Wednesday, September 13, 2006

Predicting Bad News for Either Islamo-fascists or Democrats

Why would this be bad news for Islamo-fascists: Democrat Could Be 1st Muslim Congressman?

“There are four things which are faasiq (corrupt) and may be killed at all times, whether one is in a state of ihraam [for Hajj and ‘Umrah] or not: kites, crows, mice/rats and mad dogs.” - Narrated by Muslim, 1198. source

In America, Islamo fascism is now faasiq. Its practitoners, supporters and enablers are vermin (fuwaysiqah). But in America we have had no significant Muslim speak out against extremism. Ibraim Hooper, spokesperson for CAIR, is a bureaucrat who has zero religious following in the Muslim community, nor does he have any political influence since he was never elected to office.

Islamic religious leaders of national stature are absent from a key discussion. Can we name even one? Here may finally come a congressman, Keith Ellison, who will have to speak for Islam. He will not be able to avoid doing so. As the the first African-American elected to federal office from Minnesota and the first Muslim to serve in Congress, the press will grant him national notoriety hanging on his every word. He may have more of a chance to reconcile and heal a growing rift within the Muslim community than Senator Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. (D) IL.

Three things may come of his office. If he harbors any support for Islamic terrorists, he will lose office and political career in two years. If he attempts to straddle the fence like Ibrahim Hooper has, he will further define the indecisveness of the Democrat party. If he speaks out against Islamic terrorists, of course, he will set a tone for Muslim citizens that has been missing and engender healthy debate.

Molten Eagle normally makes a policy of no comment upon political activities in other states. This one will have national significance, however. Good or bad, we need a guy like this (not to be construed as an endorsement of lawyers in any political office), in my opinion. You may disagree.

8 Comments:

At 13 September, 2006 19:37, Blogger Orange_Cross said...

"In America, Islamo fascism is now faasiq. Its practitoners, supporters and enablers are vermin (fuwaysiqah)."

Are you suggesting that Muslims who stand together in solidarity to practice their faith, and who take political action, not necessarily violent, to end tolerance of practices outside of their Sharia law should be executed at will? Or by "Islamo fascist" do you mean "murderers", and if you do mean murderers why not refer to them as murderers rather than bringing someone's religious preference into it.

Do you think any religious faith founded in the Old Testament tradition is tolerant of those who practice outside of the law? Or is it safe to refer to all of the Juedaeo-Christian-Muslim true believers as fascists; surely the anhillation of the unbelievers as espoused in the Book even suggests a lurking support for militant fascism among those who would claim such faith.

For people of the book, the rights of one's fellows to peacefully exist and seek their own ends is secondary to the command of their God.

 
At 13 September, 2006 22:20, Blogger Terror-Free said...

Islamofascist CAIR Doesn't Like the Term "Islamic Fascist": FNC video, 8/14/6 http://www.terrorfreeoil.org/videos/FN081406.php

CAIR Terrorist Apologist Blames Israel, FNC video, 8/12/6 http://www.terrorfreeoil.org/videos/BG081206-2.php

Free Patriotic Corner Banners: http://www.terrorfreeoil.org/cb/

 
At 14 September, 2006 15:05, Blogger Vigilis said...

Orange Cross, this is a nation of laws and due process. Currently, some of them are being ignored in my opinion, to salve the sensitivities of proto-Muslims you suggest we call "murderers" rather than Islamo fascists.

I suggest that the tide of political correctness that has been reluctant to offend the seditious and intolerant among us (those who would support or impose sharia law in America) will shift more quickly if Kieth Ellison is elected than not.

It is true under sharia law (as I have quoted) that corrupt vermin should be executed at will. Such a primitive legal code is anathema to the U.S. Constitution.

The proponents, supporters and enablers of sharia law in this country are neither welcomed nor will they be allowed to pursue their program of anonymous, political takeover without opposition the likes of which has not been seen since the early days of communism.

Do you object? If so, that is certainly your right.

Are you a proponent of sharia law to forceably replace America's constitution? That has never been your right, but you are welcomed to try peacefully as long as you do not expect continued anonymnity.

