An interesting symposium from 2007. Jamie Glazov, the counter-jihad journalist from Frontpage Magazine, interviews (occasionally intruding his anxiously asymptotic thoughts) Robert Spencer, Daniel Pipes, and Robert Tefft.
For the seasoned counter-jihad reader, it's nothing terribly new or surprising, but I found it mildly stimulating to see Tefft's comparative rigor as a refreshing contrast to the varying degrees of asymptotic, nougaty squishiness from the other three -- where Daniel Pipes is reliably the worst; Jamie Glazov flounders about in his anxiety to protect Muslims from our anti-Islam opprobrium; and Robert Spencer as always in such discussions deftly navigates the (ultimately incoherent) fencepost in between.
Beyond that, it's at times engrossing to see three intelligent students of the problem of Islam weigh in on matters revolving around the crux of the matter: whether Islam itself is the problem, and whether Muslims are, qua enablers of Islam, to be included in that problem.
Readers of my blog of course know where I stand (yes, Islam itself, Islam, the whole Islam, and nothing but Islam, the whole Kitman and Kaboodle, is the problem; and yes, all Muslims, in a wondrous diversity of styles & flavors, enable that problem). I wouldn't be recommending this symposium if it hadn't been for the participation of Tefft. Though he's far from perfect, he's better than the other three, and at key points in the conversation, he helps to try to steer the conversation away from the undertow of the asymptotic deep end (ever perilously contiguous with the darker waters of PC MC) toward which his colleagues seem more naturally disposed to drift.
14 comments:
IS PRAYING TO GOD WORSHIP? BY STEVE FINNELL
Is praying to God a form of worship? Yes, without a doubt. Is praying to men or women who are dead or alive worship? Yes, without a doubt.
Who should men worship? Luke 4:7-8 "Therefore, if You will worship before me, all will be Yours." 8 And Jesus answered and said to him, "Get behind Me, Satan! For it is written, 'You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve."(NKJV)
WHAT IS WORSHIP?
Worship Defined: 1. (Ecclesiastical terms) to show profound religious devotion and respect to; adore or venerate (God or any person or thing considered divine) 2. to be devoted to and full of admiration for. 3. to have or express feelings of profound adoration......7. (Ecclesiastical) the formal expression of religious adoration; rites, prayers, etc. [REF. The Free Dictionary. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/worship]
Praying to God is worship and men are to only worship God.
A Costa Rican woman has told how she recovered from a brain aneurysm after praying to Blessed Pope John Paul ll ---the second miracle attributed to the pontiff, who died in 2005. [REF: catholicherald. co.uk]
Praying to any man dead or alive is worship and to worship anyone but God is sin.
Through the selfless "yes" of the Virgin Mary, Jesus Christ, our Savior, was brought into the world. It is appropriate, therefore , that we offer prayers of petition and praise to the Mother of God.
43 ARTICLES IN: PRAYERS TO THE VIRGIN MARY-PRAYERS TO SAINT MARY, THE MOTHER OF GOD. Ref: http://catholicism.about.com/od/tothevirginmary/
Praying to anyone is worship and to worship anyone but God is sin.
WORSHIP IS RESERVED FOR GOD ALONE!
YOU ARE INVITED TO FOLLOW MY BLOG. http://steve-finnell.blogspot.com
Posted by Steve Finnell at 3:52 PM No comments:
Email This
BlogThis!
Share to Twitter
Share to Facebook
Share to Pinterest
Links to this post
Interview with Dr. Bruce Tefft - read the last paragraph....
https://wdsi.wordpress.com/dr-bruce-tefft-dr-wafa-sultan-others-speak-on-islamic-terror/
Steve Finnell: You have confused worship and veneration; to God alone is due worship whilst veneration is directed to those who represent selfless love and worship of God and present us with an example to follow.
Now read this article about the Iran deal:
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/07/27/the-iran-deals-exit-ramp-provision-the-termination-clause-full-text-pdf-included/
I wanted to address one contention allegedly made by Robert Spencer in the symposium. Evidently, Spencer said that the three options that Mohammed and Islamic Law offered to non-Muslims are conversion, subjugation, and death - rather than conversion, slavery, and death.
This parsing of words is interesting and gives the non-Muslim familiar with Islam a lot to consider. Namely, is Spencer correct in his interpretation of his assertion which was sourced?
1. We know that Mohammed loved to lie - and advised lying to wives and enemies. He even advised Muslims to lie to themselves and other Muslims in order to 'keep the faith.'
2. We know that early Muslims forbid non-Muslims to touch or possess or read the Koran - well, except the captive presumed-Jewish scribes who transcribed the first Korans from oral accounts - and supposedly purposely incorporated errors in the stories derived from Judaism in order to warn other Jews to disregard the contents as being unGodly.
