But Angela is a puppet of the anglo-zionists – one of her main sponsors when young was no less than arch Brit-zionist Lord Weidenfeld.

Angela Merkel Is A Zionist Sock Puppet – BlackListed News

http://www.blacklistednews.com/Angela_Merkel_Is_A_Zionist_Sock_Puppet/33673/0/5/5/Y/M.html

Furthermore, Merkel has already implemented the “zio-liberal” worker abuse in Germany that Macron now threatens to copy in France.

Die Anstalt vom 16. Mai 2017

https://www.zdf.de/comedy/die-anstalt/die-anstalt-vom-16-mai-2017-100.html

Nah, immigration for supermodels only. No need for more Einsteins.

I hope this gentleman from across the pond explains better for you.

May 21, 2013 Why the whole banking system is a scam – Godfrey Bloom MEP

• European Parliament, Strasbourg, 21 May 2013

• Speaker: Godfrey Bloom MEP, UKIP (Yorkshire & Lincolnshire)

May 18, 2017 Deutsche Bank Sued for Running An “International Criminal Organization”

Having been accused, and found guilty, of rigging and manipulating virtually every possible asset class, perhaps it was inevitable that Deutsche Bank, currently on trial in Milan for helping Banca Monte dei Paschi conceal losses (as first reported last October in “Deutsche Bank Charged By Italy For Market Manipulation, Creating False Accounts”) is now facing accusations that it was actually running an international criminal organization at the time.

no they are not the problem Problem is the rich banker class who robs you the hard earnings you make everyday by your sweat and blood . Take that class out of the equation, you will enjoy a better conscience , see less cruel jokes of lies like these circulated about Muslims and Blacks or Latinos and more earn greater satisfaction with your role .

I didn’t get the part where and how currency is created when the Fed writes a check to the banks who have bought the debt ( bond or IOU of the government )

” I never saw any USA culture when visiting the USA”

Obviously you never visited a jazz club and experienced the magic of a swinging jazz band, and the electricity in the air of such an “American culture” venue.

And obviously you have never made a tour of the magnificent “Art deco” skyscrapers of Detroit, unique world-wide and subjects of architecture study to this day.

Or you have never attended a symphonic concert featuring the ground-breaking iconic music of one Charles Ives, during his lifetime an unheralded businessman and an unknown composer who’s works have advanced to the forefront of so-called “Modern-classical” and are performed globally.

One could go on and on with the list of “American cultural achievements”, a hopeless endeavor in the light of your hatred for all things American, but rest assured : you have no clue as to what you are talking about, when voicing your opinion on US cultural achievements, or attributes.

Authenticjazzman “Mensa” society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet and pro jazz musician.

I never saw any USA culture when visitng the USA.
But perhaps you refer to what Henry Ford tried to defend, beginning in 1918, Shakespeare in stead of Broadway.

Brains and claws? I was thinking that “gonads” might work well. Balls and brilliant generals.

The hysterical tone of the media, the hysterical discourse of politicians, the hysterical notions of commentators…

The popcorn of the ever-coming “apocalypse”.

Yep, bring in more Mooching Muslims and more Blabbering Blacks.

There goes France.

Votes are just an appeasement for the ignorant masses. We are herded like sheep. We’ll have to wait until our brains grow a little, replace hoofs with claws, I don’t mean dogs, cat’s claws, and wake up from this decadent slumber!!!!

It seems so, everywhere, doesn’t it? I get the distinct impression that votes mean little when oligarchs rule.

It seems so, everywhere, doesn’t it?

American culture is being systematically eradicated before my eyes. The Republic has already been replaced by this oligarchy.

The Trans-Atlantic Elite
Duetche Bank
Federal Reserve Bank
The Bank of England
The Rothschilds, J.P. Morgan, and company,and the Banker-Elites

Each and every country in the world that operates a debt based financial system and taxes their citizens …

“No generation has the right to contract debts greater can be paid off during the course of it’s own existence. ” George Washington

Slowly enveloping the world, taking over successive countries’ banking and governments, the World banking system is a sham, a Ponzi scheme, systematically perpetrating the theft of every citizen’s prosperity, everywhere.

World monetary hegemony has been progressively lucrative to the “ruling class” and devastating to the working class. Left unchecked, the World will be totally enslaved, as those of us within these grips can already easily attest. Once their email il scheme is revealed, it leaves one feeling hopelessly abysmal, knowing that future generations will suffer, absolutely.

Yep, we have a true son, a Rothschild incarnate, Catholic, and all that. Let’s brace ourselves as the Cabal power is reaching its peak. Le Pen was a big defeat, a loss we’re still mourning

“The present world wide war is between globalisation and nationalism.”

Not nationalism, but rather sovereignism.

Astute.

The concept of treason is meaningless now. Nothing is actionable.

McCarthy, among others, revealed a ghastly penetration of the US by communists. Diana West revealed another dimension of American communism. Both were attacked by powerful forces intent on negating their message.

Hillary and Bill sold their souls to foreign powers and nobody blinked. Gen. Flynn merely talked the the Russian ambassador and it was TREASON!!!

Megagargantocapitalism seems to be prospering but, with captive politicians, is sucking the life out of the only economic system that benefits people – that capitalism that shares risk and rewards innovation and efficiency.

The choice is not between MGC and kindly socialism that indulges in some occasional tinkering with the markets and the odd new tax here and there​. It’s between statist zealots that lust after power and lunatic social engineering, and free people and free markets.

MLP the right-wing candidate. Hah. Nationalist? Not stupid? Yes to both.

This is Merkronian stupidity.
As Varoufakis, he talked with Merkron, already stated, queen Merkel will never give away her sovereignty over German money.
Stiglitz, in discussion with agriculturalist Dijsselbloem about the euro, reached the stalemate: we cannot give up the euro, and we cannot fullfill the conditions to make the euro the European currency.
Dijsselbloem, in an press conference, later admitted this ‘ doormodderen met de euro’, translation ‘muddling along’.

The great stupidity of the EU is the idea that Germany can be encapsulated in a EU.
Kennan saw this as the great omission of Versailles.
He did not live to see that one cannot control the probably most capable people in the world in a political construction.
So it went the other way round, Berlin what Hitler wanted, the capital of the continent.

If, IF, indeed Trump withdraws USA military might from the world, then Berlin will indeed rule the continent.

Those who want Europe to be a USA clone must deny that nations and cultures exist.
But do not worry, traces of the Louis XIV culture still exist galore in France, so it will not be easy to eradicate French culture, or any other.
One sees the same in the USA, no melting pot, stew, all the ingredients still are there.

All power to Germany more like. Macron made a telling remark:

“I have never defended (the idea of) Eurobonds or the mutualisation of existing debt in the euro zone.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-germany-france-leaders-macron-idUKKCN18B2BL?il=0

French banks have toxic assets in loans to Italy which the Italians, will never repay. Moreover ths the Italians have have no rise in living standards since 2ooo and seem to be toying with the idea of leaving the EU, which would make the loans explicitly bad and cause a collapse of the French banks. Macron is Germany’s man and under him France will give up national sovereignty to German. In return, the banks of France will get German taxpayers money.

Almost every revolution in history has been caused by the failure to successfully assert national interests. Macron is not going to survive turning the country into a vassal state, which his older voters will be outraged by, especially as he also will face the wrath of the considerable part of the nation being pauperised by outsourcing of manufacturing, and continued EU immigrant workers brought in to keep wages low in services in what can’t be outsourced (services and things like construction).

Aug 11, 2015 The Monetary System Visually Explained

A great visual explanation of how monetary systems work.

I was struck by this:
“there is no such thing as French culture”.
This apparently from the President of France.
It might not be a legal definition, merely a “rule of thumb” one, but I’d call that treason. Essentially, he’s suggesting that the nation he governs is not a nation but a mere administrative unit of the EU. A unit which has no unique character, no special interests, beyond the interests of the EU.
I may despise the stupidity of the voting French, but — I feel sorry for the nation. (There are few countries on earth that have so jealously defended their own culture…& now this: no culture left to defend).

“Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” Independence does too. Go North Korea – just don’t use them.

Jul 20, 2016 Brexit Is A Blow to the Oligarchs: Michel Chossudovsky Unmasks the EU Empire

In order to understand Brexit in its full historical context, we must know about the origins and motivations for the formation of the European Union and the forces that have shaped the EU bureaucracy into an arm of the IMF/World Bank-led Wall Street hegemon. Today Professor Michel Chossudovsky joins us to expose the EU as the imperial project that it always was, and the growing movement against EU domination as an anti-imperial movement of world historical importance.

