1401. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #191835 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 12, 2008 at 12:51 am

The thing is, Professor Dawkins and others, is that in order to be able to spout the 'Islam means peace' nonsense (for the record, Islam actually means submission ) you have to not just be ignorant but to actively work against knowledge.

The entire contents of the Qur'an, Hadith and Sira, and fourteen centuries of history, not to mention the nightly news headlines, show that it's not a religion of peace.

Unless as one wag put it: "Of course it's a religion of peace. There's a piece of you there, a piece over here..."

1402. The 14-year-old Afghan suicide bomber

Comment #191743 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 11, 2008 at 2:51 pm

It is a racial slur when it is continually made - and by continually I mean for seven fucking years with no break - with no other basis than your ancestry. German ancestry, german citizenship (well, dual), though I grew up elsewhere. Concept understood?

Now, if I accused every Arab of being a Muslim, that would a parallel.

1403. The 14-year-old Afghan suicide bomber

Comment #191727 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 11, 2008 at 2:12 pm

Take it easy. I was simply referrencing those people who already called you a Nazi. Why the sensitivity anyway?

I have a thing about having racial slurs directed towards me. Try calling a Chinese guy a chink and see how far you get.

1404. The 14-year-old Afghan suicide bomber

Comment #191719 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 11, 2008 at 1:50 pm

al, I've made this point before to someone else. You get one, and only one warning: Noone calls me that.

Yes, yes, I know it's a joke. That's why you get the warning.

1405. The 14-year-old Afghan suicide bomber

Comment #191626 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 11, 2008 at 10:29 am

Look at bucketchemist's post above mine. He starts it off addressing it to you, but he quotes me.

1406. The 14-year-old Afghan suicide bomber

Comment #191573 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 11, 2008 at 8:50 am

As Christopher Hitchens might put it; "Three words, Ayaan Hirsi Ali."

Every group, no matter how degraded, produces a few excellent individuals, human beings truly of the first order who rise above their fellows. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is one such - as are Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, and others. Yet how many are these? Out of a million Muslims how many are capable of breaking the mental shackles of Islam? A thousand? A hundred? ten? one?

As I say, we should be trying to drive them towards apostasy anyway, via a vigorous campaign of cultural imperialism, and then perhaps - once the Shariah supporters had been expelled - we might get more to break free. But can we really risk our civilization because of those few deviants - those splendid, superior, excellent deviants? To allow mass muslim immigration is suicide, and is the end to any real hope for those who want to escape Islam's mental prison.

N.B.: al and I are NOT the same person.

1407. The 14-year-old Afghan suicide bomber

Comment #191548 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 11, 2008 at 7:15 am

al-rawandi Aiyaiyayai... Time to consider what the Czech's did about the Sudeten Germans - i.e. expulsion.

1408. The 14-year-old Afghan suicide bomber

Comment #191534 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 11, 2008 at 6:36 am

Completely agree. Combined with a relaxed policy on political refugees, so that anyone who wants to abandon that culture in favour of a more tolerant etc western model can. Plus, an offer of military assistance to Iraq (or wherever) to protect their borders from other states who might wish to adopt a more interventionist stance.

Here's where I'd disagree: there's no evidence - nada, zip, zilch - that those Muslims who flee from the hellholes their religion has created have any ambition other than to bring their desolation with them. Muslim influx into the West should be stopped for, at minimum, the next ten to twenty years. We should extend a warm hand to all Christians, Jews, Yezidi, atehists etc. and others escaping this ghastly region, but emphatically explain to Muslims that they made that bed - or, more accurately, that bed is the product of the religion they value so highly - and now they can lie in it.

1409. The 14-year-old Afghan suicide bomber

Comment #191481 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 11, 2008 at 3:30 am

There's always someone who, when confronted with the barbarism of Islam, says 'Well, Christianity does nasty things, therefore I am absolved of any effort, any effort at all, even the one to clearly judge and assign moral blame."

Case in point:

Let me start with putting the 1.6 million Africans who every year die from AIDS in the column of christianity.

As a matter of fact, the principle barrier to the widespread condom use in Africa is an aggressive male ethic that regards condom use as a sign of weakness. It is also spread by the various witch-doctors who say that raping a virgin is a cure. If these guys were Catholic enough to listen to the Pope about condoms, they'd listen to him about monogamy, which is the single best way of stopping the spread of AIDS, as evidenced by the impact of Uganda's campaign to stop the following.

But leaving that aside for a moment, I'll see your 1.7 million, and raise you sixty-seventy million dead Hindus slaughtered by their Muslim rulers.

1410. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #191085 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 10, 2008 at 7:40 am

lastgreekstanding,

Who but a lazy halfwit cites Wikipedia as an authoritative source

Michael Shermer, for one.

1411. The 14-year-old Afghan suicide bomber

Comment #190991 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 10, 2008 at 3:55 am

It was surely there that he learned that he must do whatever God requires him to do, and it was surely there that he learned to believe mullahs who told him what God required him to do. If you teach a child that certain truths, lacking evidence, are infallible, and if you teach him that certain individuals called mullahs are qualified to tell you what those truths are, you should not be surprised if he becomes a suicide bomber. This is as clear a case of child abuse as you'll find.

Exactly, which is why some of us have no time whatsoever for Islam's apologetics. The question, I suppose, is what do you do with a situation like this?

