumane and fascist, which is arbitrarily stripping people with a certain opinion of their citizenship, their livelihood, their connection to family and friends and deporting them, you must define what you mean by it the criteria. I suppose you are already working on that.

When I say people who advocate the Shariah, I mean its full horror. Women shot in football stadiums. Blaphemers and apostates ripped apart. No democracy. No freedom of speech. No more progress. No more freedom.

I intensely dislike any kind of concession to Shariah, even stuff like Shariah financing, because it's like the Discovery institute's wedge strategy. It won't stop there. We already have the persecution of apostates and honour killings and calls for 'the real holocaust' right here. This needs to be stopped and reversed.

In other words, I want to see guys like this expelled:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peFQWuk4nuo

BUT the truth is we set up bases all over the world in some cases really to keep the Soviets away, but we also engaged in long drawn out "police actions" and messed about nastily in Central and South America. How else the "battle hardened" soldiers to sent into Iraq in the 90s? I don't want to bash my country, but I want to note the truth there.

*nods* I've never denied it. My point in quoting that was to point out that thinking the US is a threat on a par with that of Islam is just plain insane.

My little altercation with Goldy started a while back when he said that tribal life was preferable to modern, industrial capitalist life. I pointed out what they life actually entails, and recieved a torrent of abuse and invective, but no facts. As usual.

Take this for example:

Why single out Muslims, the vast majority of which do NOT want to do anything outside the law? Would you have had Britain to expel all Irish people because of the actions of a few?

Willful blindness is indestructable. We just have heard that a third of British Muslim students support killing for the faith. Now two-thirds isn't a 'vast majority' no matter how you cut it. There are endless studies, all of which bear this out. I'll dig them out later.

----------------------

I really don't like to think of possible motivations for wanting such people expelled.

Okay, enough. Steve, we were having a perfectly decent conversation, and now you drag in this nonsense.

Take another look at the documentary 'Beneath the Veil'. That's my motivation. I will not see the greatest civilization in history fall to Islamic darkness. I won't see everything I love and hold dear destroyed. I'm willing to fight for that, and I am willing to die for that. That's my motivation, and if you have trouble understanding it, that is not my problem.

Exactly what I've been trying to articulate. People need to be vaccinated against these mind viruses and the best way is a scientific understanding of the world. I myself became an atheist after reading the Selfish Gene about 17 years ago.

For the millionth time, Jiten, that is why I have said that such a program needs to be coupled with one of cultural imperialism to attack and demonstrate the evil of Islam wherever it is found. When Muslim immigration is ended, and Shariah supporters are expelled, and the true nature of Islam is exposed and demonstrated continually, we will see alot more apostates.

1132. Breeding for God

Comment #222565 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 31, 2008 at 2:36 pm

Goldy, Jiten blah, blah blah, more invective, more insults, no facts.

-----------------------

Steve Zara on the other hand, what you're arguing - that the expulsion of Shariah supporters necessarily means full-blown fascism is a view that I disagree with, but is one that can be rationally debated. So: thanks. I'm serious. I appreciate it.

Of course I don't advocate one massive 'rounding everyone up'. That's why I said that one should crack down of groups and organizations and Mosques that advocate Shariah. Boot characters like Hizb ut-Tahrir out of the UK. Apart from the greater ease of the project that way, it would have an additional beneficial effect. I have the sneaking suspicion that a least a significant amount of the Shariah supporters are like the hippies who supported Communism - with no real understanding of its horror, but doing it because it seemed cool. When there are real consequences for advocating Shariah, then I think that 40% will drop quite quickly.

1133. Breeding for God

Comment #222558 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 31, 2008 at 2:29 pm

For anyone else reading, notice the following about al's post: He calls me ignorant - but doesn't say what I'm ignorant of. He bandies about the names of schools - but doesn't talk about what they say.

Invective. Ad hominem. Slurs. Insults. But no facts. No reason. I'm unsurprised that al ducks and weaves my question. It would involve a commitment to reason. To reality.

And now, to address him directly, all the vile insults you can drag up al will not get me away from this question. Can't you answer it, even as a hypothetical? I have said umpteen times, if you were to, e.g., say yes, but you argue against the premise, then that would be grounds for rational argument.

But that's not what this is. This is evasion. Wriggling. Willful blindness.

My so-called harshness stems from one, and only one source: I refuse not to treat reason and reality as absolutes that can't be escaped. Your whole mode of argumentation here al is to escape those absolutes. That isn't flying with me.

1134. Breeding for God

Comment #222546 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 31, 2008 at 2:17 pm

If we resort to expulsion of native citizens for points of view, then Europe is already destroyed.