Front National wants France to be ruled in Paris, not in Brussels.
Four out of every ten voters agree with FN, alas those on the left who want France to leave the EU do want immigration, those on the right want to limit immigration.
This division gave Merkron his chance.
Those who did not want Marine le Pen voted Merkron.
So Merkron immediately flew to Berlin, to meet the uncrowned queen of the European continent, Merkel.
The country that profits most of the EU is Germany, Germany lives on export, the queen stays in power through continuing the euro crisis.

Diana Johnstone’s pieces are always important but here she appears to slip over a problem of our time and that is that in the face of once horrible candidate (here, Macron, in the US, Hillary Clinton–read Johnstone’s excellent ‘Queen of Chaos) there is… another horrible candidate. Marine Le Pen too had a right-wing program, not a word on the minimum wage, etc. What makes the current crisis a real crisis is that along with capitalism, the parliamentary system is unraveling and in election after election, the choices become less and less meaningful.
Even disregarding the ‘surgical’ terror attacks after which ‘campaigning ends’–except for the state and the governing party, which by definition continue their campaign of moulding public opinion.

The present world wide war is between globalisation and nationalism.
Or, one can say, the same in other words, between money and democracy.
Free movement of capital was the end of democracy, and the beginning of the power of money.
It was already in 1997.
The central bankers of the world monthly meet at BIS in Basel.
One can see the results, the share for labour in national income is moving down all the time, the share of capital increases all the time.
At present some USA hedge fund people own 18% of AkzoNobel shares, they want to buy the company.
All they talk about is interests of shareholders, the interests of those who work there, not their problem.
At a law suit with us in the Netherlands this difference in view on what companies are for was expressed with great clarity.
I do hope the Dutch government, and thos leading AkzoNobel, they have been threatened personally that their careers are over when they persist in resistance, refuse to be intimidated by USA profiteers.

To be honest Christian armies (including the Protestant rebel Hungarian army of Thököly) weren’t much nicer to civilians in that era. The destruction in the war of liberation was, after all, brought about as the Christian armies ran through the area previously occupied by the Ottomans.

Hey rT,

Yeah, it sucks to be the punching bag in between the Hapsburgs and Ottomans – not fun.

Again, drives home my point that wars that are overly destructive leave a horrible taste in the mouths of those peoples who experienced them. It is not surprising, given the Ottoman conduct in certain areas, that people of that region have negative views about the religion they followed.

Peace.

in an age when you could have battles like Yarmouk, Qadissyah, Manzikert, Mohacs, etc. out in open plains away from civilian areas and then civilian populations would capitulate to simply another power who was going to tax them (sometimes better than their previous hegemons). Modern warfare has made war so utterly destructive

Since you brought up the Battle of Mohács, let me mention that the population of the area conquered by the Ottomans in Hungary mostly was destroyed by the following two centuries of near constant warfare, they left no descendants, or just very few of them. The most devastating of all was probably the war of liberation, i.e. the last one of them. War was already quite destructive in those times, especially since it never came alone, always brought famine and disease with it.

Hey GR,

No problem. Just to clarify…

I’m not expecting Muslims to feel perennially guilty about the way their religion spread

A Muslim with a healthy sense of history and metaphysical reality does not feel guilty or proud for the actions of others in the past; they will be punished or rewarded for their actions, and we for ours. As such, I praise and condone the ways in which the religion was spread and where it requires condemnation and rejection, that’s what I do.

if you sincerely state that conditions today are different, that’s enough for me

My opinion is irrelevant – the scholars have recognized this to be the case. Any notion of an offensive jihad (which many scholars still deem to be defensive, in the sense that sometimes a good offense in the best defense) is interdicted by international protocols which all Muslim nations have signed up to*. The imbeciles we have running around keep referring to the fatwas of Sh. Ibn Taymiyyah who – shock of shocks – lived in Damascus during the time of the Crusades and the Mongol invasions. Apparently they haven’t gotten the notice, those ended a while back.

Now, to be honest, if the international order breaks down completely (something I do not wish for) and it goes back to the law of the jungle, then the older rules may be revived** – again, above my pay grade, just being honest as to what could happen. Thus it is in everyone’s interest to keep the current framework alive and well and improving.

I hope this makes things clear.

Peace.

*Keep in mind, these are the same rules that make sure armies don’t cross between that border you guys have with France. If you have read up on European history, then you will know how absolutely bizarre it is that an army has not crossed in either direction for seven decades.

**One thing that makes this highly doubtful is the nature of modern war. One of the purposes of an offensive jihad was to bring down a rival political power in order to make it clear for preaching the message to people – I doubt Byzantium was going to have any of that in their lands if they could help it. That was not so bad in an age when you could have battles like Yarmouk, Qadissyah, Manzikert, Mohacs, etc. out in open plains away from civilian areas and then civilian populations would capitulate to simply another power who was going to tax them (sometimes better than their previous hegemons). Modern warfare has made war so utterly destructive that if you do conquer a people you do so by turning their cities into Stalingrads and completely destroying their infrastructure, they will hate you and whatever you stand for. Thus, war in these times potentially has a completely opposite effect than the desired result.

Note how limited the warfare was as described by the traveler Ibn Jubayr during the time of the Crusades:
“One of the astonishing things that is talked of is that though the fires of discord burn between the two parties, Muslim and Christian, two armies of them may meet and dispose themselves in battle array, and yet Muslim and Christian travellers will come and go between them without interference….This Sultan invested it, and put it to sore straits, and long the siege lasted, but still the caravans passed successively from Egypt to Damascus, going through the lands of the Franks without impediment from them. In the same way the Muslims continuously journeyed from Damascus to Acre (through Frankish territory), and likewise not one of the Christian merchants was stopped or hindered (in Muslim territories). The Christians impose a tax on the Muslims in their land which gives them full security; and likewise the Christian merchants pay a tax upon their goods in Muslim lands. Agreement exists between them, and there is equal treatment in all cases. The soldiers engage themselves in their war, while the people are at peace and the world goes to him who conquers.”

http://www.arts.cornell.edu/prh3/259/texts/jubayr.htm

Can you imagine such a description these days coming out of besieged towns in Syria or Iraq?

[…] Anatoly’s analysis of the French election results and our show prior to the election Political trends among Millennials and Gen Z How automation will be the main political and economic issue in the future The Automation of low skilled jobs in the near future and super intelligence in the distant future Where Automation Will Replace Jobs in American Cities and what demographic groups will be impacted the most The effects of automation on immigration, birthrates, and Human Bio Diversity How automation will exacerbate income inequality Whether automation will create a new political realignment Why automation will make a basic income necessary Proposals for generating revenue for the basic income, taxing robots, and why Anatoly finds it more feasible to tax the ultra rich Rabbit’s proposal to break up the United States and why Anatoly thinks it would only exacerbate inequality in regards to automation The Creation of a leisure class, liberating creative types, and addressing the right’s concerns that a basic income would lead to degeneracy Peak Oil, Alternative Energy Sources, self driving cars, and how those will effect urban trends Affordable Family Formation Technological effects on socializing and dating Anatoly’s participation in a Transhumanist Debate on immigration and the basic income in the SF East Bay Hive Mind: How Your Nation’s IQ Matters So Much More Than Your Own Artificial Wombs and CRISPR gene editing Scott Jackisch’s The Robot Lord Scenario […]

Hola Senor,

After looking at it a bit more you are right about a good number of the practices the Chinese are doing. The fines do seem excessive to me for peasants. The biggest issue I have is trying to force women to bare their heads or men to shave their beards or forcing breaking of fasts. Non-Muslims shouldn’t have to wear headscarves and such in Muslim lands, should they? Should Muslims have the right to force feed people during Lent?Asking Muskims to dress distinctly is fine – non-Muslims were asked to distinjguish themselves at times. However, when it comes to Uighurs, I realize this is much more of a ethnic/political issue than a religious one (they do have the very bloody Boxer rebellion in their history to know how these things can get out of control and unleash a backlash) – since the article does say the Hui can practice openly. And honestly, I don’t expect much from post-Mao China on this front, the republic was different in this regard.

And while I can understand putting restrictions on outward or public religious ceremonies in the middle of Chinese areas, why should these be restricted in the Muslim areas/sectors?

