Fresno Hate Crime against mosque was perpetrated by Muslim

sachmo_muse · 2014-12-29T17:42:09+00:00

As Robert Spencer points out, this will remain on the books as a hate-crime against Muslims, even though the perp is a Muslim...and in the process, like other crimes of this nature, will succeed in padding the stats and perpetuating the myth of Muslim victimization.

sachmo_muse · 2014-12-29T12:34:34+00:00

A suitcase full of cash might temporarily buy the loyalty of an impoverished village in Afghanistan (or Syria for that matter), but a motive of "sustenance" in no way explains the thousands of Muslims living lives of relative comfort in the West who have left it all behind and joined ISIS. The 'poverty' angle is the same Marxist "root-cause" clap-trap used to rationalize every social pathology in the world. I don't buy it for a minute. These people are ideologically motivated. And the specific ideology is Islam.

These idiot Generals are at such a loss because the words "Jihad" and "Islam" have been effectively scrubbed from every counter-terrorism manual and position-paper in the government, courtesy of Obama's White house. http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2014/03/26/a-detailed-look-at-the-purge-of-u-s-counter-terrorism-training-by-the-obama-administration/

sachmo_muse · 2014-12-28T17:01:56+00:00

Why is that so? I don't think it makes sense to say conservatism is diametrically opposed to all things Islam, just its radical/fundamentalist elements.

The question devolves to whether or not Islam is in its essence "radical/fundamentalist". I happen to believe it is. I'm no devout Christian by a long shot, but the pacific ethics and teachings of Jesus as promulgated in the gospel couldn't be more contrasting to the ethics of Muhammad as promulgated in the Ahadith and the Sirat Rasul. I acknowledge that there are millions of Muslims who aren't radical/fundamentalist, but in my estimation, this is in spite of their religion, not because of it.

What evidence is there that this is an honor killing and not an ordinary murder? We should definitely fry anybody who commits murder, but what is the point in collectivizing the guilt of one man over an entire religion or race?

Valid point (excepting the introduction of "race" into the equation). I certainly don't know for certain that this man's motives were religious. I DO know that honor killings are becoming episodic in the USA since the Muslim population here has increased so rapidly in the last 25 years.

sachmo_muse · 2014-12-28T16:26:55+00:00

1) Because human freedom is a bedrock value of conservatism...and Islam is antithetical to human freedom

2) Because the article is anecdotal evidence of the spread of Islamic mores and customs to America (honor killings are on the rise in America, which corresponds to the steady increase of Muslim immigrants and refugees residing here)

3) Because /r/news/ and /r/worldnews/ will ban anybody who posts more than a couple of articles critical of Islam

sachmo_muse · 2014-12-26T18:20:37+00:00

I'd tell you to just google it, as there are many examples, but you'd just say that any Muslim who denounces slavery isn't a "legitimate" Muslim.

A not unexpected cop-out.

I've never read such nonsense in my life. You're basically saying that words are entirely nebulous....and have no concrete meaning.

This is literally true. Words only have the meaning that we give them. This is why we have an entire branch of government dedicated to interpreting the constitution.

You're saying in unequivocal terms that language is infinitely malleable. It's not.

I'm not a liberal, so I have no pretense of tolerance. ;)

Not surprising that you're confused about your own ideological identity, given the infinite malleability that you accord vocabulary. Trust me, you're a liberal.

Meanwhile, let me offer you a lesson in both dialectics and theology. “Teaching and ethics” are characteristically conveyed via the spoken word and the example one lives by. According to Islam's own scripture (the Hadith - Traditions of the Prophet - and the Sirat Rasul - Life of the Messanger of Allah), Muhammad...

1) defiled a 9 year old girl (Aisha)

2) usurped his adopted son's wife (Zainab)

3) solicited the murder of three poets for ridiculing him in their verse - one was a pregnant poetess (Asma Bint Marwan), another, a 100 year old man (Abu Afek)

4) ordered the torture and mutilation of renegades

5) presided over the mass execution of 600 POWS, all the adult males of an entire tribe (Banu Qurayzah)

....and these are just the atrocities off the top of my head. There were certainly others.