Because, let's face it, these people are nuts. Not playing with a full deck. A few sticks short of a bundle. A few bricks short of a stack. Nuts.

You can believe all sorts of things and retain a connection to reality, albeit a tenous one. You can think that all Palestinian terrorism is the result of the Zionist occupation. You can think that 9/11 was organized by Mossad.

But noone who is in possession of a complete set of marbles praises stuff like this, or wants to see their own child go the same way.

1412. Couple charged in Norway over genital mutilation of daughters

Comment #190981 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 10, 2008 at 3:17 am

I am not familiar with the Doctor's Plot. A brief excursion into Wikipedia tells me it is something Stalin made up to be able to justify his anti-semitism. I don't see how that is relevant here?

I was referring to the Muslim doctors who were convinced to take up the banner of Jihad by their co-religionists. These were as integrated and as middle-class as you can get, and that offered no protection from it.

1413. Couple charged in Norway over genital mutilation of daughters

Comment #190949 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 10, 2008 at 1:37 am

Fanusi, you say you do not blanketly attack all muslims, but in the very next paragraph you say that all muslim immigration should be banned. Do you really think that all muslims should be banned, or just those who practice sharia law like you alluded to at the end of your sentence?

Yes. All Muslim immigration should be banned. There is no way to predict whether or not a Muslim who basically has not been following Islam will revert to full-blown Wahabi insanity. Witness the Doctors' Plot. We need to stop all Muslim immigration, and get rid of the radical elements here.

The reason I don't say that we should expel all Muslims is that I think we have a good possibility, through an aggressive campaign of cultural imperialism, to get large numbers to become apostate, to break free of the mental prisons of Islam.

But this will not, and cannot, happen if we continue to swell their ranks.

1414. Couple charged in Norway over genital mutilation of daughters

Comment #190441 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 9, 2008 at 5:30 am

Let's take some of RamizD's comments in order

I do not want to get in the way of your self-aggrandizement.
. . .

But listen to what some of you are implying. From your comments, I basically heard that the solution would be to ban muslim immigration into western societies. This is because islam can never be compatible with the west. Sorry, but I do not agree with you on this.

. . .


Do I think that islam will be on par with christianity or judaism in the relatively diluted way they are practiced today? I never implied that it would be soon or in our lifetime.

Can it be that he really doesn't see the implications of these statements? He agrees that, even if Islamic reform were possible, it would still not happen within our lifetime, but still supports Muslim immigration to the West - i.e. so we can live our last years in bloody civil war or under Shariah?

You, Ramiz, keep going on about 'misspeaking', but you have still repeated the point that I object to - the insulting idea that those of us who hate Islam do so out of mindless bigotry.

Sorry, wrong. There's nothing 'mindless' about my hatred. Nor am I a bigot - someone who is prejudiced. Prejudice means judging without having seen. I have judged after I have seen so much blood and so much misery caused by this hellish religion that I wish to see it wiped from existence, and would happily give me own life to do so. Get that straight.

There are plenty of us who have had it up to here with Islam, who are sick to death to hear - every single day - the list of atrocities that it commits around the world. You talk about blanket condemnation of Muslims? Noone - not even me - condemns all Muslims, but the fact is that religion is a good predictor of human behaviour, and Islam is an excellent predictor of abject barbarism.

This is why a total rejection of Muslim immigration is justified, and why, for that matter, supporting the expulsion of all Shariah supporters. A Muslim community is, absolutely and invariably, bad news for infidel populations in the long run. I see no reason why we should risk our necks to accommodate Islam

1415. Couple charged in Norway over genital mutilation of daughters

Comment #190098 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 8, 2008 at 11:26 am

I have long gotten used to the fact that amongst any gathering of 'freethinkers' there will always be those who like the moniker as a fashion accessory, but who balk when confronting the true horrors that faith has to offer. Case in point:

However, I really think some of the people on this site use their atheist stance to hide what is truly racist beliefs, especially against islam.

What race is Islam again?

Oh, I notice that someone has already called him on this:

.Racist is not the correct term. I don't think it would prevent anyone from seeing my point, though.

Which was what? That those of us who support women's rights, freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and oppose paedophilia and sundry practices, and recognise that this means opposing Islam, are just bigots? Well, if that's the case, why do none of us worry about, say, Hindu or Sikh immigration? Or Christian Arab immigration?

But if and when people choose to ignore the literal scripture (a BIG if and when, i'm aware), like the way people do with the old and new testament, then islam will be able to become westernized like christianity and judaism have.

If, if, if. Almost all Muslims see the Qur'an as the uncreated word of God. To question that would be to destroy Islam. And on this slender thread of hope you'd gamble the future of civilisation?

In the real world, Islam is incompatible with democracy. Large-scale Muslim immigration is incompatible with continued civil society.

And I was under the impression that the point of Richard Dawkins writings was that religion needs to be eradicated, not just 'moderated'?

Or is it simply that taking on real religious fervour is too much - too difficult, too controversial, too dangerous?

1416. Couple charged in Norway over genital mutilation of daughters

Comment #190073 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 8, 2008 at 10:22 am

Not sure what the position is of animistic religions is to polygamy.

Not a problem with many of them, but come on - does anyone doubt that this is yet another Mohammedan atrocity? Especially since the immigrant population in Norway is principally Muslim.

1417. Couple charged in Norway over genital mutilation of daughters

Comment #190053 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 8, 2008 at 9:30 am

Proof, if proof were ever neaded that Muslim intigration is a fool's hope.