The name thing is a bit invasive, but I’m not sure it is a “right” that people are necessarily involved in national health/welfare/education systems – in the past, Muslims usually left all of this up to the local millets to manage. They can probably keep a legal name as necessary and use a nickname – converts rarely ever change their birth name but at times take an Arabic name that they are known by in the community.

Again – good points.

Peace.

I don’t see your point about China. Though I may have missed something, from the article it appeared China was doing several main things:

1. Barring all Uighur-directed or Islam-directed political activity
2. Keeping prominent display of Islam (and, mainly, the associated political statements) out of the public sphere, and
3. (blending with 2) Imposing fines on certain Islamic activities.

To me, these don’t seem all that much of a contrast with traditional Muslim treatment of members of other religions, though you might argue that the fines in #3 are excessive; I wouldn’t know.

The only thing that seemed bizarre was the mention of “forced breaking of the Ramadan fast”. How do you even do such a thing? Send soldiers round to every house with a gun and a loaf of bread saying: “Take a bite if you want to live”?

Now, I’m not in favor of this sort of thing at all, but then I’m not in favor of applying it in Egypt or the Levant either. It also reminds me of the English treatment of the Irish, which, fortunately, mostly failed to work.

The other problem I see with this method is that Islam ends up continually recruiting the worst and most degraded element of each generation of Christians (or Hindus, etc.). The end of it is the regrettable state of religious disinterest and ignorance (what Catholics would call a catechetical problem) which, as you rightly note, is fairly common in the Muslim world (it’s happening to Christians, too, for different reasons). I hesitate to blame this also for the fact that Muslim armies, once the terror of the world, are now its butt, but it’s interesting to note that the Turks and the Moroccans (I’ll add the Afghans and the Persians), peoples who mostly didn’t go through this process, are also the most decently organized groups, militarily and otherwise*, in the Muslim world.

*Well, not the Afghans. But not really their fault.

Ok, maybe I’ve misinterpreted your remarks. I’m not expecting Muslims to feel perennially guilty about the way their religion spread, if you sincerely state that conditions today are different, that’s enough for me. I’m still somewhat disturbed by a few of your comments, but then that is probably inevitable given my general beliefs in religious matters.

Once one accepts that one is simply a “witness” to historical change about which little or nothing can be done (and let’s face it, even under the best of circumstances it is almost certainly too late), it becomes a bit easier.

Maybe, and in a way it’s quite interesting watching this unfold, you can certainly gain interesting insights into people’s behaviour. Still, very depressing.

You’re right in stating that Italy (and Greece) have lost the devaluation mechanism.

I tend to think that this is a psychological thing: Household discipline has by and large the same effect.

Looks, as if other countries stay competitive within this new economic order (Poland, Ireland, Slowakia, the Baltic states (!)).

Greece coud have left the Eruro – they preferred to keep it – result: The highest subsidized economy in the history of Greece. The Slowaks, the Slowenes and the Finns for example just say: Do like we do, and stop whining… Biggest obstacle in the Greek way to prosperity: They have no well functioning state and rank pretty high on the worldwide corruption index.

Sarrazin (and Sinn…) both said, it might have been easier for the Greeks, if they would have left the Euro. But the Greeks themselves did not want to do it and the foreign money keeps flowing in, and proves them somewhat right…It’s all part of the human comedy… (If you think of the Chinese, who are not only overtaking African Railroad systems, but also Greek harbours – and that the Chinese manage to accomplish, what the Greeks failed at: To make a profit with Greek harbours…

Bro – you are talking to a Sufi. Game is on! Though I don’t know if “mysticism” is the right word. I would put it more at spiritual purification; cleansing the heart, annihilating the ego, etc.

Traditionally, Sufism has been as much a part of our religion as the juristic tradition. Some of our most famous scholars were and are Sufis. The mufti I learned Islamic creed under (who wrote this book):

https://www.amazon.com/Imam-Hanifas-Al-Fiqh-al-Akbar-Explained/dp/1933764031

…is also a Sufi. Imam Ghazali (ra), Sidi Ahmad Zarruq (ra), Shaykh Thanawi (ra), etc. were all Sufis. The only people who have an allergic reaction to it are the Salafi-Wahhabi types, but that’s because they see some Sufis doing really whacky stuff and then assume we all do that nonsense.

I take my kids to our weekly dhikr gatherings.

Peace.

Hey GR,

Islam spread through legal discrimination of non-Muslims

Some people are on the margins of their religion, a little money or social mobility will push them over. Sincere ones can never be bought. As Mr. Taleb mentioned, their subsequent generations will eventually become more and more sincere.

And yes, we have legal discrimination in Muslim lands like; non-Muslims can’t be head of state, military or certain positions. That makes sense in a state in which the state religion is defined; even the king of Thailand partially derives his legitimacy by being the defender of Buddhism in that realm. I mean, if Western countries were to institute laws that stated Muslims couldn’t hold any government positions on a national level or could only vote for local elections, etc. then that would certainly be discriminatory, but I would hardly call that “oppressive” – maybe some SJWs would. That might actually get people to stop peeing in their pants about a Muslim presence if they knew there were legal safeguards in place from allowing them too much power.

Ultimately this means it’s just all about power relations, not about persuasion by argument or exemplary lifestyle.

The majority of spread of Islam occurred with the Sufis, and continues to this day. Prof. David Cook, an expert on jihadi movements, mentions that 90% of converts go the Sufi route rather than the Salafi route (listen for five minutes):

It’s of course true on a purely descriptive level, but as a statement of values it’s just “might is right” power worship.

We only worship the One Who holds all power. But when you live in a world of empires you conduct yourself with that framework in mind; all powers are considered hostile by default unless proven otherwise. We live in the completely opposite world. Even if the situation was turned and Muslims had the inverse of the military might vis-avis the West, I would never advocate scrapping the international framework and going back to the age of empires. We have an imperfect but workable system that tries to end unnecessary bloodshed.

If I believed “might makes right” then I would not consistently condemn the actions of various Muslim sovereigns throughout the centuries that oppressed their dhimmi citizens. In the book I referenced by Sh. Yaqoubi (“Refuting ISIS”), he mentions what some of the great Hanafi jurists have stated:
“Imam Kamal al-Din Ibn al-Humam went further and said, ‘Backbiting him [a dhimmi] is unlawful just as backbiting a Muslim is unlawful.’ Ibn ‘Abidin adopted this opinion in his sub-commentary known as Radd al- Muhtar*, explaining that oppression against a non-Muslim citizen is worse, saying that it is ‘because with the contractual dhimma (pact) everything obligatory towards [one of] us is obligatory towards him, so if backbiting a Muslim is impermissible then backbiting him is [also] impermissible. In fact, they [scholars] said that oppression against a non-Muslim citizen is worse.’ Ibn Hajar al-Haytami mentioned the
same in his book entitled ‘Deterrents from Committing Enormities’. The Prophetic statements prohibiting oppression against non-Muslim citizens are mass-transmitted and beyond doubt (mutawatir*).”

Power will be a source of humiliation for those who abuse it on the Day of Judgment.

Peace.
*Radd ul-Muhtar is the current text one has to master before becoming a mufti in the Hanafi school in any of the institutes from the East to the West – it is one of the most definitive guidelines to the school’s positions:

https://kitaabun.com/shopping3/product_info.php?manufacturers_id=80Products&products_id=5700

**Meaning at the same level of authenticity as any verse of the Qur’an.

Really makes me feel like emotionally giving up on the country…if people are that stupid, they deserve what’s coming for them. Just sucks for people like me though.

Once one accepts that one is simply a “witness” to historical change about which little or nothing can be done (and let’s face it, even under the best of circumstances it is almost certainly too late), it becomes a bit easier. Or at least this is what I continually tell myself.

How does Islam feel about mysticism? In Judaism is is very strongly discouraged except for the scholarly elite who are over the age of 40.

Thankmar Freiherr von Münchhausen, ‘Mameluken, Paschas und Fellachen, Berichte aus dem Reich Mohammed Alis 1810 – 1849′, 1982, Tübingen

The Copts as ruthless tax farmers, and enriching themselves by cooking the tax records.
When there is violence in the ME against christians, for example Assyrians were almost completely driven out of Iraq, I always wonder if these christians caused the violence themselves, by collaborating with colonial regimes, western oil companies, or puppet regimes.

altered states of consciousness

Yup – need to really, really get you married.