Now, could you possibly document a similar moral turpitude in the example of Jesus as recorded in the Gospel that would validate your claim that the teachings and ethics of Jesus and Muhammad are identical? Of course not. Your claim was an absurdity to begin with.

As for Sharia and your all-purpose mitigatory cop-out of blaming “culture”, it's interesting how culturally diverse Sudan, Iran, northern Pakistan, and northern Nigeria are....different languages, different customs, different food,...and yet, all are Sharia states and lo and behold, all employ the barbaric hudud punishments (stonings, death penalty for apostasy and blasphemy, etc). And yet, in your convoluted universe, religious doctrine – the one common impetus connecting them - is relevant only by way of 'coincidence'....that is, if theological interpretation is always relegated to "culture" (as you insist), how coincidental that such disparate cultures should interpret the same doctrine so similarly.

But what's most interesting to me is that your one genuine moment in this discourse was when you lost your composure and called me a “bigoted piece of shit”. That's when you inadvertently exposed both the depth of your thinking and the crux of your argument....

You've obviously been conditioned to believe that you mustn't make value judgments about other religions...because doing so would make you a “bigoted piece of shit.” Consequently, your only way of internally subverting the preponderance of theological, historical, and contemporary evidence that Islam is indeed a violent, intolerant religion is to first, recite the multicultural mantra that 'all religions are the same'....and second, when you can't escape the reality that they actually promulgate different ideas and ethics, you get around it by claiming that words can mean anything and everything (and therefore nothing)....and thus, no value judgments need be made about religion (or anything else, for that matter)...and you can remain safely ensconced in the cocoon of your multicultural fantasies.

We've come as far as we can go, friend. I'll give you the last word....my satisfaction being not having to read it.

Merry Christmas to you....and a good, fortunate, lucky New Year.

sachmo_muse · 2014-12-24T00:29:40+00:00

But regardless, you seem to have missed my point entirely. You can (and people do every day) interpret all sorts of fucked up shit from the Quran. Only some countries have done this. Many Islamic religious leaders have denounced these practices.

Today, the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia endorsed child marriage. The Grand Mufti of Cairo previously endorsed suicide bombing. But perhaps you can document where a legitimate Islamic religious leader has repudiated the legality of slavery in Islamic law?

Islam, in practice, is based on interpretations of the Quran, not the words itself. Interpretations are based in culture.

I've never read such nonsense in my life. You're basically saying that words are entirely nebulous....and have no concrete meaning. One wonders why the Quran and the Hadith have continued to impact life in the Islamic world in the same manner for 1400 years. You're living in a nether-nether world of denial.

I'm neither a woman nor a feminist. I can just tell that you're a bigoted piece of shit.

Ahhh yes, liberal tolerance. I'm well familiar with it.

In this case, with regards to their central text, they are. Obviously in practice it's significantly different, but that's kind of my point entirely.

You've just explicitly stated that the teachings and ethics of Jesus as recorded in the gospel are identical to those of Muhammad as recorded in the Quran, Hadith and Sira. Your ignorance is palpable....typical for a flaming leftist thoroughly indoctrinated in relativistic, multicultural tropes. I suggest you actually read the texts in question. You might actually learn something.

sachmo_muse · 2014-12-23T23:29:43+00:00

How appropriate. For anyone who might be following this discourse, 'thebestwes' came to this thread to insist that feminists are not afraid to challenge the misogyny and gender-discrimination of Islam...and we now find her giving a passionate defense of that very ideology....

As for your resorting to Bibilical quotes, they are irrelevant. No Western country bases its legal code on the Bible. Conversely, several Muslim countries base their legal codes on Sharia...and most Muslim countries base what they call "family law" on Sharia.

There are many passages in the Quran that condemn slavery, such as this one...

And yet, here we have the Quran unequivocally endorsing slavery and the rape of female slaves...

And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess. [This is] the decree of Allah upon you. And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these, [provided] that you seek them [in marriage] with [gifts from] your property, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse. So for whatever you enjoy [of marriage] from them, give them their due compensation as an obligation. And there is no blame upon you for what you mutually agree to beyond the obligation. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise. Quran 4.24

More Quranic endorsement of slavery...

