1MAN4ALL seems incapable of logical thought (was Lee Malvo, Muslim hatemonger)
Susan Doe
seems to help.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Phaedrine Stonebridge <phaedrine_...@spamenot.yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<phaedrine_stonebridge...@news-50.ash.giganews.com>...
> <http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/mm20031210.shtml>
>
> Lee Malvo, Muslim hatemonger
> Michelle Malkin (archive)
>
> December 10, 2003
> From the moment John Allen Muhammad and Lee Malvo were arrested in the
> Beltway-area sniper case last fall, the media and Muslim activists
> wanted us to believe that the serial killings had absolutely nothing to
> do with Islamic terrorism.
Stupid article by hatemonger Michelle Malkin. One of the victims of
the sniper who was shot in the abdomen but survived was a Muslim,
Muhammad Rashid.
*************************************
The first thing that is amazing about this post is that 1MAN4ALL seems
incapable of comprehending that the point of the article would still
be valid **if there were no article at all**. The drawings of Malvo
speak for themselves -- he just felt he was being a good Muslim.
Malkin's comments are obvious. 1MAN4ALL calls the article "stupid"
without saying why -- that is, of course, because there is no "why".
The second flaw in 1MAN4ALL's thinking is his contention that a Muslim
victim proves a non-religious motivation for the shootings. The
obvious fact is that the snipers had **no clue** at whom they were
firing -- they simply assumed that the law of averages favored their
random victims being Christian or Jewish. Facial characteristics as
seen through a telescopic rifle sight are normally insufficient to
identify a person's religion. This is besides the fact that so much
religiously motivated Muslim terrorism claims Muslim lives.
Is 1MAN4ALL always this silly?
Phaedrine Stonebridge
Susan...@hotmail.com (Susan Doe) wrote:
Yes Susan, absolutely... he is. Excellent analysis.
.
Abdiel
(in message <71e3076e.03121...@posting.google.com>):
He does say why, he's just wrong about it--that Lee Malvo injured a
Muslim doesn't preclude Malvo being a Muslim. But there is a real
"why": Lee Malvo isn't a Muslim because he belongs to a sect that calls
itself a Muslim organization but isn't, in any sense of the word. The
Five Percenters believe a great many things that are in direct
contradiction to fundamental elements of Islam, perhaps the most
important being that Islam is a religion--Five Percenters believe it to
be a system of what they call Supreme Mathematics, whatever that means.
And that's why (or at least one of the reasons why) Malkin's article
is stupid.
--A
Phaedrine Stonebridge
Abdiel <abdi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Let me ask you this--- do you deny that they committed their crimes for
religious reasons?
Abdiel
(in message
<phaedrine_stonebridge...@news-50.giganews.com>):
Perhaps, but all we've got to go on here is Malvo's confused ramblings,
which include references to Five Percenters schematics, an eerie
obsession with The Matrix, radical Rastafarianism, spatterings of
violent hip hop imagery, and other sundry. It's certainly possible
that he's cobbled all of that together into some kind of spiritual
justification for his crimes, but none of it, save the sprawls of
Arabic terms the meanings of which he appears none too familiar,
resembles Islam.
--A
XpatriotgamesX
>Muslim hatemonger)
>From: Abdiel abdi...@hotmail.com
>Date: 12/13/2003 7:38 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <0001HW.BC011B2E...@news.telus.net>
Here's a link which highlights some five percenter beliefs. It's an offshoot of
NOI and has its roots in the prison system. It appears to be akin to a black
supremacist (KKK) movement.
Susan Doe
I daresay you seem just about as rational as 1MAN4ALL. First of all,
that Malvo injured a Muslim is a (wrong) reason for Malkin's article
to be wrong, not stupid. Second, 1MAN4ALL's point is not that a Muslim
victim precludes Malvo from being Muslim, it is that it precludes
Malvo from using Islam as justification for the shootings. Of course,
he is wrong on either count.
>But there is a real
> "why": Lee Malvo isn't a Muslim because he belongs to a sect that calls
> itself a Muslim organization but isn't, in any sense of the word. The
> Five Percenters believe a great many things that are in direct
> contradiction to fundamental elements of Islam, perhaps the most
> important being that Islam is a religion--Five Percenters believe it to
> be a system of what they call Supreme Mathematics, whatever that means.
> And that's why (or at least one of the reasons why) Malkin's article
> is stupid.
Again, quite a silly conclusion based on "defend the faith at all
costs, even logic". Malvo can be of a sect which believes up is down
-- it is irrelevant, because the thing which motivated him, as clearly
evidenced by his drawings, is the uniquely Muslim tradition of jihad
and all that attends it (anti-Semitism, hatred of the "West", etc.).
He pulled the trigger because he felt that made him a good Muslim just
like bin Laden and all the others. What you or any other
self-righteous Muslim may think as to his Muslim "validity" is
absolutely irrelevant -- the simple fact is that if there were no
Islam, there would have been no shootings.
> --A
Susan Doe
Like the monkey with his hands over his eyes, you see no evil. From
the "stupid" article:
Exhibit 65-043: Father and son portrait of Malvo and Muhammad. "We
will
kill them all. Jihad."
Exhibit 65-056: A self-portrait of Malvo as sniper, lying in wait,
with
his rifle. "JIHAD" written in bold letters.
Exhibit 65-057: A drawing of the Twin Towers burning with a plane
flying
toward the buildings. Captions: "JIHAD ISLAM UNITE RISE!" along with
"America did this" and "You were warned." Portrait of Malvo as sniper
labeled "Believer" and portrait of Osama bin Laden labeled "prophet."
A
poem: "Our minarets are our bayonets, Our mosques are our baracks
(sic),
Our believers are our soldiers." The American flag and the Star of
David
drawn in cross hairs.
Only three of the exhibits proving that not the Matrix, not Rastis,
but jihad is why the shootings happened. Is it "your" Islam, "your"
jihad? Perhaps not. Who cares? Jihad is a concept which does not exist
outside of Islam. Therefore, no Islam, no shootings. Simple, except to
Muslims defending the faith.
A footnote: I must say, were I a lawyer, I would find this dialogue
enlightening. I would certainly think very long before allowing any
Muslim, no matter how seemingly educated, onto a jury in any case
remotely related to Islam. It is amazing to me how someone such as
yourself can be so blind. Actually, I find it not only amazing, but
also very chilling in its implications.
Bob Cooper
"Susan Doe" <Susan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:71e3076e.03121...@posting.google.com...
::standing applause:: Bravo, Susan!
Abdiel
(in message <71e3076e.03121...@posting.google.com>):
Wow. An Arabic word. That's impressive.
> Exhibit 65-056: A self-portrait of Malvo as sniper, lying in wait,
> with
> his rifle. "JIHAD" written in bold letters.
>
There's that Arabic word again. I wonder if Malvo knows what it means?
I wonder if *you* know what it means...
> Exhibit 65-057: A drawing of the Twin Towers burning with a plane
> flying
> toward the buildings. Captions: "JIHAD ISLAM UNITE RISE!" along with
> "America did this" and "You were warned." Portrait of Malvo as sniper
> labeled "Believer" and portrait of Osama bin Laden labeled "prophet."
> A
> poem: "Our minarets are our bayonets, Our mosques are our baracks
> (sic),
> Our believers are our soldiers." The American flag and the Star of
> David
> drawn in cross hairs.
>
Malvo may be a "believer" in something, but it's not Islam, and
immediately above, we can see in part why: bin Laden is labeled a
prophet. This is antithetical to Islam. Not just my Islam, any Islam.
> Only three of the exhibits proving that not the Matrix, not Rastis,
> but jihad is why the shootings happened. Is it "your" Islam, "your"
> jihad? Perhaps not. Who cares?
Actual Muslims care. What Malvo and Muhammad ascribe to--the 'faith'
of the Five Percenters--doesn't resemble in the slightest any form of
Islam. For starters:
1) Every man (that's man, not person) is a god,
2) Islam isn't a religion,
3) Allah is an acronym for Arm, Leg, Leg, Arm, Head,
4) Allah is an incarnation of the original black man,
4) Sprituality of any form is available only to black people.
> Jihad is a concept which does not exist
> outside of Islam. Therefore, no Islam, no shootings. Simple, except to
> Muslims defending the faith.
The concept of Jihad--struggle for God and for faith--exists in many
religions and cultures other than Islam, it's just not expressed in
Arabic there. I've no doubt that Malvo truly understands what Jihad
is...but then, I've got little doubt that you truly understand what
Jihad is.
> A footnote: I must say, were I a lawyer, I would find this dialogue
> enlightening. I would certainly think very long before allowing any
> Muslim, no matter how seemingly educated, onto a jury in any case
> remotely related to Islam. It is amazing to me how someone such as
> yourself can be so blind. Actually, I find it not only amazing, but
> also very chilling in its implications.
>
Why? Do you think I'd let Malvo off? I wouldn't. I also wouldn't see
the monsters in the closet that Malkin's trying to put there.
Abdiel
(in message <71e3076e.0312...@posting.google.com>):
No, it's a wrong reason for Malkin's article to be stupid. The
wrong-ness of the article is implied by its stupidity. Have any more
nits you'd care to pick?
> Second, 1MAN4ALL's point is not that a Muslim
> victim precludes Malvo from being Muslim, it is that it precludes
> Malvo from using Islam as justification for the shootings.
How do you know that?
> Of course,
> he is wrong on either count.
>
Agreed on that.
>> But there is a real
>> "why": Lee Malvo isn't a Muslim because he belongs to a sect that calls
>> itself a Muslim organization but isn't, in any sense of the word. The
>> Five Percenters believe a great many things that are in direct
>> contradiction to fundamental elements of Islam, perhaps the most
>> important being that Islam is a religion--Five Percenters believe it to
>> be a system of what they call Supreme Mathematics, whatever that means.
>> And that's why (or at least one of the reasons why) Malkin's article
>> is stupid.
>
> Again, quite a silly conclusion based on "defend the faith at all
> costs, even logic". Malvo can be of a sect which believes up is down
> -- it is irrelevant, because the thing which motivated him, as clearly
> evidenced by his drawings, is the uniquely Muslim tradition of jihad
> and all that attends it (anti-Semitism, hatred of the "West", etc.).
There is nothing uniquely Muslim about the concept of Jihad. The only
thing that's unique is its expression as an Arabic word. Jihad isn't
attended by anti-Semitism and hatred of the West--the only thing that
attends Jihad is struggle in the service of Allah (swt). Regrettably,
certain Muslims have indicated that anti-Semitism and hatred of the
West constitute justifiable service, but they're no more right than is
Wesley Swift in his struggle for Christ. These particular Five
Percenters compound this confusion about Jihad with a confused notion
of what Allah (swt) is: for them, Allah is the primordial black man of
which each of them aspire to be a part. Witness this in the notes left
behind at some of the shootings: "I am God." This notion transcends
being merely antithetical and into the world of blasphemy--in Islam
(not just my Islam), Allah (swt) is incomparable. In fact, the
god-myth that the Five Percenters have created doesn't even pretend to
be the Allah (swt) of mainstream Islam, denoucing the latter as a spook
or fairy-tale that non-Blacks have tricked the world into worshipping.
> He pulled the trigger because he felt that made him a good Muslim just
> like bin Laden and all the others. What you or any other
> self-righteous Muslim may think as to his Muslim "validity" is
> absolutely irrelevant --
It might be irrelevant if what Malvo practiced even remotely resembles
Islam, but it doesn't.
> the simple fact is that if there were no
> Islam, there would have been no shootings.
The problem with creating such sweeping hypotheticals is that you can't
prove them.
--A
Phaedrine Stonebridge
Abdiel <abdi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Is that a yes or a no?
Phaedrine Stonebridge
"Bob Cooper" <rcoo...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> > Only three of the exhibits proving that not the Matrix, not Rastis,
> > but jihad is why the shootings happened. Is it "your" Islam, "your"
> > jihad? Perhaps not. Who cares? Jihad is a concept which does not exist
> > outside of Islam. Therefore, no Islam, no shootings. Simple, except to
> > Muslims defending the faith.
> >
> > A footnote: I must say, were I a lawyer, I would find this dialogue
> > enlightening. I would certainly think very long before allowing any
> > Muslim, no matter how seemingly educated, onto a jury in any case
> > remotely related to Islam. It is amazing to me how someone such as
> > yourself can be so blind. Actually, I find it not only amazing, but
> > also very chilling in its implications.
>
> ........::standing applause:: Bravo, Susan!
>
Indeed a most thoughtful and excellent response. :)
Abdiel
(in message
<phaedrine_stonebridge...@news-50.giganews.com>):
To put it in more simpler terms, it's a yes--I deny that they committed
their crimes for religious reasons. So would Malvo and Muhammad. The
Five Percenters don't believe what they practice is a religion.
--A
Bob Cooper
Why did he change his name to John MUHAMMAD, instead of,
say, Cuthbert J. Twillie?
Abdiel
(in message <ZS3Db.7173$WQ3.4994@lakeread05>):
Because he's a member of the Five Percenters, and was supposedly a
one-time member of the Nation of Islam, having served as Louis
Farrakhan's bodyguard at the Million Man March (or so some sources
say). Although most of their beliefs are rather secretive to
non-members, they may have kept the same requirements for name change
that the NOI do--namely, that one must abandon one's slave name and
become <<someone>> X for a time, then receive their true Black name:
Cassius Clay became Cassius X, then Muhammad Ali; Malcolm Little became
Malcomn X; etc. The founder of the Five Percenters was a fellow named
Clarence 13X. That he changes his last name is a particular departure
from conventional Islamic conversion--converts, if they change their
names at all, will change their *first* name, not their last, because
changing one's last name is disrespectful to one's parents.
--A
Phaedrine Stonebridge
Abdiel <abdi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ....... it's a yes--I deny that they committed
> their crimes for religious reasons. So would Malvo and Muhammad. The
> Five Percenters don't believe what they practice is a religion.
Can you document that?
Phaedrine Stonebridge
Abdiel <abdi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Sounds like a LOT of weaseling on your part Abdiel.
Abdiel
(in message
<phaedrine_stonebridge...@news-50.giganews.com>):
Yes. From XPatriotgamesX in this thread:
<<http://www.apologeticsindex.org/f14.html>>
--A
Abdiel
(in message
<phaedrine_stonebridge...@news-50.giganews.com>):
How so?
--A
Susan Doe
"Felafel" is a word. Jihad is more than a word. It's a concept which
means to millions of Muslims that they are not only authorized, they
are required by Allah to kill those who they believe are, either
directly or much more often simply by association, oppressing Muslims
(for example, all of those people in the WTC). The utter irrelevance
of the fact that this may not be what "jihad" means to you is
something you seem oddly incapable of grasping. It is possible that
National Socialism was a very benevolent ideology. Ideas are subject
to interpretation, therefore it is the interpretation that is
important, not the idea. You may interpret jihad to be a beautiful
concept, but I don't care about that because your interpretation does
not affect me. Bin Laden's and Malvo's does.
>
> > Exhibit 65-056: A self-portrait of Malvo as sniper, lying in wait,
> > with
> > his rifle. "JIHAD" written in bold letters.
> >
>
> There's that Arabic word again. I wonder if Malvo knows what it means?
> I wonder if *you* know what it means...
I do not care what it means. I only care what it means to bin Ladens
and Malvos. It has no effect on my life except as realized by them.
>
> > Exhibit 65-057: A drawing of the Twin Towers burning with a plane
> > flying
> > toward the buildings. Captions: "JIHAD ISLAM UNITE RISE!" along with
> > "America did this" and "You were warned." Portrait of Malvo as sniper
> > labeled "Believer" and portrait of Osama bin Laden labeled "prophet."
> > A
> > poem: "Our minarets are our bayonets, Our mosques are our baracks
> > (sic),
> > Our believers are our soldiers." The American flag and the Star of
> > David
> > drawn in cross hairs.
> >
>
> Malvo may be a "believer" in something, but it's not Islam, and
> immediately above, we can see in part why: bin Laden is labeled a
> prophet. This is antithetical to Islam. Not just my Islam, any Islam.
Everyone's got his Islam. Bin Laden, Malvo, you. Maybe he was mistaken
about bin Laden, maybe he meant "prophet" in the generalized,
non-religious way, again, who cares, it's a technicality. The mosques
are your barracks. How true this is, from Islam's very beginning. You
want so very badly to discredit Malvo's Islam only because you are
desperate to distance yourself from him. That is purely selfish. Your
selfishness has polluted your objectivity. It is clear to any
objective person viewing the drawings that the sole inspiration for
the shootings was Islam, his, yours, or others'. No Islam, no
shootings.
>
> > Only three of the exhibits proving that not the Matrix, not Rastis,
> > but jihad is why the shootings happened. Is it "your" Islam, "your"
> > jihad? Perhaps not. Who cares?
>
> Actual Muslims care.
They had better care. The world will not tolerate an unlimited number
of Malvos.
What Malvo and Muhammad ascribe to--the 'faith'
> of the Five Percenters--doesn't resemble in the slightest any form of
> Islam. For starters:
> 1) Every man (that's man, not person) is a god,
> 2) Islam isn't a religion,
> 3) Allah is an acronym for Arm, Leg, Leg, Arm, Head,
> 4) Allah is an incarnation of the original black man,
> 4) Sprituality of any form is available only to black people.
As I said, words can be interpreted. How a book such as the Koran,
written by an omnipotent God, could have been so "misinterpreted"
through the centuries is of course another subject.
> > Jihad is a concept which does not exist
> > outside of Islam. Therefore, no Islam, no shootings. Simple, except to
> > Muslims defending the faith.
>
> The concept of Jihad--struggle for God and for faith--exists in many
> religions and cultures other than Islam, it's just not expressed in
> Arabic there. I've no doubt that Malvo truly understands what Jihad
> is...but then, I've got little doubt that you truly understand what
> Jihad is.
For what I hope is the final time, millions of Muslims feel that jihad
is a requirement to kill those who, directly or by association, are
perceived as oppressing Muslims. The passages in the Koran which
support this are legion. My understanding of the concept is
irrelevant. On the other hand, my understanding of what it means to be
a true Muslim is very important, and that understanding comes from the
actions of bin Laden, Malvo, and countless others, actions which are
clearly demanded by the Koran.
>
> > A footnote: I must say, were I a lawyer, I would find this dialogue
> > enlightening. I would certainly think very long before allowing any
> > Muslim, no matter how seemingly educated, onto a jury in any case
> > remotely related to Islam. It is amazing to me how someone such as
> > yourself can be so blind. Actually, I find it not only amazing, but
> > also very chilling in its implications.
> >
>
> Why? Do you think I'd let Malvo off? I wouldn't.
If you read my paragraph again, you will see that I was not speaking
of the Malvo case, but of any case involving Islam. The evidence of
your lack of objectivity where Islam is concerned is that you are
incapable of recognizing the obvious motive in the Malvo case due to
your primary and overwhelming desire to redeem and protect Islam. This
desire renders you incapable of rational thought where Islam is
concerned.
>I also wouldn't see
> the monsters in the closet that Malkin's trying to put there.
As I said previously, Malkin's comments are unnecessary -- the
drawings speak for themselves. Malkin's observations are elemantary to
any but those buried beneath their own motives.
Susan Doe
Perhaps the difference between stupidity and incorrectness for you is
a nit. It is not a nit for me. I think you are incorrect in this
thread, but I do not think you are stupid.
>
> > Second, 1MAN4ALL's point is not that a Muslim
> > victim precludes Malvo from being Muslim, it is that it precludes
> > Malvo from using Islam as justification for the shootings.
>
> How do you know that?
Elementary. Muslims kill Muslims all the time, just like Christians
kill Christians and Jews kill Jews. Passion and robbery are some
common motives, honor killing and revenge are perhaps more Muslim in
flavor. Since this fact is common knowledge, one must presume that
1MAN4ALL knows that killing a Muslim does not preclude one from being
Muslim. Thus, it cannot be the Muslim-ness of Malvo that is at issue
here, but rather his motive.
> > Of course,
> > he is wrong on either count.
> >
>
> Agreed on that.
>
> >> But there is a real
> >> "why": Lee Malvo isn't a Muslim because he belongs to a sect that calls
> >> itself a Muslim organization but isn't, in any sense of the word. The
> >> Five Percenters believe a great many things that are in direct
> >> contradiction to fundamental elements of Islam, perhaps the most
> >> important being that Islam is a religion--Five Percenters believe it to
> >> be a system of what they call Supreme Mathematics, whatever that means.
> >> And that's why (or at least one of the reasons why) Malkin's article
> >> is stupid.
> >
> > Again, quite a silly conclusion based on "defend the faith at all
> > costs, even logic". Malvo can be of a sect which believes up is down
> > -- it is irrelevant, because the thing which motivated him, as clearly
> > evidenced by his drawings, is the uniquely Muslim tradition of jihad
> > and all that attends it (anti-Semitism, hatred of the "West", etc.).
>
> There is nothing uniquely Muslim about the concept of Jihad. The only
> thing that's unique is its expression as an Arabic word.
I see. So should I understand you to believe that other religions
besides Islam incite their followers to violence and killing in a
jihad-like manner? Please detail, and for the love of God please limit
your examples to this century.
>Jihad isn't
> attended by anti-Semitism and hatred of the West--the only thing that
> attends Jihad is struggle in the service of Allah (swt).
>Regrettably,
> certain Muslims have indicated that anti-Semitism and hatred of the
> West constitute justifiable service, but they're no more right than is
> Wesley Swift in his struggle for Christ.
Right and wrong are irrelevant. Only action is relevant. Your jihad
does not affect me, bin Laden's does, so his is what I care about.
>These particular Five
> Percenters compound this confusion about Jihad with a confused notion
> of what Allah (swt) is: for them, Allah is the primordial black man of
> which each of them aspire to be a part. Witness this in the notes left
> behind at some of the shootings: "I am God." This notion transcends
> being merely antithetical and into the world of blasphemy--in Islam
> (not just my Islam), Allah (swt) is incomparable.
Perhaps you prefer bin Laden's non-blasphemous brand of jihad?
>In fact, the
> god-myth that the Five Percenters have created doesn't even pretend to
> be the Allah (swt) of mainstream Islam, denoucing the latter as a spook
> or fairy-tale that non-Blacks have tricked the world into worshipping.
All irrelvancies. Jihad does not exist without Islam, and Malvo does
not exist without jihad. Neither does bin Laden or millions, yes
millions of other good Muslims who perhaps haven't pulled the trigger,
but only because they don't have a gun.
> > He pulled the trigger because he felt that made him a good Muslim just
> > like bin Laden and all the others. What you or any other
> > self-righteous Muslim may think as to his Muslim "validity" is
> > absolutely irrelevant --
>
> It might be irrelevant if what Malvo practiced even remotely resembles
> Islam, but it doesn't.
This is the blanket that you wrap yourself up in. Rather than face the
reality that your "religion" has inspired countless people to utterly
horrid acts, you comfort yourself by saying bin Laden isn't a true
Muslim. Yes, he is. The Koran exhorts the reader to violence. The
Koran exhorts the reader to anti-Semitism. The Koran exhorts the
reader to misogyny. Bin Laden is a good Muslim, and anyone who is not
violent is not one. Any objective reader of the Koran will draw this
conclusion.
> > the simple fact is that if there were no
> > Islam, there would have been no shootings.
>
> The problem with creating such sweeping hypotheticals is that you can't
> prove them.
It is not up to me to prove them. It is up to the district attorney in
the case. It is only for you and those like you, blinded by their
overwhelming desire to protect Islam, that the obvious, direct
connection between Malvo's violence and Islam is hypothetical. The
fact is that the very meaning of the word "hypothetical" must come
into question when spoken by one who has managed to convince himself
beyond any doubt that the Koran is the words of God.
> --A
Phaedrine Stonebridge
Abdiel <abdi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
OIC. Then do you deny that they committed their crimes for Islamic
reasons?
Phaedrine Stonebridge
Abdiel <abdi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Because he's a member of the Five Percenters, and was supposedly a
> >> one-time member of the Nation of Islam, having served as Louis
> >> Farrakhan's bodyguard at the Million Man March (or so some sources
> >> say). Although most of their beliefs are rather secretive to
> >> non-members, they may have kept the same requirements for name change
> >> that the NOI do--namely, that one must abandon one's slave name and
> >> become <<someone>> X for a time, then receive their true Black name:
> >> Cassius Clay became Cassius X, then Muhammad Ali; Malcolm Little became
> >> Malcomn X; etc. The founder of the Five Percenters was a fellow named
> >> Clarence 13X. That he changes his last name is a particular departure
> >> from conventional Islamic conversion--converts, if they change their
> >> names at all, will change their *first* name, not their last, because
> >> changing one's last name is disrespectful to one's parents.
> >
> >
> > Sounds like a LOT of weaseling on your part Abdiel.
>
> How so?
Oh, I think Susan nailed this one quite well.
The Department of Defense
Yep she did.....
Abdiel
(in message
<phaedrine_stonebridge...@news-50.giganews.com>):
The one kinda implies the other--if they didn't commit their crimes for
religious reasons, and if we consider "religious" a supergroup of
"Islamic," then yes, I deny that they committed their crimes for
Islamic reasons.
--A
Abdiel
(in message <71e3076e.03121...@posting.google.com>):
But you don't know that--you're presuming it. You might do well to ask
1MAN4ALL what his point was rather than making this presumption--that'd
be quicker, and a bunch more accurate, don't you think?
>>> Of course,
>>> he is wrong on either count.
>>>
>>
>> Agreed on that.
>>
>>>> But there is a real
>>>> "why": Lee Malvo isn't a Muslim because he belongs to a sect that calls
>>>> itself a Muslim organization but isn't, in any sense of the word. The
>>>> Five Percenters believe a great many things that are in direct
>>>> contradiction to fundamental elements of Islam, perhaps the most
>>>> important being that Islam is a religion--Five Percenters believe it to
>>>> be a system of what they call Supreme Mathematics, whatever that means.