Hey Sunbeam – I’ve read that article by Mr. Taleb before, it is absolutely a great (and mandatory) read.

Peace.

Hey JR,

exemption from a special tax on non-Muslims

Yup – they could also get out of this with military service, but that was usually only offered to tough and rugged people like Turks, Kurds, Armenians, etc. not your city-slicker baker or cobbler who would have been a liability on the battlefield:
“Early Muslim rulers have at times entered dhimmah agreements which eliminated the jizyah altogether—as in the agreement entered during the time of the second caliph `Umar with the Turkish tribe of Jarajimah which welcomed the Muslim forces and declared its dislike of the Romans, but stipulated that its members be allowed to remain Christian; this was agreed…The tribe also agreed to help the Muslims in the event of any military engagement with the Romans. The Muslim party agreed in return to protect the tribe and also relieved its members from payment of jizyah.”

http://arts.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/2297733/ISIS_Origins,-Ideology,-and-Responses-by-Mainstream-Muslim-Scholars.pdf

exemption from periodic massacres of non-Muslims

Yes, this has been a problem in our history (kind of like Christian pogroms against Jews). Though this kind of vigilante mob violence is not sanctioned, it was at times a catalyst for quite a number of converts; one of the more famous instances being at the time of the Mamluks who unfortunately did not fulfill their duty to prevent it:
“The Copts…found the new regime of the Bahri Mamluks to be frequently uninterested in maintaining its ‘part’ of the traditional covenant of protection. In this sense, the Bahris may not have perpetrated any official oppressions or persectutions against Copts and other non-Muslims, but they did attract a tangibly dark shadow over their dhimmi relationships…Donald Little argues that the most clear cut result of these cycles (which reoccurred at least in 1301, 1321, and 1354) and were always a result of mob pressure than government policy) was a wave of mass conversions of Copts escaping the repititions of violence and increasing societal hostility toward them.”
Coptic Identity and Ayyubid Politics in Egypt 1218-1250
One of the main reasons not to destabilize governments that are actually keeping the peace.

China seems to be doing a bang-up job with its slow escalation of measures against its Muslims.

I wouldn’t support anything of this kind being done against non-Muslims by a Muslim government. Why should Muslims interfere with their practices as long as they pay taxes and don’t revolt or insult the faith? Do you actually support what China is doing? If Muslims were doing this exact kind of thing to non-Muslims, I presume you’d be pleased?

many Muslims would respond to the financial incentive by either apostasizing or leaving the country

Yup. What I would do depends on the taxes. I mean, if it’s reasonable then I’d stay, if not, I would leave – pretty simple really.

Peace.

I’m not really thinking about deterrence in the rational, “if I do this, bad things will happen to me” sense. I agree with you that isn’t a big factor here, that’s not how human psychology works. However, I do think a lot of people (not the kind who read Unz Review or The American Conservative, but you know, the standard popcorn-mucncher) at some level don’t think about matters of morality very deeply, and they just take their ideas about right and wrong from what the law says. Harsh punishment of murderers would send the message that society takes murder seriously, and that in turn makes people think it’s a Bad Thing.

Hey Hector,

If one looks at the history from an academic viewpoint, then one sees that the lion’s share of credit goes to the traveling Sufis.

Islam started out with one

And how – though it was mostly made of up citizen-soldiers out of the Hijaz and their Bedouin confederates and not professionally armed and trained men. They were certainly very tough though – they hit the Byzantines and Sassanids like a wave. It helps quite a bit to know the language of fire and steel early on in that land of so many of the world’s ancient empires. You recall the way the Christians were treated at the receiving end of the Imperium for those three hundred years, right? Destroyed churches, burned manuscripts, martyred scholars…the Companions (ra) weren’t playing that game.

how do you think Muslim states should deal

“Should” is above my pay grade; I am a student of sacred law and nowhere near the place where I can pronounce what the sacred law says “ought” to be done as concerns the rights of human beings. I can say what the scholars have said or what I think will likely happen. As such, I don’t see why they wouldn’t simply fall under the same category as the Alawi as Sh. Yaqoubi laid out. They aren’t heterodox like, say, Shiah or Ibadis – they simply aren’t Muslim.

As far as Khazkhstan and its numbers. They recently came out of a communist-induced stupor. I have read somewhere that there were 60 mosques at the time the USSR fell apart and now there are 2500. If you polled Tunisia or Egypt in the 50′s or 60′s, you would have come up with fairly close numbers to what you are describing. Islam seems to be rising:
“At the moment an explosion of islamization can be observed in Kazakhstan. A spiritual leadership of Kazakh’s Muslims has been established. The religious pilgrimage to Mecca becomes more and more popular. There is a growing number of mosques, Islamic schools and Medresse, academies and institutes, as well as of Islamic print products in Kazakhstan.”

http://thedailyjournalist.com/theinvestigative/the-islamic-situation-in-kazakhstan/

I think the bigger question is; will the old-guard Sunni-Sufi order be ascendant or the Salafi-Wahhabi brand?

“A special role in propagation of Islam among Turkis-nomads was played by the Sufi clergy. The founder of the Sufi order – Khoja Akhmet Yassawy (1103-1166/67) is considered by the Turkis Muslims to be the second sacred leader after Prophet Mohammed, and the city of Turkestan in the south of Kazakhstan where he preached – minor Mecca.”

There’s them Sufis again*…

Peace.

*The order I belong to has special roots from central Asia; the Naqshbandis are named after the Sufi sage Bahauddin Naqshband Bukhari (ra):

https://www.google.com/search?q=Mausoleum+of+Bahauddin+Naqshband&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj74bK33P3TAhUC0mMKHYpdDNMQ_AUICigB&biw=1536&bih=760

Close enough to pass for your eyes. The Chinese will probably notice the difference.

That’s not true though in regard to the Uighurs in Xianjiang who are the main target of China’s anti-Muslim measures; Razib Khan had an interesting blog post about this a few days ago:

Most are close enough to pass, if they lose the beards and traditional native costumes. Look up pictures of Uighurs on Google, and you’ll see what I mean. The Caucasoid admixture may come from the Tocharians from around 2000 or more years ago, combined with de- or never sinified Mongoloid ethnies.

Not sure in this case, if it’s found to be premeditated murder due to religious reasons he will probably get a long prison term of at least 15 years. The laxness of sentencing is more evident in cases of the sort “Gang of 20-year olds beats someone to death for trivial reasons, gets treated as juveniles and is out of prison after a few years again”.
I have my doubts though anyway that you can deter someone willing to kill for religious reasons.

I think this is more or less accurate- the picture of bloody “convert or die” spreading-by-the-sword isn’t really that much more accurate as regards Islam in general than it is regarding premodern Christianity. (The difference is that Christianity didn’t acquire a major imperial army until almost three hundred years after Christ, Islam started out with one). Egypt and Palestine weren’t majority Muslim until relatively shortly before the Crusades, right?

Just out of curiosity, how do you think Muslim states should deal with Muslim ‘heretics’ like the Ahmadiyas?

I mean, if you mean it was morally unjust, you might have a point (the communists were often brutal in their repression of all religions). It ‘worked’ in the sense that effectively secularized people. Muslims in places like Kazakhstan, Bosnia, the Tatar regions of Russia, etc.. are very secular. Something like 2% of Kazakh Muslims wants Shariah Law to be the law of the land, which is probably less than the fraction of American Christians who want Dominionist theocracy.

But what the hell is going through the minds of Merkel and her supporters? Do they honestly think they are going to coopt the belief system of the people they are bringing in?

It’s total lunacy imo. Even the integration of Turks has been only partially successful, and Turkish Islam is comparatively moderate. Number of really extreme Salafist types has also been rising steadily over the last few years. Now you get Arabs, Afghans etc. who come from a much more extreme background. But many people are just dumb and naive about this. In January 2016 I spoke to a female acquaintance…who was a bit bothered by the number of veiled Islamic women she saw around us (a lot of them were probably Arab tourists, or there for medical reasons…in any case probably not asylum seekers). I then asked her why, if she was bothered by such displays of religion (she’s also an atheist who has even formally left church – which I haven’t yet done), she was in favour of Merkel’s asylum policy and the immigration of hundreds of thousands of Muslims. Her answer: “I don’t believe the people now coming to Germany are really that religious at all”. And that woman is a university-educated phd student! Such people live their nice bourgeois lives and just go along as good conformists with what’s supposedly the right opinion to hold.
Recent polls now have Merkel’s Christian Democrats at 38% for the elections in September…so probably she will win, it will be hailed as a great triumph for her, and things will go on as before. Really makes me feel like emotionally giving up on the country…if people are that stupid, they deserve what’s coming for them. Just sucks for people like me though.

