One difference of opinion with many ramifications

Submitted by Ianus (Poland), Mar 5, 2007 at 18:12

Submitted by Michel, Mar 4, 2007 at 14:08

Dear Ianus, Dobro u noz ( if memory serves me right - good evening?)

Dobra noc.

> First of all, allow me to thank you for disagreeing with me, albeit never deteriorate to insulting or patronizing me.

Aren't you a little oversenstitive ? It's a normal way to adress a rational person.

> here is what I call a constructive dialogue.

It's possible because I know you're no Moslem.

> That is fun, as it remains on a respectful level.
I will respond to your post and try to clarify some of your misconceptions about my viewpoint.

>> Well, Islamism is such a tainted subject. I try to perform all the necessary ablutions every time I deal with it but still its nastiness remains. ( My personal experience )

> You obviously managed to strongly disagree with me, yet I did not consider your response as "nasty".

It was perhaps nasty all the same , but the censors " improved" the sentence. They really did! It's not a free forum.

>> Thanks. I try to do my best. But still I know my defects and weak sides too well.

> That quite actually does seem to be unusual, and very refreshing, "the other side" considered. This kind of humility I have only encountered with Plato so far, but most certainly not with Dhimmi, Noah or Susan - people who could never concede any point or admit their own limitations.

I don't think you're just to them. The points they disagreed with you on were not what they are not well up on. Those people are quite knowledgeable as far as Islam is concerned. Their points seem valid to me.

> That is exactly, why a discussion gets so tiresome, as they argue from an ivory throne of utter conviction of their own righteousness.

Well , if you think so then you must localize the thereabouts of my mind also in an ivory tower somewhere in Kafiristan.

>> Nice to hear that. I come from a country that was once the home of most Jews (Poland).

> I visited your country several times and encountered much warmth, friendliness and tolerance, even during the communistic period. The memory of the polish ghettos definitely has had a lasting impact.

Don't be misled by appearences , Michel. We have still strong antisemitism here and too little respect for those poor Jewish citizens of this country that perished in the death camps. It's a bizarre situation - a nation of c. 38 mln people with a few thousand Jews (out of c. 3,5 mln in 1938) and still antisemitic . It's a shame!

>> I presume that as a Jew you must or should be be doubly critical of both.

> I do not know, Ianus, if I am doubly critical or not. I do know that - in light of my personal upbringing and family history – I became extremely critical, as far as any form of indoctrination, fanaticism or even religion is concerned.

That's a good intellectual background. However , not all wild animals are carnivorous , if I may sound metaphoric. Some indoctrinations are worse than others.

> As children are imprinted mainly by their parents, I must honor my father at this time, who became my role model in terms of overcoming natural instincts of revenge and hatred. Never once heard him vilify the Germans as a whole. Never once heard him demonizing the Moslem world, even though I remember him being a passionate supporter of Israel during the 6 days war. (weren't we all? )

Alas , you probably forgot that in 1967 the USSR (and all socialist countries) had radically changed its policy towards Israel and from a friend and supporter of israel it bame a friend and supporter of the Arab world!

But I personally think that the Moslem world needs badly another six-day war to stop terrorizing and threatening Israel. That would be a good lesson for the Moslems given the notorious Moslem forgetfulness..

> Anyhow – my father did evidently suffer serious traumas, as he raised us in Switzerland as Roman Catholics in order to ensure that what happened to his family and friends could never happen to his children. As a practicing ( in secret) Jew, that was a terrible situation for him and ate him up inside.

Why didn't he emigrate to Israel though ?

> The above is the reason, why I instinctively and reflexively oppose any effort from any side to "spread the gospel". As soon as someone tells me what I should do, what I should believe in, I will instantly become suspicious and will not let it stand. In business and personal I believe solely in leading by example - I try to refrain from exercising pressure, nor will I allow anyone to pressure me into any kind of action or thinking.

As the Latin saying goes : „Verba docent , exempla trahunt". However , some verbal theoretical explanation is necessary.

>> Whatever you mean , I hope that the subject matter or essence of any issue is your overriding consideration. I mean thereby that truth and democracy are a little different notions.

> Republican with democratic stands means in my book, that I consider myself as an independent thinker and not slave to any party dogma or platform. As new US Citizen, I registered with the Republican Party, because I happen to support more of their objectives, yet for instance support the woman's right to choose and utter separation of Church and State, which happen to be democratic objectives, as far as standard US party lines are concerned.

As far as truth is concerned, I am a relativist. Truth is oftentimes in the eye of the beholder and, other than in mathematics, I can not find the ultimate truth in pretty much any topic.

