A Poor Choice of Words
Submitted by Nikephoros on Fri, 09/18/2009 - 20:25
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF versionNikephoros Phocas
Michael Savage is a nationally syndicated talk show host in the United States. You might have heard about him from the news regarding his UK ban.Today, he is widely recognized as a warrior of free speech and as someone who will say uncomfortable truths when no one else will. This is very true in many cases and he is more courageous than anyone in the media today. This does, however, not apply to topics regarding Islam. While Savage regularly condemns Osama and his ilk, he, like many of our politicians and other media personnel, takes the view that Islam is essentially a "Religion of Peace" comparable to Christianity, Hinduism, or Judaism. To him, men like Anjem Choudary and Zakir Naik are not Muslims. They are..........throwbacks. Yes, that's it. They have completely twisted the "peaceful" and "advanced" messages of the Qur'an, Hadith, Sunna, etc. and are, in HIS mind, trying to take us back to the seventh century. There are many problems with this view and he is by no means the only person guilty of holding it.
First of all, the term "throwback" is deceptive. There are many "throwbacks" in the world today. The tribes of the Amazon, the Amish, the Hasidic Jews, and many many others are actively trying to maintain their traditional, yet antiquated, ways. Some Amazonian tribes live their entire lives without ever donning an article of clothing. Most Amish communities have chosen to isolate themselves from the power grid. The Hasidic Jews of Miami voluntarily prefer to be simmered in 100*F summer heat, clothed in layer upon layer of 19th century cotton jackets. Now, do those communities pose a threat for anyone? Not a chance. The problem does not lie in being a "throwback", then, does it?
But are jihadists and most other Muslims even "throwbacks"? No. Most, including the likes of sardar Naik are anything but "throwbacks". Jihadis and Muslim dominated regimes around the world spend billions of dollars each year on acquiring state-of-the art military equipment manufactured by infidels. Those Muslims that can afford, are using electronic Qiblas (Mecca compass) when away on long road trips in their 2008 Nissan Maximas or 2010 Audi R8, be it in Chechnya, Bosnia, Pakistan, or the good old Uncle Sam. To build the huge Hassan II Mosque in Morocco, Muslims employed the help of a renowned French architect and modern materials. The mosque has the tallest minaret in the world and can encompass St. Peter's basilica. When Muslims find it necessary to support their coreligionist Mujahedeen in Somalia, Kashmir, etc., they don't pack an old cardboard box full of cash and smuggle it across the airport. No, they wire-transfer it through a voice activated Sharia bank on the outskirts of London or any other cosmopolitan city.
I hope it is clear at this point that the spirit of Jihad is very pragmatic in its nature. But, you might ask, are the jihadists "throwbacks" morally, following in the footsteps of a 7th century "narcissistic madman", as Ali Sina puts it? Again, they should not be called "throwbacks". Many people think of modern morals as "advanced" and ancient ones as "backward". In fact, this is not always true. Many ancient values are more noble than those of today's seemingly promiscuous and decadent society (at least in the west) and vice versa. Values may be judged by a large scope of criteria, but their place on the timeline is not one of them. All of the Islamic teachings that Jihadists and fellow coreligionists espouse, including the killing of apostates and the debilitating subjugation of infidels via the Zumma system, are simply inexcusable no matter what era they are implemented in. What difference does it make if you use a credit card to pay the jizya or gold coins? Jizya is jizya. Oppression is oppression.
So, for the love of God, stop calling the Niqab a "medieval costume". Be creative. Think of another name.
Nikepaharos I listen to Mike
Nikepaharos I listen to Mike Savage and he does not believe Islam is the religion of peace and does not believe Islam is comparable to Christianity. In fact he got in trouble with CAIR about two years ago over his comments about the Burka and CAIR tried to end his radio career. In fact Savage has done his homework on Islam and believes it is a violent religion.
You must be confusing Savage with someone else.
Here's what Mike Savage has to say about Islam from Pedestrian Infidel:
http://www.pedestrianinfidel.blogspot.com/2009/05/michael-savage-on-isla...
The link is not showing up so
The link is not showing up so I am going to try this:
http://www.spike.com/video/michael-savage-on/2927471
Marie, it seems that way to
Marie, it seems that way to you.