I mean, half the problem here is that (in my view) Western European criminal justice is too lax, which is why I doubt this guy is going to get punished as he deserves.

I mean, the ones who conquered Muslim countries did.

The ones who stayed home in Mongolia went Buddhist, as did the Kalmyks. (And there was even a chance some of the Mongol Khans might go Christian at one point, Hulagu Khan’s wife was a Christian, though that never panned out).

“Now, Muslims are perhaps 1.6% of the Chinese population, but they are, in the main, indistinguishable from non-Muslims in China”

That’s not true though in regard to the Uighurs in Xianjiang who are the main target of China’s anti-Muslim measures; Razib Khan had an interesting blog post about this a few days ago:

https://gnxp.nofe.me/2017/05/18/islam-in-china-is-not-one/

Hey Sunbeam,

True that. And they struck back pretty hard in the tenth century and recovered some lost territory – very formidable (and at times admirable) foe.

The Great Khan says hi

Sultan Baybars sends his salaam. Whatever happened to the Great Khan’s armies anyway?

Oh yeah, they became Muslim.

Peace.

This thread is getting long, and I’m sure I am going to say nothing you haven’t heard before, or have thought yourself.

But what the hell is going through the minds of Merkel and her supporters? Do they honestly think they are going to coopt the belief system of the people they are bringing in?

I’m starting to think it was designed to be impervious to any kind of ideological threat. Sure you could, but it would require you using naked force without apology.

And they think they are going to indoctrinate these people into becoming little SJW’s?

They are freaking lunatics (Merkel & Co). You and your nation have my sympathies.

But, we’ll totally cop to historically providing incentive (financial, social mobility, etc.) for people to become Muslim – no problems there; it’s part of the framework.

Great incentives, too – exemption from a special tax on non-Muslims, exemption from periodic massacres of non-Muslims, exemption from having Muslims seize non-Muslim property via blasphemy charges, etc. What worked for Muslims against non-Muslims should work for non-Muslims against Muslims.

China seems to be doing a bang-up job with its slow escalation of measures against its Muslims. All they have to do to avoid this persecution is leave the religion:

According to a Uighur Human Rights Project report, 700 people were killed due to political activities in 2015. The number of those arrested increased 95 percent compared to in 2014, reaching 27,000. The number of those sentenced to execution or life imprisonment increased by 50 percent last year. It became a crime to wear a headscarf in public, including when getting married in a religious ceremony, with fines of about $353 for doing so. In 2015, a group of five Uighur men who had “crescent moon-shaped” beards was put on trial for religious extremism after they were found to have secretly attended religious ceremonies.

Now, Muslims are perhaps 1.6% of the Chinese population, but they are, in the main, indistinguishable from non-Muslims in China. Despite blending in seamlessly from the standpoint of facial features, they have yet to successfully execute an attack against China anywhere on the scale of 9/11, although attempts have been made. The Chinese government is now giving the country’s Muslims an incentive to not give their newborns traditional Muslim names:

Many couples fret over choosing the perfect name for their newborn, but for Muslims in western China that decision has now become even more fraught: pick the wrong name and your child will be denied education and government benefits.

Officials in the western region of Xinjiang, home to roughly half of China’s 23 million Muslims, have released a list of banned baby names amid an ongoing crackdown on religion, according to a report by US-funded Radio Free Asia.

Names such as Islam, Quran, Saddam and Mecca, as well as references to the star and crescent moon symbol, are all unacceptable to the ruling Communist party and children with those names will be denied household registration, a crucial document that grants access to social services, healthcare and education.

I expect that if a non-Muslim country imposed a head tax on Muslims similar to the jizya, many Muslims would respond to the financial incentive by either apostasizing or leaving the country. What would you do?

I don’t think I’m going to take any mushrooms for that…

Mushrooms never worked for me. I use hemi-sync and I strongly recommend it.

I was merely speaking for myself, but in any case, not all religions might be transparently false to the same degree. It’s obvious to me that Mormonism is basically just a succesful fraud (even though many Mormons certainly are very nice and decent people). Obviously I can be much less sure that Christ’s resurrection didn’t happen. I don’t believe in it, but I can’t be 100% certain either.

What happens if some Muslim in Germany decides to become a Buddhist or Christian. And he gets whacked.

You know it’s probably happened already, multiple times. Just the German government doesn’t have the guts to release the fact, and is unwilling to do anything about it.

Oh, of course, no doubt about that, just a few weeks ago in Bavaria an Afghan woman who had converted to Christianity was stabbed to death in front of a supermarket by some Afghan asylum seeker (while her small children had to watch). It was reported then that the woman’s relatives believe the murderer did so out of religious reasons, because he wanted to punish the woman for “apostasy” (and that’s not unlikely, after all according to the PEW survey I already mentioned there is majority support for killing “apostates” in Afghanistan and Pakistan). Haven’t found any reports confirming this as proven beyond doubt in this case (German media doesn’t follow up on such stories…), but such cases certainly do happen from time to time even in western countries.

Religion of any kind may be false, but I think it simply incorrect to call it transparently so.

To quote from the book I recommended Talha:

Listen to me. You say Christianity is absurd and impossible. Now, you know, it cannot be that! It may be untrue—I am not speaking of that now, even though I am perfectly certain that it is absolutely true—but it cannot be absurd so long as educated and virtuous people continue to hold it. To say that it is absurd is simple pride; it is to dismiss all who believe in it as not merely mistaken, but unintelligent as well—-”

through self exploration of altered states of consciousness.

I don’t think I’m going to take any mushrooms for that…
Don’t know if comparing the points of the main religions will tell us about the universe…though certainly a lot about human nature (and I’m not saying there’s nothing of worth at all in religious traditions). But about the universe, there’s so unfathomably much we just don’t know. I mean, there are people who claim it might be just some sort of simulation

If anyone is interested this is what Nassim Taleb has to say:

“The One-Way Street of Religions

In the same manner, the spread of Islam in the Near East where Christianity was heavily entrenched (it was born there) can be attributed to two simple asymmetries. The original Islamic rulers weren’t particularly interested in converting Christians as these provided them with tax revenues –the proselytism of Islam did not address those called “people of the book”, i.e. individuals of Abrahamic faith. In fact, my ancestors who survived thirteen centuries under Muslim rule saw advantages in not being Muslim: mostly in the avoidance of military conscription.

The two asymmetric rules were are as follows. First, if a non Muslim man under the rule of Islam marries a Muslim woman, he needs to convert to Islam –and if either parents of a child happens to be Muslim, the child will be Muslim[3]. Second, becoming Muslim is irreversible, as apostasy is the heaviest crime under the religion, sanctioned by the death penalty. The famous Egyptian actor Omar Sharif, born Mikhael Demetri Shalhoub, was of Lebanese Christian origins. He converted to Islam to marry a famous Egyptian actress and had to change his name to an Arabic one. He later divorced, but did not revert to the faith of his ancestors.

Under these two asymmetric rules, one can do simple simulations and see how a small Islamic group occupying Christian (Coptic) Egypt can lead, over the centuries, to the Copts becoming a tiny minority. All one needs is a small rate of interfaith marriages. Likewise, one can see how Judaism doesn’t spread and tends to stay in the minority, as the religion has opposite rules: the mother is required to be Jewish, causing interfaith marriages to leave the community. An even stronger asymmetry than that of Judaism explains the depletion in the Near East of three Gnostic faiths: the Druze, the Ezidi, and the Mandeans (Gnostic religions are those with mysteries and knowledge that is typically accessible to only a minority of elders, with the rest of the members in the dark about the details of the faith). Unlike Islam that requires either parents to be Muslim, and Judaism that asks for at least the mother to have the faith, these three religions require both parents to be of the faith, otherwise the person says toodaloo to the community.

Egypt has a flat terrain. The distribution of the population presents homogeneous mixtures there, which permits renormalization (i.e. allows the asymmetric rule to prevail) –we saw earlier in the chapter that for Kosher rules to work, one needed Jews to be somewhat spread out across the country. But in places such as Lebanon, Galilee, and Northern Syria, with mountainous terrain, Christians and other Non Sunni Muslims remained concentrated. Christians not being exposed to Muslims, experienced no intermarriage.

