Seth,
The essay you cited in this article is excellent. I read it a few years ago. It still holds up!

The term "radical Islam" is a Western invention--a very dangerous one because it distracts so many people from seeing the truth. There is no reconciliation or compromise with Islam. Muslims don't compromise--they subjugate and kill any who are not Muslims.

Addendum...
Islam divides all the world into two groups--Muslims and the rest. Talk about a my-way-or-the-highway ideology!

AOW --

Exactly.

I wonder how far tragedy and disaster will have to go before everybody in the west realizes the extent of the danger posed by Islam.

Before our media, politicians and most of the public understand that our lives and freedom are threatened in a way that nobody in America in this century has had to concern themselves with, other than certain immigrants who arrived here with memories of true, profound horror and numbers tattooed on their arms, I truly believe we will have to experience more Islam in action...

Seth,
Regarding the antithapy between Hebrew/Muslim,
I thought I read somewhere that when Mohammad started out, he admired the local Jewish religion and even went to Jerusalem (thought the Muslims should pray towards that venerable old city five times a day) but that there was a falling out. He was apparently aware of Christian thought also and picked up some ideas there? From my perspective, many religions evolve as "early fathers" add and interpet, and
I would suppose the same true of Islam. There is no doubt of Mohammad's militancy early on, however: elsewhere I read that the Koran is the least changed of any 'holy book' through the years and that it has to be read in Arabic for
'proper' understanding. I agree with your point that most of us, including 'experts', fail to fully understand the religion and people who follow it. Our culture has taught us to respect
the religion of others, which may lead to the confusion of our response.

BB --

Islam began in the Old Testament, then branched off.

It would be nice to be able to respect Islam as I respect Christianity, Buddhism or Hindi -- unfortunately, Islam wants to deprive us of our freedom or our lives, our choice.

It is an enemy of every other element of civilization, like a rabid dog in the neighborhood.

Exceptional Post! Thank you for the mention.

I started reading Fallaci's The Force of Reason and in the first chapter she gives a brief history of Islam's attempt to conquer the West beginning in the 7th century. Now I've read about the atrocities committed by Nazis during the Holocaust, the Japanese in Nanking, Stalin's gulags... but all those horrors pale in comparison to what the Muslims did in Europe.



Beheadings, flayings, impalings, rapes, paedophila, massacres, throat slittings...

In 1571,when the Ottomans, under General Mustafa, conquered Cyprus and the Venetian Senator Marcantonio Bragadino went forth to discuss peace terms after signing a surrender, Mustafa had him unhorsed, cut off his nose and ears, was made to walk around town several times dragging bags of rubbish and licking the ground every time he passed Mustafa, then finally flayed alive. After he died he was stuffed with straw and made into a puppet, where his corpse was placed astride a cow and displayed everywhere in town. Lastly he was hoisted atop a mainmast of the Turkish general's flagship.



Such is the viciousness of the enemy we face.

'Such is the viciousness of the enemy we face.'
or mayhaps the hobbies of that era..some few years later we learn:
In 1599 in Bavaria, Germany, a convicted witch by the name of Anna Pappenheimer, after already being mercilessly tortured in prison, was taken into the public square where her flesh was peeled off with red-hot pincers, after which her breasts sawed off. But her tormentors were not through. The bloody severed breasts were forced into the mouths of her two sons, in a perverse parody by her Christian torturers of breast feeding the boys, who were later burned alive along with their mother. In the crowd, Anna’s ten year old son was made to watch all this horror. The next day, he too was burned alive beneath the cross of the Lord Jesus.
-humanity, what have we learned?

Mustang --

Thank you!

Atheling2 --

That has always been the way of Islam. It is a religion whose enforcers seem to exult in gratuitous violence and cruelty for the sake of gratuitous violence and cruelty.

The fact that they do as they do and then become enraged to the point of accellerating the violence when anyone points it out indicates what could only be described as serious collective psychological issues.

BB --

Most notable is the century involved. Most of the world has evolved (matured?) since then and long since left the mindless barbarism behind.

Islam, however, has not and steadfastly refuses to thusly evolve -- it has never left the 7th Century. Note the beheadings and torture-for-amusement in which they still indulge, the signs they carry in their demonstrations and the white hot rage they express at the most minute perceived "insult" to their religion.

One would not expect to see a modern repetition of the Pappenheimer incident at the hands of modern day Germans, but the same could not be said for modern day Muslims.

If Islam had its way, and I say this as a Jew whose family, only one generation removed, lost and suffered much in 1930s Europe, even the atrocities of the Nazis would pale to insignificance in the face of what Muslims would do to the rest of civilization in the name of the satanic death cult they inaccurately refer to as a religion.

Hello.
What do you think about american president?

its interesting.
tell me please.

BB:

I guess Mustang told you.

OOOps, sorry, I meant Seth!

Yes, the barbarism if Islam has not changed since the 7th century. Western man, however, has changed, with a few notable periods, which I indicated.

Hmmmm, looks like troll droppings from Ms. Katuha.

Atheling2 --

Ms. Katuha's nic leads to MSN's homepage, but there's an email addy for her in the comment notification in my blogmail.