Surely the feminists will be up in arms about this, demanding strict measures taken to ensure the dignity and equality of Muslim women?

*crickets chirping*

Yeah, I though so. No, not for them, when speaking out involves some measure of risk and controversy.

1418. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #189690 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 7, 2008 at 1:47 am

NC, what am I going to do with you? Now you're trying to pull rank on me. I have lived in more places than you are likely to ever do, and simply living in a country does not give you insight into every town and city there. If you specifically lived in Camden, I might be willing to listen.

Noving on to your other arguments:

value. They're wrecking Australia, they're taking over, they don't fit in this town 'cause we're Aussies, OK. Not a hint of a whisper of a discussion of Islamic values or beliefs.

*dryly* Except that they are specifically protesting a Qur'anic school. And they did not use one racial comment. "They are wrecking Australia, they are taking over"? That sounds like an accurate comment on Muslim immigration in any country, anywhere. You could say it with accuracy in London or Berlin. Why? Not because of race - but because the values they embrace are specifically antithetical to anything that even vaguely approximates a decent society.

Because your "Islamic Holocaust" is so vaguely defined. Yes, the Qur'an recommends aggressively spreading the word; well, the Bible recommends aggressively spreading the Gospel, and Christians have.

There is so much wrong with the following paragraph that I don't even know where to begin. I'll start here. No, there is nothing in common between the Christian perspective to spread the word of Christ and the Islamic mandate to wage war on all Infidels, binding until all are enslaved under Islam . That is my definition of the Islamic Holocaust: the degredation and murder of kafir populations specifically sanctioned and justified by extensive reference to the core texts of Islam. Got that? In other words, Muslims fulfilling Muhammad's orders.

There is a reason why Islam was spread by conquerors, while throughout Europe we find shrines to those Saints that obeyed Christs word and evangelized - i.e. talked rather than fought (St. Patrick etc.)

Now, which of Christ's orders were the Christians following again during the Holocaust? Not to mention that Christopher Hitchens's has rightly pointed out that Hitler's insane beliefs were principally a form of pagan mish-mash

In your haste you have not just cited a whole lot of nonsense, you've missed those instances where you really would have a point: the Thirty Years War, for example, of which it was written:

"Through the hedgerows cover
I saw brother killing brother
And all this was done in the name of Christ."

But I get the feeling that adherence to evidence isn't a priority for you. Once again, you scate cleanly over all the evidence I cited showing that the Crusades were a defensive conflict, a response to centuries of Muslim aggression. You blithely ignore all contrary evidence.

By the same token, since Israeli voters clearly don't realize that it's wrong to kill civilians no matter who's hiding behind them, shall I conclude that they aren't worth spit?

Dear me, there should be some award for being wrong in so many ways in one sentence. 1) This is a war zone; people are trying to kill you. You fire back, because its the only way to survive, and because the enemy has placed civilians in the line of fire, some of them die through stray bullets. 2) Actually, Israel has been remarkably restrained. Take the Israel Hezbollah war. About two thousand civilians died. Tragic, yes. But the last time a foreign power sent that many rockets against a city - Germany bombing London is the good comparison - the retalliation cost the lives of two hundred thousand civlians. Want to argue that fighting against the Nazis was wrong? 3) There is a very real difference between coalateral damage in a time of war, and the specific, deliberate murder of captive populations, and it is that which Muslims have practiced for fourteen hundred years. 4) Israelis, again unlike Muslims, have no desire to systematically destroy Western civilisation. Nor, for that matter, do their ambitions extend beyond survival. In this war, they are very much on our side.

Truth to tell, though, no-one behaves morally for the sake of satisfying an abstract moral code, religious or otherwise

Perhaps you don't, but not all of us are like you.

It would be of great help if you could show any example that Muslim populations can be integrated, or the Muslim majority populations have any track record of treating kafir minorities well. However, this isn't going to happen. The reason I argue with you is that this sort of pipe dream keeps pushing us over the edge. The search for 'moderate Muslims' or 'Islamic reform' is loosing our only chance of disentangling ourselves from the Muslim world without massive bloodshed.

1419. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #189508 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 6, 2008 at 11:32 am

Hizb ut-Tahrir supports the death penalty for apostates and Shariah law. They are one of many dangerous groups.

I would be happy to se them sent to Saudi Arabia where, ironically, they would be ripped to pieces by the Salafists.

1420. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #189431 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 6, 2008 at 9:11 am

*gloomily* That, hungarianelephant is what worries me. At the moment the choices are harsh and unthinkable. Since our gutless elites can't bring themselves to take 'harsh', they will wind up with 'unthinkable'.

You can see this with the resurgence of fascist parties in Europe, just to take one example.

If catastrophic terror is used against the West, do you care to imagine what the result will be? Can you imagine the reactions that a terrified, enraged populace will meet out on its Muslim minorities? When they know that the mere presence of Muslims in a city means a potential mushroom cloud?

The twentieth century shows what the West is capable of towards feared and hated religious minorities when there's evidence whatsoever that these are a threat. What exactly is it capable of if there is such evidence?

1421. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #189389 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 6, 2008 at 7:01 am

Al, just out of interest, how long ago were your liberal days?