Egypt’s Copts suffered from another problem: the irreversibility of Islamic conversions. Many Copts during Islamic rule converted to Islam when it was merely an administrative procedure, something that helps one land a job or handle a problem that requires Islamic jurisprudence. One do not have to really believe in it since Islam doesn’t conflict markedly with Orthodox Christianity. Little by little a Christian or Jewish family bearing the marrano-style conversion becomes truly converted, as, a couple of generations later, the descendants forget the arrangement of their ancestors.

So all Islam did was out-stubborn Christianity, which itself won thanks to its own stubbornness. For, before Islam, the original spread of Christianity in the Roman empire can be largely seen due to… the blinding intolerance of Christians, their unconditional, aggressive and proselyting recalcitrance.”

Maybe the guys in Idiocracy talking about Brawndo were on to something. But this leads to a problem. What happens if some Muslim in Germany decides to become a Buddhist or Christian. And he gets whacked.

You know it’s probably happened already, multiple times. Just the German government doesn’t have the guts to release the fact, and is unwilling to do anything about it.

Nazis my ass.

I doubt any knowledge of the truth about the universe is attainable to us, at least in mankind’s present form…

I think we can learn a lot about the universe through a combination of science, looking at points that all the main religions agree on and through self exploration of altered states of consciousness.

What’s your take on the Tamil Tigers?

Uh, Byzantium held out quite a while.

Oh, and the Great Khan says hi.

But, we’ll totally cop to historically providing incentive (financial, social mobility, etc.) for people to become Muslim – no problems there; it’s part of the framework.

That’s of course historically correct, but I have to say I find it bizarre and quite disturbing, how you present the fact that Islam spread through legal discrimination of non-Muslims (that’s after all what “providing incentives” means in fact) as part of some exemplary “framework”. Ultimately this means it’s just all about power relations, not about persuasion by argument or exemplary lifestyle.

As one non-Muslim historian put it, they destroyed armies with a “magnificent brutality” (usually out-numbered too). Want to keep an empire? Then learn to defend it.

A social Darwinist couldn’t have expressed it better. It’s of course true on a purely descriptive level, but as a statement of values it’s just “might is right” power worship.

By the way…

through relentless pressure to apostasize and the imprisonment, torture

The secular nationalists (and especially the communists – it was brutal in places like Uzbekistan) like Ataturk tried this on the Muslims. Isn’t working out very well, is it?

Thing is, when it comes to religion, I want the TRUTH. And I can tell it isn’t in Islam, and it isn’t in Christianity. I doubt it has existed in any form of religion practiced by Man. Or maybe the truth is, there is no truth.

I doubt any knowledge of the truth about the universe is attainable to us, at least in mankind’s present form…there’s a phrase about it in Joseph Conrad’s Nostromo…the universe as a succession of incomprehensible images (the character who feels that way eventually commits suicide), a fitting expression imo. We just don’t know, and I doubt we ever will. But that’s a deeply discomforting thought and humans seem to have an innate desire to create a meaningful narrative to make sense of it all. Personally I regard the claims to truth of revealed religion as bizarre, it seems transparently man-made imo…but it clearly fills a deeply felt need for many people. I just don’t want people who think like that to have any power over me and my life…especially so in the case of a faith like Islam which in addition to being highly implausible imo, has also been historically alien and hostile to my own civilization.

Hey JR,

If you say so. There was nothing hidden about what the first Muslim generation did. They came out swinging pretty hard and rolled up the Sassanid and Byzantine empires within a very short time frame. As one non-Muslim historian put it, they destroyed armies with a “magnificent brutality” (usually out-numbered too). Want to keep an empire? Then learn to defend it.

the same way Islam spread – through relentless pressure to apostasize and the imprisonment, torture

Uh yeah – because you say so…cool.

But, we’ll totally cop to historically providing incentive (financial, social mobility, etc.) for people to become Muslim – no problems there; it’s part of the framework.

For anybody interested in serious history, this is one of the best and most balanced articles on the conquests of the Companions (ra) – aka the Rashidun (as written by the late Patricia Crone – an absolute expert on non-Muslim source texts and archaeology – who writes in order to dispell the liberal revisionist narrative):

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/42023/among-the-believers

Peace.

Tamil girls are hot. I believe that the (terrible) musician MIA is a Tamil.

LOL! It’s never been, bro. It’s specifically a Shiah thing.

Actually, it was Sunni before it became Shiite. First as spies and infiltrators. Then as conquerors, as they co-opted non-Muslim warlords and warriors into their army, while re-assuring the natives that they would rule with a light hand. Only then came sharia and massacres of non-believers.

Islam’s end will come, but it will arrive pretty much the same way Islam spread – through relentless pressure to apostasize and the imprisonment, torture or execution of Muslim religious leaders and rebels. Assad has shown that a population outnumbered six to one with Sunni Arab rebels receiving significant financing from Sunni countries can force significant numbers of Sunni Arabs to leave while fighting the remainder to a draw that is increasingly tilting in favor of the Alawites, non-religious Sunni Arabs and their non-Muslim allies.

You know, reading Talha’s material, and some stuff I’ve casually (yeah I used that word) googled.

Certain things sounded awfully familiar to me. A bit of reflection leads me to think though that groups find or instinctively know certain strategies. And while it’s not just religion (and I’ll admit Christianity did it, and probably still does it in some quarters), I mean communists or nazis probably used the same playbook. Or Deep Staters, or SJW’s…

Anyway, any of this sound familiar?

“The answer depends on how you define the word and to whom you are talking. For purposes of liberal religious examination, this is our working definition of a cult:

A religion or sect, generally considered to be extremist or false, under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader for whom members exhibit fixed, even religious, veneration.

Groups that meet this definition tend to have an escalating negative impact on the lives of followers. These groups exhibit many common characteristics:

One charismatic leader is the group’s sole authority on truth; only this leader decides, or has the right to approve, all policies and practices.

Members are zealous, protective, and unquestioningly committed to the leader.

Members regard the leader’s beliefs and practices as truth and law; the leader affirms and enforces this idea.

Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or punished.

The group’s leadership dictates how members should think, act, and feel. Members require the leader’s permission to change jobs, date, marry, or have children. The leader tells members where they can live and how to teach and discipline their children.

The group uses public humiliation or punishment, debilitating work, sleep deprivation, or other practices to create group-think and to suppress individualism and doubt.

Criticism or jokes about the leader or group are taken very seriously and likely punished.

The group is elitist, claiming special status for itself, its leaders, and its members.

The leader and members maintain theirs is the only path to truth and salvation.”

Now obviously Mohammed has been dead for 13, 1400 years? And statements like “A religion or sect, generally considered to be extremist or false” are in the eyes of the beholder. After all, “The answer depends on how you define the word and to whom you are talking. ”

I might add a cynic (I’m one) could apply this to Richard Dawkins as well. Actually why not? I invite the philosophy department of Oxford to teabag my nuts. Add the biology department too if Dawkins still hangs out there.

What made do a google for something like this (this actually comes from our good friends, the Unitarians) was some of this stuff we’ve been covering about Islam (and some of Taleb’s writing on it).

Also kind of makes me think of Amway. And no, I’m not trying to be funny. I think that Islam, probably all religions, use techniques that are applicable in other areas.

Thing is, when it comes to religion, I want the TRUTH. And I can tell it isn’t in Islam, and it isn’t in Christianity. I doubt it has existed in any form of religion practiced by Man. Or maybe the truth is, there is no truth. Life’s a bitch, then you die.

“I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.”

Hey Hector,

Do the Alawis claim

That’s the thing, I don’t think anybody really knows what they believe. Have they published a widely known public work like Aqidah Nasafiyyah or Aqidah Tahawiyyah, etc.? I have no clue. I’m going off of what I’ve gleaned from open sources like these:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Alawite

http://religion.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199340378.001.0001/acrefore-9780199340378-e-85

Peace.

Hey JR,

Taqiyya isn’t just a Sunni custom

LOL! It’s never been, bro. It’s specifically a Shiah thing. Probably because they’ve always been the minority. I was friends with Shiah brothers back in UCLA – they were quite open about availing of the practice. It actually didn’t sound to bad to me, their motive was simply to not cause friction when there didn’t need to be in a majority Sunni environment.