You're talking about probablity , Michel. Truth has a clear definition . It is concordance of words with reality (Aristotle). Mathematical truth is concerned with consistency of propositions in a given system). So what is more probable is preferable to what isn't. I share this view totally.

> Especially when opinions or politics are concerned, reality ( truth) is always found somewhere in the grey zone in between positions.

Reality is not truth , Michel. Truth is just a property of language . Reality is neither true nor false. Statements are true or false or their truth value is not established (lack of evidence or whatever reason) or not determinable ( e.g. statements about some future events etc. ).

> Noah, Dhimmi and Susan "own" the truth to their opinion and dismiss this simple fact of life. Another reason, why arguing or debating with them becomes futile.

Really? I think they have a very good point to make. The probablity of their statements in very high as far as I can see .

> To tell you the truth I read your covert defence of Islam's innocence (="moderate Islam") as quite unconvincing.

> Ianus - I do not defend Islam's innocence in as much as I do not defend the innocence of Jews, Christians or any culture so ever.

May I point here to one fundamental problem in your argument. The basis of it is an analogy with what is current and known to you as a Westerner. Islam is implicitly just as any other religion or culture, it's comparable and it's as flexible as anything we non-Moslems know.

I contend it is an unreliable premise to start with. Islam is not like anything else we in our cultural circle are familiar with. In point of fact wherever Islam prevails all other cultures finally stop existing.They die a violent death. It's like comparing influenza , asthma or pneumonia to cancer . You can recover from the former. The latter ends always mortally for the patient . To continue the metapher , you sound like someone who says : „But look! This malicious disease has also a rare benign mutation and we must pin all our hopes onto this rare mutation otherwise the cancer will kill all of us." Which other religion kills its apostates , Michel ?

> I am very much aware of some serious threats originating from Islam, but I am not prepared to condemn the entire 1.5B world of Moslems as a whole for it.

Still cherishing the Western Enlightment hope of mankind's innate goodness ? As to me I feel that if I don't condemn all Moslems because I have some responsibility to those 6.5 B non-Moslems who one day will face this malicious mutation of Islam cancer. I'd like to do all I can to spare our posterity this nightmare , Michel.

> Yes I believe that there are moderate streams, progressive tendencies and a whole lot of a average people who do not intend to infiltrate or subvert our democracy.

The so called „swamp"( an apt term for inert majority from the times of the French revolution) will follow anyone who is strong enough to win the day and promises it convincingly paradise and booty. They will change their mind and ways easily as they have no strong convictions of their own. Their passivity(=submission=Islam) is a dominant feature. Any determined minority can rely on it.

> Even though such outspoken streams seem to be rare and mostly silent, denying its existence is not only counter productive, but surreal.

Treating marginal events as centrally encouraging looks also grotesque , doesn't it ?

> Well , I wonder how traditional rabid Islamic anstisemtism as based in the Quran and in the misdeeds of its inventor fits in your "democratic stand on this issue" ? You're well aware of the hard facts of Islamic history after all, aren't you ?

> The keyword is "traditional", Janus.

Exactly.

> If the Quran stood in fact unquestioned by all of the world's Muslims, I'd certainly panic too.

Who can seriously question the Quran , Michel ?

I once asked Dr. Pipes „ In your opinion was Muhammed a moderate Moslem". He answered in his tradtional terse fashion : „Not to be facetious, but I am far from convinced that such a person even existed, much less do we have credible information about his life." I was curious about how many of his moderate Moslems in his view could share this (extreme) view ? He never answered . I never wondered why.

> The phrases and quotes do sound terrifying.

They are more than sounds , Michel! Every single of them has a 1400 year history of bloodshed and brutalities behind it. These phrases caused kingdoms to fall and great and freedom-loving nations and culture to become slaves and renounce thousands of years of their cultural greatness! They made proud queens and free women prostitues in Moslem barbarians' harems.

> But so do many out of our own Bible.

Wrong analogy, Michel ! The Bible is not comparable to the Quran in any way. It had different origins and never played the same role as the Quran. It never eradicated a superior ancient Greek literature. The role it played was given to the Bible peacefully. The Quran was nowhere introduced peacefully.

> Cryptic, ancient texts which can not 1 to 1 be related to the 21^st century and oftentimes even contradict themselves.

Don't idealize our times, Michel! Progress we have achieved is fairly limited and the forces of regress and darkness even stronger and more dangerous with the weapons produced by the progressive lands. And Moslems live in their 15th c. Anno Higrae.