>>>> And that's why (or at least one of the reasons why) Malkin's article
>>>> is stupid.
>>>
>>> Again, quite a silly conclusion based on "defend the faith at all
>>> costs, even logic". Malvo can be of a sect which believes up is down
>>> -- it is irrelevant, because the thing which motivated him, as clearly
>>> evidenced by his drawings, is the uniquely Muslim tradition of jihad
>>> and all that attends it (anti-Semitism, hatred of the "West", etc.).
>>
>> There is nothing uniquely Muslim about the concept of Jihad. The only
>> thing that's unique is its expression as an Arabic word.
>
> I see. So should I understand you to believe that other religions
> besides Islam incite their followers to violence and killing in a
> jihad-like manner? Please detail, and for the love of God please limit
> your examples to this century.
>
Violence and killing don't equal Jihad in Islam any more than race
crimes equal struggle for Christ in Christianity. Your question is
loaded.
>> Jihad isn't
>> attended by anti-Semitism and hatred of the West--the only thing that
>> attends Jihad is struggle in the service of Allah (swt).
>> Regrettably,
>> certain Muslims have indicated that anti-Semitism and hatred of the
>> West constitute justifiable service, but they're no more right than is
>> Wesley Swift in his struggle for Christ.
>
> Right and wrong are irrelevant. Only action is relevant. Your jihad
> does not affect me, bin Laden's does, so his is what I care about.
>
>> These particular Five
>> Percenters compound this confusion about Jihad with a confused notion
>> of what Allah (swt) is: for them, Allah is the primordial black man of
>> which each of them aspire to be a part. Witness this in the notes left
>> behind at some of the shootings: "I am God." This notion transcends
>> being merely antithetical and into the world of blasphemy--in Islam
>> (not just my Islam), Allah (swt) is incomparable.
>
> Perhaps you prefer bin Laden's non-blasphemous brand of jihad?
>
Nope--starting with the fundamental point that bin Laden's Jihad is
blasphemous as well. But that's not really the point.
>> In fact, the
>> god-myth that the Five Percenters have created doesn't even pretend to
>> be the Allah (swt) of mainstream Islam, denoucing the latter as a spook
>> or fairy-tale that non-Blacks have tricked the world into worshipping.
>
> All irrelvancies. Jihad does not exist without Islam, and Malvo does
> not exist without jihad. Neither does bin Laden or millions, yes
> millions of other good Muslims who perhaps haven't pulled the trigger,
> but only because they don't have a gun.
>
Again with the hypotheticals. You don't know any of that.
>>> He pulled the trigger because he felt that made him a good Muslim just
>>> like bin Laden and all the others. What you or any other
>>> self-righteous Muslim may think as to his Muslim "validity" is
>>> absolutely irrelevant --
>>
>> It might be irrelevant if what Malvo practiced even remotely resembles
>> Islam, but it doesn't.
>
> This is the blanket that you wrap yourself up in. Rather than face the
> reality that your "religion" has inspired countless people to utterly
> horrid acts, you comfort yourself by saying bin Laden isn't a true
> Muslim. Yes, he is. The Koran exhorts the reader to violence. The
> Koran exhorts the reader to anti-Semitism. The Koran exhorts the
> reader to misogyny. Bin Laden is a good Muslim, and anyone who is not
> violent is not one. Any objective reader of the Koran will draw this
> conclusion.
>
You're getting a bit mixed up here--we're talking about Malvo's Islamic
adherence, not bin Laden's. Regardless, you certainly have a lot of
ideas about what the Quran says--have you ever read it? All of it?
It's just over four hundred pages, so it's not beyond reason to expect
someone to have actually read it before making judgements.
>>> the simple fact is that if there were no
>>> Islam, there would have been no shootings.
>>
>> The problem with creating such sweeping hypotheticals is that you can't
>> prove them.
>
> It is not up to me to prove them. It is up to the district attorney in
> the case. It is only for you and those like you, blinded by their
> overwhelming desire to protect Islam, that the obvious, direct
> connection between Malvo's violence and Islam is hypothetical. The
> fact is that the very meaning of the word "hypothetical" must come
> into question when spoken by one who has managed to convince himself
> beyond any doubt that the Koran is the words of God.
>
?? The District Attorney doesn't need to prove that hypothetical
because it's not necessary to the case. The District Attorney isn't
indicting Islam, nor is that office indicting the Five Percenters.
Malvo's the issue to him or her, and we know unequivocably that he
committed these crimes. You're the one making the assertion that
without Islam, Malvo wouldn't have committed these crimes, but you're
not able to prove that.
--A
Susan Doe
Muslims often use Arabic words when the vernacular will do. It will
not in this case, however, because "jihad" is more than a word -- it
is a concept which has no easy equivalent in English. For Malvo, bin
Laden and millions of other Muslims, the closest we have is "holy
war".
>
> > Exhibit 65-056: A self-portrait of Malvo as sniper, lying in wait,
> > with
> > his rifle. "JIHAD" written in bold letters.
> >
>
> There's that Arabic word again. I wonder if Malvo knows what it means?
> I wonder if *you* know what it means...
You think you know what it means. Malvo and bin Laden think they know
what it means. As far as my understanding, that is irrelevant. I am
only concerned with how it affects me, and that is determined by the
understanding of Malvo, bin Laden, and the millions of Muslims like
them.
>
> > Exhibit 65-057: A drawing of the Twin Towers burning with a plane
> > flying
> > toward the buildings. Captions: "JIHAD ISLAM UNITE RISE!" along with
> > "America did this" and "You were warned." Portrait of Malvo as sniper
> > labeled "Believer" and portrait of Osama bin Laden labeled "prophet."
> > A
> > poem: "Our minarets are our bayonets, Our mosques are our baracks
> > (sic),
> > Our believers are our soldiers." The American flag and the Star of
> > David
> > drawn in cross hairs.
> >
>
> Malvo may be a "believer" in something, but it's not Islam, and
> immediately above, we can see in part why: bin Laden is labeled a
> prophet. This is antithetical to Islam. Not just my Islam, any Islam.
Religion is based on faith, each to his own. Malvo has his brand of
Islam, yhou have yours, bin Laden has his. All that matters is how
they are motivated by their Islam to affect the world.
>
> > Only three of the exhibits proving that not the Matrix, not Rastis,
> > but jihad is why the shootings happened. Is it "your" Islam, "your"
> > jihad? Perhaps not. Who cares?
>
> Actual Muslims care. What Malvo and Muhammad ascribe to--the 'faith'
> of the Five Percenters--doesn't resemble in the slightest any form of
> Islam. For starters:
> 1) Every man (that's man, not person) is a god,
> 2) Islam isn't a religion,
> 3) Allah is an acronym for Arm, Leg, Leg, Arm, Head,
> 4) Allah is an incarnation of the original black man,
> 4) Sprituality of any form is available only to black people.
>
> > Jihad is a concept which does not exist
> > outside of Islam. Therefore, no Islam, no shootings. Simple, except to
> > Muslims defending the faith.
>
> The concept of Jihad--struggle for God and for faith--exists in many
> religions and cultures other than Islam, it's just not expressed in
> Arabic there. I've no doubt that Malvo truly understands what Jihad
> is...but then, I've got little doubt that you truly understand what
> Jihad is.
I must guess that what you mean is that you have little or no doubt
that Malvo and I do NOT truly understand what Jihad is. Sir, please
understand, there is no truth where jihad is concerned. Jihad is a
religious concept subject to interpretation. Nothing about it can be
proven. The Koran is littered with violent exhortations, so that if
one interprets jihad in violent terms, it cannot be said that he is
being un-Islamic. You want to see him as such becauase the violence of
your faith makes you uncomfortable. The solution is simple -- leave.
>
> > A footnote: I must say, were I a lawyer, I would find this dialogue
> > enlightening. I would certainly think very long before allowing any
> > Muslim, no matter how seemingly educated, onto a jury in any case
> > remotely related to Islam. It is amazing to me how someone such as
> > yourself can be so blind. Actually, I find it not only amazing, but
> > also very chilling in its implications.
> >
>
> Why? Do you think I'd let Malvo off? I wouldn't.
If you read the paragraph again, you will see that I was not referring
to the Malvo case in my lawyer scenario, but to any case involving
Islam. I am surprised to hear you ask "why", since I thought my
explanation was clear, but I will attempt to further elucidate. In
spite of the numerous documents proving beyond reasonable doubt that
Malvo was motivated to violence by Islamic concepts such as jihad, you
refuse to acknowledge the connection. Since this connection is
obvious, it shows that, where Islam is concerned, you are more
concerned with redeeming and protecting your faith than with getting
at the truth. Of course you would not let Malvo off -- you believe he
was a cold-blooded killer. You have no clue as to his motive, of
course, but motive in this case is corollary, since there is much
physical evidence. However, the fact that you cannot or will not
perceive motive in this case leads any objective observer to conclude
that you cannot be rational where your faith is concerned, and as a
lawyer I would hope to have rational jurors sitting in any case that I
would be working. Is that clear enough now?
>I also wouldn't see
> the monsters in the closet that Malkin's trying to put there.
Malkin put nothing anywhere. The drawings speak for themselves.
Susan Doe
I suppose you have a point -- presuming even the most basic rational
thought on the part of 1MAN4ALL may be an error. Anyway, 1MAN4ALL has
had ample opportunity to participate in this thread. He has chosen not
to.
You are being an eel. But it will not work. Jihad means to millions of
Muslims the same thing it means to Malvo and bin Laden. Since you are
unable to show that the concept as so interpreted exists in other
religions, despite your vague reference to race crimes (which you do
not enumerate because you cannot show direct religious motivation) one
may conclude that it is unique to Islam. Therefore, using an arabic
word is totally appropriate, since it connotes an Islamic meaning of
the word.
>
> >> Jihad isn't
> >> attended by anti-Semitism and hatred of the West--the only thing that
> >> attends Jihad is struggle in the service of Allah (swt).
> >> Regrettably,
> >> certain Muslims have indicated that anti-Semitism and hatred of the
> >> West constitute justifiable service, but they're no more right than is
> >> Wesley Swift in his struggle for Christ.
> >
> > Right and wrong are irrelevant. Only action is relevant. Your jihad
> > does not affect me, bin Laden's does, so his is what I care about.
> >
> >> These particular Five
> >> Percenters compound this confusion about Jihad with a confused notion
> >> of what Allah (swt) is: for them, Allah is the primordial black man of
> >> which each of them aspire to be a part. Witness this in the notes left
> >> behind at some of the shootings: "I am God." This notion transcends
> >> being merely antithetical and into the world of blasphemy--in Islam
> >> (not just my Islam), Allah (swt) is incomparable.
> >
> > Perhaps you prefer bin Laden's non-blasphemous brand of jihad?
> >
>
> Nope--starting with the fundamental point that bin Laden's Jihad is
> blasphemous as well. But that's not really the point.
No, it is not blasphemous. I suggest you be more precise in your use
of words. Calling something blasphemous because you happen to disagree
with it makes you a religious fanatic by definition.
> >> In fact, the
> >> god-myth that the Five Percenters have created doesn't even pretend to
> >> be the Allah (swt) of mainstream Islam, denoucing the latter as a spook
> >> or fairy-tale that non-Blacks have tricked the world into worshipping.
> >
> > All irrelvancies. Jihad does not exist without Islam, and Malvo does
> > not exist without jihad. Neither does bin Laden or millions, yes
> > millions of other good Muslims who perhaps haven't pulled the trigger,
> > but only because they don't have a gun.
> >
>
> Again with the hypotheticals. You don't know any of that.
Yes, I do. So do you. But, you do not want to admit it becuase it puts
you in danger. I understand. I would take the same tack in your shoes.
>
> >>> He pulled the trigger because he felt that made him a good Muslim just
> >>> like bin Laden and all the others. What you or any other
> >>> self-righteous Muslim may think as to his Muslim "validity" is
> >>> absolutely irrelevant --
> >>
> >> It might be irrelevant if what Malvo practiced even remotely resembles
> >> Islam, but it doesn't.
> >
> > This is the blanket that you wrap yourself up in. Rather than face the
> > reality that your "religion" has inspired countless people to utterly
> > horrid acts, you comfort yourself by saying bin Laden isn't a true
> > Muslim. Yes, he is. The Koran exhorts the reader to violence. The
> > Koran exhorts the reader to anti-Semitism. The Koran exhorts the
> > reader to misogyny. Bin Laden is a good Muslim, and anyone who is not
> > violent is not one. Any objective reader of the Koran will draw this
> > conclusion.
> >
>
> You're getting a bit mixed up here--we're talking about Malvo's Islamic
> adherence, not bin Laden's.
I am not mixed up at all. You have tried to dismiss Malvo's Islamic
motivation by claiming that what he practiced did not even remotely
resemble Islam, even though his drawings, by way of numerous specific
references, clearly zero in on Islam as the sole motivation for his
violence. I have above chosen bin Laden as an example because he is
guilty of murdering many more than Malvo and you cannot so easily
impugn his Muslim-ness.
>Regardless, you certainly have a lot of
> ideas about what the Quran says--have you ever read it? All of it?
> It's just over four hundred pages, so it's not beyond reason to expect
> someone to have actually read it before making judgements.
>
> >>> the simple fact is that if there were no
> >>> Islam, there would have been no shootings.
> >>
> >> The problem with creating such sweeping hypotheticals is that you can't
> >> prove them.
> >
> > It is not up to me to prove them. It is up to the district attorney in
> > the case. It is only for you and those like you, blinded by their
> > overwhelming desire to protect Islam, that the obvious, direct
> > connection between Malvo's violence and Islam is hypothetical. The
> > fact is that the very meaning of the word "hypothetical" must come
> > into question when spoken by one who has managed to convince himself
> > beyond any doubt that the Koran is the words of God.
> >
>
> ?? The District Attorney doesn't need to prove that hypothetical
> because it's not necessary to the case.
Motive is a crucial part of almost all criminal cases. Watch Perry
Mason.
>The District Attorney isn't
> indicting Islam, nor is that office indicting the Five Percenters.
He is not indicting anyone. That has already been done. He is
attempting to prove Malvo killed. Every killer has a motive, except
accidental killers. Motive makes the story hang together and makes it
believable.
> Malvo's the issue to him or her, and we know unequivocably that he
> committed these crimes.
Ah, unequivocably, meaning we can just sweep motive into the closet
where no one can see it. Isn't that convenient?
>You're the one making the assertion that
> without Islam, Malvo wouldn't have committed these crimes, but you're
> not able to prove that.
I'm the *one*?? You wish. I repeat, this is up to the DA. I do not
have access to the information necessary to prove it beyond doubt. I
have the drawings of Malvo, and until there is another motive proven
in court, I and any reasonable person will have to conclude that Islam
and jihad were his motive. Why? Because I am a rational person without
ulterior motive. You are not.
> --A
Susan Doe
My goodness, that's a very nice sidestep, but does not answer the
question, which was NOT asking why John Muhammad changed his name, but
rather, why did Muhammad change his name to that of the prophet of
Islam if there is, as you contend, no relation of the
violence-producing beliefs of J. Muhammad to Islam? Can you mention
ONE person with whom you are familiar who has purposefully changed his
name to Muhammad, yet who does not believe that Muhammad was a prophet
of Allah?
> --A
Abdiel
Care to prove that? What millions?
> The utter irrelevance
> of the fact that this may not be what "jihad" means to you is
> something you seem oddly incapable of grasping. It is possible that
> National Socialism was a very benevolent ideology.
No it isn't. As an ideology, National Socialism contains inherent
evils--this even beyond its practice.
> Ideas are subject
> to interpretation, therefore it is the interpretation that is
> important, not the idea. You may interpret jihad to be a beautiful
> concept, but I don't care about that because your interpretation does
> not affect me. Bin Laden's and Malvo's does.
It's not an interpretation. It's what the term actually means. Do
you know what it actually means?
> >
> > > Exhibit 65-056: A self-portrait of Malvo as sniper, lying in wait,
> > > with
> > > his rifle. "JIHAD" written in bold letters.
> > >
> >
> > There's that Arabic word again. I wonder if Malvo knows what it means?
> > I wonder if *you* know what it means...
>
> I do not care what it means. I only care what it means to bin Ladens
> and Malvos. It has no effect on my life except as realized by them.
Thank you for admitting that you don't know what Jihad is, and that
you take your interpretation of such things only from news accounts
that detail the ideas and practices of fanatics.
> >
> > > Exhibit 65-057: A drawing of the Twin Towers burning with a plane
> > > flying
> > > toward the buildings. Captions: "JIHAD ISLAM UNITE RISE!" along with
> > > "America did this" and "You were warned." Portrait of Malvo as sniper
> > > labeled "Believer" and portrait of Osama bin Laden labeled "prophet."
> > > A
> > > poem: "Our minarets are our bayonets, Our mosques are our baracks
> > > (sic),
> > > Our believers are our soldiers." The American flag and the Star of
> > > David
> > > drawn in cross hairs.
> > >
> >
> > Malvo may be a "believer" in something, but it's not Islam, and
> > immediately above, we can see in part why: bin Laden is labeled a
> > prophet. This is antithetical to Islam. Not just my Islam, any Islam.
>
> Everyone's got his Islam. Bin Laden, Malvo, you. Maybe he was mistaken
> about bin Laden, maybe he meant "prophet" in the generalized,
> non-religious way, again, who cares, it's a technicality. The mosques
> are your barracks. How true this is, from Islam's very beginning.
This demonstrates a remarkable ignorance of Islam, leading me to
wonder how it is you can comment on whether or not Malvo's a Muslim in
the first place. The "generalized, non-religious" meaning of Prophet?
"Everybody's got his Islam"? How much about what you know about
Islam doesn't come from FoxNEWS?
> You
> want so very badly to discredit Malvo's Islam only because you are
> desperate to distance yourself from him. That is purely selfish. Your
> selfishness has polluted your objectivity.
I don't need to distance myself from Malvo. Malvo's Five Percenters
distance themselves from me, and from the rest of conventional Islam.
> It is clear to any
> objective person viewing the drawings that the sole inspiration for
> the shootings was Islam, his, yours, or others'.
You determine this from looking only at the pictures in which Malvo
scrawls a handful of loaded Arabic terms about which he doesn't have
any familiarity. How about his obsession with violent Rasta Reggae
imagery? The Watchowski Brothers' movies? A news article from
December 9th detailing a court psychologist's interpretation of
Malvo's inspirations reveals a much different set of motivations than
does Malkin's article:
<quote>
During cross-examination, Cornell said Malvo pelted - and probably
killed - numerous cats with marbles from a slingshot when he was about
14. Cruelty to small animals is seen in some quarters as an indicator
of future criminal conduct.
The professor also related an incident in which Malvo said he wielded
a knife against a man he believed had stolen money from his mother. In
addition, Cornell said the youth, with friends, shoplifted comic
books.
Cornell recounted the progression of Muhammad's alleged
indoctrination. He showed the jury some of the blood-soaked, violent
video games the two purportedly played. And he played a clip of the
popular 1999 film "The Matrix," which has been cited by Malvo as
containing an explanation for his violent behavior. Cornell said
Muhammad forced Malvo to cradle a rifle while watching violent movies.
(...)
The psychologist also said Malvo attested to being a fan of "The
Matrix," a movie that depicts humans being under the control of an
evil computer-run government. Cornell said Malvo had watched the movie
more than 100 times and that the teen identified with the hero of the
movie, who is to free humans so oppressed that they don't know they
are being dominated. The hero ultimately shoots his way out of the
computer-generated world. Cornell said Malvo believed blacks were in a
similar position.
</quote>
About Islam, Cornell has this to say:
<quote>
According to Cornell, Muhammad told the youth that the pair had been
selected by Allah to start a revolution under which black people would
be empowered and whites punished. The Sept. 11 terrorist attacks were
purported proof that the revolution was coming.
The psychologist also showed jurors some of Malvo's 100-plus jailhouse
sketches, one idolizing Muhammad and another showing a neighborhood
under the title "Our own state someday." Many of the drawings, seized
from Malvo's jail cell, depict seething rage against white people and
America. Defense lawyers assert that Muhammad spun a tale of creating
a utopian compound in Canada with 70 boys and 70 girls.
</quote>
This clearly denotes teachings common amongst Five Percenters and the
Nation of Islam, not Islam.
> No Islam, no
> shootings.
Again--you can't prove that, and people like Cornell with much more
access to the facts and the people of the case disagree with you.
> >
> > > Only three of the exhibits proving that not the Matrix, not Rastis,
> > > but jihad is why the shootings happened. Is it "your" Islam, "your"
> > > jihad? Perhaps not. Who cares?
> >
> > Actual Muslims care.
>
> They had better care. The world will not tolerate an unlimited number
> of Malvos.
>
> What Malvo and Muhammad ascribe to--the 'faith'
> > of the Five Percenters--doesn't resemble in the slightest any form of
> > Islam. For starters:
> > 1) Every man (that's man, not person) is a god,
> > 2) Islam isn't a religion,
> > 3) Allah is an acronym for Arm, Leg, Leg, Arm, Head,
> > 4) Allah is an incarnation of the original black man,
> > 4) Sprituality of any form is available only to black people.
>
> As I said, words can be interpreted. How a book such as the Koran,
> written by an omnipotent God, could have been so "misinterpreted"
> through the centuries is of course another subject.
>
The Five Percenter's don't "misinterpret" the Quran; they bypass it
altogether. Nothing that they teach has any basis in the Quran.
>
> > > Jihad is a concept which does not exist
> > > outside of Islam. Therefore, no Islam, no shootings. Simple, except to
> > > Muslims defending the faith.
> >
> > The concept of Jihad--struggle for God and for faith--exists in many
> > religions and cultures other than Islam, it's just not expressed in
> > Arabic there. I've no doubt that Malvo truly understands what Jihad
> > is...but then, I've got little doubt that you truly understand what
> > Jihad is.
>
> For what I hope is the final time, millions of Muslims feel that jihad
> is a requirement to kill those who, directly or by association, are
> perceived as oppressing Muslims.
Again: care to prove that?
> The passages in the Koran which
> support this are legion. My understanding of the concept is
> irrelevant. On the other hand, my understanding of what it means to be
> a true Muslim is very important, and that understanding comes from the
> actions of bin Laden, Malvo, and countless others, actions which are
> clearly demanded by the Koran.
>
You have no idea what it means to be a true Muslim, but that's not
your biggest problem--you also don't have any idea what the Islamic
concept of Jihad means, and that's the crux of your argument, one
which doesn't even pretend to be based on anything other than willful
ignorance. Don't you think you should know what these concepts mean
before speaking about it?
> >
> > > A footnote: I must say, were I a lawyer, I would find this dialogue
> > > enlightening. I would certainly think very long before allowing any
> > > Muslim, no matter how seemingly educated, onto a jury in any case
> > > remotely related to Islam. It is amazing to me how someone such as
> > > yourself can be so blind. Actually, I find it not only amazing, but
> > > also very chilling in its implications.
> > >
> >
> > Why? Do you think I'd let Malvo off? I wouldn't.
>
> If you read my paragraph again, you will see that I was not speaking
> of the Malvo case, but of any case involving Islam. The evidence of
> your lack of objectivity where Islam is concerned is that you are
> incapable of recognizing the obvious motive in the Malvo case due to
> your primary and overwhelming desire to redeem and protect Islam. This
> desire renders you incapable of rational thought where Islam is
> concerned.
>
> >I also wouldn't see
> > the monsters in the closet that Malkin's trying to put there.
>
> As I said previously, Malkin's comments are unnecessary -- the
> drawings speak for themselves. Malkin's observations are elemantary to
> any but those buried beneath their own motives.
Malkin's observations are elementary to anyone already predisposed to
agree with her, and who's capable of keeping him- or herself ignorant
of the underlying concepts--what Jihad means, what it means to be a
Muslim, what Islam is, etc--about which she writes. Anyone who
already knows about these things, or who is capable of looking outside
the world of FoxNEWS for explanation, can see through the extremely
thin veil of FUD Malkin's trying to pull over their eyes.
Abdiel
Only if one enjoys going through life with his or her eyes shut.
Check out the teachings of the Church of Christ, Christian pastored by
one Wesely Swift, in which racial violence isn't merely recommended,
it's required:
<<http://www.kingidentity.com/>>
Ultimately, this group finds its provision under the larger Christian
Identity movement, under which you'll also find the Aryan Nations,
KKK, neo-Nazis, and various groups of skinheads, the most violent of
which get to call themselves members of the Phineas Priesthood:
<<http://www.cesnur.org/testi/FBI_006.htm>>
How about calling something blasphemous because *it's actually
blasphemous*? Hijacking a religious concept like Jihad in the way
that bin Ladin has done, and especially claiming that doing so is
acting in the will of Allah, is a blasphemous act. Heck, even four
out of five hardline clerics agree.
> > >> In fact, the
> > >> god-myth that the Five Percenters have created doesn't even pretend to
> > >> be the Allah (swt) of mainstream Islam, denoucing the latter as a spook
> > >> or fairy-tale that non-Blacks have tricked the world into worshipping.
> > >
> > > All irrelvancies. Jihad does not exist without Islam, and Malvo does
> > > not exist without jihad. Neither does bin Laden or millions, yes
> > > millions of other good Muslims who perhaps haven't pulled the trigger,
> > > but only because they don't have a gun.
> > >
> >
> > Again with the hypotheticals. You don't know any of that.
>
> Yes, I do. So do you. But, you do not want to admit it becuase it puts
> you in danger. I understand. I would take the same tack in your shoes.
What danger would it put me in? I don't know any of that to be true,
and neither do you. You're just pretending you do.