And that’s fine if Alawis want to do taqiyyah actually – we only judge and interact with people people based on outward actions – God judges their intentions. So if they want power while pretending to be normal Muslims – awesome – go for it.

Peace.

Hey Hector,

I know – I don’t think people actually worship the pope at all. It’s what you said, it looks derived from pre-Christian norms. Again, it’s probably just inner bias since the big scholars/authorities in our tradition are on the down low when it comes to flashiness – here’s a photo of the late Sh. Abu Ghuddah (ra) with his teacher (who was one of the last great Ottoman Hanafi scholars) Sh. al-Kawthari (ra) – that’s about as classy as it gets:

one even had his body dug up and put on trial

Dag yo! That’s hard core – did he win?

Peace.

Why is he praying like a Sunni Hanafi – who is he signaling to?

The majority Sunni Arabs, for the same reasons the Assads have made a lot of aggressive noises vis-a-vis Israel without doing very much about it. Alawites have survived over 1000 years in the face of Sunni persecution. If they were going to convert, they would have done it long ago. Taqiyya isn’t just a Sunni custom – any minority looking to survive Sunni tyranny practices it. Next you’ll be telling me that Obama is a recreational skeet shooter, because of the White House issued photo of him with a shotgun.

NB: I’m a big fan of Tissot’s paintings myself.

I mean, I think Christ was God Incarnate so obviously I don’t have a problem with the notion of God incarnating himself (or for that matter any sort of lesser being, e.g. an angel or the like, incarnating themselves). In theory I don’t see why God couldn’t take on any form he wished.

On the historical issue you have a good point. I’m aware Muhammed didn’t claim to be divine, and if Ali and Salman didn’t either then that poses a problem for the Alawi claims, I suppose. This also puts them in a different position than Christians, since the Gospels contain explicit and implicit statements of Christ’s divinity.

Do the Alawis claim to be the custodians of a secret revelation like you suggest? If so, then it’s certainly difficult to disprove their claim, you either believe it or you don’t.

I know a Muslim brother who became Sunni (coming out of the Dawoodi Bohri break away from the Ismaili branch). He recently stated most of the lay people don’t even know much of the doctrines and would be shocked at some of the more esoteric stuff that is kept out of the public eye.

And Bohras are far less heterodox than these other guys. Like I said, I think opening this stuff up to daylight will not do wonders for their faithful.

Oh, you mean the pageantry surrounding the Papacy?

That’s fine, but three points.

1) obviously I’m a very heterodox Christian and don’t credit the claims of the Catholic Church myself.

2) Catholicism and Orthodoxy are quite up front about the fact that they borrow much of their institutional structure, manner of dress, art, etc. as well as much of philosophical superstructure, from pagan Greco-Roman models. That doesn’t make Catholicism or Orthodoxy a pagan religion: the core of the religion revolves around the Holy Trinity, to whom worship is due alone, and not to any pagan deities.

3) The pope is not at all equivalent to a pharaoh, a pagan high priest, etc., in that he faces very strict limits on his power. The scope of matters where he claims special authority is rather narrow, he doesn’t make any claims to be a direct intermediary with God or a “revelator” or anything like that, and plenty of popes have been excoriated after their death. One or two have even been accused of heresy, plenty have been considered criminal, and one even had his body dug up and put on trial.

Hola Senor,

He claimed the Caliph Ali (ra) was divine.

a slightly transfigured Freemasonry has become dominant as a facet of a kind of humanism

Interesting.

Peace.

Hey JR,

What someone promises while in opposition and while fighting a staunch foe in fear for its very existence is quite different from what that someone says (or does) once ensconced in power.

Correct – do you really think Sunnis are afraid of Alawis? We have the ball my friend and we are in the lead, all we need to do is run out the clock. The Alawis are on their way to being absorbed into either the Shiah or the Sunni. In fact, it’s the idiot extremists who are screwing up the whole thing. The Alawis were actually getting absorbed fairly rapidly (not as quick as the Druze, but still) because most don’t know their own faith and are marrying into other Muslim families – their children being raised as Muslims. This has precedence; the Mongols, the Turks all came in as non-Muslim conquerors into the Muslim lands – they were eventually absorbed. The best thing to happen to them was gaining power – the worst thing to happen to them was gaining power.

Non-Muslims in Muslim majority countries are imprisoned, tortured or killed for chance remarks concerning Islam all the time.

This is a good point. First, torture should be out completely. Second, blasphemy laws should not be used to score political points or stupid things like that. They are there for a specific reason; to make sure people do not denigrate or mock God or His messengers (pbut) in public. To use them for ulterior motives is mocking the law itself. I 100% agree with you that many times these are used for completely illegitimate ends. So I can certainly see Alawis being worried about this.

Clerics far older and far more influential than Yaqoob have declared Alawites to be persona non grata, to be killed whenever possible

Problem here – Imam Ghazali (ra) was contemporaneous with the spreading of the sect among Muslims in medieval times – thus his pronouncement is actually valid, in that those Muslims were actually apostatizing. How does this contradict anything Sh. Yaqoubi said – do you know of Shiah or Sunni Muslims becoming Alawi? Really? The direction of conversion is only going one way.

As far as Imam Ibn Taymiyyah (ra) – Sh. Yaqoubi already mentioned him and made it clear his ruling goes against consensus – so why should we follow an extreme minority opinion? Sure, Salafi-Wahhabi extremists love his position – but that’s the problem – we’re talking about a Syria after the extremists have been eliminated or at least have laid down their weapons and dispersed.

But ‘Alawis are denied this privilege. Indeed, the precepts of Islam call for apostates like the ‘Alawis to be sold into slavery or executed.

Nonsense – Daniel Pipe’s opinion on the matter is irrelevant unless he can produce clear proof from our scholars. Sh. Muhammad Yaqoubi has already refuted this by stating the Hanafi position which is also backed up by the Maliki position (which is in one of the earlier links I provided) that they are to be treated as dhimmah. I mean, Mr. Pipes can keep repeating it as often as he likes – the fact is, the guys wearing turbans call the shots when the rubber meets the road.

The weight of both history and contemporary Sunni Muslim treatment of religious minorities

You are sticking to the examples that support your narrative and completely ignoring the counter examples. For instance Malaysia, Morocco, Jordan are fairly good about the treatment of minorities – basically wherever the extremists can be kept in check. In fact, Morocco hosted a recent conference of prominent Muslim scholars that called on the Muslim nations and peoples to respect the rights of religious minorities – even the Yazidi leader spoke there:
“The gathering here of about 300 muftis, theologians and scholars last month responded far more broadly by issuing the Marrakesh Declaration, which calls for Muslim countries to tolerate and protect religious minorities living within their borders — among them Christians, Jews, Hindus and Bahais as well as Yazidis and Sabians.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/03/world/africa/muslim-conference-calls-for-protection-of-religious-minorities.html

One can say that the lion’s share of history would show that Jews had a better time living in Muslim lands, however, they definitely fair better in Christian lands now since about the 18th century. Things can change.

rather than expelling them [Sunni Arabs] from Syria

While I agree that the extremists need to be put into check before any meaningful dialog can begin – do you seriously think Alawis would win an all out war against Sunnis? Do you think Iran (who actually operate quite cautiously) would be stupid enough to back them up on that? How do you think they are still holding onto power? The Sunni economic sector supports them as well as a major part of their army being Sunni, not to mention the many Muslim scholars that have sided with (or at least stayed silent about) the government. Take a look at these photos:

https://www.google.com/search?q=bashar+assad+praying&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKyYCf8vzTAhVL5WMKHX1yCUsQ_AUICigB&biw=1344&bih=774

I love this video; guys, guys – don’t screw it up, the Hanafis are watching !

Why is he praying like a Sunni Hanafi – who is he signaling to? The Shia chat rooms are lighting up about it. He married a Sunni wife. Is he supposed to expel her? Do you think his kids will be raised Alawi?

Peace.

Salman al-Farsi

It strikes me that Muslims are in a remarkably similar position regarding Christ.

Was the man executed for claiming Ali or himself as divine?

Will possibly try to write more later; if not I recommend Benson (http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/14021/pg14021-images.html) for a look at a world in which a slightly transfigured Freemasonry has become dominant as a facet of a kind of humanism.

Hey Hector,

The ‘it’ is basically that ‘it’ looks like every painting I’ve seen of a god-emperor institution – like this:

Again, it’s just me – since we don’t have anything like that.