> Heck, my own fatherland, Hungary, was subject to some of the hard facts of the Ottoman Empire.

A good reason to oppose Turkey's entry into the EU.

> But how long will we continue to recite the evil of the past committed by all cultures or religions, including the Christians?

Indeed , a more detailed exposition would bring more life and interest in the subject. It's interesting to note how naivety , treason , greed , moral decay always helped an inferior culture to subjugate a superior culture and push it back into the dark age!

> Was Hitler a Muslim?

A sympathizer of Islam , a most ardent lover of Moslems ! Albert Speer in his memoirs reports one of his conversations where he cursed Charles Martel for defeating the Arabs at Poitiers (732) . He thought that Islam would be an ideal religion for his Germanic empire (implicitly he serving as its caliph and sultan). Never heard about that ? You can find much in the internet no doubt.

( I suggest a thought experiment to you, Michel ! Ask your moderate Moslem friends or neighbours about that. Ask for explanations. I am curious about their comments. ; )

> Isn't it moot to compare casualty numbers throughout history? Isn't it time to look at the present and find ways to co-exist?

I suspect you're a high-ranking public personality… You sound like an experienced high-ranking mainstream politician (or lawyer?) eager to get some votes and support from the public ...But history doesn't work this way, Michel. We belong to our culture and I ask you who else was so keenly intent for so many centuries on and who was so close to destroying our European culture totally as Islam was ? In long term history (seen in centuries and not decades let alone years ) both fascism and communism were just transitory European aberrations comapared to this deadliest of perils Europe has ver experienced .

And now you come with your West-born historical optimism and belittle the sorrowful experience of all these innumerable generations that saved this civilization from the claws of this Islamic monster and praise the virtue of oblivion. What you're doing , Michel is deeply disquiting and runs counter to how all historical human societies perceive their existence . There is no way to co-exist with Islam. Either Islam will overcome us or we will suppress Islam. There is no third solution. If there were any, it would have been long found before as our ancestors were not as stupid and malicious as they are supposed to be. Islam is a religion of peace so why did they defend Constantinople , Vienna , Budapest ? We know better than they what Islam is all about , so we have no use for our own ancestors. We prefer the soothing stories of the descendents of the same barbarians that tried so many times to defeat us and who now are in our midst. We get voluntarily alienated from own pastin the name of vague and untestable „modernity" and call our blindness a virtue. What a perversity!

>> Does it ? What does it mean to be a Muslim for you , Michel ? For me it means accepting the Quran as the book authored by Allah , the impeccability of its last prophet as a paragon of all virtue and Islam as the supreme good. If you agree with this definition , then I can't understand why you disagree with Noah Wilk , dhimmi no more , Susan and other sober contributors on this forum ? You can't be a Moslem and remain unstained by the poison and perversity of Islam. You can't bathe in a contaminated pond and get angry when point to the fact.

> You nailed the cause for our difference in opinion precisely. It is based upon your or my definition of a Muslim.
Yours is congruent with Dhimmi, Noah and Susan's.

Isn't it also congruent with both common sense and all historical evidence ?

> You believe that the only true Muslim is a person who embraces the Quran and its teachings to the letter of the book.

„There is no god except Allah and Muhammad is his prophet". The shahada is a different way of saying the same thing , Michel . I have not invented this formula . Not accepting it you're not a Moslem.

> You further believe that all Muslims do so.

Show me a single Molsem who doesn't! Show me a single Moslem who denies the shahada!

> J. These people are, why I stand against Noah and Dhimmi - not the religious zealots in Birmingham or Al Khaeda. The people living next door, not Mullah Omar.

Those people living next door all share the same characteristics and ALL of them share the shahada (=the non-moderate definition of a Moslem).

> I see the Muslim much more pragmatically and much more similar to our own people.

Again your premises are fragile, Michel. This analogy between us and them doesn't hold. Our culture has never created anything comparable to Islam .

> You ‘ll find some fanatic followers and you'll find mostly ( at least in the western World and domestically spoken) the same half assed average people to a way higher extent preoccupied with their secular day to day challenges.

This illusion may come into being due to some singular circumstances. They live in dar-al.-harb (their definition of the lands of the infidels). The rules of Islam are not so stringent there which is anyway in full accordance with their doctrine. Their numbers are not large enough to allow the Moslem group dymamics to do its job of „consolidating" the faithful. But wait a little! The larger the Moslem community grows in the West, the fewer appearances of moderacy will be visible as the final aim of them is the same – dar-al.-harb must become dar-al. Islam.

> I call myself a Christian but the last time I read the Bible or was in a church, dates back to the last century.

