an open invitation & challenge to islam ... refute my contention that islamic doctrines of self defense oblige me to defend myself from islam ...

in this recent post, http://wintersoldier2008.typepad.com/summer_patriot_winter_sol/2010/06/islam-teaches-me-that-i-must-defend-myself-my-fellows-against-the-depredations-of-islam-and-that-i-m.html , i assert that islamic doctrine oblige me to defend myself from islamic/jihad attack upon my country, my heritage and my religion.

furthermore, as shari'a with regard to self defense set forth by the learned sayyed muhammed hussein fadlallah, http://english.bayynat.org.lb/fatawa/s10p1.htm , this injunction as to humans is "... an intrinsic urge ...," and while he views it as "... obligatory on the mukallaf ...", surely it is no less an intrinsic urge upon me as an infidel, this intrinsic urge to survive and live and defend myself, and therefore no less obligatory upon me as an infidel to obey that urge.

even if i am an infidel am i not subject to the same immutable "intrinsic urges" and the same laws of behavior as allah has established for all men?  surely i must be, because were i not, were infidels not capable of being motivated and driven by such urges, how then could we obey and observe the strictures of islam upon our conversion?  this is a problem for you muslims, is it not?  and, this is key as to why i may assert the tenets of islam to protect myself from islam, is it not.

i am a man, created in the image of g_d, and subject to his laws.  and, i assert the law of g_d to defend myself.

it is simple as that.

i therefore invite islam, any muslim who draws breath, to respond at these pages and refute my assertion and conclusion that it is just, nay, that it is obligatory upon me to defend myself upon the aggressions of islam as asserted by the jihad terror, and that it is further incumbent upon me to defend my society against those tactics and objectives the jihad has demonstrably asserted to weaken my society and overthrow it, and to rule it by shari'a.

says the learned fadlallah:

"furthermore, it [the obligation of self defense] goes beyond driving away direct threat to one's own being to that which is indirect, e.g. that which may result in undermining society, the land as a sovereign entity, and all that which relates to its security, economic welfare, political interests, and so on of the type which makes the individual and society function ... ."  foreword, section ten of fatawa.

i conclude that according to the very tenets of islam, to the will and wisdom of allah, that i am therefore both entitled and obliged to defend myself from the stated goals of the o.i.c., the muslim brotherhood, and their front organizations in the united states such as c.a.i.r., and from any and all similar and allied front organizations or fund raisers for abbas, hamas or fuzzball [i wrote "hezbollah," but the spell checker made me do it, so i am gonna leave it that way, ... , it seems appropriate, somehow] and that i may exercise my defense of self from direct attack upon myself or against indirect attacks designed to subvert and undermine the health of my society and country.

i announce one "limitation" upon any islamic or muslim refutation of my assertion, and that is to say that i will not respond to any assertion or argument that is premised upon the observation or argument, in whatever form or guise it may take, that for me so to do is not to advance the will and aims or according to what allah has ordained.

for three reasons.--

1.)who are mortals to speak for allah and to announce what allah has ordained.  in short, who say's so.  the bible, and jesus and the prophets are asserted by islam as part of islam.  i simply refer any and all to those sections of the bible describing the lot of false prophets, and those who pretend to speak the word of g_d when in fact it has not been spoken to them by g_d, but fabricated for their own ends.

if you deign to speak for g_d, then prove it, before you blather.

2.)i further view it as a highly dubious proposition that allah intended all of us to be islamic, and that such an intended result of islamic jihad is what g_d in fact intended at the creation of adam and eve.  were that so, it would be an amazing thing that an all knowing, omniscient, omnipresent and omni-prescient g_d simply did not make adam and eve and all their offspring, and all their descendants's down through time to thee and me, muslims to begin with.

and, 3.)bullshit.  in short, a shorter version of the "says who?" argument.  islam is "uncreated," in other words, it has not been crafted via the intervention of man but is the living testament of g_d.  it is, therefore, immutable by human intervention, supplementation, or for that matter, by obeisance or disobedience.

it is capable of being altered only by g_d's intervention.  since g_d is incapable of error or oversight, if he had intended us all to be muslims at the time of creation, he would simply have made us that way to begin with.

it is beyond peradventure that he did not, or has not intended since, to do so.  witness the fact that islam and muslims are a minority of souls upon this earth.  in short, dear muslims, g_d in his infinite wisdom saw in advance this struggle between men and religions to win his favor, and the only thing that is foreordained, is that the strong and the resolute shall win his favor, and so far, it has been amply demonstrated that he has chosen the jews as his people, and favored christianity with science, technology, culture and military power.  to islam, he has given the hind and dry tit, and the sewers and the deserts of the world in which to inhabit, and in which to fester.  i do not know what the future holds in particular, save that islam will be defeated, and i make this assertion on history as i have seen it: islam flowered, and the flower withered on decay and degradation and intellectual sloth from which islam will never recover.  you owe all your contemporary "success" because of the indulgence of western socialists who want to defeat free market economics, and when their indulgence wanes, ... , well then, you will suffer your destruction.

and, so it is written in the sands of arabia.  you have been denied europe many times, and so it is, so it was, and so it ever shall be.

so, if any of you who answer this challenge wish to assert that it is the will and in accord with the will of g_d that we should all be muslims of the islamic faith, then you are going to have to demonstrate such proposition to my satisfaction before you can take the simple out that i cannot defend myself from shari'a or the jihad or the direct attack by a muslim because so to do is contrary to g_d's will.

say's who?  say's who, according to the demonstrated will and word of g_d?

so, come on, muslims.

demonstrate to me that according to the tenets of islam, i am not obliged to defend myself from islamic aggressions, depredations, attacks and ridicules on the same grounds and by the same means and to the same extent you attack me and my society and my religious convictions.

i have sayyed muhammed hussein fadlallah on my side, and according to him, it is the word and will of allah that he advances because it is the word and the will of allah as advanced by the teachings of allah since time immemorial.

who you got, suckers?

john jay @ 06.27.2010

 

Comments

[GM Roper]

John, you really expect a coherent answer from anyone? My my, ever hopeful are we?