1422. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #189381 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 6, 2008 at 6:44 am

Okay epeeist, I'll boot this back into your court. Here're some results from a survey done by the dhimmi Guardian,

Agree that there should be a new law to make incitements to religious hatred a criminal offence: 81 percent.
Agree that despite the right to free speech, in Britain, those who insult or criticise Islam should face criminal prosecution: 58 percent.
Disagree with the idea that Muslims should inform on people who are involved or connected with terrorist activities: 25 percent.

And here is some from the Times: Suicide bombing against Israel, support: 16%. In Britain, 7%. Against Jews in Britain: 30%. Boycotting Holocaust Remembrance day, a good idea: 56%.

And here is the ICM poll done in the Sunday Telegraph: Shariah support in Muslim areas: 40%. Sympathy with the London attacks: 20%. Sympathy with al-Qaeda: 4%. Approval of the torching of embassies and murder of danes: 14%. Support calling for the death of those who insult Islam: 12%

And in the Times, again: Proud if a family member joined al-Qaeda: 2%. 9/11 conspiracy...

Oh, here's the link:

http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07/more-survey-research-from-a-british-islamist.html

There is some good stuff there - the totalitarians are a minority. But they're not an insignificant minority, and, as I have said, we know how powerful a fanatical minority can be.

1423. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #189367 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 6, 2008 at 6:17 am

Thank you irate, for being someone who brought some actual facts to the table. I'm serious. However, as I have said, the study in question I cited has not been refuted - and it won't. There are too many others that back it up.

1424. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #189364 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 6, 2008 at 6:10 am

*gives epeeist a look* I shall pass over what that comment does to your credibility. I have cited a number of different studies, all of which paint the same picture. I could easily go on for a very long time in that manner. However, and this may have occurred to you, I do not always have my files to hand and in such a case I try to provide at least a source, which is usually what comes up on a Google search. Given that Certain People - you know who you are, and you in this case may be singular - don't even try to provide any source whatsoever for their views, I think that These People (or Person) should think twice before impugning someone else's credibility.

1425. Mark Steyn vs. the 'Sock Puppets'

Comment #189358 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 6, 2008 at 5:56 am

I mean, if we are willing to break our own law without compunction, then by definition it is we who are the non-civilized

Hmmmm - I fail to see why. I've seen some very profitable law-breaking in my time, and very moral ones to. I hate using a cliche here, but I believe Rosa Parks would be a good example of this. For that matter, my own family, escaping from the USSR, broke a whole bunch of laws and I'm proud of them for doing so.

Your argument seems to be: we signed on to this thing, now we've got to stick with it. If we signed on, why can't we sign off? And this is especially true if you ask just who the heck this 'we' is. I didn't vote to hog-tie our soldiers by forbidding them to go into Mosques in Basra. For that matter, I cannot remember any real referendum being held on it.

Yet all of this dodges the real point. This law is voluntary, as you yourself have said. You say we 'should' stick to it. Why?

You also seem to say that if we ignore this UN nonsense, we will never manage to 'bring civilization' to the Middle East. Again, why? If anything, this bumf seems to scuttle any real hopes for that. Here's a parallel: civilization was brought - restored - to Japan and Germany not thanks to the fatuous league of nations, but because the Allies utterly destroyed those nations and their infrastructure, and then rebuilt them, tearing out those elements that were dangerous. If we want to bring civilization to the Islamic cesspits of this world, I submit that you would need a very similar approach to that taken towards Japan: total defeat, and extirpation of the hideous ideology that threatens us. This isn't likely to happen at the moment, and certainly isn't going to happen under the ridiculous rules of the 'international community.'

Finally, and this point is the most crucial, you have not answered my point that a law is only a law if it can be enforced. Voluntary law can only ever result in binding the civilized; the evil will simply continue without hesitation. Nor is this an abstract point. Thanks to the fetishization of UN legitimacy, the US is going the UN route on Darfur. This means that Kharoum will get a moderately worded letter of protest about a week after everyone is dead.

Men with views like myself are continually depicted as trading off morality for realism, that our opponents are the noble idealists. I think this is exactly wrong. There is nothing moral whatsoever in ignoring the real world in favour of your own moral self-gratification. Given that international bodies and treaties have been utterly useless in Darfour, Cambodia, the Balkans etc., I should be a little more humble. In fact, if the bodies I supported had that kind of a track record I would be keeping very quiet.

1426. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #189342 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 6, 2008 at 4:38 am

Once again epeeist you sidestep the question. Is what they have said there incorrect? And if it is incorrect - if the poll in questions is flawed - why is there not one single poll that contradicts its findings? And why do official government studies echo these findings? And why does the YouGov poll do the same?

And why exactly are you using 'Islamophobia' as a pejorative term on a par with racism? Personally, I think that spreading Islamophobia should be considered a public service.

1427. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #189311 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 6, 2008 at 2:30 am

Skeptic Jim

However, that is not the kind of reasoning that this mob of ignorant rednecks is using. This mob of ignorant rednecks is using bigotted, in group/out group type reasoning.

How do you know? I have been arguing this for a rather long time with NC and he had no answer to give to that question. So I place the same question to you: how do you know?

Islam is like a virulent and extremely persistent disease that, once it sets in, is extremely difficult to get rid of again. Even without the rather large body of evidence I have previously cited, erring on the side of caution seems to be entirely rational.

1428. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #189105 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 5, 2008 at 1:09 pm

Monera Man in the first place, we could get a whole lot of rubble with far less risk to the soldiers than they currently are facing in this mess in Iraq.