Really? I never go to church although I gladly read the Bible as a curious historical document. Actually I am just finishing reading the New Testament. I find the book quite funny and exotic.

> Believe it or not, Ianus – the very Muslim you define, is my enemy too.

I would be surprised if you wrote you can make friends with him. But alas to a „moderate" Moslem a non-moderate Moslem is hundred times closer than a kaffir. He may be wrong on some points but still shares the same sacred value system . We don't.

> The religious fundamentalist, militant, fanatic and oftentimes terrorist Djihadist. If you read my posts, I promote harsh strategies to counter such tendencies.

I noticed that. You follow Dr. Pipes' eminent example. Personally I find him quite extreme in his views on moderate Islam as a panacea against non-moderate Islam.

> ....Actually, I myself can't imagine a "constructive dialogue" with a Moslem. By "constructive" I mean "sincere". As long as you refrain from asking direct and right questions you can converse with your Moslem in a pleasant way ... on football, the weather or the growing number of pilgrims in Mecca ... Ask him "Why do you believe Allah has written the Quran ? After all it is totally illogical and contradictory beside being criminal. "... Then you'll see why it's impossible to talk sincerely ("constructively") to a Moslem.

> Well, how about the MM Canadian Gent? He was very outspoken in condemning the terrorist acts and I found several more such Muslim opinions on the Internet.

Was he answering the question „Why do you believe Allah has written the Quran? After all it's totally illogical. " ? I wish I could pose it ( and some other questions besides ) to him ! As to his views on terror , what Islamic sect does he belong to ? His opposition to terror may have plenty of other motives than just humanitarian considerations for kaffiri lives and may be intended for external consumption. This is a notorious Moslem tactics. Telling the truth to a kaffir is not something a Moslem is obliged to do. On the contrary.

> In my book such people do deserve a constructive dialogue and respect, as they may, being still a minority within their own culture, face severe repercussions by their own fanatics.

May I learn the title of your book and some more details , if possible ?

> No so bad idea , in my opinion. Let them taste some of the sixth hell they have prepared for us (For you too , Michel. Ask your moderate Moslems on the amenities and refinements of hell for all non-Moslems -kaffirs or what happens to a soul of a Moslem and of a non-Moslem after they die to see my point. If you want to learn some of these hilarious details take a look e.g. at :
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/hell.html

> Again – If we remain on a theological level, we'll never come to a result.

Islam is a religion and a singular one at that, being all-embracing , all-inclusive , all-explaining , most totalitarian. It leaves no free space for its adherent. It regulates all things in human life and in the hereafter( it has fatwas on everything!) and explains (allegedly) all phenomena and admits no validity for any other non-Islamic views. I wonder what other level can you climb onto while dealing with it without losing any contact with your subject-matter , Michel ?

> By now I have been educated as to how exclusive and radical the Quran reads and can not disagree with your conclusions.

Things speak their own language, don't they ?

> Plato himself engaged in theological debates and asked brutal questions which have remained unanswered. Yes - I do agree with you all, that evidently this book is in dire need of reform, so It can no longer be used as cheap excuse for so many still committed atrocities.

Which doesn't mean it can be reformed. If you think you can you're living in your own Western ivory tower. You can't reform Allah , Michel. Any change in the book is a „bida" (illicit innovation in faith) punishable with death.The Bible can be reformed and interpreted at will as we have no „bida". A fundamental difference between the two „Abrahamic" religions.

> But – my angle is simply, that we ( again in a domestic context mainly) should look away from this ancient book and look more at the people practicing the religion now and right here in our neighborhoods.

Isn't this procedure called self-delusion , Michel ? This religion practised now and right here is the same religion practiced ever since invented by Muhammad , the gangster antisemite forgerer , for 14 centuries. I wonder how you can imagine this disunification of this religion from „this ancient book" ? Feeding a wolf with vegetables to make it a sheep ?

>>>>> what happens to a soul of a Moslem and of a non-Moslem after they die

> Speaking about exclusive in nature – I was ridiculed for an analogy and real life example out of our own Christianity. According to several so called Bible experts, Mahatma Gandhi would burn in hell, simply for one reason. He did not believe in the Christian God.

Again a wrong analogy ,Michel ! Has hinduism ever attempted to conquer Vienna or Constantinople or Warsaw giving the non-Hindus the option between conversion or death and slavery ?

To the Hindu mind monotheism is a most absurd idea … and a war of religion as well.