Speech explicitly inciting the forcible overthrow of the government remains punishable under the Smith Act. Speech favoring sharia law in America will be broadcast by our free press with attribution to the speaker(s). Secretive, political speech in mosques organized as not-for-profits has always been illegal, you see, just as it has been in churches and synagogues.

 
At 14 September, 2006 20:38, Blogger Orange_Cross said...

I suggest you refrain from demonizing a religious belief through its association with a spurious buzz phrase. I admit that I'm no fan of fascism, national socialism, Islam, or cargo cult law, but I am a fan of respecting an individual's pursuit of happyness, whatever course that may take in mutual respect with their fellows. Part of that respect for my fellow's pursuit of happyness is not to cast aspersion on their peaceful practices and decrease their sense of security for their life, liberty and freedom by making generalizations that unnecessarily associate a peaceful (or at least harmless) practice with something loathsome, abhorrent, and (in the case of "Islamo fascist") a government uniquely characteristic of a series of infamous European regimes now extinct.

Why not refer to the seditionist as a seditionist, why pander to fans of big brother, his thought police and double speak. A ship is a ship, a boat is a boat.

And since you expressed some respect for law, consider that you are free to foment hate for a relgious group through speech that marginalizes or slanders them by association. I would think that you could do better though, as someone who defended us from the hateful actions of our enemies.

P.S. I love John Frum

 
At 14 September, 2006 21:47, Blogger Vigilis said...

Orange cross, first you refer to these people: "...Muslims who stand together in solidarity to practice their faith, and who take political action, not necessarily violent, to end tolerance of practices outside of their Sharia law.."

That means: Muslims who take possibly violent action to end tolerance outside their Sharia law. Since the U.S. Constitution is outside Sharia law, you seem to be saying its alright for them to end tolerance of the laws of the land. You then suggest that I refrain from demonizing them? Should we just turn the Supreme Court over to proto-Islamists and their Sharia law?

Your suggestion is declined by those who respect America and its founding values. If you have not made yourself clear through some inadvertence, or if you think I have misinterpreted your intent, please try again. You seem to be a good fellow.

 
At 15 September, 2006 01:36, Blogger Orange_Cross said...

In one sense the phrase is redundant, in another pujorative. If you're looking for some shade of meaning inbetween, I think you underestimate the inflammatory impact of the word.

Its not the demons that you demonize, they already have that distinction, rather its the collateral damage that you do with the pujorative.

Perhaps I misunderstand you. What do you feel is the colloquial sense of "fascism" and what the historical sense, if its any different? How do you feel about Islam in general? Do you feel one should be dispassionate when exacting justice, or should emotion be involved?

From my sense of the colloquial meaning of "fascist" (intolerance for competing ideas) I followed that Islam is fascist, and the fascism of the group is characterized by various means and aspects to that end. I qualified the violent aspect because I believe its not a necessary part of my sense of what fascism means, in its colloquial sense, and it is what I feel is the most objectionable aspect of fascism. I continued my comment with the discrimination of that violent murderous aspect as the thing to be censured. The Constitution of the United States of America and the Koran are documents, I've read both (the latter in translation). I like the Constitution much better because its a much more pleasant read, empathic and subject to me rather than the converse.

If the majority of our people were proto-islamists and appointed, or elected, or somehow otherwise had finagled the clout to legally take control of the supreme court, I would be distressed and I'd try to change it. Its the American way.

As far as founding values go, they're dandy, but don't forget its aspect as a living thing that both inspires and responds to us, encouraging our progress and subject to our own new insights. There are risks involved with a growing changeable thing, and like a child that may need discipline it also needs freedom to explore and compassion for what it encounters in its expanding world.

 
At 16 September, 2006 01:31, Blogger Vigilis said...

Orange cross, here is the problem that makes hollow your entire argument that the term Islamo fascist is pejorative to Islam:

You claim "I'm no fan of fascism, national socialism, Islam, or cargo cult law,..." In other words, you are not Muslim. You are inferring therefore, that true Muslims object to the term as an insult to their peaceful religion, right?