3. We know that Mohammed advised Muslim men to take non-Muslim women, girls, and boys as war booty - and we know that Muslim men did so. It appears that the question is whether being war booty is appropriately classified as being subjugated or enslaved? I would argue that being forced to be a sex slave in a foreign culture qualifies as being in slavery. When one human can 'gift' another human without the 'gifted' person's knowledge or consent or freedom to reject, the 'gifted' person is a slave.
It appears that the assertion (sourced or not) that Muslims seek to convert, subjugate, or murder is wholly inadequate to describe the reality faced by non-Muslims under Muslim rule.
The reality is that Muslims seek to convert, enslave, or murder non-Muslims - with Muslims clearly often preferring enslavement - notably sexual and domestic enslavement of women and children - over the other two options.
It is important that non-Muslims know the stakes - which Spencer has obscured to the benefit of Muslims only.
Thanks Egghead. That last paragraph from the Tefft interview indicates that Tefft sees the problem of the global revival of jihad to be a static, relatively stable problem, rather than the metastasizing one which I maintain the mountains of data indicate. I figure he had some soft nougaty spots in his otherwise robustly bold anti-Islam stance.
Egghead, on the subjugation thing, I'm not sure all (or even most) dhimmis were literal slaves -- though they were surely virtual slaves. And certainly "enslavement" is a stronger term and "subjugation" -- though to modern ears the latter is adequately bad enough to be resisted with utmost force (once, that is, the West recognizes that's what Muslims are pursuing). I'm not sure that the West would resist an attempt to subjugate her any less robustly than if they thought it was actually an attempt to enslave her (not to mention that "subjugation" by conquest doesn't necessarily exclude slavery, and certainly included slavery historically).
Hi Hesp,
Yes, and in the last paragraph of the interview of Tefft, Tefft casually mentions that the threat will increase geometrically should Iran obtain nuclear weapons - as is assured by the new Obama 'non-treaty' executive agreement with Iran....
New topic: Look at the website below. ACT claimed that (by then private citizen) terror analyst Bruce Tefft spent $65,000 - and then mounting - in legal bills to fight a FOREIGN Egyptian Muslim lawfare case after 9-11! Which leads me to ask who was funding the Muslim side? Inquiring minds want to know....
There is also an interview with Jamie Glazov of Front Page magazine in which Tefft states that ALL Muslims are the enemy - rather than just Islam.
Look at Glazov's quite PC MC response - and remember WHO owns Front Page and also that Tefft is a proven CIA EXPERT on terrorism. It is a PC MC propaganda response to a certified subject matter expert....
In a different interview with Mike Kasper, Tefft matter of factly states that the FBI flatly refused then anyway - and one imagines now as well because of Obama's Muslim influence - to hire Jews as linguists....
https://theromangate.wordpress.com/‘sued-for-terror-watching’-an-appeal-for-dr-bruce-tefft
Hi Hesp,
Heretofore, it has been enslavement that leads to the subjugation. It is a two step process: first enslave the dhimmi, and then the dhimmi will subjugate to Islam. My source is my reading of the examples of Muslims enslaving Westerners in the book White Gold.
In modernity, where suicidal Western countries import millions of Muslims, the Muslim model has CHANGED from when Muslims were NOT allowed anywhere near the West and thus were formerly required to have superior numbers and force to get into the West. Superior numbers and force enabled Muslims to enslave which is their natural and demonstrable tendency.
Muslim enslavement versus subjugation seems to be a function of numbers and force.
Where Muslims have superior numbers and force, Muslims enslave. For example, Muslims with superior numbers kidnap local Christian girls and forcibly 'marry' them thus enslaving them - and, more importantly, their then-Muslim children who will NOT be dhimmis.
Where Muslims have inferior numbers and force, Muslims subjugate. For example, Muslims in the West with inferior numbers 'groom' dhimmi Christian culture girls with pedophile prostitution and rape gangs that subjugate. This subjugation may also, in fact, be slavery. The difference is that Western society MAY choose to temporarily imprison Muslim enslavers IF enough dhimmis complain - whereas in Muslim countries, dhimmi girls are formally legally enslaved by Muslim force.
I rest my case: slavery, pure and simple.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3181164/Yazidi-boy-four-forced-join-ISIS-terror-camp-learn-Sharia-Law-Koran-given-sword-behead-MOTHER.html
More proof:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3186229/ISIS-executes-19-girls-refusing-sex-fighters-envoy-reveals-sex-slaves-peddled-like-barrels-petrol.html?ICO=most_read_module#article-3186229
Post a Comment