> > Only "hatred" ? You remarked once she's filled up to the rim with facts though ? There is much more than only "hatred" as you imply. As a woman she feels instinctively (and absolutely correctly) what Islam really means to a woman. I wish all Western women realized as Susan does what Islam implies in terms of women's horryifying degradation. I wish all Western women understood that women are going to be the first and most suffering victims of this monstrous beast on the rise. In one of the posts a reader on the forum described some common Moslem mistreatments of women ( revitalized domestic slavery) in the time to come. It was a heartbreaking reading for me.

> Yes, Susan is a lost case. Obviously an educated woman, well –read, but obsessed and consumed ... Simply disagreeing with her conclusions is enough to drive her out of her mind. By now I am for certain as much of an enemy, as the ugly Muslim she sees, wherever she goes.

You exaggerate. Moslems get what they deserve and you can't assert she's illogical or inconsistent , can you ? Besides , she retorts brilliantly.

> But once again, you see a monster rise here and that precise monster is the same enemy for me too. I even found some evidence as to Muslim voices calling for equality for women

„Some evidence" ?It's sound like a big revolution in the traditional Moslem camp! Soon Moslems will find the sura 4.34 to mean the opposite to what it means!

Perhaps also quite soon some evidence will emerge that there are some Moslem voices that there might be some other gods except Allah and that Muhammad was not perhaps his prophet or as Dr Pipes suggests he never existed…. What you have written is so unconvinging , Michel! Your faith in moderate Moslems is so incredibly strong!

> and here domestically there is little evidence for the same oppression of women within the Muslim minority.

The numbers are still disadventageous , the kaffirs around too numerous.

>>>> It's important that you used the verb "believe" here.

>>> Yes – and so should in the pure sense of relativism all of you too. I have found some evidence for the existence of Moderate Islam, progressive tendencies and a lack of wide-spread unrest domestically. Therefore I believe that it exists and that I am fundamentally right to oppose strategies out of Goebbel's strategy book.

>> I can't share your belief. They were a minority neither at present nor in the past. They are -if they exist - actually an tiny aberration in the lethal gravitational field of Islam. They are being engulfed by "normal" Islam sooner than they surface.

> I appreciate your viewpoint and conclusion. You certainly have more evidence for your stands.

>> In Islam you can't be fanatic enough. A "moderate Moslem" would be someone who is no longer a Moslem sensu stricto as he says (if he does) it's not good to be too fanatic , to love Allah too much and fight in his path too much.
Those who call themselves "moderate" or are called so by gullible Westerners are hypocrites or have not been confronted with right questions yet. The moment you ask them a few critical questions you'll see what is hidden behind their alleged "moderacy". "Moderate Islam" is a contradictio in adiectivo.

> Yep – you repeat one of the main hypotheses here, shared by many experts on the topic. It is the basis for the entire argumentation of the Noahs. I can not dismiss the theory, yet, I can not adopt it either, as I believe that all Muslims are first and foremost human beings, driven by the very same basic motivators and not just religion.

The first words a Moslem baby hears is the shahada whispered into his or her ears. The first texts he learns to read and to imitate is the Quran. Until he is aroud seven he is like any other child. But then his school time begins where is is taught to believe that he as a Moslem is superior to any other human being because he possesses the absolute truth as revealed by the only god Allah and so he learns to despise all non-Moslems and with time a Moslem mind is formed which is proud of what exactly makes him inferior to any human being. (These are not my words. It is how Renan once described a Moslem. His words will be valid as long as Islam exists and deforms its followers. )

> With primary focus on our own domestic Muslim Minority, I do not see evidence for what you say.

Wait until their number grows or until some unexspected events happen as it was the case in France where a minor incident sparked a major intifada.

> You can not make a case beyond reasonable doubt, and therefore I can not sentence the defendant to death.

OK. I admit willing I may be wrong. I hope things will take a different turning and all this war declared by Islam on the rest of the world will have a happy end. … But is my hope reasonable ? Isn't all probability gained by the scrutiny of the painful history of this continent against me ?

>> Is it really an "objective" approach ? Do you imply that the Moslems proceed the same way ? There are no shortcomings in Islam - to the Moslem mind.

> I draw strength from leading by example. I do not care, if some of them do not proceed the same way, as they can not touch us. Are you really that certain? Are all of these people so utterly different from us?

They like to tell many fairy tales which they consider with deadly earnest as holy and conclusive proofs. In one of them they tell a story of animals and men. How are humans different from the rest of the animal world? We define humans as "Homo Sapiens" thanks to his specific intellect. The Moslems reject this definition straightforward. Their fairy tale says that there are also many intelligent animals but it is only the „deen" – religion of Islam that defines the Man! Their definition of Man is „Homo Islamicus". Hence the treatment of non-Molsems with such contemp. In my view they are anthropologically different from the rest of mankind. They have ungergone a regressive evolution by dint of their self-glorifying Islam.