So in the event that she's serious about an answer:

Ms. Katuha --

While I'm not overjoyed about his stance on immigration, his deference to terrorist factories like Saudi Arabia, his role in the recent Lebanon "ceasefire" nor his insistence that Iran can be reasoned with, I believe he is the right President for this time frame, certainly exponentially better than Jacques Kerry or Algore would have been, to say nothing of more "real", and he is easily the second best U.S. President in my 51 years on this planet, the first having been Ronald Reagan.

Had Gore been elected in 2000 or Kerry in 2004, either one of them would have gone the way England is going, bending over backwards to the point of sacrificing national pride and identity in order to appease Islamofascism. Muslims see this as a sign of weakness and it emboldens them to demand further acquiescence rather than show the gratitude civilized people would have demonstrated.

Kerry would have pulled our troops out of Iraq, leaving the same kind of misery behind that we left in South Vietnam (when liberals learned that it is possible to sabotage a war effort from here at home) by abandoning the people there before our job was finished, and also enabling another Taliban type government to enslave the Iraqi people. As we will undoubtedly see, this appeasement will bring great tragedy to the Brits.

Seth,
Apologies for the sanguine atrocity post; that period of history, unfortunately, is rife with them. My point was simply that the major religions of the period were extremely intolerant and indeed Christianity today teaches
peace and charity. Regarding Islamic fundamentalist terrorists, it must be noted that on occasion, they release hostages, most recently two Fox journalists and the CS Monitor
reporter. (and as you noted previously, the Iran group of the Carter era) we guess that either some terrorists lack fervor and exhibit
human traits, or more cynically, the benefits of release outweigh those of murder? As far as the
Nazi atrocities paling, let's hope not. The Nazis were modern nonreligious zealots of hate, which makes their crimes the more heinous. Some
terror groups may aspire, but they pale in comparison to the organized efficiency of the Himmlers, Heydrichs, Eichmanns and their fellow butchers.

BB, regarding your last comment, regarding the Fox reporters, in order to gain release they were forcibly converted to Islam, then of course the terrorists released their fellow Muslims, in the process highlighting to us all in the infidel west the "3 choices" outlined early in the post (conversion, death, or possibly dhimmitude). This action aggravates, not mitigates their behavior in my view.

Also, as I commented in another post, Islam regards such forced conversions as legitimate, which means if the reporters repudiate their conversions, they are adjudged apostates and subject to fatwa and death. In this case, the release was part of cynical cost/benefit analysis. (BTW - I think you meant "sanguinary" not "sanguine" -- similar origins, very different meanings.)

As far as your earlier comment, Muhammed did at first befriend the Jews, but I understand that when the Jews rejected his prohetic claims, he turned against them. There may have been other more political reasons for his change of attitude, but I'm not familiar enough with history to address those. Muhammed's interactions with Christianity are complicated too, but my limited understanding is that the "Christians" he encountered in his backwater domain were rather ill-informed of/seriously misunderstood Christian teachings.

Your comments about the Koran being "least changed" are rather vague, but certainly looking at changes from Muhammed's era forward, the Jewish and Christian Scriptures are at least comparably unchanged compared with the Koran.

Also, you somewhat misunderstand the Muslim position on the Koran: the statement that the Koran must be read in Arabic for "proper" understanding is not the usual argument that translations always sacrifice some element of "accuracy" -- rather, Islam argues the Arabic is the language of heaven itself and that therefore only those who know Arabic can properly understand and interpret the Koran. This historically has led to conflict between Arabic-speaking and non-Arabic speaking believers, as the latter tend to be relegated to second-class status as they cannot authoritatively expound on the meaning of the Koran

This also places another obstacle in the path of dialog between Muslims and non-Arabic speaking unbelievers as the latter would not allowed standing to discuss the Koran and its teaching. Here's one recent statement expressive of that attitude which CNN reported from a rally in Palestine protesting the Pope's speech regarding Islam.

"Of course as we know the meaning of jihad can only be understood by Muslims," Budianto told the crowd. "Only Muslims can understand what jihad is. It is impossible that jihad can be linked with violence, we Muslims have no violent character."

BB --

That last quote in Civil Truth's comment alone should be enough to alarm anybody.

Muslims think on a different plane than we do -- some things you and I condemn as truly evil and barbaric are perfectly acceptable to them, "Allah said do this, so I'm doing divine work".

Civil Truth --

That was very well said.

I was having problems with my wireless network earlier, had written a response to BB's last comment -- then lost it and had to reboot the system.

Your thought about the two reporters was identical to my own. I had said I wondered if they realized they'd be in danger if they reneged on the "conversion", adding also that Islam isn't about love of G-d, it's about submission to Him, as its name suggests.

I also want to add that the atrocities committed by the Muslim conquerers during the Middle Ages were to those who refused to convert. I have an inkling that the European of the 16th century was more fervent in his Christian belief than they are now. Those who did convert (and not many did) were spared.

Nothing has changed with Islam:

1. Convert

2. Be killed

3. Live in Dhimmitude.

Atheling2 --

I cannot see how this concept does not register on even the most "liberal" minded.

Despite all that's happening today, liberals seem to think that the Islamofascists are only playing.