In the second place, I don't know whether you've noticed, but we happen to have civilian control of the military. Now, if you want to argue that the right to vote on war should be restricted to those who have served in the military, fine, I'll have that discussion, I think it's a very interesting one. But I won't be told that the only people who are allowed to support war are those who have served, while anyone can be a detractor.

In the third place, the attempts to bring democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan, even if they succeeded, would not make the infidel world any safer. Consider: Europe and America are spawning homegrown jihadis. If the democracy here isn't good enough to prevent this, what are the chances that whatever we get in Iraq will keep a lid on it?

1429. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #189096 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 5, 2008 at 12:42 pm

Your criticism of the Daily Mail is that irate_atheist does not like it? Shouldn't you show fanusi some place where they actually lied or distorted

Roughly my reaction, al. People keep saying 'Oh, you can get polls to say anything'. Why is it then that I have not heard one single poll that makes me optimistic about the future? Not one .

*sigh* And people wonder why I find the 'rubble doesn't cause trouble' school of foreign relations more attractive every day.

1430. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #189059 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 5, 2008 at 9:57 am

As you may have gathered, I favor a separationist approach to Islam, combined with a step-by-step counterattack. In Europe I favor and end, or at least a ten,twenty year moratorium on Muslim immigration, expulsion of all Shariah supporters, seizure of jihadist and Shariah supremacist mosques and assets, and a Turkey style approach to who can and cannot take part in civil institutions (Turkey's strengths include a very strong, secular military, no public office to be held by anyone who attended a madrassah or is otherwise considered to be too Islamic).

This sounds harsh, but it is the only means that are actually effective against this thing.

I above all support a vigorous campaign of cultural imperialism, to break more and more Muslims away from Islam. Here, ironically, I think that some of our best allies are the evangelical missionaries who cause six million African Muslims a year to abandon Islam. We can also encourage the fractures within the dar al-Islam, by letting the Sunni and Shia tear each other to pieces, and encouraging groups like the Berbers, Kurds and Persians to realize that they have been robbed of their culture and civilization by an alien, Arab supremacist creed.

There are ways of winning this war, or at least not loosing. But our gutless, cowardly, ignorant, and mendacious political and cultural elite just don't seem to have the stomach for it.

1431. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #189042 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 5, 2008 at 9:12 am

Fanusi, I'll listen to you all day about most things you have to say because you know more about some things than I do

Music to my ears, Alan. :-)

astly more in numbers than the (young?) radicals are the numbers who become non-devout

I simply don't agree. Here are the hard numbers: 17% of the over 55s endorsed Shariah, but the number jumps to 37% in the 16 to 24 year olds. You have very similar numbers for views on Apostasy, sending children to Madrassahs and so on.

You can read an article on that here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-432075/Multiculturalism-drives-young-Muslims-shun-British-values.html

This is very troubling, because this is the demographic that matters. To whom do you turn to raise revolutionary fervour? The young, particularly the young men. Once you cut away all the b.s. about 'will to power' and so on, the essential, raw source of power is the ability to organize and inspire young men. Young men are the basis of any form of political power.

There are good evolutionary reasons for this, which I will go into at some other point. But this is a key point. The demographic transition to watch out for isn't population numbers total, but the point when young Muslim men reach parity with the young men of the surrounding population. And that date is much closer than we'd like to think.

Look at France's riots, those youths - French 'youths' with names like Muhammad and Ibrahim. This is power in its purest form. Mark my words, once we see this parity being reached, we will have civil war erupting, which we see already in France.

A similar thing happened in Lebanon, which was one of the last Christian outposts in the Middle East. Muslim numbers increased through the palestinian refugees they foolishly let in, and they outbred the latest Christians. Then they waged Jihad against their hosts.

This is the future we see in ten or fifteen years time. And that's an optimistic estimate.

If you want a picture of the future, read this:

http://www.dansimmons.com/news/message/2006_04.htm

The follow up essay is also interesting.

1432. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #189003 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 5, 2008 at 7:41 am

Alan W unfortunately, there is a minor problem with that idea: later generations of Muslim immigrants are more radicalized than earlier ones. All across the board you see the most virulent forms of it appearing in the later generations.

In the UK the proportion is upwards of forty percent from some statistics I saw recently (I'll try to dig them out). Which means that the timescale has to nearly double to achieve 'voting-bloc' mass numbers.

Not so. The Jihadis and their supporters are fanatics. They will not be content to abide by democratic decisions if they can settle it another way - by civil war, for example. That raw fanaticism is powerful enough to just brush the moderates out of the way. We saw it in Germany and Russia, that kind of power in action.

1433. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #188562 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 4, 2008 at 7:53 am

Swelled through conversion, yes. What you are leaving out is the hideous conditions of those that did not convert. I once again refer you to Bostom's book on the subject. When the choice was conversion, or permanent degradation, interspersed with pogroms, of course subject populaces began to convert.

I am not ignoring Indonesia, I merely think that one country spared does not wash away the blood of those others. Islam's militaristic and fascist spread isn't something that can be seriously debated given what we know of it's history.

1434. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #188489 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 4, 2008 at 6:39 am

Oh come al , you know better to that. Yes, it's true that Islam forbids forced conversions, at least for people of the book. However, what it does command is to spread the Shariah over the whole world. Islam is first and foremost a system of governance, not personal spirituality. The spread of the Caliphate and the Shariah by arms are therefore the spread of Islam by arms.