> >
> > >>> He pulled the trigger because he felt that made him a good Muslim just
> > >>> like bin Laden and all the others. What you or any other
> > >>> self-righteous Muslim may think as to his Muslim "validity" is
> > >>> absolutely irrelevant --
> > >>
> > >> It might be irrelevant if what Malvo practiced even remotely resembles
> > >> Islam, but it doesn't.
> > >
> > > This is the blanket that you wrap yourself up in. Rather than face the
> > > reality that your "religion" has inspired countless people to utterly
> > > horrid acts, you comfort yourself by saying bin Laden isn't a true
> > > Muslim. Yes, he is. The Koran exhorts the reader to violence. The
> > > Koran exhorts the reader to anti-Semitism. The Koran exhorts the
> > > reader to misogyny. Bin Laden is a good Muslim, and anyone who is not
> > > violent is not one. Any objective reader of the Koran will draw this
> > > conclusion.
> > >
> >
> > You're getting a bit mixed up here--we're talking about Malvo's Islamic
> > adherence, not bin Laden's.
>
> I am not mixed up at all. You have tried to dismiss Malvo's Islamic
> motivation by claiming that what he practiced did not even remotely
> resemble Islam, even though his drawings, by way of numerous specific
> references, clearly zero in on Islam as the sole motivation for his
> violence.
Careful with terms like "sole." I've posted another reply that paints
a far different picture.
> I have above chosen bin Laden as an example because he is
> guilty of murdering many more than Malvo and you cannot so easily
> impugn his Muslim-ness.
>
Of course I can't. But what Malvo practices doesn't remotely resemble
even what bin Laden practices. This thread has provided links
detailing the departures that the Five Percenters take from
conventional Islam--you may not think those matter, but I'd assure you
that bin Laden would.
> >Regardless, you certainly have a lot of
> > ideas about what the Quran says--have you ever read it? All of it?
> > It's just over four hundred pages, so it's not beyond reason to expect
> > someone to have actually read it before making judgements.
> >
> > >>> the simple fact is that if there were no
> > >>> Islam, there would have been no shootings.
> > >>
> > >> The problem with creating such sweeping hypotheticals is that you can't
> > >> prove them.
> > >
> > > It is not up to me to prove them. It is up to the district attorney in
> > > the case. It is only for you and those like you, blinded by their
> > > overwhelming desire to protect Islam, that the obvious, direct
> > > connection between Malvo's violence and Islam is hypothetical. The
> > > fact is that the very meaning of the word "hypothetical" must come
> > > into question when spoken by one who has managed to convince himself
> > > beyond any doubt that the Koran is the words of God.
> > >
> >
> > ?? The District Attorney doesn't need to prove that hypothetical
> > because it's not necessary to the case.
>
> Motive is a crucial part of almost all criminal cases. Watch Perry
> Mason.
>
Almost all criminal cases where you still need to prove the facts of
the crime. In this case, the facts of the crime have already been
demonstrated.
> >The District Attorney isn't
> > indicting Islam, nor is that office indicting the Five Percenters.
>
> He is not indicting anyone. That has already been done. He is
> attempting to prove Malvo killed. Every killer has a motive, except
> accidental killers. Motive makes the story hang together and makes it
> believable.
>
What more do you think is necessary to convince a jury that Malvo
killed those people?
> > Malvo's the issue to him or her, and we know unequivocably that he
> > committed these crimes.
>
> Ah, unequivocably, meaning we can just sweep motive into the closet
> where no one can see it. Isn't that convenient?
>
> >You're the one making the assertion that
> > without Islam, Malvo wouldn't have committed these crimes, but you're
> > not able to prove that.
>
> I'm the *one*??
Pretty much, yeah.
> You wish. I repeat, this is up to the DA. I do not
> have access to the information necessary to prove it beyond doubt.
Well, you do. You're just chosing not to look.
> I
> have the drawings of Malvo, and until there is another motive proven
> in court, I and any reasonable person will have to conclude that Islam
> and jihad were his motive. Why? Because I am a rational person without
> ulterior motive. You are not.
>
Oh, you have a motive all right.
--A
Abdiel
<brevity snip>
> > >
> > > Exhibit 65-043: Father and son portrait of Malvo and Muhammad. "We
> > > will
> > > kill them all. Jihad."
> > >
> >
> > Wow. An Arabic word. That's impressive.
>
> Muslims often use Arabic words when the vernacular will do. It will
> not in this case, however, because "jihad" is more than a word -- it
> is a concept which has no easy equivalent in English. For Malvo, bin
> Laden and millions of other Muslims, the closest we have is "holy
> war".
For the final time, prove that these "millions" of Muslims believe the
way you say they do or stop saying it.
> >
> > > Exhibit 65-056: A self-portrait of Malvo as sniper, lying in wait,
> > > with
> > > his rifle. "JIHAD" written in bold letters.
> > >
> >
> > There's that Arabic word again. I wonder if Malvo knows what it means?
> > I wonder if *you* know what it means...
>
> You think you know what it means. Malvo and bin Laden think they know
> what it means. As far as my understanding, that is irrelevant. I am
> only concerned with how it affects me, and that is determined by the
> understanding of Malvo, bin Laden,
You're starting to become notorious for willful ignorance. The actual
meaning of Jihad to you is irrelevant? That's preposterous--if you're
going to speak about an Islamic idea of Jihad, don't you think you
should at least attempt to verse yourself on what that is?
> >
> > > Exhibit 65-057: A drawing of the Twin Towers burning with a plane
> > > flying
> > > toward the buildings. Captions: "JIHAD ISLAM UNITE RISE!" along with
> > > "America did this" and "You were warned." Portrait of Malvo as sniper
> > > labeled "Believer" and portrait of Osama bin Laden labeled "prophet."
> > > A
> > > poem: "Our minarets are our bayonets, Our mosques are our baracks
> > > (sic),
> > > Our believers are our soldiers." The American flag and the Star of
> > > David
> > > drawn in cross hairs.
> > >
> >
> > Malvo may be a "believer" in something, but it's not Islam, and
> > immediately above, we can see in part why: bin Laden is labeled a
> > prophet. This is antithetical to Islam. Not just my Islam, any Islam.
>
> Religion is based on faith, each to his own.
According to Malvo's doctrine, Islam isn't a religion.
> Malvo has his brand of
> Islam, yhou have yours, bin Laden has his. All that matters is how
> they are motivated by their Islam to affect the world.
As for me and bin Laden, I'm prepared to agree that we certainly have
our own interpretations of Islam. But Malvo's another story--Malvo's
beliefs don't even attempt to reconcile themselves with conventional
Islam, while the extremist Wahabbist view of Islam to which bin Laden
ascribes does. Malvo's Five Percenters don't even believe that Islam
is a religion.
> >
> > > Only three of the exhibits proving that not the Matrix, not Rastis,
> > > but jihad is why the shootings happened. Is it "your" Islam, "your"
> > > jihad? Perhaps not. Who cares?
> >
> > Actual Muslims care. What Malvo and Muhammad ascribe to--the 'faith'
> > of the Five Percenters--doesn't resemble in the slightest any form of
> > Islam. For starters:
> > 1) Every man (that's man, not person) is a god,
> > 2) Islam isn't a religion,
> > 3) Allah is an acronym for Arm, Leg, Leg, Arm, Head,
> > 4) Allah is an incarnation of the original black man,
> > 4) Sprituality of any form is available only to black people.
> >
> > > Jihad is a concept which does not exist
> > > outside of Islam. Therefore, no Islam, no shootings. Simple, except to
> > > Muslims defending the faith.
> >
> > The concept of Jihad--struggle for God and for faith--exists in many
> > religions and cultures other than Islam, it's just not expressed in
> > Arabic there. I've no doubt that Malvo truly understands what Jihad
> > is...but then, I've got little doubt that you truly understand what
> > Jihad is.
>
> I must guess that what you mean is that you have little or no doubt
> that Malvo and I do NOT truly understand what Jihad is. Sir, please
> understand, there is no truth where jihad is concerned.
Yes there is.
> Jihad is a
> religious concept subject to interpretation. Nothing about it can be
> proven. The Koran is littered with violent exhortations, so that if
> one interprets jihad in violent terms, it cannot be said that he is
> being un-Islamic.
Yes it can.
> You want to see him as such becauase the violence of
> your faith makes you uncomfortable. The solution is simple -- leave.
It's not the violence of Muslims that make me uncomfortable; the
violence of Malvo has even less effect because I'm that much less
connected to his crimes: although I'm certainly saddened by them, my
faith isn't called into question for even a moment. It's the
unwillingness of people like you to learn what Islam actually is that
makes me uncomfortable.
How about the references to the Matrix? The black supremist dogma fed
him by John Allen Muhammed? What do they speak to? Note that Malkin
tries to pretend these don't even exist--she loads the issue with the
drawings with Arabic terms scrawled across them, and omits everything
that suggests Malvo acted for any other reason than he was a "Muslim"
hatemonger.
Phaedrine Stonebridge
Abdiel <abdi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
OK so if their "beliefs" are not "religious" then what are they? Or do
you deny that they have beliefs?
Abdiel
Sure: John Allen Muhammad. I'll mention Fard Muhammad too (he claimed
to *be* Allah) and Elijah Muhammad (he believed Fard was Allah, too,
although he also very likely had Fard killed), because they had rather
confused notions of what Allah (swt) actually is. That's three, for
the price of one.
--A
Susan Doe
> I'm not sure why you're posting two responses to the same message.
Beg pardon. I thought google ate this message.
>
> <brevity snip>
>
> > > >
> > > > Exhibit 65-043: Father and son portrait of Malvo and Muhammad. "We
> > > > will
> > > > kill them all. Jihad."
> > > >
> > >
> > > Wow. An Arabic word. That's impressive.
> >
> > Muslims often use Arabic words when the vernacular will do. It will
> > not in this case, however, because "jihad" is more than a word -- it
> > is a concept which has no easy equivalent in English. For Malvo, bin
> > Laden and millions of other Muslims, the closest we have is "holy
> > war".
>
> For the final time, prove that these "millions" of Muslims believe the
> way you say they do or stop saying it.
I have read that anywhere from 5 to 15 percent of the world's Muslims
are of the "Islamist" ilk -- either a terrorist, a terrorist in
training, or a rabid follower of a religious leader proselytizing for
violence. I am sorry, I cannot prove this estimate, but that is
insufficient for me to consider it invalid, since I trust the sources
which provided the information. Can you "prove" otherwise? Of course
you cannot. But, I will not mime you and demand that you stop arguing
about it. You seem to have a thing about "proof" when you know full
well that the proof of an estimate is by definition impossible.
Interesting for someone who bases his very existence on faith, which
is by definition unprovable.
> > >
> > > > Exhibit 65-056: A self-portrait of Malvo as sniper, lying in wait,
> > > > with
> > > > his rifle. "JIHAD" written in bold letters.
> > > >
> > >
> > > There's that Arabic word again. I wonder if Malvo knows what it means?
> > > I wonder if *you* know what it means...
> >
> > You think you know what it means. Malvo and bin Laden think they know
> > what it means. As far as my understanding, that is irrelevant. I am
> > only concerned with how it affects me, and that is determined by the
> > understanding of Malvo, bin Laden,
>
> You're starting to become notorious for willful ignorance. The actual
> meaning of Jihad to you is irrelevant?
That is correct. I couldn't care less about jihad or anything else
Islamic unless it affects or has the potential to affect my life and
the lives of those whom I hold dear. There are so many more intersting
things to learn about than Islam in this world. I try to learn what I
need to learn about Islam to stay healthy and safe, just like I learn
how to avoid disease. I am not interested in the various genetic
mutations which lead to lung cancer, I only care to learn how to avoid
it, and so I do not smoke. Is this also willful ignorance? Perhaps. I
have absolutely no interest in learning about "your" jihad. Please
don't take it personally, it is in fact a compliment.
>That's preposterous--if you're
> going to speak about an Islamic idea of Jihad, don't you think you
> should at least attempt to verse yourself on what that is?
>
I know what I need to about Jihad, and that is that there are millions
of people in this world who would shoot me as soon as look at me in
its service.
For the "final time" (I wish) I am so very uninterested in anything
else about it. Why should I be interested? Should I study it to prove
to myself that those millions have misinterpreted it? Will I then be
less dead if one of them shoots me?
> > >
> > > > Exhibit 65-057: A drawing of the Twin Towers burning with a plane
> > > > flying
> > > > toward the buildings. Captions: "JIHAD ISLAM UNITE RISE!" along with
> > > > "America did this" and "You were warned." Portrait of Malvo as sniper
> > > > labeled "Believer" and portrait of Osama bin Laden labeled "prophet."
> > > > A
> > > > poem: "Our minarets are our bayonets, Our mosques are our baracks
> > > > (sic),
> > > > Our believers are our soldiers." The American flag and the Star of
> > > > David
> > > > drawn in cross hairs.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Malvo may be a "believer" in something, but it's not Islam, and
> > > immediately above, we can see in part why: bin Laden is labeled a
> > > prophet. This is antithetical to Islam. Not just my Islam, any Islam.
> >
> > Religion is based on faith, each to his own.
>
> According to Malvo's doctrine, Islam isn't a religion.
I couldn't care less if he sees it as a religion or a sporting event.
Mosques are Islamic, jihad is Islamic, bin Laden is an Islamist. Jihad
appears, on objective evaluation of his drawings, to be his prmiary,
if not his sole motivation. Yes, I know, it's not your jihad.
>
> > Malvo has his brand of
> > Islam, yhou have yours, bin Laden has his. All that matters is how
> > they are motivated by their Islam to affect the world.
>
> As for me and bin Laden, I'm prepared to agree that we certainly have
> our own interpretations of Islam. But Malvo's another story--Malvo's
> beliefs don't even attempt to reconcile themselves with conventional
> Islam, while the extremist Wahabbist view of Islam to which bin Laden
> ascribes does. Malvo's Five Percenters don't even believe that Islam
> is a religion.
Ugh, this is growing so tiresome. I do not care how Malvo regards
Islam, all I know is that in his brain he is fulfilling an Islamic
duty, the duty of jihad, by pulling the trigger. All the rest is
irrelevant.
>
> > >
> > > > Only three of the exhibits proving that not the Matrix, not Rastis,
> > > > but jihad is why the shootings happened. Is it "your" Islam, "your"
> > > > jihad? Perhaps not. Who cares?
> > >
> > > Actual Muslims care. What Malvo and Muhammad ascribe to--the 'faith'
> > > of the Five Percenters--doesn't resemble in the slightest any form of
> > > Islam. For starters:
> > > 1) Every man (that's man, not person) is a god,
> > > 2) Islam isn't a religion,
> > > 3) Allah is an acronym for Arm, Leg, Leg, Arm, Head,
> > > 4) Allah is an incarnation of the original black man,
> > > 4) Sprituality of any form is available only to black people.
> > >
> > > > Jihad is a concept which does not exist
> > > > outside of Islam. Therefore, no Islam, no shootings. Simple, except to
> > > > Muslims defending the faith.
> > >
> > > The concept of Jihad--struggle for God and for faith--exists in many
> > > religions and cultures other than Islam, it's just not expressed in
> > > Arabic there. I've no doubt that Malvo truly understands what Jihad
> > > is...but then, I've got little doubt that you truly understand what
> > > Jihad is.
> >
> > I must guess that what you mean is that you have little or no doubt
> > that Malvo and I do NOT truly understand what Jihad is. Sir, please
> > understand, there is no truth where jihad is concerned.
>
> Yes there is.
All you have is your opinion. That means nothing except to you and the
people with whom you interact.
> > Jihad is a
> > religious concept subject to interpretation. Nothing about it can be
> > proven. The Koran is littered with violent exhortations, so that if
> > one interprets jihad in violent terms, it cannot be said that he is
> > being un-Islamic.
>
> Yes it can.
No, IT cannot be said, YOU can say it. It is your opinion. And,
forgive my bluntness, but who cares about your opinion? Certainly not
I , because I do not think you will kill me because of your opinion.
>
> > You want to see him as such becauase the violence of
> > your faith makes you uncomfortable. The solution is simple -- leave.
>
> It's not the violence of Muslims that make me uncomfortable; the
> violence of Malvo has even less effect because I'm that much less
> connected to his crimes: although I'm certainly saddened by them, my
> faith isn't called into question for even a moment. It's the
> unwillingness of people like you to learn what Islam actually is that
> makes me uncomfortable.
>
You sound like a decent fellow, so I am trying to be patient with you.
What Islam "actually is" is Muslims. That's all, nothing more. If
there were no Muslims, there would be no Islam. There are millions of
violent Muslims who would very happily kill me with no motivation
other than they think that this makes them a good Muslim. The
objective observer in me sees this as absolutely and perfectly
consistent with many Koranic passages -- I am sure you know the ones
because you have undoubtedly spent countless hours trying to explain
to someone like me how black is white.
An objective observer sees Islam and Islamic concepts as the primary
force driving the violence of JAM and Malvo. Did you fail to notice
that JAM did not change his name to that of some violent rasti or to
Neo, but to that of your prophet? I will grant you that in these minds
there was more circulating than Islam, perverted or not, but it is
Islam that enabled the violence, that justified the violence, that
ennobled the violence. The fact that you will not see it speaks to an
objective observer much more about you than it does about them.
Susan Doe
I have read that anywhere from 5 to 15 percent of the world's Muslims
are of the "Islamist" ilk -- either a terrorist, a terrorist in
training, or a rabid follower of a religious leader proselytizing for
violence. I am sorry, I cannot prove this number, but that is
insufficient for me to consider it invalid, since I trust the sources
which provided the information. Can you "prove" otherwise? Of course
you cannot. You seem to have a thing about "proof" when you know full
well the proof of an estimate is impossible by definition. Interesting
for someone who bases his very existence on faith, by definition
unprovable.
>
> > The utter irrelevance
> > of the fact that this may not be what "jihad" means to you is
> > something you seem oddly incapable of grasping. It is possible that
> > National Socialism was a very benevolent ideology.
>
> No it isn't. As an ideology, National Socialism contains inherent
> evils--this even beyond its practice.
Evil is relative -- good German Nazis did not consider themselves
evil, they they were doing good. I do not feel like debating this
point, however, so am willing to let it pass.
>
> > Ideas are subject
> > to interpretation, therefore it is the interpretation that is
> > important, not the idea. You may interpret jihad to be a beautiful
> > concept, but I don't care about that because your interpretation does
> > not affect me. Bin Laden's and Malvo's does.
>
> It's not an interpretation. It's what the term actually means. Do
> you know what it actually means?
Plaese stop asking me this. What it means to me is that I may die
because of it.
That is all I care to know about it.
>
> > >
> > > > Exhibit 65-056: A self-portrait of Malvo as sniper, lying in wait,
> > > > with
> > > > his rifle. "JIHAD" written in bold letters.
> > > >
> > >
> > > There's that Arabic word again. I wonder if Malvo knows what it means?
> > > I wonder if *you* know what it means...
> >
> > I do not care what it means. I only care what it means to bin Ladens
> > and Malvos. It has no effect on my life except as realized by them.
>
> Thank you for admitting that you don't know what Jihad is, and that
> you take your interpretation of such things only from news accounts
> that detail the ideas and practices of fanatics.
Absolutely correct. Let's move on.
>
> > >
> > > > Exhibit 65-057: A drawing of the Twin Towers burning with a plane
> > > > flying
> > > > toward the buildings. Captions: "JIHAD ISLAM UNITE RISE!" along with
> > > > "America did this" and "You were warned." Portrait of Malvo as sniper
> > > > labeled "Believer" and portrait of Osama bin Laden labeled "prophet."
> > > > A
> > > > poem: "Our minarets are our bayonets, Our mosques are our baracks
> > > > (sic),
> > > > Our believers are our soldiers." The American flag and the Star of
> > > > David
> > > > drawn in cross hairs.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Malvo may be a "believer" in something, but it's not Islam, and
> > > immediately above, we can see in part why: bin Laden is labeled a
> > > prophet. This is antithetical to Islam. Not just my Islam, any Islam.
> >
> > Everyone's got his Islam. Bin Laden, Malvo, you. Maybe he was mistaken
> > about bin Laden, maybe he meant "prophet" in the generalized,
> > non-religious way, again, who cares, it's a technicality. The mosques
> > are your barracks. How true this is, from Islam's very beginning.
>
> This demonstrates a remarkable ignorance of Islam, leading me to
> wonder how it is you can comment on whether or not Malvo's a Muslim in
> the first place. The "generalized, non-religious" meaning of Prophet?
No, the generalized, non-religious meaning of "prophet":
2 : one gifted with more than ordinary spiritual and moral insight;
especially : an inspired poet
4 : an effective or leading spokesman for a cause, doctrine, or group
> "Everybody's got his Islam"? How much about what you know about
> Islam doesn't come from FoxNEWS?
1) That which comes from the Koranic passages I have read. They seem
to support bin Laden much more than they do you. Please understand
that I will not debate this statement with you because I do not have
the time. 2) That which comes from reading this newsgroup and from
Muslims such as yourself.
>
> > You
> > want so very badly to discredit Malvo's Islam only because you are
> > desperate to distance yourself from him. That is purely selfish. Your
> > selfishness has polluted your objectivity.
>
> I don't need to distance myself from Malvo. Malvo's Five Percenters
> distance themselves from me, and from the rest of conventional Islam.
YOu have spent most of this thread attempting to distance yourself
from Malvo.
No, he does not disagree with me or agree with me. He mentions
influences besides Islam, no doubt, but does not attempt to refute my
contention of No Islam, no shootings. To do so, he would have to show
that the other factors in and of themselves could motivate them to
kill. He did nothing of the kind. The fact remains that JAM is named
Muhammad, not Neo.
>
> > >
> > > > Only three of the exhibits proving that not the Matrix, not Rastis,
> > > > but jihad is why the shootings happened. Is it "your" Islam, "your"
> > > > jihad? Perhaps not. Who cares?
> > >
> > > Actual Muslims care.
> >
> > They had better care. The world will not tolerate an unlimited number
> > of Malvos.
> >
> > What Malvo and Muhammad ascribe to--the 'faith'
> > > of the Five Percenters--doesn't resemble in the slightest any form of
> > > Islam. For starters:
> > > 1) Every man (that's man, not person) is a god,
> > > 2) Islam isn't a religion,
> > > 3) Allah is an acronym for Arm, Leg, Leg, Arm, Head,
> > > 4) Allah is an incarnation of the original black man,
> > > 4) Sprituality of any form is available only to black people.
> >
> > As I said, words can be interpreted. How a book such as the Koran,
> > written by an omnipotent God, could have been so "misinterpreted"
> > through the centuries is of course another subject.
> >
>
> The Five Percenter's don't "misinterpret" the Quran; they bypass it
> altogether.
I don't know anything about the 5%ers, but if they are in any way
similar to NOI, you are dead wrong. The Koran is basic to NOI.
> Nothing that they teach has any basis in the Quran.
The Koran is violent. They are violent. Are you saying this is
coincidence?
>
> >
> > > > Jihad is a concept which does not exist
> > > > outside of Islam. Therefore, no Islam, no shootings. Simple, except to
> > > > Muslims defending the faith.
> > >
> > > The concept of Jihad--struggle for God and for faith--exists in many
> > > religions and cultures other than Islam, it's just not expressed in
> > > Arabic there. I've no doubt that Malvo truly understands what Jihad
> > > is...but then, I've got little doubt that you truly understand what
> > > Jihad is.
> >
> > For what I hope is the final time, millions of Muslims feel that jihad
> > is a requirement to kill those who, directly or by association, are
> > perceived as oppressing Muslims.
>
> Again: care to prove that?
Care to prove it false? Please see above.
>
> > The passages in the Koran which
> > support this are legion. My understanding of the concept is
> > irrelevant. On the other hand, my understanding of what it means to be
> > a true Muslim is very important, and that understanding comes from the
> > actions of bin Laden, Malvo, and countless others, actions which are
> > clearly demanded by the Koran.
> >
>
> You have no idea what it means to be a true Muslim, but that's not
> your biggest problem--you also don't have any idea what the Islamic
> concept of Jihad means, and that's the crux of your argument, one
> which doesn't even pretend to be based on anything other than willful
> ignorance. Don't you think you should know what these concepts mean
> before speaking about it?
No, jihad is what any Muslim or NOIer or 5%er or whatever wants it to
be. Who is "correct" means NOTHING to me, do you get it, NOTHING. I
will be just as dead if one of them shoots me whether or not I realize
that the shooter has misinterpreted jihad.
>
> > >
> > > > A footnote: I must say, were I a lawyer, I would find this dialogue
> > > > enlightening. I would certainly think very long before allowing any
> > > > Muslim, no matter how seemingly educated, onto a jury in any case
> > > > remotely related to Islam. It is amazing to me how someone such as
> > > > yourself can be so blind. Actually, I find it not only amazing, but
> > > > also very chilling in its implications.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Why? Do you think I'd let Malvo off? I wouldn't.
> >
> > If you read my paragraph again, you will see that I was not speaking
> > of the Malvo case, but of any case involving Islam. The evidence of
> > your lack of objectivity where Islam is concerned is that you are
> > incapable of recognizing the obvious motive in the Malvo case due to
> > your primary and overwhelming desire to redeem and protect Islam. This
> > desire renders you incapable of rational thought where Islam is
> > concerned.
> >
> > >I also wouldn't see
> > > the monsters in the closet that Malkin's trying to put there.
> >
> > As I said previously, Malkin's comments are unnecessary -- the
> > drawings speak for themselves. Malkin's observations are elemantary to
> > any but those buried beneath their own motives.
>
> Malkin's observations are elementary to anyone already predisposed to
> agree with her, and who's capable of keeping him- or herself ignorant
> of the underlying concepts--what Jihad means, what it means to be a
> Muslim, what Islam is, etc--about which she writes.