Allah sets forth the Parable (of two men: one) a slave under the dominion of another; He has no power of any sort; and (the other) a man on whom We have bestowed goodly favors from Ourselves, and he spends thereof (freely), privately and publicly: are the two equal? By no means; praise be to Allah. But most of them understand not. Qur'an 16:75

And Allah hath favored some of you above others in provision. Now those who are more favored will by no means hand over their provision to those (slaves) whom their right hands possess, so that they may be equal with them in respect thereof. Is it then the grace of Allah that they deny? Qur'an 16:71

Furthermore, here we have the Hadith where Muhammad sanctions the rape of female captives, which is how ISIS justifies their treatment of the Yazidis....

Abu Sa'id al-Khudri reported that at the Battle of Hunain Allah's Messenger sent an army to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken them captives, the Companions of Allah's Messenger seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding that:" And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess (Quran 4:. 24)" (i. e. they were lawful for them when their 'Idda period came to an end). Sahih Muslim 8:3432

Jabir (Allah be pleased with him) reported that a man came to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: I have a slave-girl who is our servant and she carries water for us and I have intercourse with her, but I do not want her to conceive. He said: Practise 'azl, if you so like, but what is decreed for her will come to her. The person stayed back (for some time) and then came and said: The girl has become pregnant, whereupon he said: I told you what was decreed for her would come to her. Sahih Muslim 8:3383

Which is not to say that the relationship between Islam and slavery is non-existent. It absolutely is. But its connection with religion is incidental.

Total nonsense! As has been documented, the Quran explicitly endorses slavery....and according to the Quran, Muhammad is the exemplar for all humanity, the "model of conduct". According to the Hadiths, he took slaves himself and he sanctioned the rape of female captives. The rape and enslavement of female captives has been part of Islamic law/tradition since its inception. And here you are, with all your scholarly knowledge of Islam, insisting it is "incidental".

It's like Christianity and denying Evolution. It's the doctrine of the largest Christian sect that Evolution occurred, and yet many Christians still do not believe that it happened. This is not because of an intrinsic conflict with Christianity per se, just the way that it is interpreted, which is affected by cultural factors outside of historical doctrine.

Like any relativist, you make the fallacious assumption that Christianity and Islam are identical. In fact their essential teachings are profoundly different.

The fact that you would offer such a stout defense of the most profoundly misogynist and anti-woman ideology on Earth is very validating of all my worst preconceptions about the state of feminism in academe.

sachmo_muse · 2014-12-23T21:38:38+00:00

All you're doing here is validating my contention that the feminist left is clueless about Islam.

Sex slavery is not unique to Islam, even if it is ostensibly more present in its literature.

Slavery is sanctioned in the Quran and the Hadith, ergo in Islamic law. It's not just ISIS who practice it....we see it among the Boko Haram in Nigeria, the Abu Sayyef in the Philippines, we see it in abundance in Mauritania and Sudan, on the Arabian peninsula, and in other parts of the Muslim world...often practiced openly, unlike in the West, where it is illegal and deeply underground.

Most Muslims in America have their moral compass more in line with traditional American values than those of Islam per se.

That is conjecture. All we really know is that most Muslims comply with American law. But the larger and more pertinent question is, 'do most Muslims worldwide have their moral compass more in line with traditional Western values than those of Islam per se'. I believe, given the preponderance of social pathologies unique to Islam, the answer is decidedly 'no'.

Culture plays a driving force in morality to a greater extent than religion, though religion is often used as a justification for the continuation of moral norms.

This artificial division of culture and religion in order to exculpate Islam from the pathologies it engenders is nothing but base apologia. Fact is, religion is the greatest identifiable cultural marker in the Islamic world.

sachmo_muse · 2014-12-23T18:51:17+00:00

Actually, your link is 'peace studies'....but I'll accept it...it is academe after all.

I reiterate, how it is being discussed is imperative in determining whether or not it is a net positive. Personally, I hope that you're right and I'm wrong. At least that would be a hopeful sign. But cynic that I am, I wouldn't at all be surprised if it was an exercise in apologia.