No, it isn't. Neither the reconquista of Spain nor the Greek war of independence meant the end of Europe. Again, one could have argued, "If we're willing to incinerate innocents with phosphorus, then Europe is destroyed". It wasn't - quite the opposite.

Though this is at least something one can have an argument about.

But the point remains: I am not willing to offer European civilization as a sacrifice to this absolute you hold. You are. How this makes you feel entitled to the moral high ground is beyond me.

---------------------------

Goldy Hitler, was an Islam-loving socialist. More like you than me, really.

1135. Breeding for God

Comment #222533 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 31, 2008 at 1:59 pm

*dryly* hawt4dawk and others, you may have noticed that my opinions, once praised, have suddenly become unreliable when they conflict with certain persons' opinions.

Once again, I'll repeat this: I am not letting anyone wriggle out of this. What I asked was: If the alternative to expelling Shariah supporters was the fall of Europe to Islamic barbarism, would they support it? The answers - well, you can read them for yourself.

I'm not budging on this point. I want a straight answer. Actually, I got some, but then came the attempts to wriggle away from it.

I have said, often, that I will immediately renounce my views if they are proven incorrect by means of facts, data, and reason. However, certain people have said, flat out, that they'd rather offer all of our freedoms up on an alter rather than change their views on this point. If they want to retract, no harm, no foul. But I'm not letting them escape that question.

Returning to the subject of my unreliability, notice the following:

Fanusi gets a lot right about Islam by chance and generality. In a real critique of the absolute history and particulars of Islam he would be lost. There have been volumes written on Shariah. Its theoretical application is something to be avoided at all costs, but people have had various views on it that differ strongly from what Fanusi may mean. But Fanuis doesn't know who these people are, and he certainly has not read what they have to say.

This is absolute bullshit, and al knows it. The four schools of Sunni jurisprudence were fixed a long, long time ago. All of them support Jihad and all the horrors we associate with Shariah. Ditto the Shia. That is because a school of jurisprudence can't override what is written in the Koran and Hadith. And that, too, was fixed a long time ago.

al are you really taking refuge in the 'there are many types of Islam' nonsense? Yes, there are variants, but from the point of view of Infidels, they are all the same: a threat.

For someone who supposedly is uninformed, it is very odd that I'm the guy who routinely brings sources to this argument. al makes alot of statements, but doesn't seem to want to focus on particulars. Take the two Shia schools. Do they reject Jihad? Do they reject the domination and persecution of Infidels? Do they, from an infidel point of view, have any siginificant differences?

Ironically enough, the inestimable Hugh FitzGerald has just written on this subject:

There are fights within the world of Islam: fights between Shi'a and Sunni, fights by Arabs to suppress non-Arab Muslims such as Berbers, Kurds, and black African Muslims. There are resentments felt by the poor Arabs and Muslims for the rich ones. There is contempt felt by some of the "northern Arabs" of Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon, for the "southern Arabs" of the sheikdoms and, especially, Saudi Arabia -- a resentment that may well merely be prompted by the economic disparity, but that is given a sheen of being about the supposed civilizational advance of the "northern Arabs" over the rude crude "desert Arabs" or "Beduin" of the Arabian peninsula.

There are also rivalries for power. Shall Mubarak stay or go? Shall he be succeeded by his oily gucci-loafered scion, or by the less corrupt, but likely more dangerous-to-Infidels representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood? Shall the Alawite dictatorship in Syria remain, or be replaced by a dictatorship of Sunni Muslim officers who, having slaughtered the Alawite generals, and allowed a certain amount of Sunni slaughter of Alawites in every one of their villages, now take over to enjoy the power, and of course the money that, in Muslim societies, is always obtained by the seizure of political power? And what princeling shall reign in this little sheikdom, and which one in that?

Oh, but that's it. There is no discussion of the Islam as an ideology. There is no attempt to modify, at all, the inculcation of a worldview that teaches hatred of Infidels, out of texts -- Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira -- bristling with hostility, often murderous hostility toward non-Muslims, and that offer a Total Belief-System that rests on an uncompromising view that a state of permanent war, though not necessarily of open warfare, exists between Believers and Infidels.

I never ask anyone to take me on faith. I repeat: if I'm wrong, I will unhesitatingly change my views about the expulsion of Shariah supporters. But I don't think I am. If people want to bring data that proves me wrong, great, it'd make my life alot easier. But I won't be taken for a sucker, and I won't abandon my rational conclusions just because they are unpleasant.

I repeat: If the alternative is the destruction of Europe, do you support the expulsion of Shariah supporters? Yes or no? Answer that, and we can argue whether or not the alternative really is the destruction of Europe. But I'm not letting anyone wriggle out of this.