Of course, in newly overrun territories they were unable to enforce Islam's full tyranny while they were in the minority. However, as Muslim ranks swelled, this did become possible. Thus the vaunted 'Islamic Golden Age' was just the twilight of the great civilisations of Byzantium and Persia.

1435. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #188414 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 4, 2008 at 4:53 am

Historical documents, or archaeological evidence, indicating that Muslim polities really were making a concerted invasion of Christian polities prior to the launch of the Crusades. Pope Urban's say-so is not sufficient.

NC you really don't know anything about this subject, do you? This isn't just attested by 'Pope Urban's say-so' - which I included as an example of a historical document - but by every single serious historian of this subject. This is why both Wikipedia and the Encyclopaedia Britannica say the same thing. Islam has always spread by the sword.

If those sources are still not sufficient, I could refer you to Karsh's Islamic Imperialism , or to Bat Ye'or's works, or Sir Wallis Budge's The Monk's of Kublai Khan which documents the oppression and extermination of the Nestorian Christians. Or you could read the first chapters of Ibn Warraq's Why I am not a Muslim wherein he notes that every history of Islam describes its rapid spread through conquest. Or Norwich's The Middle Sea which describes the spread of Islam in the same way. Or Andrew Bostom's The Legacy of Jihad ; if you can't be bothered to read those books, here's a good review by Lee Harris: http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/4825051.html

I don't know how many more sources I will need to pile up before you just stop skating over anything that contradicts you.

You still have not given any evidence whatsoever that the move against the Qur'anic school was racially motivated, nor, for that matter, have you addressed the fact that Islamic Holocaust has been ongoing for fourteen hundred years and is still continuing to this day.

Yet another argument that makes no sense unless every individual Muslim is somehow responsible for all Muslims collectively.

No, it's an argument that we - the infidels - have to treat any Muslim community as potentially dangerous for the simple reason that there is massive evidence that they are. Take the UK - 40% of British Muslims wish to see Shariah law instituted, meaning they want a system of law every bit as terrible as that of Nazi Germany (and , yes, the parallel is exact - who do you think invented the yellow star in the first place?). If the average Joe Muslim doesn't want to tear apart Western society, how come these views are so prevalent. You don't get a mainstream view, and 40% is mainstream, without it being broadly tolerated.

And nor are 'Infidels' restricted to Westerners. Another good source on Jihad expansionism is K.S. Lahl's Legacy of Muslim Rule in India that notes that the Mohammedans murdered between sixty and seventy million Hindus - i.e. a genocide of at least ten times the magnitude of the Holocaust.

He considered fighting Muslim terrorists to be a form of jihad, on the grounds that terrorism brought shame to Islam.

Great. That's one guy. Compared with the the three hundred million who thought 9/11 was justified?

I don't give a hoot about the troubles of the average Joe Muslim, for the simple reason that the average Joe Muslim doesn't give a damn when kafirs such as myself are oppressed or murdered by his co-religionists. What, exactly, is difficult to understand here?

Again: I have no problem with Sikhs, Christians, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, Jains, Taoists etc. immigrating to the West. I only have a problem with Muslims doing so because they have demonstrated, time and time again, that they wish the Infidels no good whatsoever. Muslim immigration has driven Europe to the brink of destruction already. I applaud any signs of the West waking up to the fact that the real fight isn't in Iraq, but in our own countries, and our insane immigration policies.

From an average-Joe Muslim's point of view, what's the point of distancing yourself from your own community in the hope of winning the favour of a larger population that (probably, for all you know) won't bother making the distinction anyway?

So the only reason the average Joe Muslim might denounce honour killings, jihad, Shariah supremacism is to win favour? Nice to have that in the open. If that's true and they don't realize that these things are wrong in and of themselves, then these average joes aren't worth spit in the first place. So the hell with them. Again, why should we put our lives, our freedom, our societies, our future, our families, our children at risk to help out this lot? That is what you have not answered and cannot confront.

1436. Ben Stein 1, Yoko Ono 0 in 'Expelled' copyright spat

Comment #188092 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 3, 2008 at 8:05 am

You use my image or my intellectual property in your film, you'd better get my permission for it.

Again, irate, the question is: how much was used, and does it fall under the 'fair use' guidelines? To give a parallel, if one were to counter by making a film attacking the IDers and quote sections of their books, we should be allowed to do so.

1437. Ben Stein 1, Yoko Ono 0 in 'Expelled' copyright spat

Comment #188064 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 3, 2008 at 7:30 am

I wonder whether this falls under the 'fair use' proviso about intellectual property?

Whatever - Ben Stein is just making a fool of himself. I sometimes think that this sort of controlled implosion in the media is the best way of sorting out creationist ninnies.

1438. Mark Steyn vs. the 'Sock Puppets'

Comment #188038 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 3, 2008 at 7:08 am

brainsys I'd say that this is an atheistic issue of crucial importance: absence a divine overseer, how do we decide on what is permissible in human interaction? And interaction between different states and nations?

This is why I am not an advocate of atheism, but an advocate of reason, and atheism follows from that. But it's one thing to simply say you don't believe in God, it's quite another to apply reason to the sum total of human life.