SHe does not write about jihad, she writes about Malvo's concept of
jihad.
>Anyone who
> already knows about these things, or who is capable of looking outside
> the world of FoxNEWS for explanation, can see through the extremely
> thin veil of FUD Malkin's trying to pull over their eyes.
It is you who is kept under the veile by your desire to vindicate
Islam at the cost of your objectivity.
Susan Doe
Thanks, but no thanks. Please detail total lives taken by followers of
this Mr. Swift.
>
> Ultimately, this group finds its provision under the larger Christian
> Identity movement, under which you'll also find the Aryan Nations,
> KKK, neo-Nazis, and various groups of skinheads, the most violent of
> which get to call themselves members of the Phineas Priesthood:
>
> <<http://www.cesnur.org/testi/FBI_006.htm>>
The KKK, neo-nazis, aryans, etc. have barely killed for their beliefs
when compared with Muslim slaughter. What the hell is wrong with you
that you cannot see this?
And for the fifth of five, your jihad is blasphemous. I must say I
grow weary of all of this religious nonsense.
>
> > > >> In fact, the
> > > >> god-myth that the Five Percenters have created doesn't even pretend to
> > > >> be the Allah (swt) of mainstream Islam, denoucing the latter as a spook
> > > >> or fairy-tale that non-Blacks have tricked the world into worshipping.
> > > >
> > > > All irrelvancies. Jihad does not exist without Islam, and Malvo does
> > > > not exist without jihad. Neither does bin Laden or millions, yes
> > > > millions of other good Muslims who perhaps haven't pulled the trigger,
> > > > but only because they don't have a gun.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Again with the hypotheticals. You don't know any of that.
> >
> > Yes, I do. So do you. But, you do not want to admit it becuase it puts
> > you in danger. I understand. I would take the same tack in your shoes.
>
> What danger would it put me in?
Don't play dumb. The danger of guilt by association.
>I don't know any of that to be true,
> and neither do you. You're just pretending you do.
I believe it to be true. YOu are free to believe what you want.
>
> > >
> > > >>> He pulled the trigger because he felt that made him a good Muslim just
> > > >>> like bin Laden and all the others. What you or any other
> > > >>> self-righteous Muslim may think as to his Muslim "validity" is
> > > >>> absolutely irrelevant --
> > > >>
> > > >> It might be irrelevant if what Malvo practiced even remotely resembles
> > > >> Islam, but it doesn't.
> > > >
> > > > This is the blanket that you wrap yourself up in. Rather than face the
> > > > reality that your "religion" has inspired countless people to utterly
> > > > horrid acts, you comfort yourself by saying bin Laden isn't a true
> > > > Muslim. Yes, he is. The Koran exhorts the reader to violence. The
> > > > Koran exhorts the reader to anti-Semitism. The Koran exhorts the
> > > > reader to misogyny. Bin Laden is a good Muslim, and anyone who is not
> > > > violent is not one. Any objective reader of the Koran will draw this
> > > > conclusion.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You're getting a bit mixed up here--we're talking about Malvo's Islamic
> > > adherence, not bin Laden's.
> >
> > I am not mixed up at all. You have tried to dismiss Malvo's Islamic
> > motivation by claiming that what he practiced did not even remotely
> > resemble Islam, even though his drawings, by way of numerous specific
> > references, clearly zero in on Islam as the sole motivation for his
> > violence.
>
> Careful with terms like "sole." I've posted another reply that paints
> a far different picture.
You are correct. I retract "sole". Please substitute "primary".
>
> > I have above chosen bin Laden as an example because he is
> > guilty of murdering many more than Malvo and you cannot so easily
> > impugn his Muslim-ness.
> >
>
> Of course I can't. But what Malvo practices doesn't remotely resemble
> even what bin Laden practices. This thread has provided links
> detailing the departures that the Five Percenters take from
> conventional Islam--you may not think those matter, but I'd assure you
> that bin Laden would.
What is your point?
>
> > >Regardless, you certainly have a lot of
> > > ideas about what the Quran says--have you ever read it? All of it?
> > > It's just over four hundred pages, so it's not beyond reason to expect
> > > someone to have actually read it before making judgements.
> > >
> > > >>> the simple fact is that if there were no
> > > >>> Islam, there would have been no shootings.
> > > >>
> > > >> The problem with creating such sweeping hypotheticals is that you can't
> > > >> prove them.
> > > >
> > > > It is not up to me to prove them. It is up to the district attorney in
> > > > the case. It is only for you and those like you, blinded by their
> > > > overwhelming desire to protect Islam, that the obvious, direct
> > > > connection between Malvo's violence and Islam is hypothetical. The
> > > > fact is that the very meaning of the word "hypothetical" must come
> > > > into question when spoken by one who has managed to convince himself
> > > > beyond any doubt that the Koran is the words of God.
> > > >
> > >
> > > ?? The District Attorney doesn't need to prove that hypothetical
> > > because it's not necessary to the case.
> >
> > Motive is a crucial part of almost all criminal cases. Watch Perry
> > Mason.
> >
>
> Almost all criminal cases where you still need to prove the facts of
> the crime.
Do me a favor. Your statement proves you could benefit from watching
Perry.
>In this case, the facts of the crime have already been
> demonstrated.
>
> > >The District Attorney isn't
> > > indicting Islam, nor is that office indicting the Five Percenters.
> >
> > He is not indicting anyone. That has already been done. He is
> > attempting to prove Malvo killed. Every killer has a motive, except
> > accidental killers. Motive makes the story hang together and makes it
> > believable.
> >
>
> What more do you think is necessary to convince a jury that Malvo
> killed those people?
>
> > > Malvo's the issue to him or her, and we know unequivocably that he
> > > committed these crimes.
> >
> > Ah, unequivocably, meaning we can just sweep motive into the closet
> > where no one can see it. Isn't that convenient?
I notice this statement has gone unreplied to. I wonder why.
> >
> > >You're the one making the assertion that
> > > without Islam, Malvo wouldn't have committed these crimes, but you're
> > > not able to prove that.
> >
> > I'm the *one*??
>
> Pretty much, yeah.
>
> > You wish. I repeat, this is up to the DA. I do not
> > have access to the information necessary to prove it beyond doubt.
>
> Well, you do. You're just chosing not to look.
>
> > I
> > have the drawings of Malvo, and until there is another motive proven
> > in court, I and any reasonable person will have to conclude that Islam
> > and jihad were his motive. Why? Because I am a rational person without
> > ulterior motive. You are not.
> >
>
> Oh, you have a motive all right.
Objectivity is not motive. I have nothing to prove regarding Islam. It
means nothing to me other than a potential threat. You, on the other
hand, have a lot at stake. But, I am tired and bored, think what you
want.
>
> --A
Abdiel
(in message <71e3076e.0312...@posting.google.com>):
There's the Oklahoma City bombing, for starters, and the smaller
explosion of a pipe bomb in Atlanta in 1998 and another bombing of an
abortion clinic the same year in Alabama. Also, remember the mid-80s
crime sprees of The Order, including the assassination of Walter West,
the murder of Colorado radio personality John Berg, and a host of
victims in the process of a stunning armed robbery spree in the period.
In recent years, violence related to Christian Identity has taken a
purposely less cohesive role than the days of The Order, with small
splinter groups taking action in ignorance, but with the support, of
leadership, evidenced by the crimes of murderers like Michael Ryan.
>>
>> Ultimately, this group finds its provision under the larger Christian
>> Identity movement, under which you'll also find the Aryan Nations,
>> KKK, neo-Nazis, and various groups of skinheads, the most violent of
>> which get to call themselves members of the Phineas Priesthood:
>>
>> <<http://www.cesnur.org/testi/FBI_006.htm>>
>
> The KKK, neo-nazis, aryans, etc. have barely killed for their beliefs
> when compared with Muslim slaughter. What the hell is wrong with you
> that you cannot see this?
>
Did I miss something? When did this become a pissing contest between
the body counts left behind by "Christian" and "Islamist" terrorism?
You asked for demonstration that other religions can incite their
followers to violence; I provided. A "thank you" would've sufficed.
Making me wonder: why are you posting on a religious newsgroup, then?
>>
>>>>>> In fact, the
>>>>>> god-myth that the Five Percenters have created doesn't even pretend to
>>>>>> be the Allah (swt) of mainstream Islam, denoucing the latter as a
>>>>>> spook
>>>>>> or fairy-tale that non-Blacks have tricked the world into worshipping.
>>>>>
>>>>> All irrelvancies. Jihad does not exist without Islam, and Malvo does
>>>>> not exist without jihad. Neither does bin Laden or millions, yes
>>>>> millions of other good Muslims who perhaps haven't pulled the trigger,
>>>>> but only because they don't have a gun.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Again with the hypotheticals. You don't know any of that.
>>>
>>> Yes, I do. So do you. But, you do not want to admit it becuase it puts
>>> you in danger. I understand. I would take the same tack in your shoes.
>>
>> What danger would it put me in?
>
> Don't play dumb. The danger of guilt by association.
>
I'm not in danger of that. In no way am I associated with the likes of
Malvo. Would you consider a Christian "associated" with the likes of
Tim McVeigh?
The psychologist who has spent a great deal of time studying Malvo
indicates this isn't the case--Malvo exhibited a great deal of violent
tendancies well before he even met Muhammad and learned of the tenets
of the Five Percenters.
>>
>>> I have above chosen bin Laden as an example because he is
>>> guilty of murdering many more than Malvo and you cannot so easily
>>> impugn his Muslim-ness.
>>>
>>
>> Of course I can't. But what Malvo practices doesn't remotely resemble
>> even what bin Laden practices. This thread has provided links
>> detailing the departures that the Five Percenters take from
>> conventional Islam--you may not think those matter, but I'd assure you
>> that bin Laden would.
>
> What is your point?
That Malvo is no more connected by Islam to bin Laden than he is to me.
But you've already demonstrated that you're not objective--you're not
interested in learning what Islam is, Jihad is, or how Malvo's beliefs
fit into that framework--you've admitted that you simply don't care.
"All I ever needed to know about Islam I learned from FoxNEWS." That's
not objectivity, that's selectivism.
--A
Abdiel
(in message
<phaedrine_stonebridge...@news-50.giganews.com>):
Black Nationalist.
--A
Abdiel
(in message <71e3076e.03121...@posting.google.com>):
Very nice. What you're forgetting, however, is that you're making the
claim--I don't need to prove otherwise, you need to prove the claim.
Or you could just stop making it.
>>
>>> The utter irrelevance
>>> of the fact that this may not be what "jihad" means to you is
>>> something you seem oddly incapable of grasping. It is possible that
>>> National Socialism was a very benevolent ideology.
>>
>> No it isn't. As an ideology, National Socialism contains inherent
>> evils--this even beyond its practice.
>
> Evil is relative -- good German Nazis did not consider themselves
> evil, they they were doing good. I do not feel like debating this
> point, however, so am willing to let it pass.
Of course, not without the parting shot: "Evil is relative," and I'll
bite: No, it's not. In no terms, for example, could anyone
successfully argue the relativity of evil of the 9/11 bombings.
>>
>>> Ideas are subject
>>> to interpretation, therefore it is the interpretation that is
>>> important, not the idea. You may interpret jihad to be a beautiful
>>> concept, but I don't care about that because your interpretation does
>>> not affect me. Bin Laden's and Malvo's does.
>>
>> It's not an interpretation. It's what the term actually means. Do
>> you know what it actually means?
>
> Plaese stop asking me this. What it means to me is that I may die
> because of it.
> That is all I care to know about it.
So you don't know what it means. That's all you had to say.
How is that an Islamic meaning of "prophet"? Wouldn't an Islamic
meaning of "prophet" need to be, by definition, religious?
>> "Everybody's got his Islam"? How much about what you know about
>> Islam doesn't come from FoxNEWS?
>
> 1) That which comes from the Koranic passages I have read. They seem
> to support bin Laden much more than they do you.
For someone who seems to pride herself on her objectivity, you don't
seem very interested in objectivity. You seem more interested in
selecting pieces of information that suit your purposes.
> Please understand
> that I will not debate this statement with you because I do not have
> the time.
If you don't have the time to demonstrate your claims, why bother
posting the claims in the first place?
> 2) That which comes from reading this newsgroup and from
> Muslims such as yourself.
How many of these Muslims have you ever spoken or otherwise dialogued
with?
>>
>>> You
>>> want so very badly to discredit Malvo's Islam only because you are
>>> desperate to distance yourself from him. That is purely selfish. Your
>>> selfishness has polluted your objectivity.
>>
>> I don't need to distance myself from Malvo. Malvo's Five Percenters
>> distance themselves from me, and from the rest of conventional Islam.
>
> YOu have spent most of this thread attempting to distance yourself
> from Malvo.
No I haven't. And I haven't needed to--as I say, Malvo's group has
done that part for me.
But that doesn't mean that Islam created his crimes, not by a longshot.
Besides, in order to demonstrate your claim, you'd have to prove that
without Islam, there would've been no crimes, and you've got no basis
to make that statement, especially considering the other troubling
influences that impacted Malvo--watching The Matrix 100 times while
cradling a gun? Doesn't it seem that Malvo might, just might, be a
sociopathic menace who would've shot people without the existence of
Islam?
>>
>>>>
>>>>> Only three of the exhibits proving that not the Matrix, not Rastis,
>>>>> but jihad is why the shootings happened. Is it "your" Islam, "your"
>>>>> jihad? Perhaps not. Who cares?
>>>>
>>>> Actual Muslims care.
>>>
>>> They had better care. The world will not tolerate an unlimited number
>>> of Malvos.
>>>
>>> What Malvo and Muhammad ascribe to--the 'faith'
>>>> of the Five Percenters--doesn't resemble in the slightest any form of
>>>> Islam. For starters:
>>>> 1) Every man (that's man, not person) is a god,
>>>> 2) Islam isn't a religion,
>>>> 3) Allah is an acronym for Arm, Leg, Leg, Arm, Head,
>>>> 4) Allah is an incarnation of the original black man,
>>>> 4) Sprituality of any form is available only to black people.
>>>
>>> As I said, words can be interpreted. How a book such as the Koran,
>>> written by an omnipotent God, could have been so "misinterpreted"
>>> through the centuries is of course another subject.
>>>
>>
>> The Five Percenter's don't "misinterpret" the Quran; they bypass it
>> altogether.
>
> I don't know anything about the 5%ers, but if they are in any way
> similar to NOI, you are dead wrong. The Koran is basic to NOI.
>
Again--where's that objectivity we've been hearing so much about? If
you don't know anything about them and you're not prepared to look, how
can you judge whether or not what they practice is actually Islam?
>> Nothing that they teach has any basis in the Quran.
>
> The Koran is violent. They are violent. Are you saying this is
> coincidence?
The Quran isn't violent. I already know you haven't read it and aren't
interested in doing so, so I might wonder why you'd make such a claim.
Regardless, this is rather simplistic logic. I'm suprised a disciple
of objectivity would attempt it.
>>
>>>
>>>>> Jihad is a concept which does not exist
>>>>> outside of Islam. Therefore, no Islam, no shootings. Simple, except to
>>>>> Muslims defending the faith.
>>>>
>>>> The concept of Jihad--struggle for God and for faith--exists in many
>>>> religions and cultures other than Islam, it's just not expressed in
>>>> Arabic there. I've no doubt that Malvo truly understands what Jihad
>>>> is...but then, I've got little doubt that you truly understand what
>>>> Jihad is.
>>>
>>> For what I hope is the final time, millions of Muslims feel that jihad
>>> is a requirement to kill those who, directly or by association, are
>>> perceived as oppressing Muslims.
>>
>> Again: care to prove that?
>
> Care to prove it false? Please see above.
You as well--I don't need to prove it false. You're claiming it's
true, so you can either prove it, concede it, or leave it as an
unproven outburst.
>>
>>> The passages in the Koran which
>>> support this are legion. My understanding of the concept is
>>> irrelevant. On the other hand, my understanding of what it means to be
>>> a true Muslim is very important, and that understanding comes from the
>>> actions of bin Laden, Malvo, and countless others, actions which are
>>> clearly demanded by the Koran.
>>>
>>
>> You have no idea what it means to be a true Muslim, but that's not
>> your biggest problem--you also don't have any idea what the Islamic
>> concept of Jihad means, and that's the crux of your argument, one
>> which doesn't even pretend to be based on anything other than willful
>> ignorance. Don't you think you should know what these concepts mean
>> before speaking about it?
>
> No, jihad is what any Muslim or NOIer or 5%er or whatever wants it to
> be.
I'm sorry, but you're quite wrong. The concept of Jihad is a constant;
those who interpret it in such ways to mean that Jihad *always*
requires a violent struggle against non Muslims regardless of their
relationship to Muslims are wrong. Not "relatively wrong," not
"interpretively wrong"; flat-out wrong.
> Who is "correct" means NOTHING to me, do you get it, NOTHING. I
> will be just as dead if one of them shoots me whether or not I realize
> that the shooter has misinterpreted jihad
Whoa, Nelly. No need to shout.
Your paranoia aside, there is a constant Islamic concept of Jihad; it
has a meaning outside of what the NOI and the Five Percenters believe.
To both of those groups, jihad means a race-struggle, not religious.
That's a pretty big difference.
So if she's not writing about *actual* Jihad, why would she make the
point that Lee Malvo is a distinctively Muslim hatemonger?
>> Anyone who
>> already knows about these things, or who is capable of looking outside
>> the world of FoxNEWS for explanation, can see through the extremely
>> thin veil of FUD Malkin's trying to pull over their eyes.
>
> It is you who is kept under the veile by your desire to vindicate
> Islam at the cost of your objectivity.
Ahhh--there's that "objectivity" again, from someone who openly admits
not knowing and caring to know elements central to the issue of whether
or not Malvo is a Muslim hatemonger.
So, if Malkin isn't trying to pull anything over here, why does she
omit any of the other elements of Malvo's case--the elements of Black
Nationalism imbued into John Muhammad's indoctrination, for example, or
the violent video games, or the childhood history of violent behavior,
or the bits about watching the Matrix 100 times while cradling a gun?
If she were really tring to be objective, don't you think she would've
at least referenced these?
Phaedrine Stonebridge
Abdiel <abdi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
OK I'll take that as a yes. Then how would you categorize these beliefs
if not religious?
Abdiel
(in message
<phaedrine_stonebridge...@news-50.giganews.com>):
Actually, that's an answer to the first, not the second. The first
wasn't a yes or no question; the second was. Answering the first
precludes a "No" to the second.
> Then how would you categorize these beliefs
> if not religious?
Did you somehow miss that? They're Black Nationalist beliefs.
--A
Susan Doe
No, that's zero. You assume these three did not accept Muhammad as
Allah's prophet for silly reasons. Christians believe Jesus was God
incarnate, but still believe that Moses was God's prophet. Of course,
this is besides the fact that you have yet again evaded answering the
original question, which was why, if JAM did not have Islamic beliefs,
he chose Muhammad as his name.
> --A
Susan Doe
You are wildly stretching the truth for your own ends. Not acceptable.
McVeigh's connection with Swift was at best tangential. There is not a
shred of evidence that McVeigh did what he did for God or for Swift.
If you cannot debate honestly, I am gone.
>and the smaller
> explosion of a pipe bomb in Atlanta in 1998 and another bombing of an
> abortion clinic the same year in Alabama. Also, remember the mid-80s
> crime sprees of The Order, including the assassination of Walter West,
> the murder of Colorado radio personality John Berg, and a host of
> victims in the process of a stunning armed robbery spree in the period.
> In recent years, violence related to Christian Identity has taken a
> purposely less cohesive role than the days of The Order, with small
> splinter groups taking action in ignorance, but with the support, of
> leadership, evidenced by the crimes of murderers like Michael Ryan.
>
> >>
> >> Ultimately, this group finds its provision under the larger Christian
> >> Identity movement, under which you'll also find the Aryan Nations,
> >> KKK, neo-Nazis, and various groups of skinheads, the most violent of
> >> which get to call themselves members of the Phineas Priesthood:
> >>
> >> <<http://www.cesnur.org/testi/FBI_006.htm>>
> >
> > The KKK, neo-nazis, aryans, etc. have barely killed for their beliefs
> > when compared with Muslim slaughter. What the hell is wrong with you
> > that you cannot see this?
> >
>
> Did I miss something? When did this become a pissing contest between
> the body counts left behind by "Christian" and "Islamist" terrorism?
> You asked for demonstration that other religions can incite their
> followers to violence; I provided. A "thank you" would've sufficed.
Your primary example was erroneous, and your others are isolated nut
cases that are not motivated by God, but by anti-government feelings
which may be inflamed in "churches". That hardly serves as a balance
to something as widespread as terrorism directly instigated by the
Koran and many of its convreyors. You don't want it to be a pissing
contest because the situation is so unbalanced that your reply to my
question becomes obviously desperate.
Would you prefer I didn't?
> >>
> >>>>>> In fact, the
> >>>>>> god-myth that the Five Percenters have created doesn't even pretend to
> >>>>>> be the Allah (swt) of mainstream Islam, denoucing the latter as a
> >>>>>> spook
> >>>>>> or fairy-tale that non-Blacks have tricked the world into worshipping.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> All irrelvancies. Jihad does not exist without Islam, and Malvo does
> >>>>> not exist without jihad. Neither does bin Laden or millions, yes
> >>>>> millions of other good Muslims who perhaps haven't pulled the trigger,
> >>>>> but only because they don't have a gun.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Again with the hypotheticals. You don't know any of that.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, I do. So do you. But, you do not want to admit it becuase it puts
> >>> you in danger. I understand. I would take the same tack in your shoes.
> >>
> >> What danger would it put me in?
> >
> > Don't play dumb. The danger of guilt by association.
> >
>
> I'm not in danger of that. In no way am I associated with the likes of
> Malvo. Would you consider a Christian "associated" with the likes of
> Tim McVeigh?
You are associated with Malvo if people associate you with him.
Childhood violent tendencies are insufficient. Many kids display
violent tendencies and do not commit murder later. What is necessary
is something to release the conscience. Islam is excellent at that, in
fact many believe that that was the primary motivation for its
invention.
> >>
> >>> I have above chosen bin Laden as an example because he is
> >>> guilty of murdering many more than Malvo and you cannot so easily
> >>> impugn his Muslim-ness.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Of course I can't. But what Malvo practices doesn't remotely resemble
> >> even what bin Laden practices. This thread has provided links
> >> detailing the departures that the Five Percenters take from
> >> conventional Islam--you may not think those matter, but I'd assure you
> >> that bin Laden would.
> >
> > What is your point?
>
> That Malvo is no more connected by Islam to bin Laden than he is to me.
Ok, if you say so.
Are you actually stooping so low as to put something in direct quotes
which I not only did not say, but directly contradicted in another
reply in this thread?
You do not deserve a reply, but I will provide one anyway. Objectivity
is irrelevant to decisions about about what to be objective. I am
objective about jihad as it affects me. As I said, I can learn enough
about lung cancer to avoid it, to say objectively that it can kill
me, but I probably will not get it if I do not smoke. The fact that I
do not understand the different mutations that cause lung cancer on a
cellular level does not mean I am not objective about it and about how
to avoid it.
Susan Doe
I don't know where you get these rules, but I don't care either.
Estimates by definition cannot be proven. You can say you do not agree
with the numbers, but it appears that, unlike mine, the source of your
disagrreement is nothing more than wishful thinking. Tough luck.
>
> >>
> >>> The utter irrelevance
> >>> of the fact that this may not be what "jihad" means to you is
> >>> something you seem oddly incapable of grasping. It is possible that
> >>> National Socialism was a very benevolent ideology.
> >>
> >> No it isn't. As an ideology, National Socialism contains inherent
> >> evils--this even beyond its practice.
> >
> > Evil is relative -- good German Nazis did not consider themselves
> > evil, they they were doing good. I do not feel like debating this
> > point, however, so am willing to let it pass.
>
> Of course, not without the parting shot: "Evil is relative," and I'll
> bite: No, it's not. In no terms, for example, could anyone
> successfully argue the relativity of evil of the 9/11 bombings.
Are you joking? Hundreds of millions of Muslims could. Were you on an
island after 9-11? Did you not see the dancing in the streets, the
sold-out Osama t-shirts? Did you not read about the Egyptian professor
who did an informal survey in Cairo and could not find one person not
in favor of 9-11? Do you think all of these people think 9-11 was evil
and dance anyway? Of course not. They think it's the greatest
achievement of Islam in 1000 years.
>
> >>
> >>> Ideas are subject
> >>> to interpretation, therefore it is the interpretation that is
> >>> important, not the idea. You may interpret jihad to be a beautiful
> >>> concept, but I don't care about that because your interpretation does
> >>> not affect me. Bin Laden's and Malvo's does.
> >>
> >> It's not an interpretation. It's what the term actually means. Do
> >> you know what it actually means?
> >
> > Plaese stop asking me this. What it means to me is that I may die
> > because of it.
> > That is all I care to know about it.
>
> So you don't know what it means. That's all you had to say.
I do know what it means. Just like I know what Nazism meant. Goebbels
would disagree, of course. He would speak exactly as you do about
jihad.
A muslim can use language just like any other person. It is possible
that Malvo used the word in this way, as the greatest compliment he
could think of. I find it unlikely that Malvo thought that JAM thought
that God was speaking to him, thus his label of JAM as "prophet" could
not possibly be the religious one.
>
> >> "Everybody's got his Islam"? How much about what you know about
> >> Islam doesn't come from FoxNEWS?
> >
> > 1) That which comes from the Koranic passages I have read. They seem
> > to support bin Laden much more than they do you.