As for this cretinous idea that I support a police state - get real. I cited Locke, Locke, as a basis of my views. I happen to have bothered to read books like Darkness at Noon, and I shall bear witness. I know what a Police State is. What I am talking about is expelling fascists and totalitarians, and that's it. An action which will make lives incomparably safer for the citizens of the pluralist democracies of the West.

There are some Muslims who say Shariah can never be and should never be established, it was limited to the 7th Century. There are some that say this about the entirety of revelation.

al I have made this quite clear: I have no beef with them. In fact, I have argued that getting rid of the Jihadis and the Shariah-supporters will benefit them greatly. But, for the umpteenth time, answer my question. Are you really willing, if that's what it comes down do to witness the destruction of Europe rather than expelling Shariah supporters, would you still be against their expulsion? I already have an answer, but as you seem to want to edge away from it, I will re-ask it. And I will keep on doing so.

1136. Breeding for God

Comment #222459 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 31, 2008 at 12:45 pm

No, no, no, no. You have engaged in a fallacy, that of the dichotomous worldview.

al I'm not letting you wriggle out of this. I asked, simply and straightforwardly, if I was right, would you agree to my suggestions? Now, if you'd have said yes, and that's why you were arguing against them, because the consequence of my views is so abhorrent - then we'd have a basis for argument. But you said, flat out, you'd rather see Europe fall to the horrors of Islam than expell those who support Shariah. That your views are impermeable to data.

For the record, if I'm proved wrong - and I fervently hope that I am - I'd abandon this position in a second. But you have said the contrary, that no matter what the evidence, no matter what the consequences. Almost... religious.

If you want to retract and say that you would support those measures if I was correct, but you don't think I am - well, that's a very different story. But I won't let you wriggle out of the necessity of choice.

1137. Breeding for God

Comment #222419 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 31, 2008 at 12:24 pm

The democratic ideal will have failed in either case. Hatefulness will have prevailed in either case. My case for toleration, equality and reason will have failed.

Wrong. When Locke (at least I think it's Locke; I don't have my library with me at the moment) argued for tolerance he meant a tolerance amongst the competing protestant sects, but not for Catholics. The reason was simple: he understood that the Catholics were so powerful that if they could set up shop, they'd wipe out all competing sects and any hope of tolerance would be extinguished. It goes without saying that he'd be against tolerance of Islam.

This is the real world. Not a fantasy. Not a philosophical abstraction. And in the real world civilization needs defending, and the means of defending it might be harsh but that's the way things are. During the Second World War the British incinerated two hundred thousand innocents with phosphorus in firebombing of Dresden. The war was still righteous, and just.

Don't like it? Neither do I. But I don't choose to hide from reality. No matter what the cost.

---------------------------

Given what you have been suggesting, I am afraid that isn't surprising.

This is the way terrible conflicts have started - spread wildly exaggerated fears about a group within society, and work everyone else up until they consider members of that group to be non-citizens, sub-humans, and not deserving of basic rights. Such people should be expelled, or put into camps.

Excuse me, but that wasn't the question. I asked whether, if the alternative was the fall of Europe to Islam, you'd support expelling Shariah supporters. You said you'd rather see Europe fall to Islam. In other words, you'd rather see a world where adulterers and blasphemers and Infidels are executed in Wembly Stadium than expelling those who want that to come to pass.

If you'd said that you'd support it if I was right but you didn't think I was - then there'd be a basis for argument. But you've said, quite clearely, that you'd rather see that unimaginable horror come to pass before you dirtied your own hands. How you square that with your conscience is your business and not mine.

1138. Breeding for God

Comment #222401 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 31, 2008 at 12:08 pm

Okay, fine. Nice to have that out in the open. If it's choice between expelling those who voluntarily embrace a fascist and totalitarian ideology and watching the destruction of Europe - the end of pluralism, the end of women's rights, the end of progress, the end of free speech, the return of slavery, a New Dark Ages - you will choose the second option. It's good to have that out in the open. Though I don't know by what conceivable standard you get the moral high ground there.

al thanks, but I understand the problem. The basic problem is that Islam always and invariably is a threat to all non-Muslims, and this threat has been given new and terrible life in recent times by three factors: 1) the oil wealth, 2) globalism that allows the export of ideology in a much more ferocious fashion, and, most importantly, 3) allowing millions of Muslims to settle in the dar al-Harb. If it weren't for number 3), the problem would be containable. Thanks to number three, it's a civilizational threat.