> > The idea of defective Islam is a blasphemy punished with death and the seventh hell. Islam is ideal. Otherwise Allah wouldn't be ideal. Saying people can make mistakes doesn't help much as you have the right "guidance" (the Quran and the hadiths) to establish what is ideal and what is not.

I am sure that these fanatics exist. I am not sure that they all are.

The rest are passive or prospective fanatics so to speak. Given a more favourable environement they will get activated and radicalized quickly.

> > You can't understand Islam by applying our Enlightenment mindset and methodology, dear Michel. Islam knows nothing of Enlightenment and despises it, as it despises as inferior all kaffiri cultures . Islam is a cultural singularity -if I may call it so. Objectivity here requires a different approach than what we are taught by our cultural relativism. A different methodology is dictated here by the singular subject-matter.

> For the ones who are like you depict them, it shall be said, that it would be in the might of the kaffirs to eradicate them. Osama and the likes have not scratched us. Needle stings in the skin of an elephant. Our own growing Muslim Minority makes us even stronger, as it undermines the easy depiction of the fanatics to call us Westerners "infidels".

Are you joking , Michel ? This growing Moslem minority is a fifth column , a most dangerous and tragic development that has happened within the last 50 years! If they have reached such numbers and influence just within two genrations corrupting the politicians , silencing the freedom of speech , organizing riots and acts of terro and spreading their terror networks and rabid antisemitism under the cloak of religion of peace through their mosques and Islamic culture centres , what will happen within the next two or three generations when their numbers grow in geometric progression and the will to oppose them slackens ?

> We are Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindu. It becomes increasingly harder to "label" us.

What difference does it make ? We are all the „house of war"(=dar al.-harb) for them as long as our political system doesn't adopt an Islamic form of government .

> Muslim fanatics become increasingly enemies of the Muslim World, and once they have killed enough of their own, they will be increasingly be opposed by their own and from within.

Or rather they will be supported by the fifth column and passive Moslems will become active. The state of inter-Islamic civil war is nothing new. But as long as there are common external kaffiri enemies to fight against it will not erupt on a larger scale. It will happen after the kaffirs are subjugated and there is no one to hate and direct their inbred aggression against. It is what the Moslem history teaches us.

> Enlightenment is after all based upon self-reflection.

Not in the first place. In the first place it is based on freedom of thought and speech. As both those things are unknown and forbidden in Islam Enlightment will never take place in Islam and hence any dreams of reforming Islam are extremely naive. What was successful with Christianity and its taming will fail in the case of Islam.

> As long as the finger pointing continues, I would not call ourselves enlightened.

Well , the problem of Islam is so acute and so existentially important and painful that I am not surprised by the finger pointing and violent remarks. I prefer a bitter truth to a melifluous illusion. I call it " being enlightened". What you suggest is in my vocabulary „being soothed".

>> A "great" Moslem "scholar" ibn Khaldun in his "al- Muqaddimah" has written that the past and the future resemble each other more than two drops of water. Look at the bloody and obscurantist Moslem past if you want to see what the Moslems (=all Moslems) want to impose on this world. Their deadly utopia will plunge this world into another stone age if one day they manage to overcome the forces of enlightment and freedom. And the Moslems do all their best to make this dismal nightmare a reality.

> Once again – our entire disagreement boils down to it – their deadly utopia. The ones who in fact understand it as such, will find that they try to oppose a tsunami. The ones who adapt to modern day principles will become part of it.

Well the choice is very limited and the civilizational tsunami ahead most devastating.

> As opposed to you, I do believe that there are many ( so far silent ones) who try to do the latter.

That is to say to become" part of the modern day principles" ?Those whom you label minority and fanatics will ask your moderate Moslems : „ This is the Quran - the word of Allah. And this is your Constitution – a man-made word of kaffirs. Which will you as Moslems choose ?"

Now a question for you, Michel. What will your so numerous moderate Moslems answer in your view ?

> Saying Moslems are not Moslems (i.e. trying to make them "moderate Moslems") sounds so unrealistic and so soothing (=escapist) to my ears.
If I make take recourse to your metaphor it is as if Goebbels were saying that Stalin's bolsheviks were about to conquer East Germany in 1945 peacefully - by discussing things with every German scholar and every concerned housewife...We must be realistic.

> My realism is based upon acceptance of relativism.