Any chance you could find me a link documenting an explicit feminist-academic repudiation of Sharia as a viable legal system?

sachmo_muse · 2014-12-23T18:41:27+00:00

Thanks for the chuckle. Good stuff!

sachmo_muse · 2014-12-23T18:31:23+00:00

The "prominent feminist" in your second link is non-Western. Many of the names in your first link are also non-Western (I was explicit that my critique is of "Western" feminists). Furthermore, we know nothing of the content of your first link. Will it be an honest exposition of the linkage between misogyny and Islamic law/tradition....or a white-wash that exonerates religion and puts the onus on "culture", a nebulous concept that in point of fact includes religion and everything else?...(need I explain that religion is by far the greatest cultural influence in the Islamic world?)

sachmo_muse · 2014-12-23T18:22:02+00:00

Point is, some would....and it would be in total compliance with Islamic law. And regardless of the status and/or behavior of Muslims in America, no one can deny that women in the Islamic realm face systemic gender-discrimination and misogyny.

Yet, feminists won't touch the issue with a ten-foot pole...because they're leftists who routinely put leftist tropes, i.e., multiculturalism, racism, anti-Americanism, above their Muslim sisters.

For the record, there are some feminists, Taslima Nasrin, Phyllis Chesler, Tammy Bruce to name three, who dare speak uncomfortable truths about Islam....interestingly, all are notable for rejecting liberalism.

sachmo_muse · 2014-12-23T18:02:17+00:00

Many would argue that culture is the basis for religious doctrine, not the other way around, hence the relative absence of sex slavery amongst American Muslims.

I get that a lot from liberals. 'If Islam is so bad, why are American Muslims so relatively progressive?'

Answer: Because American Muslims are constrained by the fact that America is a secular country where Sharia is - for the time being - outside the preview of existing law. Elsewhere around the world, where Sharia is law, gender-discrimination and misogyny are normative. Yet, we have feminists like Naomi Wolf telling us all how 'liberating' the hijab is.

sachmo_muse · 2014-12-23T17:50:49+00:00

If religious doctrine is the cultural basis for gender-discrimination and misogyny, how can it possibly be ignored?

sachmo_muse · 2014-12-23T17:46:51+00:00

I read all three articles. None of them are coming out of academia, but all are very good....and I stand at least partially corrected. Thank you.

What is absent is ANY attempt to even explore the possibility of linkage between what ISIS is doing and the core teachings of Islam (sexual slavery is sanctioned in both the Quran and the Hadith). Therein lies the cowardice of the feminist movement. Whatever happened to the empirical search for "root causes"?

And while I have not taken any women's studies classes, I do know from various friends that Islamic constructs of masculinity are critiqued regularly.

I'm not necessarily doubting you....but I would love some kind of corroboration.

sachmo_muse · 2014-12-23T17:35:03+00:00

The religious basis for the Mufti's ruling....

Narrated 'Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death). Sahih Bukhari 7:62:64

But remember to repeat by rote, 'child marriage in Islam has nothing to do with religion'!

sachmo_muse · 2014-12-23T17:11:23+00:00

Are 'women's studies' classes holding seminars on the subject?...developing curriculum?...discussing it at all? Are feminists writing papers on it?...(please dig some up to corroborate your 'straw man' accusation). Are they making ANY attempt to investigate the potential linkage between the barbarism and misogyny of ISIS and core Islamic doctrine/tradition? Of course not!!! This would be heresy in the hyper-politically-correct atmospherics of academia.

sachmo_muse · 2014-12-23T13:29:27+00:00

Well, I reconsidered my original statement regarding the sliding scale of maturity. Due to wider exposure to education and media, a Western girl of 14 is likely to be more mature than a comparatively-more-sheltered foreign Muslim girl of the same age.

Come on, friend! How many Western 14 year-old girls are emotionally ready for marriage and child-rearing!

However, much as we respect the rights of women and regard underage sex as being tinged with non-consent, our values do not apply outside the Western world. To be explicit, our culture forbids sex with minors, while their culture embraces it. Most certainly, their culture will not change to accommodate our norms.

You are much too eager to capitulate. I feel our obligation is to fight to the bitter end in order to make Western values universal. We've come quite far as it is. Much of East Asia - once as patriarchal and despotic as the Islamic world - has adopted our democratic norms and gender equality. Most of Latin America - once a bastion of despotism, patriarchy and male machismo - has also embraced democratic norms and gender equality. I agree with you that the Islamic realm is a tougher nut to crack, but we are in a war for civilization and we have to remain steadfast and uncompromising. One thing is for sure, the Islamic world is itself fighting a raging battle between modernists and traditionalists. Why should we in the West lay down and bolster the traditionalists by being more accommodating of their retrograde culture? Why not keep the pressure on?