1139. Breeding for God

Comment #222372 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 31, 2008 at 9:58 am

Gregg and al that is not what I asked. Given the premise, would you agree with my views? Yes or no. It's that simple. Yes or no?

1140. Breeding for God

Comment #222364 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 31, 2008 at 9:34 am

*dryly* Who said I was a libertarian?

Now, back from the world of abstractions and into one of concrete reality. Banning organizations such as Hizb ut-Tahrir is commonplace, even in nations such as Turkey. Germany won't tolerate a nazi or fascist party either. Etc.

I'll address points later, but for the moment can I ask everyone this:

Grant my premise for a few moments. If the result of continued Islamic immigration and the presence of Shariah supporters here in the West would lead to Islamization and the horrors that accompany it - war, slavery, the end of civilization - would you or would you not support my views that Shariah supporters should be expelled? If the choice is the destruction of Europe (if not the whole West) or the expulsion of these guys - which would you choose?

Just grant me the premise for the moment, and answer that.

1141. Breeding for God

Comment #222356 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 31, 2008 at 9:08 am

The point is to evaluate the relative dangers of this or that ideology. If the Islamic world were in possession of thousands of warplanes, missiles and 25,000 or so nuclear warheads I'd be worried. Seriously worried. But, at my figurative doorstep, I have a country that has all of this, and uses its muscle to extract from the rest of the world what it sees as its strategic interests.

Except for this little thing called history comes up. Here's a good summary of why that's not so, from Bill Whittle:

At the end of World War II, America stood astride the world as the unchallenged military and economic power. The terrible might of Germany and Japan lay crushed in smoldering ruin. Great Britain, bled white by the near-total loss of two successive generations of their best and brightest, was in barely better shape. China was a collection of pre-industrial peasants fighting a bitter civil war, and nowhere in the rest of Asia, Africa or South America did there exist anything more than local defense militias.

Only the Soviets remained as a potent military force -' and that force was essentially tactical, not strategic, in nature. While strong in tanks, artillery and men, it had no navy to speak of, and an air force consisting mostly of close support ground-attack aircraft such as the Il-2 Sturmovik. While effective against ground targets, the Soviets in 1945 had nothing resembling US heavy bombers such as the B-17, the B-24, or the magnificent B-29.On the other hand, the United States not only had what was far and away the world's preeminent Navy; we also had large numbers of long-range strategic bombers and swarms of highly-seasoned fighter escorts. We had a Marine Corps flush with victories: battle-hardened men who had invented through blood and horror the means to go ashore on enemy beaches and stay there. We had an Army whose courage and skill in battle was unsurpassed, and whose critical supply and ordinance staffs were, by far, the best in the world.

And, of course, we had the atomic bomb, and the will to use it.

History has never, and will never, record a time when such unchallenged power existed in the hands of a nation, nor of a time when opposing forces were so weak and in such a state of disarray and abject surrender.

And these feared and ruthless Americans, a people who had incinerated cities in Europe and Japan and whose ferocity and tenacity on island jungles and French beaches had brought fanatical warrior cultures to their knees -' what did these new conquerors of the world do?

They went home is what they did. They did pause for a few years to rebuild the nations sworn to their destruction and the murder of their people. They carbon-copied their own system of government and enforced it on their most bitterly hated enemy, a people who have since given so much back to the world as a result of this generosity. They left troops in and sent huge sums of money to Europe to rebuild what they all knew would eventually become trading partners, but also determined competitors. Then they sent huge steel blades through their hard-earned fleets of ships and airplanes and came home to get on with their lives in peace and quiet.

Oh, and some of the islands they had visited had asked to remain under the American flag as territories and protectorates, free to leave whenever they chose.

...
In 1991, NO BLOOD FOR OIL had an actual point to make, for during the Gulf War we were indeed fighting to keep oil supplies out of the hands of a madman who would, perhaps ' and eventually did ' try to hold the world hostage to his ambitions by trying to control or destroy this vital resource.

After handing him the worst defeat in modern history, and once again with vast numbers of battle-hardened and victorious troops in place, the United States could have simply claimed the Iraqi and Kuwaiti oil fields as spoils of war. It was clearly the Imperialist thing to do.

Furthermore, it was a fait accompli ' already done. There was no further risk to us. The Republican Guard was running as fast as their stolen Mercedes-Benz's would carry them. We had achieved such a total and spectacular victory that our pilots ' men called baby-killers, sadists, murderers and worse ' refused to drop their weapons on legitimate military targets because the victory was so one-sided that they in their decency could no longer continue to do what they were ordered to do.

And so what did these American Imperialists do with the spoils of such victory, with the precious, precious oilfields completely and totally ours? We sent our best