I’m not sure what you find inherently unbelievable about the Muhammad – Ali – Salman trinity

Without going into the logic of it. I mean if some people find the god-incarnate thing to be acceptable – then I can’t really see a reason why they wouldn’t accept god-incarnate into multiple people at once, or a volcano, or…so you’re right, somethings just appeal to some people.

Now – as far as historical evidence; none of these men claimed divinity and the Caliph Ali (ra) is on record as having a man executed for claiming he was divine. So – what does one exactly do with that? I guess one could say, well Muslims made everything up. OK – then what’s the proof that Salman al-Farsi (ra) ever existed? Unless he was able to secretly tell a super-secret bunch of elders the real truth and that they have carried this awesomeness with them to this day and only they know the what really went down, but they can’t divulge it because secret awesomeness.

Peace.

Regarding the US attack on Syrian forces there’s an interesting comment by Giraldi here:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/report-u-s-bombs-pro-regime-forces-in-syria/

My sources claim the attack was ordered by LTG Jeffrey Harrigian, commander of air forces for central command, and may have been in response to White House demands to “do something.” There was some concern that Russian advisers might be with the column. Ironic that we, operating illegally in Syria, attack the legitimate regime’s forces that are presumably on their way to fight some groups that we regard as terrorists.

There’s another possibility, one which I mention only with trepidation, but which, if I may, seems to be suggested by this comment of yours…

Look, it’s no big deal, perhaps as you say with the fog of time I misremembered. But on the other hand, perhaps it really was true. Okay?

Hey RC,

We personally know Christians living in the USA and Canada who had to flee their long-long-time homes and homelands

Yeah – and I know Muslims whose families suffered tremendous pain during the sanctions on Iraq and their relatives couldn’t even send them medicine because it was illegal.

Let’s pile up the bodies on each side and let’s see whose pile is bigger.

I like Christians that actually live up to their Christian framework – they have much respect from me. I can’t take hypocrites of any stripe seriously.

Peace.

There’s another possibility, one which I mention only with trepidation, but which, if I may, seems to be suggested by this comment of yours…

Perhaps your father, being rather a jollier fellow than you, talking about discrimination in general, made what some might regard as a “humorous exaggeration” or even –bear with me– a joke? Which falling on dour ears failed to germinate, like the seed which fell on the path and was eaten by birds …

And this is why we got to get you married man.

Peace.

1. The Jews are G-d’s Chosen People.
2. G-d gave every inch of the Land of Israel to the Jewish people exclusively.

This is just as much religious fanatic bullshit as anything the islamists come out with, and irrelevant to anyone who is even minimally rational and who does not share the minority religious interpretations making such Old Testament dictats relevant in any way to the modern state of Israel.

3. Any peoples that assault the Jewish people or attempt to steal the Land of Israel from them *deserve* to die, and *will* die. This has been the case for over 3000 years and will never change.

This is laughably untrue (except of course in the literal sense in which everybody human dies in the end, including all the people who lived long, happy and successful lives after killing jews or stealing their land over the past couple of millennia), as a matter of simple observable historical fact.

4. Killing your enemies during a war in which you are on the side of justice is not murder.

This is a fatuously irrelevant point, because the whole basis of my comment was that the US is not at war with Syria, and that is why Trump regime killings of Syrian soldiers in Syria are every bit as much murder as it would be if the Iranians were to launch a missile at a US air base in the US, or an Israeli military base in Israel tomorrow.

And of course in that event you would be beside yourself with outrage and demanding retaliation. Because you are, as I pointed out, a shameless hypocrite.

But despite all that, Trump has managed to greatly improve US relations with Russia and so far has done an admirable job of preventing the expansion of US involvement in Syria, despite truly massive pressures to do just that.

This is another open lie, because Trump has done exactly what you claim he has not and expanded US military operations in Syria, with now two open military strikes against Syrian government forces (something Obama never did) as well as the openly admitted deployment of US marines to Syria.

US Marines Move into Syria with Howitzers
military.com. 8th March 2017

Why do you even bother trying to push such easily refuted stupid lies?

Pressures that you obviously don’t appreciate or understand.

I understand them all too well. I just think they should be opposed, not appeased as you seem be claiming to think is sensible.

Ron Paul was a homo

This is not just a lie, but another particularly stupid one, considering he’s a long term married man with five children.

And nobody in his right mind should trust you and your coreligionists, “Bro”, even if you make a big show of being a “friendly” worshipper of the pedophile prophet, liking hockey, using colloquial Western language, and the other superficial trappings.

We personally know Christians living in the USA and Canada who had to flee their long-long-time homes and homelands (Syria, Iraq, and Indonesia, respectively) because of muslim violence and intimidation. (And yes, the muslims did plenty of that in those areas before the US et al. ever started these vicious and unnecessary non-defensive wars in the Mideast and Central Asia in the past 26 or so years.)

“Who are we going to believe, you (‘Talha’) or our lying eyes and ears?” as the sarcastic old question goes.

Not concerned with whether you “take me seriously.” I take your aggressive, hateful, expansionist religion quite seriously.

Also you’re mostly wrong to speculate that I “shave and wear a tie.” Rarely either, “Bro.”

the difference is no one tries to hide what is in the bible: comedians will point out strange rules from the Old Testament to mock it; journalists in interviews will specifically pick lines out of the New Testament as a moral club to use against people who claim a Christian motivation but there is total silence from the media-political class about what is in the Koran.

(and Muslims online lie about it all the time but you only notice that when you know what’s in it)

Does anything I said suggest that there was no antisemitism in the US at the time?

Look, here is the primary fact: when the Cavalier Hotel barred Jews, it admitted dogs! How do you get beyond that point?

When did your father tell you this? It must either have been in your childhood or several decades later. If the former I suggest you misremembered it, if the latter that he did. Why are you so invested in the exact wording of one particular sign, which wording is incredibly unlikely, while exactly tracking a popular rumour/meme about various signs across the world, never substantiated!

Nobody seems to know that Islam, until approx 1500, when Europe began conquering and terrorizing the world, the Islamic world was tolerant.

PC nonsense

Arab Empire

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Muslim_conquests

Turkish Empire

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire

Arab slave trade

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade

An illustrative snippet of the US mainstream media propaganda machine at work, from the Guardian:

US jets attack Iran-backed militiamen in south-eastern Syria

Note that the only reason to believe it was “Iran-backed militia” that was targeted in the attack in Syria is the say so of the US and its regional tools. The Syrians officially describe the column that was attacked as a Syrian army operation. which seemingly included both regular Syrian army personnel and those of allied Iraqi militias. Whether any Iranians were there or whether Iran “backs” the militias in question (it does) is utterly irrelevant to the basic truth that this was a Syrian government operation. Of course, the falsehood is prominently advanced in the headline and the truth buried as “Russian and Syrian government statements” in the body of the piece.

Note that the US military has no legal basis for operating against Syrian government forces (whether or not “backed by Iran”) in Syria at all, and if US and proxy forces in al Tanf didn’t fancy being approached by the Syrian government forces coming to retake control of the area to pursue the campaign against IS in the east, then their only legitimate option was to leave, not to murder Syrian government military personnel in a supposed attempt to deter their movement within their own country. The US is openly flouting international law again, acting as though it is entirely above it, and the Guardian makes no mention of this inconvenient truth – something you would think a newspaper that claims to stand for a law based world would regard as quite important, and which they certainly would be shouting about at every opportunity if it were the Russians doing what the US is doing here.

Note that the Guardian attempts to push the transparently spurious US regime line that Iran supposedly needs a land route across eastern Syria in order to support its ally Hezbollah. Note the inherent absurdity of this claim, given that Iran has never before had such a route available, and that has not prevented it supporting Hezbollah against Israeli aggression perfectly adequately in the past. The road is certainly something desired by all the allies for obvious reasons, but it is not the primary concern that the US propaganda operation seeks to paint it as.

The primary concern is preventing the US regime and its regional proxies from blocking the reestablishment of Syrian territorial integrity, and the reason why US sphere propaganda is shifting in this way is probably to do with the likely near future loss of the “fighting IS” pretext for a presence on Syrian soil and the need to establish another one that maintains the pretence that this is not just about trying to regime change an uncooperative power that is a regional rival of Israel and of Saudi Arabia. “Preventing Iran from establishing a route to support Hezbollah” is transparent nonsense strategically and as a legal argument, but it’s good enough to bamboozle the propagandised and ignorant masses in the US and its European satellite states.