There are plenty of "counter clips" to show Savage's high esteem for Islam.
Remember---he said he is against "Radical Islam", not against Islam. He says those should be differentiated. He is implying that Islam is peaceful, while "Radical Islam" is some kind of a mutated, twisted, corrupted version. To him, CAIR are criminals, but nothing more. Not true Muslims.
He also said one time that it would be beneficial for the US to receive a huge influx of Muslim immigrants, as they would get this country back on its track, both morally and intellectually.
Furthermore, he said that from the 9th to the 20th centuries, the Islamic world harmed no one and learned to get along. In fact, as he said once, it was a tolerant place. Is he forgetting the Ottoman crimes? The Mughal barbarism? The cannibalization of kaffir cultures? The Islamic slave trade? etc. etc. I think he is.
Savage is against TERRORISM, but he does not take a stand against Islamic theology.
Listen carefully, Marie and listen more frequently.
REMEMBER: ALI SINA IS ONE OF A KIND! Savage would never invite him on the show, of course.
PS: Savage also uses the term Arabic Numerals. They are actually Hindu numerals. Do take a note of that, as well.
Marie, Even if Michael was
Marie,
Even if Michael was ever realistic about Islam, he certainly has not been for the last year and a half.
OH YES, I DID HEAR THAT CLIP MANY MANY MANY TIMES, but Savage said numerous times after the fact that it was not really about Islam.
Again, he said it was about a totally different ideology/religion called "Radical Islam". He complained about being taken out of context.
Savage has no problem with Islam---just with the people who he believes are hijacking it (Osama, etc.) and with their "Radical", "corrupted" version.
Then according to you and
Then according to you and from what I heard from Savage's own mouth he has contradicted himself because he has used the word Islamofascism several times on his show.
RIght. He did. I do not deny
RIght. He did. I do not deny that.
He did not contradict himself, though. He is using the word Islamofaschism in a different way than our borther Amil Imani (if you know him).
Savage uses the term in a way as to say that people are MISUSING and ABUSING Islam for their own purposes -- AND NOT-- that politics and religion are well connected in Islam and that the jihadists are acting upon well established imperatives in Islamic theology/law.
I still have to give Savage credit for at least dealing with issues regarding jihad (stealth or violent). Most in the media, including Talk Radio, will not dare touch such sensitive topics. He is still one of the foremost warriors of free speech out there in the big media. O'Reilly is a coward, if you compare him to Savage. So is Mark Levin. So is Prager.
Then again, you have to keep in mind that I am criticizing what Savage STATES and IMPLIES on the air. You and I do not know what actual thoughts go through his head. How can we?
Nikephoros Radical Islam is
Nikephoros
Radical Islam is a redundant term.If you practice Islam then you are radical.They only differ in intensity to each individual.Bin Laden,Nurdin Top,etc. are in fact true Muslims because all their atrocities are encouraged by the Qur'an & Hadith.The 'good' & 'moderate' Muslims are the ones that don't know the Qur'an & hardly pray or go to Mosque.
I have to go now because Spiderman (pbuh) is coming on.
Santiago, in case you did not
Santiago, in case you did not read carefully, I implied several times that "radical Islam" is a deceptive term. Jihadists are acting upon well established Islamic imperatives----they do not "twist" anything or make something up.....
Nikephoros Phocas, I agree
Nikephoros Phocas,
I agree with you 95 %. But even if Michael Savage was right, even then we can still say: What use is Islam anyway? What were its goals and what did it achieve of them? Hasn't it by now had it's chance, but has it not abysmally failed?
In its own followers it did not prevent all this radicalism, all these crimes against humanity, for 1377 years after Mohammad's death. With full powers in endless territories. And we can show much evidence of crimes against humanity by self-confessed Muslims in past and present. What did Islam do to stop them? What did it do better than all the other religions?
It is abundantly clear now that Islam is anything but clear. That Islam is VERY prone to abuse, misuse. that it's effect is either on aggregate very detrimental or at least not effective in any significant way. The point being that Muslims themselves should take a critical look at their religion and the behavior of their co-religionists worldwide and start confronting them. Or otherwise don't bother anymore with this irrelevant religion.