>
> For someone who seems to pride herself on her objectivity, you don't
> seem very interested in objectivity. You seem more interested in
> selecting pieces of information that suit your purposes.
Nice claim. Groundless, but nice.
>
> > Please understand
> > that I will not debate this statement with you because I do not have
> > the time.
>
> If you don't have the time to demonstrate your claims, why bother
> posting the claims in the first place?
You asked, I answered. That's why. "My" claims have been demonstrated
here and in many other groups countless times. There is always an
excuse, the most prevalent one "context". Sorry, I don't have time.
The Koran is addressed to the reader, I don't need any inermediary to
explain it to me. Let's move on.
> > 2) That which comes from reading this newsgroup and from
> > Muslims such as yourself.
>
> How many of these Muslims have you ever spoken or otherwise dialogued
> with?
Irrelevant. I read. Dialogue is not necessary to learning. I learn
from books, but do not speak with the authors.
>
> >>
> >>> You
> >>> want so very badly to discredit Malvo's Islam only because you are
> >>> desperate to distance yourself from him. That is purely selfish. Your
> >>> selfishness has polluted your objectivity.
> >>
> >> I don't need to distance myself from Malvo. Malvo's Five Percenters
> >> distance themselves from me, and from the rest of conventional Islam.
> >
> > YOu have spent most of this thread attempting to distance yourself
> > from Malvo.
>
> No I haven't. And I haven't needed to--as I say, Malvo's group has
> done that part for me.
Whatever. Next.
No one claims Islam "created" his crimes. Islam enabled his crimes.
> Besides, in order to demonstrate your claim, you'd have to prove that
> without Islam, there would've been no crimes, and you've got no basis
> to make that statement, especially considering the other troubling
> influences that impacted Malvo--watching The Matrix 100 times while
> cradling a gun? Doesn't it seem that Malvo might, just might, be a
> sociopathic menace who would've shot people without the existence of
> Islam?
Yes, it is possible. It is obviously what you choose to believe, and
you are free to do that. It is not what I choose to believe. Neither
choice is provable. Yet you cling to my inability to prove mine as
your lifeboat. I'd have to call that rather pathetic.
>
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Only three of the exhibits proving that not the Matrix, not Rastis,
> >>>>> but jihad is why the shootings happened. Is it "your" Islam, "your"
> >>>>> jihad? Perhaps not. Who cares?
> >>>>
> >>>> Actual Muslims care.
> >>>
> >>> They had better care. The world will not tolerate an unlimited number
> >>> of Malvos.
> >>>
> >>> What Malvo and Muhammad ascribe to--the 'faith'
> >>>> of the Five Percenters--doesn't resemble in the slightest any form of
> >>>> Islam. For starters:
> >>>> 1) Every man (that's man, not person) is a god,
> >>>> 2) Islam isn't a religion,
> >>>> 3) Allah is an acronym for Arm, Leg, Leg, Arm, Head,
> >>>> 4) Allah is an incarnation of the original black man,
> >>>> 4) Sprituality of any form is available only to black people.
> >>>
> >>> As I said, words can be interpreted. How a book such as the Koran,
> >>> written by an omnipotent God, could have been so "misinterpreted"
> >>> through the centuries is of course another subject.
> >>>
> >>
> >> The Five Percenter's don't "misinterpret" the Quran; they bypass it
> >> altogether.
> >
> > I don't know anything about the 5%ers, but if they are in any way
> > similar to NOI, you are dead wrong. The Koran is basic to NOI.
> >
>
> Again--where's that objectivity we've been hearing so much about? If
> you don't know anything about them and you're not prepared to look, how
> can you judge whether or not what they practice is actually Islam?
You are again the eel. I said that the Koran is basic to NOI. I will
not, repeat, will not become involved in a debate as to what is the
"real Islam", because I don't care. The Koran is basic to Islam and it
is basic to NOI. I read the autobiography of Malcolm X as a child
amongst other relevant things, so I know. Your silly attempts to
impugn my objectivity only further damage your credibility. It is
interesting how this impugning is clearly the direct result of my
calling into question your ability to be objective where Islam is
concerned re my lawyer scenario. I suppose the best defense is a
strong offense, eh?
>
> >> Nothing that they teach has any basis in the Quran.
> >
> > The Koran is violent. They are violent. Are you saying this is
> > coincidence?
>
> The Quran isn't violent. I already know you haven't read it and aren't
> interested in doing so,
You know I haven't read it? ARe you serious? Again you wrap yourself
in a secure blanket of your own knitting and convince yourself it is
the blanket of truth. Comfortable fantasy is preferable to
uncomfortable reality.
>so I might wonder why you'd make such a claim.
Yes, I am sure you might. This is bordering on the surreal. We have
entered lala land where I am the only soul who thinks the Koran is
violent. Time for you to get a grip.
> Regardless, this is rather simplistic logic. I'm suprised a disciple
> of objectivity would attempt it.
It appears that you are entertaining yourself. Verbally, I mean.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>> Jihad is a concept which does not exist
> >>>>> outside of Islam. Therefore, no Islam, no shootings. Simple, except to
> >>>>> Muslims defending the faith.
> >>>>
> >>>> The concept of Jihad--struggle for God and for faith--exists in many
> >>>> religions and cultures other than Islam, it's just not expressed in
> >>>> Arabic there. I've no doubt that Malvo truly understands what Jihad
> >>>> is...but then, I've got little doubt that you truly understand what
> >>>> Jihad is.
> >>>
> >>> For what I hope is the final time, millions of Muslims feel that jihad
> >>> is a requirement to kill those who, directly or by association, are
> >>> perceived as oppressing Muslims.
> >>
> >> Again: care to prove that?
> >
> > Care to prove it false? Please see above.
>
> You as well--I don't need to prove it false.
You want to challenge it based on nothing but the fact that an
estimate cannot be proven. You don't like it, that's all you know.
You're claiming it's
> true, so you can either prove it, concede it,
'
Concede what? Concede that an estimate cannot be proven? Yes, I
concede that.
>or leave it as an
> unproven outburst.
It is much more than an outburst. It is an estimate given in many
reliable sources, most of which I am sure you have read. What this
boils down to is that you don't like the number because you wish it
were not true, end of story. Tough luck.
>
> >>
> >>> The passages in the Koran which
> >>> support this are legion. My understanding of the concept is
> >>> irrelevant. On the other hand, my understanding of what it means to be
> >>> a true Muslim is very important, and that understanding comes from the
> >>> actions of bin Laden, Malvo, and countless others, actions which are
> >>> clearly demanded by the Koran.
> >>>
> >>
> >> You have no idea what it means to be a true Muslim, but that's not
> >> your biggest problem--you also don't have any idea what the Islamic
> >> concept of Jihad means, and that's the crux of your argument, one
> >> which doesn't even pretend to be based on anything other than willful
> >> ignorance. Don't you think you should know what these concepts mean
> >> before speaking about it?
> >
> > No, jihad is what any Muslim or NOIer or 5%er or whatever wants it to
> > be.
>
> I'm sorry, but you're quite wrong. The concept of Jihad is a constant;
> those who interpret it in such ways to mean that Jihad *always*
> requires a violent struggle against non Muslims regardless of their
> relationship to Muslims are wrong.
I warn you. One more lie and this debate is over. Nowhere in this
thread has anyone said jihad involves violence against non-Muslims
regardless of their relationship to Muslims. The violence has always
been defined as confined to non-Muslims seen as oppressing Muslims. I
mean what I said about the debate. I feel as if I am scolding my 10
year old.
>Not "relatively wrong," not
> "interpretively wrong"; flat-out wrong.
This point bores me. Think what you want about right and wrong jihad.
Next.
>
> > Who is "correct" means NOTHING to me, do you get it, NOTHING. I
> > will be just as dead if one of them shoots me whether or not I realize
> > that the shooter has misinterpreted jihad
>
> Whoa, Nelly. No need to shout.
Yes, there is most certainly need to shout. Speaking does not get
through to you.
>
> Your paranoia aside,
Right.
>there is a constant Islamic concept of Jihad; it
> has a meaning outside of what the NOI and the Five Percenters believe.
> To both of those groups, jihad means a race-struggle, not religious.
> That's a pretty big difference.
That's nice. YOu also believe bin Laden's jihad is incorrect. I will
cut and paste the statement that correctness is irrelevant. Koranic
motivation for violence is what is important, regardless of who
believe who is right. All of bin Laden's killing was motivated by how
he interprets the Koran.
There is no "actual" jihad. Jihad is what the jihadi makes it.
>why would she make the
> point that Lee Malvo is a distinctively Muslim hatemonger?
Distinct Muslim references.
> >> Anyone who
> >> already knows about these things, or who is capable of looking outside
> >> the world of FoxNEWS for explanation, can see through the extremely
> >> thin veil of FUD Malkin's trying to pull over their eyes.
> >
> > It is you who is kept under the veile by your desire to vindicate
> > Islam at the cost of your objectivity.
>
> Ahhh--there's that "objectivity" again, from someone who openly admits
> not knowing and caring to know elements central to the issue of whether
> or not Malvo is a Muslim hatemonger.
See above.
>
> So, if Malkin isn't trying to pull anything over here, why does she
> omit any of the other elements of Malvo's case--the elements of Black
> Nationalism imbued into John Muhammad's indoctrination, for example, or
> the violent video games, or the childhood history of violent behavior,
> or the bits about watching the Matrix 100 times while cradling a gun?
> If she were really tring to be objective, don't you think she would've
> at least referenced these?
Very eely once again. Nice try. This is the first paragraph of her
article:
> From the moment John Allen Muhammad and Lee Malvo were arrested in the
> Beltway-area sniper case last fall, the media and Muslim activists
> wanted us to believe that the serial killings had absolutely nothing to
> do with Islamic terrorism.
Her thesis is NOT that Islam is the sole motivator for the violence,
it is that, contrary to Muslim activists, Islam had very much to do
with the killings.
Abdiel
> > >>
> > >> Only if one enjoys going through life with his or her eyes shut.
> > >> Check out the teachings of the Church of Christ, Christian pastored by
> > >> one Wesely Swift, in which racial violence isn't merely recommended,
> > >> it's required:
> > >>
> > >> <<http://www.kingidentity.com/>>
> > >
> > > Thanks, but no thanks. Please detail total lives taken by followers of
> > > this Mr. Swift.
> >
> > There's the Oklahoma City bombing, for starters,
>
> You are wildly stretching the truth for your own ends. Not acceptable.
> McVeigh's connection with Swift was at best tangential. There is not a
> shred of evidence that McVeigh did what he did for God or for Swift.
> If you cannot debate honestly, I am gone.
>
Au contraire. McVeigh's connections with the Christian Identity
movement have been public since he became a suspect--in fact, it was
his connection with this movement that first aroused suspicion in the
first place, combined with the circumstantial evidence tying him to
the event. That's not "tangential."
Kinda sounds like Malvo and Muhammad, doesn't it?
> That hardly serves as a balance
> to something as widespread as terrorism directly instigated by the
> Koran and many of its convreyors. You don't want it to be a pissing
> contest because the situation is so unbalanced that your reply to my
> question becomes obviously desperate.
You're moving the goalposts. You originally asked for evidence that
religions other than Islam incite violence in the same way that some
Islamic movements have used the concept of Jihad to incite
violence--as I said, I've provided.
Nah, I don't really care what you do. But if you're not interested in
"religious nonsense," why would you bother?
> > >>
> > >>>>>> In fact, the
> > >>>>>> god-myth that the Five Percenters have created doesn't even pretend to
> > >>>>>> be the Allah (swt) of mainstream Islam, denoucing the latter as a
> > >>>>>> spook
> > >>>>>> or fairy-tale that non-Blacks have tricked the world into worshipping.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> All irrelvancies. Jihad does not exist without Islam, and Malvo does
> > >>>>> not exist without jihad. Neither does bin Laden or millions, yes
> > >>>>> millions of other good Muslims who perhaps haven't pulled the trigger,
> > >>>>> but only because they don't have a gun.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Again with the hypotheticals. You don't know any of that.
> > >>>
> > >>> Yes, I do. So do you. But, you do not want to admit it becuase it puts
> > >>> you in danger. I understand. I would take the same tack in your shoes.
> > >>
> > >> What danger would it put me in?
> > >
> > > Don't play dumb. The danger of guilt by association.
> > >
> >
> > I'm not in danger of that. In no way am I associated with the likes of
> > Malvo. Would you consider a Christian "associated" with the likes of
> > Tim McVeigh?
>
> You are associated with Malvo if people associate you with him.
>
No, I'm not. People can attempt to associate him with me, but they'd
be mistaken, and I'll point out how.
And many people are rather wrong, but that's another matter.
Then you're not really objective, are you? Objective, by definition,
requires a connection to an external reality, but you're only
interested in versions of that reality as they affect you. In what
way is this objective?
> As I said, I can learn enough
> about lung cancer to avoid it, to say objectively that it can kill
> me, but I probably will not get it if I do not smoke. The fact that I
> do not understand the different mutations that cause lung cancer on a
> cellular level does not mean I am not objective about it and about how
> to avoid it.
I've since now avoided your analogy because it's needlessly
inflammatory, but I'll bite now: Your analogy fails on the following
point: you don't learn more about the particulars of the mutations
that cause lung cancer because they're beyond your grasp as a
lay-person whose familiarity with medical phenomena won't come close
to the doctors and scientists who're able to speak about them
intelligently. That doesn't negate your objectivity.
In this case, the concepts and processes about which you're trying to
talk are certainly within your grasp; you're just willfully ignoring
them in favour of preconceived notions that you're not prepared to
challenge given evidence to the contrary. As you say above, you're
only interested in those elements of the concepts you're discussing as
you perceive they relate to you; you've said so time and again. That
*does* negate your objectivity.
--A
Abdiel
The reasons aren't silly for anyone with any familiarity with the
latter two characters I mentioned. Neither Fard Muhammad nor Elijah
Muhammad had any great respect for Islam or belief in its tenets as a
religion in its own right, only as it could be used as a tool for
Black Nationalism. This can be seen in the way in which each rewrote
those tenets to suit Black Nationalism, at times disregarding
essential beliefs (that Allah (swt) created humans, for example) to
superimpose the greater issue [to them] of Black Nationalism over
religion. If they actually believed that Muhammad (pbuh) was a
Prophet of Allah (swt), they couldn't possibly have done so--they'd be
subverting the word of God for a political end.
--A
Abdiel
> > >>>
> > >>> "Felafel" is a word. Jihad is more than a word. It's a concept which
> > >>> means to millions of Muslims that they are not only authorized, they
> > >>> are required by Allah to kill those who they believe are, either
> > >>> directly or much more often simply by association, oppressing Muslims
> > >>> (for example, all of those people in the WTC).
> > >>
> > >> Care to prove that? What millions?
> > >
> > > I have read that anywhere from 5 to 15 percent of the world's Muslims
> > > are of the "Islamist" ilk -- either a terrorist, a terrorist in
> > > training, or a rabid follower of a religious leader proselytizing for
> > > violence. I am sorry, I cannot prove this number, but that is
> > > insufficient for me to consider it invalid, since I trust the sources
> > > which provided the information. Can you "prove" otherwise? Of course
> > > you cannot. You seem to have a thing about "proof" when you know full
> > > well the proof of an estimate is impossible by definition. Interesting
> > > for someone who bases his very existence on faith, by definition
> > > unprovable.
> > >
> >
> > Very nice. What you're forgetting, however, is that you're making the
> > claim--I don't need to prove otherwise, you need to prove the claim.
> > Or you could just stop making it.
>
> I don't know where you get these rules, but I don't care either.
They're called rules of logic--you're making a positive claim, so you
get to demonstrate it. Simply saying "prove it false" isn't
sufficient.
> Estimates by definition cannot be proven. You can say you do not agree
> with the numbers, but it appears that, unlike mine, the source of your
> disagrreement is nothing more than wishful thinking. Tough luck.
Estimates can prove themselves by holding their source materials up to
scrutiny--you haven't bothered with that, and nor have you provided
them to me so that I may do so.
> >
> > >>
> > >>> The utter irrelevance
> > >>> of the fact that this may not be what "jihad" means to you is
> > >>> something you seem oddly incapable of grasping. It is possible that
> > >>> National Socialism was a very benevolent ideology.
> > >>
> > >> No it isn't. As an ideology, National Socialism contains inherent
> > >> evils--this even beyond its practice.
> > >
> > > Evil is relative -- good German Nazis did not consider themselves
> > > evil, they they were doing good. I do not feel like debating this
> > > point, however, so am willing to let it pass.
> >
> > Of course, not without the parting shot: "Evil is relative," and I'll
> > bite: No, it's not. In no terms, for example, could anyone
> > successfully argue the relativity of evil of the 9/11 bombings.
>
> Are you joking? Hundreds of millions of Muslims could. Were you on an
> island after 9-11? Did you not see the dancing in the streets, the
> sold-out Osama t-shirts? Did you not read about the Egyptian professor
> who did an informal survey in Cairo and could not find one person not
> in favor of 9-11? Do you think all of these people think 9-11 was evil
> and dance anyway? Of course not. They think it's the greatest
> achievement of Islam in 1000 years.
So you think these people successfully argued the relativity of evil
of the 9/11 bombings?
> >
> > >>
> > >>> Ideas are subject
> > >>> to interpretation, therefore it is the interpretation that is
> > >>> important, not the idea. You may interpret jihad to be a beautiful
> > >>> concept, but I don't care about that because your interpretation does
> > >>> not affect me. Bin Laden's and Malvo's does.
> > >>
> > >> It's not an interpretation. It's what the term actually means. Do
> > >> you know what it actually means?
> > >
> > > Plaese stop asking me this. What it means to me is that I may die
> > > because of it.
> > > That is all I care to know about it.
> >
> > So you don't know what it means. That's all you had to say.
>
> I do know what it means. Just like I know what Nazism meant. Goebbels
> would disagree, of course. He would speak exactly as you do about
> jihad.
But you don't, and you've admitted it. You know what it means only as
it's portrayed in popular media; that's not a terribly profound
understanding of the concept.
Then he wouldn't be thinking Islamically, would he? And isn't that
the point of the article, that Malvo's thinking is distinctively
Muslim?
> I find it unlikely that Malvo thought that JAM thought
> that God was speaking to him, thus his label of JAM as "prophet" could
> not possibly be the religious one.
You "find it unlikely", so it "could not possibly be"? Again: where's
that objectivity we've been hearing so much about? Besides, why would
you find it unlikely?
> >
> > >> "Everybody's got his Islam"? How much about what you know about
> > >> Islam doesn't come from FoxNEWS?
> > >
> > > 1) That which comes from the Koranic passages I have read. They seem
> > > to support bin Laden much more than they do you.
> >
> > For someone who seems to pride herself on her objectivity, you don't
> > seem very interested in objectivity. You seem more interested in
> > selecting pieces of information that suit your purposes.
>
> Nice claim. Groundless, but nice.
>
It's grounded in your statements--you've said you're not interested in
learning more about the Quran, Jihad, and Islam than the elements
you've been given in the media--as you say, just the parts you
perceive as affecting you. You've made it abundantly clear you're not
interested in anything else. That means that you've selected what you
think is all you need to know about Islam.
> >
> > > Please understand
> > > that I will not debate this statement with you because I do not have
> > > the time.
> >
> > If you don't have the time to demonstrate your claims, why bother
> > posting the claims in the first place?
>
> You asked, I answered. That's why. "My" claims have been demonstrated
> here and in many other groups countless times.
This is a tactic common amongst Islamospammers and anti-Muslim bigots
alike--"The proof is out there; look it up yourself." It's rather
childish.
> There is always an
> excuse, the most prevalent one "context". Sorry, I don't have time.
> The Koran is addressed to the reader, I don't need any inermediary to
> explain it to me. Let's move on.
>
?? What's that got to do with not having the time to demonstrate your
claims?
> > > 2) That which comes from reading this newsgroup and from
> > > Muslims such as yourself.
> >
> > How many of these Muslims have you ever spoken or otherwise dialogued
> > with?
>
> Irrelevant. I read. Dialogue is not necessary to learning. I learn
> from books, but do not speak with the authors.
> >
> > >>
> > >>> You
> > >>> want so very badly to discredit Malvo's Islam only because you are
> > >>> desperate to distance yourself from him. That is purely selfish. Your
> > >>> selfishness has polluted your objectivity.
> > >>
> > >> I don't need to distance myself from Malvo. Malvo's Five Percenters
> > >> distance themselves from me, and from the rest of conventional Islam.
> > >
> > > YOu have spent most of this thread attempting to distance yourself
> > > from Malvo.
> >
> > No I haven't. And I haven't needed to--as I say, Malvo's group has
> > done that part for me.
>
> Whatever. Next.
Getting testy, are we?
You're making the claim that without Islam, these shootings wouldn't
have occurred, so if you want it to be taken seriously, you should be
prepared to back it up with something other than the blinders you put
on to block out any evidence to the contrary. There's much evidence
that suggests that Malvo is a deeply disturbed youth and that John
Allen Muhammad shaped that into a killing machine, using the precepts
of Black Nationalism under the auspices of Five Percenters ideology
(not, of course, religion, because they don't call it that), combined
with the concepts of the Matrix and those inherent in radical
Rastafarian beliefs. All of those things--all of them, including the
violent Black Nationalism inherent in the Five Percenters belief
system--exist without Islam.
Sorry. You're wrong. The teachings of Elijah Muhammad, Fard
Muhammad, and now Louis Farrakhan supercede Quranic teachings in the
NOI.
> I read the autobiography of Malcolm X as a child
> amongst other relevant things, so I know.
How would the autobiography of Malcolm X help you here? Malcomn X
*left* the NOI because he found that many of their teachings violated
Islamic principles, including the separation that NOI adherents put
between themselves and other Muslims--which takes as a prime
manifestation the selective culling and, at times, rewriting, of the
Quran in order to do so.
> Your silly attempts to
> impugn my objectivity only further damage your credibility. It is
> interesting how this impugning is clearly the direct result of my
> calling into question your ability to be objective where Islam is
> concerned re my lawyer scenario. I suppose the best defense is a
> strong offense, eh?
Especially when you're handing it to me on such an ornate silver
platter.
> >
> > >> Nothing that they teach has any basis in the Quran.
> > >
> > > The Koran is violent. They are violent. Are you saying this is
> > > coincidence?
> >
> > The Quran isn't violent. I already know you haven't read it and aren't
> > interested in doing so,
>
> You know I haven't read it? ARe you serious? Again you wrap yourself
> in a secure blanket of your own knitting and convince yourself it is
> the blanket of truth. Comfortable fantasy is preferable to
> uncomfortable reality.
>
You've admitted as much--you've said you've only read passages that
confirm your notion that it's a violent book. This indicates that you
haven't read it, but have rather been presented with elements of it.
> >so I might wonder why you'd make such a claim.
>
> Yes, I am sure you might. This is bordering on the surreal. We have
> entered lala land where I am the only soul who thinks the Koran is
> violent. Time for you to get a grip.
>
You're not the only one. The people who presented it to you as a
violent book also agree with you--or rather, you with them.
> > Regardless, this is rather simplistic logic. I'm suprised a disciple
> > of objectivity would attempt it.
>
> It appears that you are entertaining yourself. Verbally, I mean.
Look at the argument: "The Koran is violent. They are violent. Are
you saying this is a coincidence?" That's childish, even if we forget
that the first premise is false. Because two things share a trait
doesn't indicate in any way that they're related, and certainly not
that one might cause the other. Don Rickles is bald, and many white
supremecists are bald, but that doesn't make Don Rickles a white
supremecist.
Let's just say I haven't read them--from where do you pull these
estimates? I don't like the number because I sincerely doubt that
they're accurate, so show me your sources.
> >
> > >>
> > >>> The passages in the Koran which
> > >>> support this are legion. My understanding of the concept is
> > >>> irrelevant. On the other hand, my understanding of what it means to be
> > >>> a true Muslim is very important, and that understanding comes from the
> > >>> actions of bin Laden, Malvo, and countless others, actions which are
> > >>> clearly demanded by the Koran.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> You have no idea what it means to be a true Muslim, but that's not
> > >> your biggest problem--you also don't have any idea what the Islamic
> > >> concept of Jihad means, and that's the crux of your argument, one
> > >> which doesn't even pretend to be based on anything other than willful
> > >> ignorance. Don't you think you should know what these concepts mean
> > >> before speaking about it?
> > >
> > > No, jihad is what any Muslim or NOIer or 5%er or whatever wants it to
> > > be.
> >
> > I'm sorry, but you're quite wrong. The concept of Jihad is a constant;
> > those who interpret it in such ways to mean that Jihad *always*
> > requires a violent struggle against non Muslims regardless of their
> > relationship to Muslims are wrong.
>
> I warn you. One more lie and this debate is over.
How is this a "warning" to me?
> Nowhere in this
> thread has anyone said jihad involves violence against non-Muslims
> regardless of their relationship to Muslims. The violence has always
> been defined as confined to non-Muslims seen as oppressing Muslims. I
> mean what I said about the debate. I feel as if I am scolding my 10
> year old.
"Seen" as oppressing Muslim, but regardless of their *actual*
relationship to Muslims. You can't argue that any of the victims
Malvo and Muhammad killed had much of anything to do with opressing
Muslims, can you? How much did they actually have to do with any of
the elements we might discuss as motives for the crimes?
>
> >Not "relatively wrong," not
> > "interpretively wrong"; flat-out wrong.
>
> This point bores me. Think what you want about right and wrong jihad.
> Next.
I don't really care what bores you--if you're not keen on learning
about what Jihad *really* is, don't try to post as if you understand
it.
> >
> > > Who is "correct" means NOTHING to me, do you get it, NOTHING. I
> > > will be just as dead if one of them shoots me whether or not I realize
> > > that the shooter has misinterpreted jihad
> >
> > Whoa, Nelly. No need to shout.