1439. Mark Steyn vs. the 'Sock Puppets'

Comment #188017 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 3, 2008 at 6:49 am

al vis a viz the Jihad and Dr. Fadl, there's a good commentary on this subject over at jihadwatch.org. I tend to be more gloomy - Fadl isn't rejecting Jihad - struggle to subject the world to islamic law - but is advocating a change in tactics. Less open Jihad, more stealth. Which is arguably worse, since the stealth jihad has so many useful idiots leaping to its defense.

1440. Mark Steyn vs. the 'Sock Puppets'

Comment #188005 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 3, 2008 at 6:37 am

No distortions, just invention

Such as what, brainsys?

1441. Mark Steyn vs. the 'Sock Puppets'

Comment #187996 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 3, 2008 at 6:05 am

I am not quite sure what your detractors are trying to say here.

God knows, al. Though I tend to cut them a bit of slack, given that I shared some of these immature beliefs, oh, ten years ago. Before I started learning about human history and human nature.

I suspect that alot of this nonsense comes from the belief that a moral principle is strong enough to stand on its own. It's not; it requires an entire social system for it to work.

To give one example: we can all agree that women's emancipation is a good thing, but this does not change the fact that, for most of human history, it was simply not possible, given the lack of contraception, astronomic rates of infant mortality etc.

1442. Mark Steyn vs. the 'Sock Puppets'

Comment #187983 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 3, 2008 at 5:29 am

Cluck cluck, brainsys. Could you please learn the difference between the conditional and the imperative tenses of language? Or just possibly try to answer my points? Or even give an example to support what you claim my distortions are?

1443. Mark Steyn vs. the 'Sock Puppets'

Comment #187929 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 3, 2008 at 4:14 am

And finally - it ain't paranoia if they really are out to get you.

1444. Mark Steyn vs. the 'Sock Puppets'

Comment #187923 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 3, 2008 at 4:01 am

Does it mean the kids on the estate down the road are not breaking the law because our local constabulary cannot (or choose not to) enforce the law on that estate.

As a matter of fact, yes. This is why we call such situations 'lawless'. This is the essence of Hobbes's insight.

In fact it does have consequences. The belief by most that the US has brazenly breached the Geneva Convention has lost it much goodwill in the world community. It, in practice, has removed the moral superiority arguement over its enemies that you Fanusi assert is incontrevertible. Not much use if the jury is not with you.

As a matter of fact, the Geneva Convention does not apply to those who fight outside of uniform. In fact, going back to Babylon, those who fight outside of uniform have been considered scum whom you can kill with no consequence.

The point behind the Geneva Convention was to minimize the damage to civilian populations by giving an incentive to fight according to certain rules. Extending the Geneva Convention to uniformless combatants has the exact opposite effect: it encourages the use of civilians as human shields.

But let's leave that aside, and focus on this business of 'goodwill'. In the first instance, I didn't see much goodwill for america before Gitmo. In the second instance, this 'goodwill' is a massive irrelevance. Those who get their knickers in a bunch about Gitmo will never be able to stand up to the mujahideen, and thus their opinion, favourable or not, is of no meaning whatsoever in this long war. Those nations capable of taking the threat seriously and committing themselves to the struggle may deplore Gitmo, but will not let that get in the way of fighting for the survival of civilization.

For the record, it is my view that if the US army had simply shot on sight any ununiformed combatants we'd have alot less of them, and a lot fewer civilian casualties. It is worth pointing out that the 'few hundred thousand lives' are principally taken by the muj.

Which brings me to my next point: I did not advocate nuking the Muslim world, I merely pointed out that the difference in civilization between the dar al-Islam and the West is so huge as to be insurmountable.

Frankly your hate filled paranoia makes you no better in my eyes than those you target

Remind me: when was the last time I beheaded an eight year old girl? Or shot men for not having beards? Or pushed a wall onto a gay?

This sort of rhetoric just shows your own irrelevance. You are free to say and think what you want, but it doesn't change the fact that your views render you irrelevant. Those who subscribe to this kind of ridiculous moral equivalence will never have the strength to stand up against the real forces in this world. You are, in effect, white noise.

1445. Mark Steyn vs. the 'Sock Puppets'

Comment #187915 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 3, 2008 at 3:11 am

What you wrote doesn't make much sense; for example, one cannot "believe in" international law, it either exists or it doesn't

Okay, then let me make my case simply: it doesn't exist, by definition. A law - any law, whether it's a just or an unjust law - is only a law if it can be enforced. If you can bring force to bear on those who break it. Thomas Hobbes: "Covenants, without the sword, are just words".

In other words, if you want transnational law, then you have two choices. You need to support either a great power that has strong hegemony and is capable of laying down the law in no uncertain terms. In other words, you need to be pro-US, and more, pro-US domination of the international scene. Imagine the US were not in the picture - can you imagine any other power taking its place that wouldn't be immeasurably worse?

The alternative is to have the kind of 'voluntary law', represented by the UN. Which means that only those who have some basic decency will subscribe to it, while monsters will just do as they please. This is why the Sudan has a place on the Human Right's chair while conducting genocide.

In any case, my point is that we can't very well make claims to possessing a superior culture if we can't even obey our own laws.

'Our own'? The point of such transnational lunacies as the UN is that they are transnational. And one may justifiably ask why the civilized powers should be hog-tied by ridiculous restrictions, when the non-civilized break every single law of war with impunity.

And we could nuke the Muslim world until it was radioactive ash and we would still be superior. This is obvious to anyone who spends ten minutes comparing a random Muslim nation and a random Western nation. Even basketcase states like Russia are better than what the Muslim world has to offer.