By the way, I like your name, emperor Nikephoros Phocas, 963-969, re-conqueror of Crete, living in the hey-day by Byzantine power!
Nikephoros: I still have to
Nikephoros:
I still have to give Savage credit for at least dealing with issues regarding jihad (stealth or violent). Most in the media, including Talk Radio, will not dare touch such sensitive topics. He is still one of the foremost warriors of free speech out there in the big media. O’Reilly is a coward, if you compare him to Savage. So is Mark Levin. So is Prager.
I say:
I listen to Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Alan Colmes, and now Curtis Sliwa. Colmes is a liberal so I wouldn't expect much from him, but all three are cowards along with Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck are cowards too.
Demsci: "By the way, I like
Demsci: "By the way, I like your name, emperor Nikephoros Phocas, 963-969, re-conqueror of Crete...."
.....Crete and Cyprus and Antakiyya (Antioch in Latin) and Aleppo and Kilikia and plenty of other places.
Ioannes Tzimiskes before him re-conquered even more.
Who said Christians can't be warriors?
Marie Comment ID
Marie Comment ID #22571
September 18, 2009 • 10:01 pm
Hi Marie; I like that one, thanks for posting. This guy sounds real ' Savage ' I wish in India someone should talk like that.
Gandummd: Hi Marie; I like
Gandummd:
Hi Marie; I like that one, thanks for posting. This guy sounds real ‘ Savage ‘ I wish in India someone should talk like that.
I say:
Unfortunately Savage might retire from radio if the U.K. ban is lifted.
Marie: "Unfortunately Savage
Marie:
"Unfortunately Savage might retire from radio if the U.K. ban is lifted."
Why do you say that Marie?
He better stay for the next 3 yrs, if you know what I'm talking about. :-)))))))
Hi, Nikephoros, In the 10th
Hi, Nikephoros,
In the 10th century the Byzantines were GREAT warriors, defeating the Muslims often. Especially their mortal foe Saif-ad-Daulah (or so) of Aleppo. Antioch was a great big city in antiquity. John Tzimisces was emperor (969-976) after Phocas and he defeated the Russians in an epic battle. Ashame these 2 emperors could not live longer. Tzimisces could have conquered Palestine and Jerusalem! But Basil II, 976-1025, the Bulgar Slayer, was also a great emperor, who conquered the whole of Bulgaria. After his death Byzantine empire's power declined, until the disastrous battle of Manzikert, 1071, Romanos IV Diogenes against Alp Arslan. After that anatolia was lost. There is a poster here who calls himself Manzikert, I think he wants some revenge.
Nikephoros: Why do you say
Nikephoros:
Why do you say that Marie?
He better stay for the next 3 yrs, if you know what I’m talking about. :-) ))))))
I say:
Savage has actually stated the possibility of retirement after the whole ban in the U.K. is resolved. He's stated he that is tired of being thrown to the wolves ( being sacrificed ) with no one to come to his side to defend him. His radio career has taken a toll on his personal life and he has to leave his house guarded.
Nikephoros I cannot imagine what his controversial career has done to his life. Mark Levin has stated that he has gotten email with nothing but filth, derogatory antisemitic remarks, and death threats. Sometimes he has to call the police. You would not think being radio talk show host would bring out such reactions from people and if Mark Levin (who is not controversial) is getting such emails, then I cannot imagine what is being sent to Mike Savage and he has stated he is tired of it all.
To be honest I wish Savage would stay on radio, but that is up to him.
For all readers of this
For all readers of this post:
I previously stated in comments about Savage: "He better stay for the next 3 yrs..."
Why?
Well, three years is the time until the next scheduled election.
Dr. Savage is one of the few "things" holding the ever increasingly fragile American democracy together. Why? Well, in a healthy democracy, there need to be ACTIVE oppostion parties as well as supporters of policy and a politian alike(Obama in this case). If Savage retires, this country will move further away from being a democracy because Savage is one of the foremost ACTIVE, that is outspokem, opponents of Obama.
It matters not whether millions of SILENT citizens SILENTLY oppose Obama in the recesses of their minds. Silence, by definition, is not opposition. It never was. And it never will be.
I want Savage to stay on the
I want Savage to stay on the air.