>
> Yes, there is most certainly need to shout. Speaking does not get
> through to you.
> >
> > Your paranoia aside,
>
> Right.
>
> >there is a constant Islamic concept of Jihad; it
> > has a meaning outside of what the NOI and the Five Percenters believe.
> > To both of those groups, jihad means a race-struggle, not religious.
> > That's a pretty big difference.
>
> That's nice. YOu also believe bin Laden's jihad is incorrect. I will
> cut and paste the statement that correctness is irrelevant. Koranic
> motivation for violence is what is important, regardless of who
> believe who is right. All of bin Laden's killing was motivated by how
> he interprets the Koran.
How much of Malvo's killings are motivated by how he interprets the
Quran? Do you know? Can you demonstrate that?
Nope.
>
> >why would she make the
> > point that Lee Malvo is a distinctively Muslim hatemonger?
>
> Distinct Muslim references.
>
Again: Nope. The references Malvo makes aren't distinctly
Muslim--they're distinctly Black Nationalist as expressed by the Five
Percenters. That's not a Muslim reference, regardless of the language
it's written in.
Fair enough. Of course, we've been shown that that's quite
wrong--that an actual, recognizable form of Islam has very little do
do with the killings. Regardless, don't you think it's negligent,
even fallacious to completely avoid all elements of the crimes that
don't fit the pattern she's trying to create?
--A
Susan Doe
> <brevity snip>
>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> "Felafel" is a word. Jihad is more than a word. It's a concept which
> > > >>> means to millions of Muslims that they are not only authorized, they
> > > >>> are required by Allah to kill those who they believe are, either
> > > >>> directly or much more often simply by association, oppressing Muslims
> > > >>> (for example, all of those people in the WTC).
> > > >>
> > > >> Care to prove that? What millions?
> > > >
> > > > I have read that anywhere from 5 to 15 percent of the world's Muslims
> > > > are of the "Islamist" ilk -- either a terrorist, a terrorist in
> > > > training, or a rabid follower of a religious leader proselytizing for
> > > > violence. I am sorry, I cannot prove this number, but that is
> > > > insufficient for me to consider it invalid, since I trust the sources
> > > > which provided the information. Can you "prove" otherwise? Of course
> > > > you cannot. You seem to have a thing about "proof" when you know full
> > > > well the proof of an estimate is impossible by definition. Interesting
> > > > for someone who bases his very existence on faith, by definition
> > > > unprovable.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Very nice. What you're forgetting, however, is that you're making the
> > > claim--I don't need to prove otherwise, you need to prove the claim.
> > > Or you could just stop making it.
> >
> > I don't know where you get these rules, but I don't care either.
>
> They're called rules of logic--you're making a positive claim, so you
> get to demonstrate it. Simply saying "prove it false" isn't
> sufficient.
Must be the Muslim brand of logic. I learned that estimates cannot be
proven by their very nature -- that's why they are estimates. The
truth is you have nothing, no references, no research, nothing except
that you don't like the estimate, and you hope your "prove it" mantra
is going to rescue you. Sorry, my dear boy, it doesn't work that way.
You may be able to pull that stuff on your other buddies here, but
you'll need to do better with me. Start here:
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/100
>
> > Estimates by definition cannot be proven. You can say you do not agree
> > with the numbers, but it appears that, unlike mine, the source of your
> > disagrreement is nothing more than wishful thinking. Tough luck.
>
> Estimates can prove themselves by holding their source materials up to
> scrutiny--you haven't bothered with that, and nor have you provided
> them to me so that I may do so.
See above. Got any sources to contradict this admittedly "soft
number"?
Even if he is wrong *by a factor of 100*, there are still *millions*,
meaning more than 1 million, Muslims sympathizing with violent Islam.
> > >
> > > >>
> > > >>> The utter irrelevance
> > > >>> of the fact that this may not be what "jihad" means to you is
> > > >>> something you seem oddly incapable of grasping. It is possible that
> > > >>> National Socialism was a very benevolent ideology.
> > > >>
> > > >> No it isn't. As an ideology, National Socialism contains inherent
> > > >> evils--this even beyond its practice.
> > > >
> > > > Evil is relative -- good German Nazis did not consider themselves
> > > > evil, they they were doing good. I do not feel like debating this
> > > > point, however, so am willing to let it pass.
> > >
> > > Of course, not without the parting shot: "Evil is relative," and I'll
> > > bite: No, it's not. In no terms, for example, could anyone
> > > successfully argue the relativity of evil of the 9/11 bombings.
> >
> > Are you joking? Hundreds of millions of Muslims could. Were you on an
> > island after 9-11? Did you not see the dancing in the streets, the
> > sold-out Osama t-shirts? Did you not read about the Egyptian professor
> > who did an informal survey in Cairo and could not find one person not
> > in favor of 9-11? Do you think all of these people think 9-11 was evil
> > and dance anyway? Of course not. They think it's the greatest
> > achievement of Islam in 1000 years.
>
> So you think these people successfully argued the relativity of evil
> of the 9/11 bombings?
"Successfully argued"? What are you talking about? Argued with whom?
You? They do not care about your opinion. They do not consider
themselves evil, whatever you may feel.
>
> > >
> > > >>
> > > >>> Ideas are subject
> > > >>> to interpretation, therefore it is the interpretation that is
> > > >>> important, not the idea. You may interpret jihad to be a beautiful
> > > >>> concept, but I don't care about that because your interpretation does
> > > >>> not affect me. Bin Laden's and Malvo's does.
> > > >>
> > > >> It's not an interpretation. It's what the term actually means. Do
> > > >> you know what it actually means?
> > > >
> > > > Plaese stop asking me this. What it means to me is that I may die
> > > > because of it.
> > > > That is all I care to know about it.
> > >
> > > So you don't know what it means. That's all you had to say.
> >
> > I do know what it means. Just like I know what Nazism meant. Goebbels
> > would disagree, of course. He would speak exactly as you do about
> > jihad.
>
> But you don't, and you've admitted it. You know what it means only as
> it's portrayed in popular media; that's not a terribly profound
> understanding of the concept.
Ok, listen, you are obviously not capable of keeping your mind locked
into the real world. In the real world, I have not admitted anything
of the sort. I have not mentioned the popular media relative to my
knowledge of jihad, ever. Your wishful fantasy about me has obviously
clouded your grasp of reality. YOu have misquoted me, directly and
indirectly, repeatedly during this thread. YOu must be a very sad,
desperate little fellow. I'm done here.
Abdiel
(in message <71e3076e.03121...@posting.google.com>):
> abdi...@hotmail.com (Abdiel) wrote in message
Nope, just the generic kind. Generally speaking, if you're going to
make a claim like the one you made, you should have a reason why you
made it--a set of sources that demonstrates what led you to that
conclusion. And you shouldn't act all huffy when someone asks what
those sources were.
> I learned that estimates cannot be
> proven by their very nature -- that's why they are estimates.
*Something* must've led the claimant to make the estimate; otherwise,
why would he or she make an estimate?
> The
> truth is you have nothing, no references, no research, nothing except
> that you don't like the estimate, and you hope your "prove it" mantra
> is going to rescue you. Sorry, my dear boy, it doesn't work that way.
> You may be able to pull that stuff on your other buddies here, but
> you'll need to do better with me. Start here:
>
> http://www.danielpipes.org/article/100
That's pretty weak, even according to Pipes, who calls his estimate a
"soft" number based on "polling, my personal experiences, talking,
studying," and moreover, related only to the considerably broader
"militant Muslim agenda," which could mean many things other than your
claim that there are millions of Muslims who "are not only authorized,
they are required by Allah to kill those who they believe are, either
directly or much more often simply by association, oppressing Muslims
(for example, all of those people in the WTC)." Therefore, you're
widening the goalposts to make sure you don't fail. You'll need to do
better with me.
>>
>>> Estimates by definition cannot be proven. You can say you do not agree
>>> with the numbers, but it appears that, unlike mine, the source of your
>>> disagrreement is nothing more than wishful thinking. Tough luck.
>>
>> Estimates can prove themselves by holding their source materials up to
>> scrutiny--you haven't bothered with that, and nor have you provided
>> them to me so that I may do so.
>
> See above. Got any sources to contradict this admittedly "soft
> number"?
Nope. The "soft number" itself doesn't speak to your claim.
> Even if he is wrong *by a factor of 100*, there are still *millions*,
> meaning more than 1 million, Muslims sympathizing with violent Islam.
>
Even if he is wrong by a factor of 100%, that's not what you said, is
it? You said something quite different than that. You said that there
are millions of Muslims who believe "they are not only authorized, they
are required by Allah to kill those who they believe are, either
directly or much more often simply by association, oppressing Muslims
(for example, all of those people in the WTC)."
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The utter irrelevance
>>>>>>> of the fact that this may not be what "jihad" means to you is
>>>>>>> something you seem oddly incapable of grasping. It is possible that
>>>>>>> National Socialism was a very benevolent ideology.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No it isn't. As an ideology, National Socialism contains inherent
>>>>>> evils--this even beyond its practice.
>>>>>
>>>>> Evil is relative -- good German Nazis did not consider themselves
>>>>> evil, they they were doing good. I do not feel like debating this
>>>>> point, however, so am willing to let it pass.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, not without the parting shot: "Evil is relative," and I'll
>>>> bite: No, it's not. In no terms, for example, could anyone
>>>> successfully argue the relativity of evil of the 9/11 bombings.
>>>
>>> Are you joking? Hundreds of millions of Muslims could. Were you on an
>>> island after 9-11? Did you not see the dancing in the streets, the
>>> sold-out Osama t-shirts? Did you not read about the Egyptian professor
>>> who did an informal survey in Cairo and could not find one person not
>>> in favor of 9-11? Do you think all of these people think 9-11 was evil
>>> and dance anyway? Of course not. They think it's the greatest
>>> achievement of Islam in 1000 years.
>>
>> So you think these people successfully argued the relativity of evil
>> of the 9/11 bombings?
>
> "Successfully argued"? What are you talking about?
I'm talking about what I was talking about before, the point with which
you disagreed, that you cannot successfully argue the relativity of
evil of the 9/11 bombings. They were evil, point blank, no questions
about it.
> Argued with whom?
> You? They do not care about your opinion. They do not consider
> themselves evil, whatever you may feel.
But that doesn't make evil relative, does it? It certainly doesn't
make the 9/11 attacks not evil.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ideas are subject
>>>>>>> to interpretation, therefore it is the interpretation that is
>>>>>>> important, not the idea. You may interpret jihad to be a beautiful
>>>>>>> concept, but I don't care about that because your interpretation does
>>>>>>> not affect me. Bin Laden's and Malvo's does.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not an interpretation. It's what the term actually means. Do
>>>>>> you know what it actually means?
>>>>>
>>>>> Plaese stop asking me this. What it means to me is that I may die
>>>>> because of it.
>>>>> That is all I care to know about it.
>>>>
>>>> So you don't know what it means. That's all you had to say.
>>>
>>> I do know what it means. Just like I know what Nazism meant. Goebbels
>>> would disagree, of course. He would speak exactly as you do about
>>> jihad.
>>
>> But you don't, and you've admitted it. You know what it means only as
>> it's portrayed in popular media; that's not a terribly profound
>> understanding of the concept.
>
> Ok, listen, you are obviously not capable of keeping your mind locked
> into the real world. In the real world, I have not admitted anything
> of the sort. I have not mentioned the popular media relative to my
> knowledge of jihad, ever.
Sure you have, just not in so many words--you started by speaking of
the "uniquely Muslim tradition of jihad and all that attends it
(anti-Semitism, hatred of the "West", etc.)," and you've repeatedly
stated that you're not the least interested in learning any more about
it than this. That's a popular media misconception about Jihad, and
you're more than happy to hold on to it without question. Therefore,
my statement stands--you know what Jihad means only as it's portrayed
in popular media, and that isn't a terribly profound understanding of
the concept.
> Your wishful fantasy about me has obviously
> clouded your grasp of reality. YOu have misquoted me, directly and
> indirectly, repeatedly during this thread. YOu must be a very sad,
> desperate little fellow. I'm done here.
Taking your ball and going home? Have fun. If you flip those blinders
right over your eyes, it'll be easier to get back to sleep.
--A
Phaedrine Stonebridge
Abdiel <abdi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Then how would you categorize these beliefs
> > if not religious?
>
> They're Black Nationalist beliefs.
Stating the obvious won't help you here.
But what category? If not religious, then what? Political?
Environmental? Ideological? Philosophical? What?
Bob Cooper
> On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 11:57:46 -0800, Susan Doe wrote
> (in message <71e3076e.03121...@posting.google.com>):
>
> > Irrationality may not be prerequisite to being Muslim, but it sure
> > seems to help.
> >
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > Phaedrine Stonebridge <phaedrine_...@spamenot.yahoo.com> wrote in
> > message
> > news:<phaedrine_stonebridge...@news-50.ash.giganews.com>..
> > .
> >> <http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/mm20031210.shtml>
> >>
> >> Lee Malvo, Muslim hatemonger
> >> Michelle Malkin (archive)
> >>
> >> December 10, 2003
> >> Beltway-area sniper case last fall, the media and Muslim activists
> >> wanted us to believe that the serial killings had absolutely nothing to
> >> do with Islamic terrorism.
> >
> > the sniper who was shot in the abdomen but survived was a Muslim,
> > Muhammad Rashid.
> >
> > *************************************
> >
> > The first thing that is amazing about this post is that 1MAN4ALL seems
> > incapable of comprehending that the point of the article would still
> > be valid **if there were no article at all**. The drawings of Malvo
> > speak for themselves -- he just felt he was being a good Muslim.
> > Malkin's comments are obvious. 1MAN4ALL calls the article "stupid"
> > without saying why -- that is, of course, because there is no "why".
> >
>
> He does say why, he's just wrong about it--that Lee Malvo injured a
> Muslim doesn't preclude Malvo being a Muslim. But there is a real
> "why": Lee Malvo isn't a Muslim because he belongs to a sect that calls
> itself a Muslim organization but isn't, in any sense of the word. The
> Five Percenters believe a great many things that are in direct
> contradiction to fundamental elements of Islam, perhaps the most
> important being that Islam is a religion--Five Percenters believe it to
> be a system of what they call Supreme Mathematics, whatever that means.
> And that's why (or at least one of the reasons why) Malkin's article
> is stupid.
I have seen speculation that Muhammad and Malvo were "Five
Percenters", but no hard evidence. For example, have they
admitted to belonging to this group? Has the group claimed
them? If not, what is your assertion based on?
Abdiel
(in message <Kc8Eb.9297$WQ3.7953@lakeread05>):
That's a good question. We certainly haven't seen JAM or Malvo
publicly claim adherence to any recognised Islamist or Islam-oriented
group, save through the sprawls of Arabic Malvo has superimposed on his
images of Jihad, so why we'd assume he or his mentor were Five
Percenters is certainly a valid query, and one I'm rather suprised I'm
first seeing here. The primary evidence for such a claim is based on
the following:
1) The concepts of Jihad and Islam found in JAM's and Malvo's outburts
expressed both through their crimes and, in Malvo's case, through the
images he creates, take a turn more common in expressions of Black
Nationalism than in radical Islam. That in itself wouldn't be terribly
compelling, except when we consider that:
2) The dogmatic indoctrination we've learned Malvo has undergone under
JAM again resembles incantations of Black Nationalism. Consider what
Malvo's said so far--that this is a struggle of blacks against whites,
rather than Dar-ul-Islam against Dar-ul-Harb or Believers against
Non-Believers. Consider the way Malvo describes how Muhammad made him
watch the Matrix over 100 times--the struggle they viewed as
allegorical to their struggle was one of blacks versus whites, not
Muslims versus non-Muslims. The premises JAM has loaded Malvo with are
entirely race related, not religion related. Again, not terribly
compelling until you consider:
3) The notes left at the crime scene stating that "I am God." We might
thus far consider that the NOI and the Five Percenters share Black
Nationalism as a common goal, but NOI membership wouldn't go this far.
Expressing a belief that an ordinary human can share in expressions of
godhood is, under Islamic traditions, only found in two schools--that
of certain Sufis and that of the Five Percenters, or Nations of Gods
and Earths*. Explaining why JAM and Malvo don't fit into the highly
intellectual group of Sufis that might (and, really *might* is
appropriate here) express similar aims is well beyond the scope of this
thread, but suffice it to say, JAM and Malvo are far from being
intellectual Sufis. The Five Percenters, far from any esoteric beliefs
about the nature of man and God, simply believe that every Black Man is
a God in his own right.
Again, this might be mumbo-jumbo to the unschooled reader, but further
consider:
4) Other expressions that have largely become a calling card among the
Five Percenters, such as "Word is Bond," are prevalent throughout
Malvo's testimony as to his indoctrination. Charles A. Moose, the
Montgomery Police Chief, attempted to use this phrase as a means to
communicate with the pair while still active, and these words found
themselves as the closing lines of their communcations with
authorities. It's become a mantra to Malvo and JAM, as it's become a
mantra to those who support them, such as the folks at the Underground
News Network (http://publications.unn13.com/word.html). It's also a
clear identifier of followers of Five Percenter ideology, all the way
from Clarence X (their founder) to current proponents, largely found
among the Hip Hip community in groups like the Wu Tang Clan.
Hope this helps.
--A
* NOTE: I'm aware that certain Druze and other less prevalent Islamic
groups have made similar expressions, but I'm equally confident that we
can also exclude JAM and Malvo from these as well.
Abdiel
(in message
<phaedrine_stonebridge...@news-50.giganews.com>):
> In article <0001HW.BC03EC96...@news.telus.net>,
> Abdiel <abdi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Then how would you categorize these beliefs
>>> if not religious?
>>
>> They're Black Nationalist beliefs.
>
>
> Stating the obvious won't help you here.
>
Apparently not, although I'm left wondering why...
> But what category? If not religious, then what? Political?
> Environmental? Ideological? Philosophical? What?
Black Nationalist beliefs are, by their definition, a set of political
beliefs, which are in turn a subset of ideological beliefs.
--A
Phaedrine Stonebridge
Abdiel <abdi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:06:49 -0800, Phaedrine Stonebridge wrote
> (in message
> <phaedrine_stonebridge...@news-50.giganews.com>):
>
> > In article <0001HW.BC03EC96...@news.telus.net>,
> > Abdiel <abdi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> Then how would you categorize these beliefs
> >>> if not religious?
> >>
> >> They're Black Nationalist beliefs.
> >
> > Stating the obvious won't help you here.
>
> Apparently not, although I'm left wondering why...
Must everything with you be a pedantic, sophistic or linguistic
nightmare? "Black Nationalist" is the name of the group. Farakhan
calls his group "Black Nationalist" but also refers to it as a religion,
"Black Muslim" or the Nation of Islam. Nationalism is generally a
socio-political movement and rarely do people characterize such an
agenda as "beliefs" as you have done (see above). The term "beliefs"
most often has a spiritual connotation, especially when used in
conjunction with other terms that have a religious tone. Given the
foregoing, can you possibly try to understand how this all might be just
a tad or more confusing?
> > But what category? If not religious, then what? Political?
> > Environmental? Ideological? Philosophical? What?
>
> Black Nationalist beliefs are, by their definition, a set of political
> beliefs, which are in turn a subset of ideological beliefs.
Islam is a way of life--- not just a spiritual thing, yes? Islam is
inextricably tied to one's entire being, no? I mean, in islam, one does
not have a separate spiritual side and secular side, does one? Isn't
Islam woven into the total fabric of every muslim's life? There is no
life for a muslim outside of Islam is there? Who but Muslims, invoke
the name of Allah? And what does Allah have to do with black
nationalism?
.
Abdiel
> In article <0001HW.BC0677AB...@news.telus.net>,
> Abdiel <abdi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:06:49 -0800, Phaedrine Stonebridge wrote
> > (in message
> > <phaedrine_stonebridge...@news-50.giganews.com>):
> >
> > > In article <0001HW.BC03EC96...@news.telus.net>,
> > > Abdiel <abdi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >>> Then how would you categorize these beliefs
> > >>> if not religious?
> > >>
> > >> They're Black Nationalist beliefs.
> > >
> > > Stating the obvious won't help you here.
> >
> > Apparently not, although I'm left wondering why...
>
> Must everything with you be a pedantic, sophistic or linguistic
> nightmare? "Black Nationalist" is the name of the group.
No it isn't. "Black Nationalist" is the name of the group's
underlying ideology.
> Farakhan
> calls his group "Black Nationalist" but also refers to it as a religion,
> "Black Muslim" or the Nation of Islam.
No. Farakhan expresses his Black Nationalist ideology through the
Nation of Islam, but the two aren't interchangeable--the Nation of
Islam is a subset of the larger goals of Black Nationalism.
> Nationalism is generally a
> socio-political movement and rarely do people characterize such an
> agenda as "beliefs" as you have done (see above). The term "beliefs"
> most often has a spiritual connotation, especially when used in
> conjunction with other terms that have a religious tone. Given the
> foregoing, can you possibly try to understand how this all might be just
> a tad or more confusing?
No. There is nothing religious about Black Nationalism according to
the tenets of the Five Percenters--they're very clear about that.
>
> > > But what category? If not religious, then what? Political?
> > > Environmental? Ideological? Philosophical? What?
> >
> > Black Nationalist beliefs are, by their definition, a set of political
> > beliefs, which are in turn a subset of ideological beliefs.
>
> Islam is a way of life--- not just a spiritual thing, yes?
Not exactly, but close enough.
> Islam is
> inextricably tied to one's entire being, no?
Yes.
> I mean, in islam, one does
> not have a separate spiritual side and secular side, does one?
No, one does not.
> Isn't
> Islam woven into the total fabric of every muslim's life?
Yes.
> There is no
> life for a muslim outside of Islam is there?
No.
You've expressed the above in extraordinarly simplistic terms, but
you're close enough to be as right as you can be in all of them
without starting another set of arguments that are well beyond the
scope of this thread.
> Who but Muslims, invoke
> the name of Allah?
The Nation of Islam and the Five Percenters.
> And what does Allah have to do with black
> nationalism?
Not much. That's my point.
--A
Phaedrine Stonebridge
abdi...@hotmail.com (Abdiel) wrote:
OK. You seem to know a lot on this topic. Obviously I do not. I used
to think of the Nation of Islam as primarily a political movement until
I heard Malcolm X's daughter interviewed on the radio one day. She
seemed to distance herself from the separatist agenda (and from
Farakhan!) and focused far more on the religious aspects. So from what
you are saying, can I safely assume there are a number of these
groups--- some religious (islamic), some political(black nationalist)
and some both? You may understand this all but I find it very
confusing.
> > Nationalism is generally a
> > socio-political movement and rarely do people characterize such an
> > agenda as "beliefs" as you have done (see above). The term "beliefs"
> > most often has a spiritual connotation, especially when used in
> > conjunction with other terms that have a religious tone. Given the
> > foregoing, can you possibly try to understand how this all might be just
> > a tad or more confusing?
>
> No. There is nothing religious about Black Nationalism according to
> the tenets of the Five Percenters--they're very clear about that.
But some black nationalists are clearly followers of islam, correct?
> > > > But what category? If not religious, then what? Political?
> > > > Environmental? Ideological? Philosophical? What?
> > >
> > > Black Nationalist beliefs are, by their definition, a set of political
> > > beliefs, which are in turn a subset of ideological beliefs.
> >
> > Islam is a way of life--- not just a spiritual thing, yes?
>
> Not exactly, but close enough.
>
> > Islam is inextricably tied to one's entire being, no?
> Yes.
>
> > I mean, in islam, one does
> > not have a separate spiritual side and secular side, does one?
>
> No, one does not.
>
> > Isn't Islam woven into the total fabric of every muslim's life?
>
> Yes.
>
> > There is no life for a muslim outside of Islam is there?
>
> No.
>
> You've expressed the above in extraordinarly simplistic terms, but
> you're close enough to be as right as you can be in all of them
> without starting another set of arguments that are well beyond the
> scope of this thread.
It was meant to be simple so that I might get simple answers as opposed
to ten-thousand words of response from you. But if it gives you a sense
of satisfaction to insult me for that, by all means, knock yourself out.
(:P At least you can not accuse me of being completely ignorant of
Islam. I have at least tried to acquaint myself with some of the basic
principles like tauweed.
> > Who but Muslims, invoke
> > the name of Allah?
>
> The Nation of Islam and the Five Percenters.
Are you saying, then, that they don't see themselves as muslims or that
you don't see them as muslims? And do you differentiate in some way
between the two groups?
> > And what does Allah have to do with black
> > nationalism?
>
> Not much. That's my point.
OK. So are you saying, then, that Black nationalists cannot also be
muslims?
Bob Cooper
Indeed. My mumbo-jumbo meter is pegging at the moment.
And, I just had it calibrated.
> but further
> consider:
>
> 4) Other expressions that have largely become a calling card among the
> Five Percenters, such as "Word is Bond," are prevalent throughout
> Malvo's testimony as to his indoctrination. Charles A. Moose, the
> Montgomery Police Chief, attempted to use this phrase as a means to
> communicate with the pair while still active, and these words found
> themselves as the closing lines of their communcations with
> authorities. It's become a mantra to Malvo and JAM, as it's become a
> mantra to those who support them, such as the folks at the Underground
> News Network (http://publications.unn13.com/word.html). It's also a
> clear identifier of followers of Five Percenter ideology, all the way
> from Clarence X (their founder) to current proponents, largely found
> among the Hip Hip community in groups like the Wu Tang Clan.
That's it? That's all you got? Strip away all the long-winded
embellishment and we're left with their use of the phrases "I am
God" and "Word is bond," no? I assumed you had something
resembling "hard" evidence, e.g. their own statements that they
were members, the statements of other members who knew them,
statements of other people with whom they had discussed the
Five Percenters, etc., etc.