Why is that hollow? Because while we hear that objection from Muslims we do not hear their outrage over the insult done to their religion by the murdering Al Qaeda terrorists. How can we possibly take serious these people if they do not renounce their terrorist offshoot loudly and clearly?

In my opinion, mainstream Americans no longer accept such hypocrisy from Muslims. Again, the tide of political correctness that has been reluctant to offend the seditious and intolerant among us (those who would support or impose sharia law in America) will shift more quickly if Kieth Ellison is elected than not.

 
At 16 September, 2006 03:42, Blogger Orange_Cross said...

I think the average Muslim would object to Islam being associated with fascism, because of the pejorative connotation of "fascism" and "fascist". You might consider the common usage of similar phrases such as "zionist jew" and "christian crusader" (in reference to US soldiers) that are used for propaganda purposes by pundits who oppose jews and the west in general. Admittedly "zionist" and "crusader" don't have the same punch that "fascist" does for me, but they all hint at violent exclusion and I believe in the context of alien cultures where they are used they may have that punch. In the end all three of those phrases only confuse the issues, the only light they shed is from the flame of ignorant, hateful passion that they ignite, hate that is the glorification of xenophobia.

Do I have to point you to Imam's that denounce terrorism and Al Qaeda? Personally I'm not familiar with many. I've written a letter and received a response from one prominant Muslim cleric in Lebanon (Sayyed Fadlullah), but I have not yet translated his response, though I do have a quote of his in reference to the attacks of sept 11th:
||"Those [who] committed the attacks yesterday were criminals twice over -- for hijacking planes and for killing their passengers as well as for targeting civil installations and thousands of innocent," Fadlallah said on Sept. 12. In a later interview with a Lebanese magazine, he accused Osama bin Laden of "profiteering from the oppression suffered in the Muslim world."|| source http://english.bayynat.org.lb/se_002/news/washingtonpost.htm
In the US the only institutional comments I'm familiar with are from CAIR (though I think I read that you don't believe they represent a significant number of American muslims (did it have something to do with their chariman not being elected) though I would lean towards them indeed having a significant connection to the American muslim community), who denounces Al Qaeda (they haven't responded yet to a letter I sent them several weeks ago questioning them about their stance on Sharia), and from Keith Ellison's website where he objects to terrorism (though I have not yet read any explicit comment on Al qada from him). Before the Minneapolis primary I talked with a twin cities friend of mine who told me he thought he was a very progressive candidate. Another friend who actually voted in the Minneapolis primary, didn't vote for Keith, but believes that any of the three dominant candidates would represent a peaceful stance (my friend favored the more moderate candidate, personally I favor at least one of Keith's more radical stances in his support for an immediate removal of troops from Iraq). I'll be visiting Minneapolis at the end of the month and I'm sure I'll get an earful of the various impressions people have of him. Perhaps it will become more clear to me how opposed and vocal he is about Al Qaeda methods and the climate of the muslim community in Minneapolis in general. I just moved away from Minnesota last year, but had lived there for some time and know that there is a diverse population including a large number of refugees from Sudan and Somalia who are muslim and making a gradual, probably painful transition into understanding the main stream and historical values of our enlightened humanist representative constitutional democracy. I did not frequent mosques, but my one good muslim friend Ismail from Somalia was happy to have the freedom that being an American now gave him, and it wasn't a happyness that stemmed from a desire to inflict harm on anyone or exclude anyone from representation in government but a happyness that he was not only safe and accepted but welcome to be friends with people of different beliefs.

We're a melting pot, we're not about terrorism, we're about respecting individual human rights and cooperating to keep people free. Our cause isn't helped by casting aspersion on a religion, it is helped by not tolerating the casting of aspersions on groups due to their faith, ethnicity, gender, age or race which are distinct from whatever violent criminal acts a person or cadre of criminals might engage in.

On the ligher side, did you ever get called a "boomer fag" or call one of your brothers that.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

| Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com