I share it that's why I am so opposed to Islam. Under Islam no relativism is possible. I am not suicidal.

> I do neither share your definition of Muslims, nor do I label all Muslims as moderate.

But you label many Moslems as moderate , if I comprehend you right.

> As mentioned and outlined in many posts and never really contradicted - there are many shades and levels of Christianity. Why the same credit of the doubt is not given the slightest bit of consideration, when discussing Islam, is in my opinion neither realistic nor fair.

Do you know why ? Because again Christainity is a wrong analogy! Christianity was also a monster but rationalism and Enlightment tamed and civilized it. In Islam neither rationalism nor enlightment are possible. Therefore this monster can't be tamed the way Christianity was. And so no optmisitic conclusion from the Christinity analogy can be drawn.

>> A kaffir is a kaffir to any Moslem, whether the Moslem is living in former Greek cities of what is now Turkey, or in former Indian towns and villages that are now Pakistan. There are more constant magnitudes in Islam than I or you'd like to admit. We have to face the hard and unpleasant evidence. Truth is rarely amusing and optimistic. The ancient Greeks knew it very well as their tragedies show.

> See above – according to the letter of the book probably true. According to reality, as I experience it here every day, the statement does not hold water beyond a reasonable doubt.

You underestimate the force of ideas and of this damned book that has changed and ruined great nations and the probable course of history. This book has deceived masses and driven them into a permanent war against the reality. Its destructive force has by far not been exhausted. And as to your constant reference to everyday experience I think that you should inspect historical experiences more closely to relativise this experience and to make more comaprisons and analogies. Which Iranian around A.D. 630 could believe given his everyday experience that his empire that had lasted for a thousand year would be conquered and humiliated by some nomadic barbarians he knew guided by the Quran ? All everyday experience spoke against that and yet it happened and a great civilization was ruined and forgotten and the Persians were totally Islamized.

>> What is now at stake is our fate and more than three thousand years of our civilization put at risk for a chimaera of some pseudo-multicultural utopia . This multiculturalism is a cunning misnomer for Moslem monocultural supremacy that is gaining ground in Europe. That we react to this perfidious game played by our Eurabian treacherous politicians violently is more than understandable and justified, Michel. Or perhaps you don't mind living a dhimmi in a third-world slums that once were called New York or Zurich ? What is more important for you -peace or liberty ?

> From within your structure of arguments, above scenarios are of course plausible and logic. From within mine, above question will never have to be asked or responded to, as I support the harshest opposition to any intent of subversion and/or installing of Sharia as state law or religion as state religion. In my book peaceful co-existence is embraced, whereas any fanaticism is strongly and by all means opposed.

And what if one day the idyll of peaceful co-existence with Moslems proves to have been just a delusive truce before the last major struggle for the Islamization of the West and the moderates will come back to where they have come from – to historical Islam ? ( By „historical" I mean what you call „fanatical". Moderate Islam is ahistorical.

There is a book a person which I know wrote. It's about Islamized Europe around 2130. It's quite pessimistic. No stuff for mainstream media you know , dear Michel, with their historical ignorance and unfounded optimism on ahistorical (=moderate) Islam . )

>> This is one of your gravest and impardonable sins , Michel. If you cared you would avoid much misunderstanding and unpelasant comments by people I personally appreciate. The Quran is not just an ancient book. For every Moslem it is the book written personally by Allah. I am not sure if you grasp all the dire consequences of this fundemental fact for any issue on Islam. One of the consequences of this fact fact is e.g. that your "democratic stand" on it is simply incredible, not too say absurd. Allah is not a democratic semi-god. It's an absolute metaphysical tyrant and what he "says" is valid for all times and climes. No one has a right to disagree. You can't discuss with a maniac Oriental tyrant (Allah).

> I see once more where you are coming from, and can not deny plausibility of the argument.

Thanks. I suggest you should visit the Quran spa too. One can get healed from many an eye ailment. ;)

> Is our own trinity a semi-god or democratic in nature?

Democracy could be born only under Greek polytheism. Monotheism is in nature despotic as it was just a reflection of the prevalentOriental despotism in heaven.

> We nevertheless have to a vast majority learned to accept other religions and cultures, even though that makes us act in fact against the letter of the Bible.

We owe it not to Christianity but to the spirit of the Enlightment and rationalism which broke the pressing yoke of Christian dogma.

> I foresee the same will happen in the Islamic world, as people always have a tendency to override dogma at some point.

Tendency is always given , as you rightly say. But what is absolutely not given in Islam are the means and ways to overcome the most oppressive yoke of Islam.