> Hope this helps.
Oh, it does. It confirms to me what I suspected because I have
seen you do it before: That you are perfectly willing to represent
speculation as established fact when doing so advances the
cause of your argument.
Thanks.
> --A
>
> * NOTE: I'm aware that certain Druze and other less prevalent Islamic
> groups have made similar expressions, but I'm equally confident that we
> can also exclude JAM and Malvo from these as well.
I'm sure you are.
Phaedrine Stonebridge
"Bob Cooper" <rcoo...@cox.net> wrote:
I especially liked the mumbo-jumbo meter part. Oh yes, this one is a
classic. Save it for posterity. :)
.
Abdiel
(in message
<phaedrine_stonebridge...@news-50.giganews.com>):
That Malcomn X's daughter would disavow the tenets of the Nation of
Islam and distance herself from Farakhan isn't surpising--Malcomn X
left the NOI in March 1964.
>>> Nationalism is generally a
>>> socio-political movement and rarely do people characterize such an
>>> agenda as "beliefs" as you have done (see above). The term "beliefs"
>>> most often has a spiritual connotation, especially when used in
>>> conjunction with other terms that have a religious tone. Given the
>>> foregoing, can you possibly try to understand how this all might be just
>>> a tad or more confusing?
>>
>> No. There is nothing religious about Black Nationalism according to
>> the tenets of the Five Percenters--they're very clear about that.
>
> But some black nationalists are clearly followers of islam, correct?
>
Certainly. Black Nationalism doesn't preclude Islam until, as with the
Five Percenters and the NOI, Black Nationalism supercedes Islam.
They certainly see themselves as Muslims, but that doesn't make them
Muslims. Differentiating between the two groups is somewhat difficult
because both are closed to a non-Black public (which, in turn,
differentiates them from Islam), but it's still possible: Clarence X
left the NOI because he didn't feel they went far enough towards Black
separatism. By making all black men gods, Clarence X thought that the
empowerment black men would feel would be a more powerful manifestation
of the overall goal.
>>> And what does Allah have to do with black
>>> nationalism?
>>
>> Not much. That's my point.
>
> OK. So are you saying, then, that Black nationalists cannot also be
> muslims?
Nope. As I said, the one doesn't preclude the other.
--A
Abdiel
(in message <jkpEb.4837$Fg.4658@lakeread01>):
Well, the Underground News Network claims commeradery with them, and
they're known to have extensive entanglements with the Five Percenters.
Regardless, if you're not convinced that they're Five Percenters
because they use identifying phrases like "I am God" and "Word is
Bond," why are you so convinced that they're Muslim because they use
phrases like "Jihad"? The case that they're Five Percenters is at
least as strong as, and I'd say considerably stronger than, the case
that they're actual Muslims.
--A
Phaedrine Stonebridge
Abdiel <abdi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 13:30:42 -0800, Phaedrine Stonebridge wrote
> (in message
> <phaedrine_stonebridge...@news-50.giganews.com>):
>
> > In article <f458618a.03121...@posting.google.com>,
> > abdi...@hotmail.com (Abdiel) wrote:
> >
> >> Phaedrine Stonebridge <phaedrine_...@spamenot.yahoo.com> wrote in
> >> message
> >> news:<phaedrine_stonebridge...@news-50.giganews.com>...
> >>> In article <0001HW.BC0677AB...@news.telus.net>,
> >>> Abdiel <abdi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:06:49 -0800, Phaedrine Stonebridge wrote
> >>>> (in message
> >>>> <phaedrine_stonebridge...@news-50.giganews.com>):
> >>> Nationalism is generally a
> >>> socio-political movement and rarely do people characterize such an
> >>> agenda as "beliefs" as you have done (see above). The term "beliefs"
> >>> most often has a spiritual connotation, especially when used in
> >>> conjunction with other terms that have a religious tone. Given the
> >>> foregoing, can you possibly try to understand how this all might be just
> >>> a tad or more confusing?
> >>
> >> No. There is nothing religious about Black Nationalism according to
> >> the tenets of the Five Percenters--they're very clear about that.
> >
> > But some black nationalists are clearly followers of islam, correct?
>
> Certainly. Black Nationalism doesn't preclude Islam until, as with the
> Five Percenters and the NOI, Black Nationalism supercedes Islam.
Does NOI not use the term "Black Muslim" or is that someone else's
descriptor? Or do you know? I have not found a definitive answer to
this.
I want to thank you for taking the time to answer all my questions.
That really gave me a lot better framework on which to judge the a bit
of reading I did so as not to have to ask you so many questions. One
thing I am still unclear about it the prophet Mohammad. I did not see
him even mentioned in any of the NOI information on the net. It appears
Elijah Muhammad is their prophet? If that is the case, I don't
understand how they can call themselves "muslim".
Nonetheless, I am still a bit confused since some muslims seem to accept
NOI and others do not. I recall reading not that long ago that Farakhan
has been to Mecca and was welcomed by the Saudis. That was really
surprising.
I can see how you would interpret the NOI and the NGE (5 %ers) as not
muslim even though they are, more often than not, referred to as
muslims. This must be a frustrating problem for muslims absent a
central authority to make official policy on such things, no?
OTOH, I cannot see how muslims could just pick and choose (as iman4all)
seems to have been doing, by saying that anyone who commits a crime or
disobeys the tenets of islam is not really a muslim. That is going way
too far IMO. Saying the OBL is not muslim, for instance, seems pretty
absurd to me.
.
Abdiel
(in message
<phaedrine_stonebridge-D12359.21233618122003@news-
east.ash.giganews.com>):
Yes, you'll find NOI/NGE and other offshoots sometimes calling
themselves Black Muslims. This term, however, gets confusing because
it could also mean actual Muslims who are black, mostly from Africa.
The distress this causes goes both ways, because the NOI/NGE etc don't
like to associate themselves with Africa--they call themselves "Asiatic
Blackmen." This may likely be the reason why it's not as common as it
was in the 60s and 70s.
Muhammad (pbuh) doesn't really play into NOI "theology" (if you can
call it that)--the belief was that Fard Muhammad, the founder of the
NOI, was an incarnation of God, and that Elijah Muhammad received his
message--in that way, I suppose Elijah Muhammad would've been the
prophet. This much is, of course, antithetical to conventional Islam,
as Muhammad (pbuh) is the seal of the prophets. I don't think either
of them really believed what they taught; Fard Muhammad would certainly
have been convinced that he was in error when Elijah Muhammad had him
killed.
> If that is the case, I don't
> understand how they can call themselves "muslim".
>
Neither do I, quite frankly. In the late 70s, and much to Louis
Farkhan's shagrin, the NOI began merging with mainstream Sunni
beliefs--began being the operative term. He's largely put a stop to
that; although I believe he's dropped a number of the most obvious
inconsistencies, he's never said that they were in error. And since
then, he's been courting mainstream Black leaders with much more intent
than mainstream Muslim leaders.
> Nonetheless, I am still a bit confused since some muslims seem to accept
> NOI and others do not. I recall reading not that long ago that Farakhan
> has been to Mecca and was welcomed by the Saudis. That was really
> surprising.
>
Rather. But the Saudis also welcomed Idi Amin Dada, and he was barely
a Muslim as well; although not necessarily distinguished through ideas
because I don't think he had any, he was certainly distanced through
practice, as his enormous appetite for excess would attest.
> I can see how you would interpret the NOI and the NGE (5 %ers) as not
> muslim even though they are, more often than not, referred to as
> muslims. This must be a frustrating problem for muslims absent a
> central authority to make official policy on such things, no?
I wouldn't agree with that--the similarities between the NOI/NGE and
conventional Islam are superficial at best; anyone with five minutes on
their hands can readily determine that they depart from each other far
before they begin to share on even the most fundamental matters. I
don't think a central authority would help, either--the fathers in Rome
certainly don't stop the LRA from calling itself a Christian movement
but anyone with half a mind can spot the rather obvious differences.
> OTOH, I cannot see how muslims could just pick and choose (as iman4all)
> seems to have been doing, by saying that anyone who commits a crime or
> disobeys the tenets of islam is not really a muslim. That is going way
> too far IMO. Saying the OBL is not muslim, for instance, seems pretty
> absurd to me.
And it is absurd. bin Laden *is* a Muslim. He's a terrible Muslim,
and one who will certainly feel the will of Allah (swt) as a Muslim who
has perverted His word for a violent, selfish political end, but he's a
Muslim nonetheless. That's why this current topic about Malvo has
relevance--there's enough out there to criticise about Islamism without
having to pound Malvo's square peg into its round holes.
--A
Phaedrine Stonebridge
Abdiel <abdi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Well that is rather astounding. Harriett AbuBakr said this in a
statement to the Commission on Human Rights:
"African-Americans have been seeking an identity as a people since
emancipation from slavery more than 100 years ago. Since that time the
majority population has called us niggers, negroes, colored, Black and
African-American. They have forced upon us the Christian religion, the
English language and the Anglo-American culture. Simultaneously, numbers
of our people have searched far and wide trying to find an identity that
would better fit our nature. Among the more prominent identities that we
have claimed are Nubian Islamic Hebrews, Kemetic People, Hebrew
Israelites, Moors, Israelite Lawkeepers, Kushites and Asiatic Blackmen
and women. Politically our leaders have given us the United Negro
Improvement Association, Simbionese Liberation Army, Pan African
Nationalists, Black United Front, Afrikan People零 Socialist Party,
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Uhuru
Movement, Black Panther Party for Self Defense, Republic of New Afrika,
Black Radical Congress, New Black Panther Party and so on. Our leaders
have borrowed from the cultures of other identities as well as inventing
the Afrocentric and Rastafarian cultures. I am among those who have
chosen the family of Shabazz, the religion of Islam and the Government
and culture of the Lost Found Nation of Islam."
<http://www.afre-ngo.com/beta/2000.html>
Yes, the whole thing sounds rather ridiculous and you make it sound a
lot better than the NOI website. Reading it for the first time, I
thought it was a joke at first.
> > Nonetheless, I am still a bit confused since some muslims seem to accept
> > NOI and others do not. I recall reading not that long ago that Farakhan
> > has been to Mecca and was welcomed by the Saudis. That was really
> > surprising.
>
> Rather. But the Saudis also welcomed Idi Amin Dada, and he was barely
> a Muslim as well; although not necessarily distinguished through ideas
> because I don't think he had any, he was certainly distanced through
> practice, as his enormous appetite for excess would attest.
Oh wasn't he a real charmer. Didn't he just die recently of his
long-term syphilis?
> > I can see how you would interpret the NOI and the NGE (5 %ers) as not
> > muslim even though they are, more often than not, referred to as
> > muslims. This must be a frustrating problem for muslims absent a
> > central authority to make official policy on such things, no?
>
> I wouldn't agree with that--the similarities between the NOI/NGE and
> conventional Islam are superficial at best; anyone with five minutes on
> their hands can readily determine that they depart from each other far
> before they begin to share on even the most fundamental matters....
Uh... you misunderstood what I said. Look again. I said only that they
are often referred to as muslims--- not that they are. I was agreeing
with you. Perhaps you fainted and forgot. :)
> ....I don't think a central authority would help, either--the fathers
> in Rome certainly don't stop the LRA from calling itself a Christian
> movement but anyone with half a mind can spot the rather obvious
> differences.
I don't think the Vatican much concerns itself with the affairs of
Christian religions other than Catholic except in a diplomatic sense or
for inter-faith efforts. This is a reference to the Uganda/Sudan
military group? Does it represent itself as Catholic?
>
> > OTOH, I cannot see how muslims could just pick and choose (as iman4all)
> > seems to have been doing, by saying that anyone who commits a crime or
> > disobeys the tenets of islam is not really a muslim. That is going way
> > too far IMO. Saying the OBL is not muslim, for instance, seems pretty
> > absurd to me.
>
> And it is absurd. bin Laden *is* a Muslim. He's a terrible Muslim,
> and one who will certainly feel the will of Allah (swt) as a Muslim who
> has perverted His word for a violent, selfish political end, but he's a
> Muslim nonetheless. That's why this current topic about Malvo has
> relevance--there's enough out there to criticise about Islamism without
> having to pound Malvo's square peg into its round holes.
I understand what you are saying. No doubt this is how many Christians
felt about David Koresch and Jim Jones.
.
Abdiel
(in message
<phaedrine_stonebridge-2EE7E0.23243018122003@news-
east.ash.giganews.com>):
I'm not sure what he died from, I'm just glad he died.
>>> I can see how you would interpret the NOI and the NGE (5 %ers) as not
>>> muslim even though they are, more often than not, referred to as
>>> muslims. This must be a frustrating problem for muslims absent a
>>> central authority to make official policy on such things, no?
>>
>> I wouldn't agree with that--the similarities between the NOI/NGE and
>> conventional Islam are superficial at best; anyone with five minutes on
>> their hands can readily determine that they depart from each other far
>> before they begin to share on even the most fundamental matters....
>
> Uh... you misunderstood what I said. Look again. I said only that they
> are often referred to as muslims--- not that they are. I was agreeing
> with you. Perhaps you fainted and forgot. :)
>
I understood what you said--I just wouldn't say that a central
authority would help the frustration; as below, the Catholic Church
cannot stop sectarianism with attrocious results in Christianity, an
Islamic central authority wouldn't necessarily be able to stop Islamic
sectarianism with attrocious results. The only thing they'd be able to
offer would be assurance that we're not them--which we already know,
and anyone else can readily find out themselves.
>> ....I don't think a central authority would help, either--the fathers
>> in Rome certainly don't stop the LRA from calling itself a Christian
>> movement but anyone with half a mind can spot the rather obvious
>> differences.
>
> I don't think the Vatican much concerns itself with the affairs of
> Christian religions other than Catholic except in a diplomatic sense or
> for inter-faith efforts. This is a reference to the Uganda/Sudan
> military group? Does it represent itself as Catholic?
No, but it did grow out of at least ostensibly Catholic roots, IIRC.
>>> OTOH, I cannot see how muslims could just pick and choose (as iman4all)
>>> seems to have been doing, by saying that anyone who commits a crime or
>>> disobeys the tenets of islam is not really a muslim. That is going way
>>> too far IMO. Saying the OBL is not muslim, for instance, seems pretty
>>> absurd to me.
>>
>> And it is absurd. bin Laden *is* a Muslim. He's a terrible Muslim,
>> and one who will certainly feel the will of Allah (swt) as a Muslim who
>> has perverted His word for a violent, selfish political end, but he's a
>> Muslim nonetheless. That's why this current topic about Malvo has
>> relevance--there's enough out there to criticise about Islamism without
>> having to pound Malvo's square peg into its round holes.
>
> I understand what you are saying. No doubt this is how many Christians
> felt about David Koresch and Jim Jones.
Bingo.
--A
Phaedrine Stonebridge
Abdiel <abdi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:24:30 -0800, Phaedrine Stonebridge wrote
> <phaedrine_stonebridge-2EE7E0.23243018122003@news-
> east.ash.giganews.com>):
>
> > In article <0001HW.BC07B705...@news.telus.net>,
> > Abdiel <abdi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:23:36 -0800, Phaedrine Stonebridge wrote
> >> <phaedrine_stonebridge-D12359.21233618122003@news-
> >> east.ash.giganews.com>):
> >>
> >>> In article <0001HW.BC079BB2...@news.telus.net>,
> >>> Abdiel <abdi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 13:30:42 -0800, Phaedrine Stonebridge wrote
> >>>> <phaedrine_stonebridge...@news-50.giganews.com>):
> >>>>
> >>>>> In article <f458618a.03121...@posting.google.com>,
> >>>>> abdi...@hotmail.com (Abdiel) wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Phaedrine Stonebridge <phaedrine_...@spamenot.yahoo.com> wrote
> >>>>>> news:<phaedrine_stonebridge...@news-50.giganews.com>
Abdiel said:
> >>> I can see how you would interpret the NOI and the NGE (5 %ers) as not
> >>> muslim even though they are, more often than not, referred to as
> >>> muslims. This must be a frustrating problem for muslims absent a
> >>> central authority to make official policy on such things, no?
> >>
> >> I wouldn't agree with that--the similarities between the NOI/NGE and
> >> conventional Islam are superficial at best; anyone with five minutes on
> >> their hands can readily determine that they depart from each other far
> >> before they begin to share on even the most fundamental matters....
> >
> > Uh... you misunderstood what I said. Look again. I said only that they
> > are often referred to as muslims--- not that they are. I was agreeing
> > with you. Perhaps you fainted and forgot. :)
>
> I understood what you said--I just wouldn't say that a central
> authority would help the frustration; as below, the Catholic Church
> cannot stop sectarianism with attrocious results in Christianity, an
> Islamic central authority wouldn't necessarily be able to stop Islamic
> sectarianism with attrocious results. The only thing they'd be able to
> offer would be assurance that we're not them--which we already know,
> and anyone else can readily find out themselves.
Like I said, the Catholic church does not speak for all of Christianity
just as the Lutheran Synods don't speak for Catholics or Presbyterians
or other Christian demominations. Further, the Vatican makes no effort
in any way to control any sectarianism beyond Catholic "sectarianism".
So, it is not correct to say the Vatican cannot stop sectarianism that
it makes no effort to control. But it most certainly does control
Catholic sectarianism. There is one one Catholic church. Period.
There are no sects that I know of. This is because the Church has
always made liberal use of ex-communication both at the individual and
group level. No Catholic Pope would hesitate to excommunicate, for
instance, a group that called itself Catholic but was not firmly under
the Vatican's authority. And the Church is also quite public about
excommunication--- especially when it pertains to groups. And I suspect
that the Vatican would also not hesitate to use the courts to enforce
what is Catholic or not if necessary.
However, there are various orders of clergy and monastics. The male
orders (Jesuit, Franciscan, Maronite, etc) tend to differ both
theologically and by mission whilst the female orders (sisters including
monastics) tend to differ mainly by mission and purpose (Sisters of
Notre Dame, S.O. Charity, S.O. the Poor, etc etc). But I hasten to add
that when I say "theological differences, I am talking about splitting
very fine hairs for the most part. All the Catholic orders have the
Vatican as their enabler and authority and they must fit under the
Catholic doctrine without exception. The Vatican can and has dissolved
various orders, in the past, for various reasons including deviation
from currently accepted Catholic doctrine. Any so-called Catholic sect
or order somehow using violence to achieve some alleged religious
purpose would be immediately excommunicated. Do not pass go. Do not
collect $200.
> >> ....I don't think a central authority would help, either--the fathers
> >> in Rome certainly don't stop the LRA from calling itself a Christian
> >> movement but anyone with half a mind can spot the rather obvious
> >> differences.
I don't think the LRA has anything whatsoever to do with Catholicism as
there has been one story after another about them killing priests and
sisters and destroying Catholic churches and missions. You need to keep
in mind that the only thing that defines "Christian" is the belief in
Christ as the savior. Other than that, the diversity among Christian
religions is quite significant--- a lot more significant that the
differences between Islamic sects I suspect.
However, unlike Islam, most Christian sects do have some central
authoritative body that sets policy and doctrine. Most, not all. And
these authorities can be quite assertive in matters regarding their
doctrines as is being evidenced in the current controversy among
Anglicans. It seems quite apparent to me that this is one huge
difference between the various Christian religions and Islamic sects.
> > I don't think the Vatican much concerns itself with the affairs of
> > Christian religions other than Catholic except in a diplomatic sense or
> > for inter-faith efforts. This is a reference to the Uganda/Sudan
> > military group? Does it represent itself as Catholic?
>
> No, but it did grow out of at least ostensibly Catholic roots, IIRC.
I can't imagine that is true with all the violence committed on
Catholics by the LRA. You'd have to prove that one and show Vatican
involvement.
> >>> OTOH, I cannot see how muslims could just pick and choose (as iman4all)
> >>> seems to have been doing, by saying that anyone who commits a crime or
> >>> disobeys the tenets of islam is not really a muslim. That is going way
> >>> too far IMO. Saying the OBL is not muslim, for instance, seems pretty
> >>> absurd to me.
> >>
> >> And it is absurd. bin Laden *is* a Muslim. He's a terrible Muslim,
> >> and one who will certainly feel the will of Allah (swt) as a Muslim who
> >> has perverted His word for a violent, selfish political end, but he's a
> >> Muslim nonetheless. That's why this current topic about Malvo has
> >> relevance--there's enough out there to criticise about Islamism without
> >> having to pound Malvo's square peg into its round holes.
> >
> > I understand what you are saying. No doubt this is how many Christians
> > felt about David Koresch and Jim Jones.
>
> Bingo.
But let me point out here that Catholics would not have felt that way at
all because Catholics don't have the least bit of identity with such
groups--- none. It would have to have been a wayward Catholic order to
make Catholics feel embarrassed or in any way responsible, or something
like the problem of pedophile priests (which is not a sectarian
problem). I think most Catholics think of themselves as Catholics first
and Christian second.
.
Bob Cooper
No, it's not. Their use of two phrases sometimes associated with
the Five Percenters (one of which is a lyric from a popular song),
and the fact that some demented group of Rastafarian numerologists
("twenty two days from the inevitable event, 2+2=4, which has the
same numerical value as [13]; thirteen months later") supports
them is not a "strong case."
Your contention that Muhammad and Malvo were Five
Percenters was absolutely central to much of your argumentation
in this thread, and throughout it you frequently and repeatedly
presented it as an ESTABLISHED FACT, not a "strong case".
Here are a few examples where you stated directly or strongly
implied it as *fact*, not speculation:
============================================
"Lee Malvo isn't a Muslim because he belongs to a sect that calls
itself a Muslim organization but isn't, in any sense of the word. The
Five Percenters"
"What Malvo and Muhammad ascribe to--the 'faith' of the Five
Percenters..."
"I don't need to distance myself from Malvo. Malvo's Five Percenters
distance themselves from me..."
"... there is a constant Islamic concept of Jihad; it has a meaning
outside of what the NOI and the Five Percenters believe."
"The references Malvo makes aren't distinctly Muslim--they're
distinctly Black Nationalist as expressed by the Five Percenters."
"Malvo's Five Percenters don't even believe that Islam is a
religion."
"So would Malvo and Muhammad. The Five Percenters don't
believe what they practice is a religion."
"Because he's a member of the Five Percenters..."
"Because he's a member of the Five Percenters..."
"The District Attorney isn't indicting Islam, nor is that office
indicting the Five Percenters."
"This thread has provided links detailing the departures that
the Five Percenters take from conventional Islam"
"Malvo exhibited a great deal of violent tendancies well
before he even met Muhammad and learned of the tenets
of the Five Percenters."
============================================
Now, future evidence may, in fact, prove that they are indeed
Five Percenters. That would be irrelevant to my point. As
of today, I have seen no convincing, incontrovertible hard
evidence that they are, and you have admitted that you have
none either. Yet you presented it and argued it as a fact
because it served your purpose of distancing them from
"conventional" Islam. That was intellectually dishonest.
Abdiel
The same sort of thing exists in Islam as well, for certain if not all
sects. The councils at al-Azhar and in various other regional bodies
help shape mainstream Sunni policy and doctrine; similar bodies exist
for the Shia as well, and other groups have their own set of
authorities.
> > > I don't think the Vatican much concerns itself with the affairs of
> > > Christian religions other than Catholic except in a diplomatic sense or
> > > for inter-faith efforts. This is a reference to the Uganda/Sudan
> > > military group? Does it represent itself as Catholic?
> >
> > No, but it did grow out of at least ostensibly Catholic roots, IIRC.
>
> I can't imagine that is true with all the violence committed on
> Catholics by the LRA. You'd have to prove that one and show Vatican
> involvement.
>
There's absolutely zero Vatican involvement. For the Catholic roots
to the LRA, the attacks against Catholic missions may cause some
confusion, but their figurehead, a fellow named Joseph Lony, is a
former Catholic priest--I suppose "former" being the operative word.
> > >>> OTOH, I cannot see how muslims could just pick and choose (as iman4all)
> > >>> seems to have been doing, by saying that anyone who commits a crime or
> > >>> disobeys the tenets of islam is not really a muslim. That is going way
> > >>> too far IMO. Saying the OBL is not muslim, for instance, seems pretty
> > >>> absurd to me.
> > >>
> > >> And it is absurd. bin Laden *is* a Muslim. He's a terrible Muslim,
> > >> and one who will certainly feel the will of Allah (swt) as a Muslim who
> > >> has perverted His word for a violent, selfish political end, but he's a
> > >> Muslim nonetheless. That's why this current topic about Malvo has
> > >> relevance--there's enough out there to criticise about Islamism without
> > >> having to pound Malvo's square peg into its round holes.
> > >
> > > I understand what you are saying. No doubt this is how many Christians
> > > felt about David Koresch and Jim Jones.
> >
> > Bingo.
>
> But let me point out here that Catholics would not have felt that way at
> all because Catholics don't have the least bit of identity with such
> groups--- none. It would have to have been a wayward Catholic order to
> make Catholics feel embarrassed or in any way responsible, or something
> like the problem of pedophile priests (which is not a sectarian
> problem). I think most Catholics think of themselves as Catholics first
> and Christian second.
>
Very interesting. Thanks for that.
--A
Abdiel
As long as "sometimes" means "always," then you've got a point.
> (one of which is a lyric from a popular song),
A lyric from a popular song from a band of Five Percenters.
> and the fact that some demented group of Rastafarian numerologists
> ("twenty two days from the inevitable event, 2+2=4, which has the
> same numerical value as [13]; thirteen months later") supports
> them is not a "strong case."
>
If you choose to argue that point, would you then argue that the case
that they're actually Muslims is any stronger? If so, on what basis?