To the extent that the Islamic world has any functioning societies whatsoever, it is due to their taming Islam, to going to war against it: witness Turkey. Witness Lebanon, whose civilization is maintained by the large Christian population.

1446. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187909 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 3, 2008 at 2:46 am

I suspect part of the defense of the Status Quo is that things like gay marriage are seen as part of the attempt to deracinate the West, and create a society where everything is up to personal decision. The problem is that such a society lacks the sense of togetherness that is essential to its defense.

Since Mark Steyn has been brought up elsewhere, I remember he was commenting on the weird alliance between postmodern leftists and the Muslims. He was commenting on a book that's been going around grade school called 'Heather has two mommies'. He said, roughly, if the competition is between a society that says 'Heather has two mommies' and one that says 'Heather has four mommies, and a big, bearded daddy who's going to send her to a cousin in Pakistan', then it's not hard to see which is going to muscle the other out.

1447. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187887 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 3, 2008 at 1:32 am

I think there is an unspoken and unwarranted assumption here, namely, that the article you cited seems to equate certain traditional attitudes as good moral. The argument is therefore circular: traditional way of upbringing instills good moral and character because the author defines good moral and character to be those very attitudes that a "patriarchy" would cherish.

Perhaps, but the way I read it is that a patriarchal society is more likely to have a firm concept of 'the good', whatever that concept may be, and is more likely to transmit it. Therefore a patriarchal society is longer lived and better equipped than a non-patriarchal society.

1448. Mark Steyn vs. the 'Sock Puppets'

Comment #187883 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 3, 2008 at 1:15 am

Oh I get it now, Fanusi is Michelle Malkin!

Droll, Al, very droll. There are a number of people on this board who have some sort of a weird fetish with me, and I'd prefer not to have you join them.

Just skimming over some of these comments, there does seem to be a marked tendency to the style: "Yes, his freedom of speech is being violated, but, but, but he's a NEONCON!!!!!!!! I'm all for freedom of speech, but not for the kind I don't like, obviously. That would be insane."

Anyway, Mark Steyn's book, America Alone, has not had, to my knowledge, any refutation whatsoever. As to his support for regime change in Iraq, his point is that it's better to find out now in Iraq whether Islam and democracy are compatible than to find it out the hard way in Europe.

I also think that his point about the condescending European intellectuals who say Iraq can never work because it's an artificial state don't realize what that implies. I quote from memory, but I think it went something like this: "Think Sunni, Shia and Kurds are a tough fit for a nation? What do you call a nation combining twenty-first century, post-christian pot-smoking gays, and seventh century, anti-gay, anti-alcohol, anti-everything-you-dig headhackers in Amsterdam?"

If Iraq can't function as a democracy - even a very bad democracy - then we, my friends, in Europe are cooked, and cooked permanently. If the jihadis have no qualms about taking on the PKK - the Kurdish army - then what makes you think they'll have any qualms about taking apart Belgium or France?


Oh, and SJK even if you believe in the phatasm of international law, then by all standards of the UN charter, Saddam's Iraq had lost it's sovreignity. That's if you are foolish enough to believe that something like the UN is a moral body, or that international law is possible.

Finally:

"the traditional scarf of Arab men that has come to symbolize murderous Palestinian jihad.

What, exactly, is wrong with this statement? The scarf is a prominent accessory of groups like HAMAS and Islamic Jihad, and it is supporters in the West wear the scarf, and declare their support of its murderous tactics loudly - why then shouldn't infidels see these scarfs as a red flag, as it were?

1449. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187879 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 3, 2008 at 12:47 am

Here's the article I mentioned:

http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2006/the_return_of_patriarchy

Hmm.. I think you are confusing quantity with quality, having more children is not the same as greater investment in children.

Not so. Men who are have been brought up to value fatherhood as a mark of honour are more likely to invest in the moral and character upbringing of their children. Conversely, a society that denigrates fatherhood, and paints fathers as schmucks, will tend to produce men who regard the whole thing as a burden. Here's a quote from the article:

Under a true patriarchal system, such as in early Rome or 17th-century Protestant Europe, fathers have strong reason to take an active interest in the children their wives bear. That is because, when men come to see themselves, and are seen by others, as upholders of a patriarchal line, how those children turn out directly affects their own rank and honor.

This, btw, answers the question of what constitutes a Patriarchal society.

Once again, this isn't an endorsement or a condemnation, but an observation of fact.

A society is stable if it reproduces, and transmits its values to its children. That is, if it produces hardware and transmits software to said hardware.

Your point about the Muslim world is well taken, and I'm hardly and admirer of Islam. However, their demographic advantage is a hideous weapon, and it is worth understanding that.

1450. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187866 by Fanusi Khiyal on June 2, 2008 at 11:08 pm

In the interests of just playing devil's advocate and irritating people, let me just say that the thought of having two mothers is something that sends chills up my spine.

There is a more subtle point though, which I have heard being discussed. Regardless of the arguments one way or the other, non-patriachal societies are unstable, as they do not reproduce enough. If you google 'The Return of Patriarchy', you'll find an interesting article on the subject. The swing towards conservatism on in America is fueled by the fact that the patriachal values of the Red States encourage larger familes and greater investment in children. Whereas societies that consider everything a matter of random choice reproduce alot less and are thus crowded out.

It's not a moral point, but a factual one, and one with interesting implications.