>> I don't trust them personally. What counts is what is in the Quran. If you ignore the Quran you can't counter and refute all the abusrdities invented by the interpreters to mislead the gullible kaffirs.

> I trust them to the same extent, as I trust our own people quoting the Bible on every occasion.

You know already what I think about your Christianity-Islam analogy .

> As far as I can throw them. No offense intended to any reader, but these ancient books should all be burned by now, as they have caused so much grief throughout history.

You're unjust. I am not a Chrsitian but I am quite aware that the Bible brought also many good things to this world. Besides , it is an important historical source. I am against burning archives.

> Let's make the 10 commandments and maybe the US constitution an overriding set of principles all people on this globe have to adhere to and get rid of all the rest other than considering them as historical documents of importance. These Books do no longer address the challenges we face. They are reason for confusion and misguidance. Denying African people condoms resulting in up to 70% Aids infection rates is to my opinion as criminal as calling for a holy war.

Well , the holy books are a major obstacle on the road to freedom but as long as they don't punish physically those who dare speak rationally against them they can be spared , in my opinion.

> I think religion and churches, mosques and temples should all be outlawed and many roots for war would be eliminated.

I would include only mosques and Islamic cultural centres in the list as all other religions have either lost their claws in the course of their evolution or have awyas been mild enough (Jainaism, Buddhism). It's not advisable to overdo one's point , is it ?

>> This "internal struggle towards betterment of onself" is indeed a fine concept! I wonder what is so wrong in onself the Moslems have to fight against so instensely ?

> What's wrong with this concept? Don't we all experience this internal struggle? The fight against all the negative attributes in human kind totally transcends culture or religion. Greed, hatred, jealousy, anger, mistrust and those often mentioned deadly sins are concepts not foreign to any of us, aren't they? At least that's how I understood the "internal struggle".

With your European enlightened background , of course , you tacitly assume that the same applies to the Moslem civilization. As far as their history is concerned this assumption is not borne out by the Moslem acts. Jihad has always been conceived and extrapolated in the framework of fighting and enslaving the kaffirs. So greed, hatred , jealousy, anger and mistrust were necessarily positive and appreciated feelings in the struggle for the cause of Allah.

We must be consistent relativists , Michel.

> In the end, Ianus, I can not come to any other conclusion than to accept that we part ways very early on.

I am sorry to hear that. ;(

> Your entire rationale, based upon the assumption that there is no Muslim per definition who can live in a peaceful way in our world, is logical in itself.

Thanks. It sounds encouraging.

> I on the other hand see Muslims as people first and foremost.

I am puzzled as to how light-heartedly you disconnect Moslems from what constitutes Moslem identity ?

> The same boring average people who have as little knowledge about their own teachings as we have about the Bible.

So there is some hope to make apostates of them , isn't there ?

> As opposed to the Bible the Quran admittedly has a dangerous component, as its radical followers must search for ways to combat the Infidel.

I would delete the word „radical".

> The Jihad can and is being interpreted by dangerous people to legitimate violent, terrorist acts against peaceful civilians.

Islam , dear Michel , is a trap. Once you get ensnared in it you can't get out unscathed whatever your noble motives and behaviour in the process have been. The so called „moderate" Moslem can't avoid the dire consequences of this doctrine the same way the so called extremist Moslem can't. The difference between the two is that the former pretend not to see them , the latter see nothing but them.

> While that is a clear and present danger and must be seen and counteracted as such, I am still not convinced that all of 1.5 B Muslims globally are as one out to eradicate all of us by all means.

They should be given a fair chance to embrace a different (or no) religion first. As long as Islam – the religion of terror - continues to exist there will be no peace in this world and our civilization will be in constant threat.

> We differ solely in our definition of Muslims.

That's a fundamental issue though.

> Having said that, neither of us can prove the other wrong beyond reasonable doubt. A classic case of the fact that we respectfully agree to disagree.

There is more than that in it , dear Michel. We can now focus upon the consequences of what we have said. These consequences prove who is right and who is wrong. And as long as you treat Moslems as if no Islam and no Quran existed , as if all their terrorist history never happened , as if they never tried to subjugate Europe and obliterate our civilization , I'll persist in pointing to your arguments as flawy as they have consequences which are neither historically borne out nor do they account for the dramatic developments within the last four decades in the West which forebode more fateful events in the time to come. And at the root of all of it stands nothing else than Islam. I underline - not" extreme" Islam as „moderate" Islam as this is a totally unhistorical concept of recent date.

> Refreshing for a change.

My opinion too.

> My Regards to Poland.

All the best both to Switzerland and the States .

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".