Nope. I just haven't convinced you--but you might wanna ask yourself
why that is. If, that is, you wish to convince yourself that Lee
Malvo is a "Muslim" hatemonger.
> Yet you presented it and argued it as a fact
> because it served your purpose of distancing them from
> "conventional" Islam. That was intellectually dishonest.
If it'll make you feel better, why don't you dust off your favorite
text editor and add "As the evidence suggests, " before each of these.
When you're done that, you might as well do the same for every single
message on USENET since its inception. If you have any experience
programming stream editors, you may find they're a little more
efficient. Have fun!
--A
Phaedrine Stonebridge
> Phaedrine Stonebridge <phaedrine_...@spamenot.yahoo.com> wrote in
> message
> news:<phaedrine_stonebridge...@news-east.ash.giganews.com>.
I did not realize that and never really explored it because so many in
this group have made such an issue out of Muslims being answerable only
to Allah and that each muslim follows his own interpretation of islam.
I grant that some of that came from 1man4all but I did not realize how
technically faulty that might be before I folded that into my knowledge
batter.
Tell me then, how have these bodies dealt with problematic scripture or
other islamic writings that are either no longer relevant or that
present problems in the modern world? Needless to say, I am thinking
first of scripture that people like OBl or sects like Wahabbis who seem
to allege all kinds of things that other muslims say is just not Islamic
doctrine.
And as a followup to that I would note that I have seen many muslims
(and others) counter-accuse Christians of being violent or polygamists,
etc. because of things found in the "bible". Having grown up Catholic,
as you might by now have surmised, i can tell you that this question was
answered for all children in Catholic schools when we were little more
than tots. We never studied the Bible per se; any bibical involvement
was almost entirely with the new testament. We were told VERY early on
that the old testament was primarily a historical collection and that it
had been superceded by the New Testament. We were lectured quite
pointedly that things such as "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a
tooth" and any other violence or having more than one wife or other old
testament practices were archaic and set aside by the new testament. We
were taught that the old testament, while historical, had little if any
relevance to the modern world except for a few things like the ten
commandments.
Because of my personal history, it is very difficult to understand why
muslims did not follow a similar path, formally rejecting certain
scripture as no longer relevant or too violent or even immoral. Then
again, there is nothing to supercede or "update" the Koran.
> > > > I don't think the Vatican much concerns itself with the affairs of
> > > > Christian religions other than Catholic except in a diplomatic sense or
> > > > for inter-faith efforts. This is a reference to the Uganda/Sudan
> > > > military group? Does it represent itself as Catholic?
> > >
> > > No, but it did grow out of at least ostensibly Catholic roots, IIRC.
> >
> > I can't imagine that is true with all the violence committed on
> > Catholics by the LRA. You'd have to prove that one and show Vatican
> > involvement.
>
> There's absolutely zero Vatican involvement. For the Catholic roots
> to the LRA, the attacks against Catholic missions may cause some
> confusion, but their figurehead, a fellow named Joseph Lony, is a
> former Catholic priest--I suppose "former" being the operative word.
Well that is a shocker and I agree that "former" is the operative word.
> > > >>> OTOH, I cannot see how muslims could just pick and choose (as
> > > >>> iman4all) seems to have been doing, by saying that anyone who
> > > >>> commits a crime or disobeys the tenets of islam is not really
> > > >>> a muslim. That is going way too far IMO. Saying the OBL is
> > > >>> not muslim, for instance, seems pretty absurd to me.
> > > >>
> > > >> And it is absurd. bin Laden *is* a Muslim. He's a terrible
> > > >> Muslim, and one who will certainly feel the will of Allah
> > > >> (swt) as a Muslim who has perverted His word for a violent,
> > > >> selfish political end, but he's a Muslim nonetheless. That's
> > > >> why this current topic about Malvo has relevance--there's
> > > >> enough out there to criticise about Islamism without having to
> > > >> pound Malvo's square peg into its round holes.
> > > >
> > > > I understand what you are saying. No doubt this is how many
> > > > Christians felt about David Koresch and Jim Jones.
> > >
> > > Bingo.
> >
> > But let me point out here that Catholics would not have felt that way at
> > all because Catholics don't have the least bit of identity with such
> > groups--- none. It would have to have been a wayward Catholic order to
> > make Catholics feel embarrassed or in any way responsible, or something
> > like the problem of pedophile priests (which is not a sectarian
> > problem). I think most Catholics think of themselves as Catholics first
> > and Christian second.
> >
>
> Very interesting. Thanks for that.
You are welcome. A few more thoughts that I was not awake enough to
articulate so late last night when I posted that: (1) I did not mean
to say that Catholics would not have been troubled by the Jonestown and
Waco incidents. I meant only that they would not have been troubled
that anyone might identfy any of those people with Catholicism. (2)
The reason Catholics think of themselves as mainly Catholics is because
they are the first Christian sect. This is only my opinion but I think
most Catholics see Catholic and Christian as one and the same: Catholic
(lol). And they see other Christian sects more as other distinct
religions except for their common belief in Christ. Part of the reason
for this is the reliance of so many christian sects on the old testament.
.
Bob Cooper
Always? "I am God" is a phrase that has been used in every
known language by psychopaths of various stripes since time
immemorial. And, guess what? Studies have shown that
99.99999999999% of them had nothing to do with the Five
Percenters.
> > (one of which is a lyric from a popular song),
>
> A lyric from a popular song from a band of Five Percenters.
Yes, and the Beatles were Liverpudlians. Does that make me
a Liverpudlian if I say, "It's been a hard day's night?" Or, could it
be that I'm simply repeating a phrase from a song I heard on
my car radio that stuck in my mind?
Uh....because that's not *my* job. I didn't post them.
> When you're done that, you might as well do the same for
> every single message on USENET since its inception.
No, not every message, thankfully. I'll grant you that the
practice of deliberately misrepresenting "facts" and arguing
in bad faith is undeniably widespread on usenet, as in life in
general. But, it has been my experience that there are many
posters -- including some I have had strong disagreements
with and grown to dislike rather intensely -- who have too
much intellectual integrity to resort to that sort of thing.
And, besides that, I am not responsible for *every*
message on usenet -- only the ones that *I* post.
Abdiel
>>>>
>>>> Well, the Underground News Network claims commeradery with them, and
>>>> they're known to have extensive entanglements with the Five Percenters.
>>>> Regardless, if you're not convinced that they're Five Percenters
>>>> because they use identifying phrases like "I am God" and "Word is
>>>> Bond," why are you so convinced that they're Muslim because they use
>>>> phrases like "Jihad"? The case that they're Five Percenters is at
>>>> least as strong as, and I'd say considerably stronger than, the case
>>>> that they're actual Muslims.
>>>
>>> No, it's not. Their use of two phrases sometimes associated with
>>> the Five Percenters
>>
>> As long as "sometimes" means "always," then you've got a point.
>
> Always? "I am God" is a phrase that has been used in every
> known language by psychopaths of various stripes since time
> immemorial. And, guess what? Studies have shown that
> 99.99999999999% of them had nothing to do with the Five
> Percenters.
>
How about "Word is Bond"? How about using the two terms together?
What percentage of psychopaths having nothing to do with the Five
Percenters do that?
Perhaps more importantly, which group of psychopaths with roots in the
NOI use the phrase Word is Bond and I am God as identifying phrases and
expressions of ideology? Are we still looking at 99.9999999999% that
have nothing to do with the Five Percenters?
>>> (one of which is a lyric from a popular song),
>>
>> A lyric from a popular song from a band of Five Percenters.
>
> Yes, and the Beatles were Liverpudlians. Does that make me
> a Liverpudlian if I say, "It's been a hard day's night?" Or, could it
> be that I'm simply repeating a phrase from a song I heard on
> my car radio that stuck in my mind?
>
Could be. But imagine you saying "It's been a hard day's night," and
then knifing someone for his wallet. It's becoming more compelling
that you're a Scouser, innit?
Besides, the lyric from the popular song, "Word is Bond," is an overt
reference to the Five Percenters and their ideology, and is a calling
card for Five Percenters found in the work of many other groups
(something like a "shout out"). "It's been a hard day's night" isn't
an overt reference to Liverpudlians, nor is it an identifying phrase
for any particular group of people.
--A
Bob Cooper
>
> >>>>
> >>>> Well, the Underground News Network claims commeradery with them, and
> >>>> they're known to have extensive entanglements with the Five Percenters.
> >>>> Regardless, if you're not convinced that they're Five Percenters
> >>>> because they use identifying phrases like "I am God" and "Word is
> >>>> Bond," why are you so convinced that they're Muslim because they use
> >>>> phrases like "Jihad"? The case that they're Five Percenters is at
> >>>> least as strong as, and I'd say considerably stronger than, the case
> >>>> that they're actual Muslims.
> >>>
> >>> No, it's not. Their use of two phrases sometimes associated with
> >>> the Five Percenters
> >>
> >> As long as "sometimes" means "always," then you've got a point.
> >
> > Always? "I am God" is a phrase that has been used in every
> > known language by psychopaths of various stripes since time
> > immemorial. And, guess what? Studies have shown that
> > 99.99999999999% of them had nothing to do with the Five
> > Percenters.
>
> How about "Word is Bond"? How about using the two terms together?
> What percentage of psychopaths having nothing to do with the Five
> Percenters do that?
I don't know. But, it is not inconceivable to me that some of
them might.
> Perhaps more importantly, which group of psychopaths with roots in the
> NOI use the phrase Word is Bond and I am God as identifying phrases and
> expressions of ideology? Are we still looking at 99.9999999999% that
> have nothing to do with the Five Percenters?
No, but we are still looking at the question of whether that
establishes AS A FACT that they are Five Percenters. True,
their NOI background would suggest they were familiar with the
phrases and their significance. It would also suggest to me
--as I'm sure it has to others, by the way -- the possibility that
they employed them as a ruse to fool the police.
And, we are still left with the facts that (correct me if I am
wrong) a) they have never identified themselves as
Five Percenters and b) despite the enormous amount of
public attention and publicity this case has received, no one
-- not one person -- has come forward with hard evidence
identifying them as Five Percenters.
> >>> (one of which is a lyric from a popular song),
> >>
> >> A lyric from a popular song from a band of Five Percenters.
> >
> > Yes, and the Beatles were Liverpudlians. Does that make me
> > a Liverpudlian if I say, "It's been a hard day's night?" Or, could it
> > be that I'm simply repeating a phrase from a song I heard on
> > my car radio that stuck in my mind?
> >
>
> Could be. But imagine you saying "It's been a hard day's night," and
> then knifing someone for his wallet. It's becoming more compelling
> that you're a Scouser, innit?
Sorry, you've lost me here. And, I haven't the faintest idea what a
Scouser is.
> Besides, the lyric from the popular song, "Word is Bond," is an overt
> reference to the Five Percenters and their ideology, and is a calling
> card for Five Percenters found in the work of many other groups
> (something like a "shout out"). "It's been a hard day's night" isn't
> an overt reference to Liverpudlians, nor is it an identifying phrase
> for any particular group of people.
I am not saying, and have never said, that the phrases in question
are not grounds for stating that they *might* be Five Percenters.
I am not even saying that they do not give us some reason to
suspect that. As I said in my very first post on this subject when I
inquired about your evidence, I am aware of speculation about
it by others. They very well may be, and the evidence for it might be
revealed tomorrow.
What I am saying is that no matter how you slice and dice those
phrases and the other highly circumstantial evidence you have
presented, it is *not* sufficient proof -- not even close -- for
arguing AS AN ESTABLISHED AND PROVEN FACT that they
*are* Five Percenters, and drawing all kinds of conclusions
about their "Muslimness" (or lack thereof) from it.
And, that is what you did.
Abdiel
(in message <1tPEb.6195$Fg.1484@lakeread01>):
>
> "Abdiel" <abdi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:0001HW.BC08DDF6...@news.telus.net...
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, the Underground News Network claims commeradery with them, and
>>>>>> they're known to have extensive entanglements with the Five Percenters.
>>>>>> Regardless, if you're not convinced that they're Five Percenters
>>>>>> because they use identifying phrases like "I am God" and "Word is
>>>>>> Bond," why are you so convinced that they're Muslim because they use
>>>>>> phrases like "Jihad"? The case that they're Five Percenters is at
>>>>>> least as strong as, and I'd say considerably stronger than, the case
>>>>>> that they're actual Muslims.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it's not. Their use of two phrases sometimes associated with
>>>>> the Five Percenters
>>>>
>>>> As long as "sometimes" means "always," then you've got a point.
>>>
>>> Always? "I am God" is a phrase that has been used in every
>>> known language by psychopaths of various stripes since time
>>> immemorial. And, guess what? Studies have shown that
>>> 99.99999999999% of them had nothing to do with the Five
>>> Percenters.
>>
>> How about "Word is Bond"? How about using the two terms together?
>> What percentage of psychopaths having nothing to do with the Five
>> Percenters do that?
>
> I don't know. But, it is not inconceivable to me that some of
> them might.
>
Of course it isn't inconceivable. But is it all that likely?
>> Perhaps more importantly, which group of psychopaths with roots in the
>> NOI use the phrase Word is Bond and I am God as identifying phrases and
>> expressions of ideology? Are we still looking at 99.9999999999% that
>> have nothing to do with the Five Percenters?
>
> No, but we are still looking at the question of whether that
> establishes AS A FACT that they are Five Percenters. True,
> their NOI background would suggest they were familiar with the
> phrases and their significance. It would also suggest to me
> --as I'm sure it has to others, by the way -- the possibility that
> they employed them as a ruse to fool the police.
>
Sure. Osama bin Laden might be holding on to the trappings of militant
Wahabbi Islam to throw the scent off his true aim of radical Methodism,
but I don't really think that's the case.
> And, we are still left with the facts that (correct me if I am
> wrong) a) they have never identified themselves as
> Five Percenters and b) despite the enormous amount of
> public attention and publicity this case has received, no one
> -- not one person -- has come forward with hard evidence
> identifying them as Five Percenters.
>
Except, of course, for using well-known Five Percenters calling cards,
and using the tenets of Five Percenter ideology in their
indoctrination. Other than that, though...
>>>>> (one of which is a lyric from a popular song),
>>>>
>>>> A lyric from a popular song from a band of Five Percenters.
>>>
>>> Yes, and the Beatles were Liverpudlians. Does that make me
>>> a Liverpudlian if I say, "It's been a hard day's night?" Or, could it
>>> be that I'm simply repeating a phrase from a song I heard on
>>> my car radio that stuck in my mind?
>>>
>>
>> Could be. But imagine you saying "It's been a hard day's night," and
>> then knifing someone for his wallet. It's becoming more compelling
>> that you're a Scouser, innit?
>
> Sorry, you've lost me here. And, I haven't the faintest idea what a
> Scouser is.
>
A Scouser is a Liverpudlian. Liverpool has a (undeserved) reputation
for violent crime.
>> Besides, the lyric from the popular song, "Word is Bond," is an overt
>> reference to the Five Percenters and their ideology, and is a calling
>> card for Five Percenters found in the work of many other groups
>> (something like a "shout out"). "It's been a hard day's night" isn't
>> an overt reference to Liverpudlians, nor is it an identifying phrase
>> for any particular group of people.
>
> I am not saying, and have never said, that the phrases in question
> are not grounds for stating that they *might* be Five Percenters.
> I am not even saying that they do not give us some reason to
> suspect that. As I said in my very first post on this subject when I
> inquired about your evidence, I am aware of speculation about
> it by others. They very well may be, and the evidence for it might be
> revealed tomorrow.
>
> What I am saying is that no matter how you slice and dice those
> phrases and the other highly circumstantial evidence you have
> presented, it is *not* sufficient proof -- not even close -- for
> arguing AS AN ESTABLISHED AND PROVEN FACT that they
> *are* Five Percenters, and drawing all kinds of conclusions
> about their "Muslimness" (or lack thereof) from it.
>
> And, that is what you did.
If the evidence doesn't demonstrate that they're Five Percenters, what
are they?
--A
Bob Cooper
As I've said repeatedly, it most certainly does *not* demonstrate
that conclusively. Not even close. At best, it suggests the
*possibility* of a linkage of some sort, ranging from a passing
familiarity with Five Percenter terminology to full-fledged
membership. It certainly does not establish membership as a
PROVEN *FACT*, and justify using that "fact" as the basis for all
sorts of conclusions about their "Muslimness" (or lack thereof),
as, for example:
=================================================
"But there is a real "why": Lee Malvo isn't a Muslim because he
belongs to a sect that calls itself a Muslim organization but isn't,
in any sense of the word. The Five Percenters believe a great
many things that are in direct contradiction to fundamental
elements of Islam"
=================================================
Note that you didn't say he "may belong", or "there is some
evidence that he belongs"; you made a DIRECT ASSERTION
OF FACT: "He belongs". When pressed, you admitted you had
no hard evidence to support that assertion. No admission by
either one of them to membership; no statements by Five
Percenters claiming them; no testimony from *anybody* --
not one single person -- to the effect that they knew them as
members. And that's what this discussion is about.
> what are they?
That question is really irrelevant to my point that your argumentation
is flawed and dishonest, as demonstrated above.
But, here's an answer anyway. They are vicious killers, one of
whom changed his name to MUHAMMAD, and both of whom
talk a lot about "jihad" (a word that is universally associated with
Islam and the shibboleth of Muslim terrorists), and express
admiration for Osama Bin Laden. Beyond that, here is a quote
on the subject from one of Susan's posts earlier in the thread
that I found quite convincing:
================================================
Like the monkey with his hands over his eyes, you see no evil.
From the "stupid" article:
Exhibit 65-043: Father and son portrait of Malvo and Muhammad.
"We will kill them all. Jihad."
Exhibit 65-056: A self-portrait of Malvo as sniper, lying in wait,
with his rifle. "JIHAD" written in bold letters.
Exhibit 65-057: A drawing of the Twin Towers burning with a plane
flying toward the buildings. Captions: "JIHAD ISLAM UNITE RISE!"
along with "America did this" and "You were warned." Portrait of
Malvo as sniper labeled "Believer" and portrait of Osama bin
Laden labeled "prophet."
A poem: "Our minarets are our bayonets, Our mosques are our
baracks (sic), Our believers are our soldiers." The American flag
and the Star of David drawn in cross hairs.
Only three of the exhibits proving that not the Matrix, not Rastis,
but jihad is why the shootings happened. Is it "your" Islam, "your"
jihad? Perhaps not. Who cares? Jihad is a concept which does
not exist outside of Islam. Therefore, no Islam, no shootings.
Simple, except to Muslims defending the faith.
===============================================
You figure it out.
Susan Doe
My, my, still at it, I see. Tell me, when Malvo says, "Our minarets
are our bayonets, Our mosques are our baracks (sic), Our believers are
our soldiers.",
do you think he is referring to 5%er minarets and mosques?
Abdiel
(in message <ZZYEb.6384$Fg.2434@lakeread01>):
Except, as I've said repeatedly, that they left specific calling cards
of the Five Percenters and employed a zealous indoctrination with Five
Percenters ideology. But other than that...
If you don't think a history in Black Nationalist movements, leaving
behind specific calling cards of the Five Percenters, and employing
Five Percenters ideology in their indoctrination is compelling, why do
you think sprawling "JIHAD" on a muddled drawing and chucking together
some outward signs of Islam is?
--A
Phaedrine Stonebridge
"Bob Cooper" <rcoo...@cox.net> wrote:
> "Abdiel" <abdi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:0001HW.BC094149...@news.telus.net...
> > If the evidence doesn't demonstrate that they're Five Percenters,
Of course you are entirely right. He has not provided material
evidence to support his contention. But that has never stopped Abdiel
from continuing to argue once someone has stroked his feathers the
wrong way. I've been waiting for his "If you don't respond, i'll
consider that a concession [or apology]" routine. Ah yes, that one's a
real gem and sticks out like a sore thumb for someone who is clearly
capable of arguing in a reasonable fashion. Ego problem, clearly a
huge ego problem. And while I am reluctant to draw global conclusions,
blatant arrogance and ego appear to be a glaring characteristic of many
muslims who post in this NG. What i'd like to know is, given the
overall terrible state of muslim society in general, what accounts for
that? It is definitely very off-putting and offensive. Every time I
see one of these discussions with Abdiel or some of the others, I feel
like non-muslims are being viewed through those pages of the Koran that
says we are unworthy, lowly infidels and worse.
From what I read about most everything going on with muslims all over
the world, I often wonder if that is all they really have--- their
arrogance and their egos.
Phae
.
.
Bob Cooper
What do you mean, "compelling?" Do you mean do all the
things you mentioned prove *as a fact* that they're Five
Percenters? If so, as I have said repeatedly, NO they don't!
And that is the issue here, despite your efforts to change it.
You stated their membership *as a fact* and proceeded to
base a very large part of your efforts to disassociate them
from Islam on that "fact", which you clearly had insufficient
evidence to support.
And, I leave you with a statement by rapper Busta Rhymes,
who *is* a Five Percenter , and, I'm pretty sure, more of an
authority on Five Percenters than either of us (expletive *'d
out by me):
http://www.roccityentertainment.com/11-01-02.htm
滴ow the f*ck they gonna associate me with the sniper? The
government been know about the 5 Percent Nation. They are
trying to distort public perception because they know we
anti-what they about."
As you can see, unlike you, Mr. Rhymes -- who really knows
something about the subject -- does emphatically *not*
consider Muhammad and Malvo to be his brothers.
Bob Cooper
Thank you.
> But that has never stopped Abdiel
> from continuing to argue once someone has stroked his feathers the
> wrong way. I've been waiting for his "If you don't respond, i'll
> consider that a concession [or apology]" routine. Ah yes, that one's a
> real gem and sticks out like a sore thumb for someone who is clearly
> capable of arguing in a reasonable fashion. Ego problem, clearly a
> huge ego problem. And while I am reluctant to draw global conclusions,
> blatant arrogance and ego appear to be a glaring characteristic of many
> muslims who post in this NG. What i'd like to know is, given the
> overall terrible state of muslim society in general, what accounts for
> that? It is definitely very off-putting and offensive. Every time I
> see one of these discussions with Abdiel or some of the others, I feel
> like non-muslims are being viewed through those pages of the Koran that
> says we are unworthy, lowly infidels and worse.
Perhaps it is the gap between "those pages" and harsh
reality. Allah, if I am not mistaken, has promised to confound
the infidels. Yet there doesn't seem to be much confounding
going on these days. In fact, quite the opposite. It must be
very frustrating for them.
Phaedrine Stonebridge
"Bob Cooper" <rcoo...@cox.net> wrote:
Ah, so you think it is just a pretense?
Abdiel
(in message <M58Fb.6809$Fg.5937@lakeread01>):
No, that the things you quoted compells you to believe that they're
Muslims.
> If so, as I have said repeatedly, NO they don't!
> And that is the issue here, despite your efforts to change it.
> You stated their membership *as a fact* and proceeded to
> base a very large part of your efforts to disassociate them
> from Islam on that "fact", which you clearly had insufficient
> evidence to support.
>
Except, of course, for their use of Five Percenters ideology in their
indoctrination and the use of Five Percenters calling cards at their
crime scenes. Other than that, though...
Of course, you'd never do anything like that, would you? State
something as fact which you clearly have insufficient evidence to
support?
> And, I leave you with a statement by rapper Busta Rhymes,
> who *is* a Five Percenter , and, I'm pretty sure, more of an
> authority on Five Percenters than either of us
Speak for yourself.
> (expletive *'d
> out by me):
>
> http://www.roccityentertainment.com/11-01-02.htm
> ăHow the f*ck they gonna associate me with the sniper? The
> government been know about the 5 Percent Nation. They are
> trying to distort public perception because they know we
> anti-what they about."
>
> As you can see, unlike you, Mr. Rhymes -- who really knows
> something about the subject -- does emphatically *not*
> consider Muhammad and Malvo to be his brothers.
>
Ahh--I guess now that Busta Rhymes says so, that settles it.
--A
Bob Cooper
Yes. Those things do compel me to believe that they are -- or
that they at least consider themselves to be -- Muslims of some
sort. Note that I say "compel me to believe"; I do not assert as
a fact that "they *are* Muslims." Also note that when I cited the
evidence earlier, I did not describe it as *proof* they were
Muslims. I put it forward and said, "you figure it out."
> > If so, as I have said repeatedly, NO they don't!
> > And that is the issue here, despite your efforts to change it.
> > You stated their membership *as a fact* and proceeded to
> > base a very large part of your efforts to disassociate them
> > from Islam on that "fact", which you clearly had insufficient
> > evidence to support.
> >
>
> Except, of course, for their use of Five Percenters ideology in their
> indoctrination and the use of Five Percenters calling cards at their
> crime scenes. Other than that, though...
>
> Of course, you'd never do anything like that, would you? State
> something as fact which you clearly have insufficient evidence to
> support?
I might. If I have, I was wrong. Please call me on it. And, please
provide specifics.
> > And, I leave you with a statement by rapper Busta Rhymes,
> > who *is* a Five Percenter , and, I'm pretty sure, more of an
> > authority on Five Percenters than either of us
>
> Speak for yourself.
>
> > (expletive *'d
> > out by me):
> >
> > http://www.roccityentertainment.com/11-01-02.htm
> > ăHow the f*ck they gonna associate me with the sniper? The
> > government been know about the 5 Percent Nation. They are
> > trying to distort public perception because they know we
> > anti-what they about."
> >
> > As you can see, unlike you, Mr. Rhymes -- who really knows
> > something about the subject -- does emphatically *not*
> > consider Muhammad and Malvo to be his brothers.
> >
>
> Ahh--I guess now that Busta Rhymes says so, that settles it.
Not at all. It's just another bit of evidence to consider. Anecdotal
evidence, you might say. Obviously, you find it unconvincing.