Seriously, I really like your reasoning but I doubt the mullah's will.

[john jay]

george:

laughing.

i expect a "deafening" silence from islam.

oddly enough, i think that i have them right by the short hairs.

the position set out w/ regard to self defense by the learned whatever he is sayyed muhammed hussein fadlallah has been the unchanging position of islam for many years.

that is the nature of immutable. you don't get into the "fatawa" business by being novel.

so, no one is gonna come by and say the learned fadlallah is wrong. ain't gonna happen. not except by the most brazen of liars, regarding which there is no shortage in islam in the usual sense, but they are sort of limited in their manuevering on this one.

about the only place they have to attack me is by saying that i, as an infidel being in opposition and apposition to islam do not express the will of allah by turning islam's "theology" against itself, and using it as a rationale for defending against islam's aggressions.

in short, what is good for the gander is not good for the goose.

and, i don't think that they are capable of carrying that argument off.

on what basis? says who? on what authority? and, who deigns speak the will of allah?

venturing into these areas is just the sort of thing, just the sort of "stretching out of the neck," that has gotten muslims into trouble before.

a muslim theologian (hey, now there's a thought) cannot get into matters that smack of free will. hey, it is all pre-ordained, and there is no questioning of it, and pretending to speak for allah without a long line of tremendously accepted precedent is a "no no," and likely to get the stretching neck "severed," theologically and literally.

nope, i think they will ignore me, small voice that i am.

but, i think that i have them nailed on their own petards, hung by their own petards, and without capability of responding to my points and assertions.

we'll see. smiling.

but, i don't think that islam is going to want to stir this kettle of fish.

they ain't gonna agree, and give an infidel license to exercise the right of self defense as set out by the learned sayyed muhammed hussein fadlallah, ... , now, are they.

and, i expect that they ain't gonna disagree, either. they cannot disagree with the learned fadlallah's arguments and conclusions, because by this time, they are carved in stone by islam.

and, i don't think they are gonna touch with a ten foot poll my position that an infidel can ethically and morally operate for his own benefit in accord with islamic teaching, as against islam.

this i expect, and expected when i wrote and posted.

now, let us see if the "biggies" in the anti-jihad movement have the good sense and the cajones to pick up on my arguments and broadcast them. as you know, i have circulated the post amongst them, and so far, am linked and acknowledged by theo spark, and that is about it.

turf to be protected w/in the blogosphere as well, not true? laughing.

but, i have made my point, and i don't very damn much if it is going to be materially refuted, by anyone.

john

[john jay]

correction:

"but, i have made my point, and i doubt very damn much if it is going to be materially refuted, by anyone."

[Howard Towt]

Mr. Jay:

Nice argument, and you are right about your audience: Islam is a political movement masquerading as a religion. The guiding principle is the increased authority of Islam, not the elevation of individual human rights.

As long as we humans are attracted to emotional arguments, and elevate belief systems over logic, we tend to end up being ruled by a centralized elite. (And not always to our benefit.)

It's always good to think of that mouse with his middle finger raised toward a bird of prey as the mouse is about to become lunch. Your post brings that image to mind.

Thanks for excellent exposition.

[Jewel]

I would suggest that Islam isn't a political movement, but rather a criminal organization with a criminal code. Having said that, however, doesn't change the premise of your argument. Muslims can't answer it. All you have to do is assert that they shouldn't be surprised that the infidel would defend himself and he goes apoplectic. Logic isn't one of the Muslim's stronger suits. How can it be, since they are governed solely by their emotions? Once they see the futility of fighting against a stronger enemy, it's all insha'allah from that point.
Moshe Dayan made a brilliant point when explaining Arab strategy to a western reporter who lamented that Israel was outnumbered by Arab aggressors in the 1967 war:
"Yes, but they're Arabs"....meaning that their numbers didn't matter since they were incompetent in battle.
When the reporter pointed out that they now possessed Soviet artillery and planes, Dayan responded, "Yes, but they're still Arabs"....and that has proven true time and time again.
At least in conventional wars. When Israel gets to the point of not caring what the paper tiger of world opinion is growling, then they can properly defeat the Arabs and their converts.

[john jay]

jewel:

yes.
yes.
yes. and,
yes.

just over to "tasty infidelicacies," and tears were rolling from my eyes.

delicious. delightful. d'lovely. and, very, very funny. and, very, very smart. very.

a wonderful aesthetic.

so, i am very happy you visited to read, and quite delighted that you commented.

and, we are in agreement. wonderful points in your comment.

in all such matters, i am never very far from "the river war" by winston churchill. he saw first hand, and he understood. completely, i think.

john