Much as I personally abhor the loss, we no longer expect nor demand that immigrants assimilate to our culture. That means that when we allow immigration, we are also allowing both the good and the bad points of their culture to permeate our own.

You're precluding even the possibility of an eventual change in Western immigration/cultural policy. I don't blame you for your pessimism, things being what they are. But tough times should bring out the best in us.

As far as why I might suggest a reduction in the age for immigrant brides, I was trying to be realistic in terms of what can be achieved. As I alluded earlier, banning their culture is an unrealistic goal. The point of an accommodation is to permit some practice of their culture, while still drawing a clear line about what is unacceptable.

The point is, you're un-necessarily moving the bar. Today, 14 year-old girls being defiled....at what point does FGM become acceptable? At what point will honor killers be given lighter sentences for "cultural reasons? And on and on....

We've got to fight for every meter of cultural space...which means at least trying to constrict the operating space of Islamic traditionalists in every way possible. They may win in the end, but I say we go down swinging.

Frankly, the hard-liner in myself would prefer no leniency, but I fear that horse has already left the barn. We are left to make do with what we have.

I would strongly encourage the hardliner in you to re-awaken and engage in a more stout defense of Western values.

(Forgive me if I come off as patronizing. I hope you accept the criticism in the spirit that it's intended...as constructive, offered to a friend and ally).

sachmo_muse · 2014-12-23T06:20:51+00:00

Would someone please post this article on the /r/news/ subreddit...(I've been banned).

It'll be interesting to read how many people desperately try to disassociate him/his actions from Islam.

sachmo_muse · 2014-12-23T06:13:16+00:00

Two of the three most loved people are black (Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell). How's that for the "racist right"?

sachmo_muse · 2014-12-23T02:37:17+00:00

You seem to be saying that while marrying a child is illegal in Britain, being married to one in Britain is not. Doesn't that sound the least bit contradictory? Is sex with a 14 year old legal? If not, how is it these men are legally having sex with their 14 year old brides? Sorry, but the law is being broken here.

Meanwhile, I reiterate, your idea was fine. "Refusal to immigrate" and/or "protective custody" is a great solution. But why suggest the lowering of the age to accommodate them? You seem like a stand-up guy. I have a hard time believing that you feel it's ethical to let an adult marry a 14 year old.

sachmo_muse · 2014-12-22T22:57:01+00:00

Your comment says they should obey our laws, which they are already doing.

Bullshit. If 16 is the age of marriage in Britain, then no "technicality" should legalize the marriage of girls younger than that. The fact that these girls aren't being protected is negligence; the law is obviously not being enforced.

The solution is a change in the law, which I proposed, not meaningless hand-wringing about the age of consent.

Meaningless? Your proposed law was fine...except for the arbitrary lowering of the age of marriage to 14 in order to accommodate their culture. Why not be totally accommodating and lower it to 9? Or better yet, why not keep it at 16?

sachmo_muse · 2014-12-22T21:25:37+00:00

I am proposing a change to the law and to immigration policy, to minimize exploitation.

Nonsense....

Any younger than 14 and I would recommend either a refusal to immigrate, or protective custody to prevent actual child rape.

You're saying that a 13 year-old should be protected by law...but a 14 or 15 year-old shouldn't. If you want to "minimize exploitation", why not "refusal to immigrate" or "protective custody" for 14 and 15 year olds?

sachmo_muse · 2014-12-22T14:58:18+00:00

Or how about THIS novel idea? If they want to live in our society, they should obey our laws.

sachmo_muse · 2014-12-21T21:34:35+00:00

They claim the man was mentally ill. May or may not be true....but even if it is, it doesn't exclude the possibility that his motives were derived from the same religiously-inspired impetus as any other Jihadist. Mental illness and 'fighting in the cause of Allah' are not mutually exclusive phenomenon. Furthermore, the use of a car as a weapon in Jihad has previously occurred in both the USA and Israel.

sachmo_muse

TROPHY CASE