Free Markets, Free People

Islam and the West: The problem in a nutshell

An interesting article I think you’ll want to read.  At least I found it interesting.  It discusses the foundations of Islam and why, essentially, it is really not a “religion of peace”.  In fact, as the author argues, as much as the West would like the name of the religion, Islam, to mean “peace”, in fact it means “submit”.  We’ve talked here before about the need of a reformation in Islam to reorient it away from violent jihad and to a religion that actually preaches and practices “peace”.  The outlook isn’t very promising.  Here’s one reason:

The Qur’an contains many peaceful and tolerant verses, and these could well be used to create a genuine reformation — something several genuine reformers have tried to do. But there is a catch. All these moderate verses were written in the early phase of Muhammad’s career, when he lived in Mecca and had apparently decided to allure people. When he moved to Medina in 622, everything changed. He was soon a religious, political and military leader. During the next ten years, as his religious overtures were sometimes not welcomed, the peaceful verses gave way to the jihad verses and the intolerant diatribes against Jews, Christians and pagans. Almost all books of tafsir take for granted that the later verses abrogate the early ones. This means that the verses preaching love for all are no longer applicable, except with regard to one’s fellow Muslims. The verses that teach jihad, submission and related doctrines still form the basis for the approach of many Muslims to non-believers.

One problem is that no one can change the Qur’an in any way. If the book contains the direct word of God, then the removal of even a tiny diacritical mark or a dot above or beneath a letter would be blasphemy of the most extreme kind.[2] Any change would suggest that the text on earth did not match the tablet in heaven — the “Mother of the Book,” much as Mary is the Mother of Christ — that is the eternal original of the Qur’an. If one dot could be moved, perhaps others could be moved, and before long words could be substituted for other words. The Qur’an itself condemns Jews and Christians for having tampered with their own holy books, so that neither the Torah nor the Gospels may be regarded as the word of God. The Qur’an traps us by its sheer unchangeability.

And, as he points out, the most “modern” interpretation does anything but put Islam in a “moderate” context:

Regrettably it is impossible to re-interpret the Qur’an in a “moderate” manner. The most famous modern tafsir, or interpretation, of the holy book is a multi-volume work entitled, In the Shade of the Qur’an. It was written by Sayyid Qutb (d. 1966), the Muslim Brotherhood ideologue often regarded as the father of modern radicalism. His interpretation leads the reader again and again into political territory, where jihad is at the root of action.

So that seems to be where we stand.  Here, however, is the problem that confronts the West:

The besetting sin of modern Western politicians, church leaders, and multiculturalists is their ready acceptance of ignorance and their promotion of their own ignorance to the rank of expertise. Islam is one of the most important topics in human history, but how many schoolchildren are given details such as the ones mentioned above in their history classes? How many textbooks paint an honest picture of how Islam began and how it continued as a background to how it continues today?

Furthermore, how many real experts are denied contact with government and politicians so that lies are not made the basis for governmental decisions in the West? How many times will truth be sacrificed to fable while Muslim extremists bomb and shoot and behead their way to power?

These facts do not come from modern Western accounts; they are there in the founding texts of Islam, in the histories of al-Waqidi and al-Tabari. No-one is making any of this up. Muslims who avoid their own history should be brought face to face with it in all future discussions.

But, of course, that isn’t what is happening is it?  We’re told over and over again that Islam is a religion of “peace” by those in the West who would rather believe that than confront the awful fact that its own founding documents portray anything but a peaceful religion — not to mention its history.  For instance, were you aware that it is estimated that “between sixty and eighty million Hindus may have been put to death during the centuries of invasions by Muslim armies from 1000 to 1525.”  That’s Stalin and Mao territory.

If you can’t or won’t deal truthfully with the problem, how can you ever expect to confront it successfully?  When you remain in denial and you let the practitioners of the religion also deny the truth, how does one “reform” anything? And what does the continuous denial portend for the West in the not to distant future?


Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

70 Responses to Islam and the West: The problem in a nutshell

  • Interesting that it runs in the reverse direction from the Bible, where the Old Testament is considerably more hardass than the New.

  • The west’s major problem is trying to deal with Islam exclusively as a religion in the same way as Christianity. It isn’t – at least in the 21st Century. Islam is a religion in the same way as Christianity was in the 11th Century, the time of the Crusades and the beginnings of the Inquisition. When the word of the Pope was law, where heresy was dealt with by the sword, and an entire Western European culture followed where the church led, regardless of direction. In that context, and only in that context can Islam be compared to Christianity and not to what we in this 21st Century think a religion is. The one major difference with Islam today and Christianity in the 11the Century? There is no “Pope” to the Muslims. Any tin-pot cleric with a knowledge of the Qur’an can call himself a religious scholar and thousands scream at the world through his teachings.

  • I find it striking that Mohommed’s path to power was much the same as any tyrant… soft sell, then ‘off with their heads’.also striking similarity to leftists who cant run on their record and soft seel their power grab. (Hey, want your doctor, keep your doctor)

    as for Bruce’s point on reforming islam, its as I said in that 09 piece I linked the other day…

    I figure that was part of the idea, going into Iraq in the first place: Establishing a democracy in such a place, after all, would certainly lend itself to work toward altering, and, need I say it, pacifying, Islamic society, and controlling the more violent and radical elements. My take is that if such a person or group is to rise up against the Wahhabists or Salfi, they will be the product of a freshly reformed, and democratic Iraq. Which would do a fair job of explaining why the Syrias and the Jordans and the Irans are so very concerned, just now.

    The very reason that those hardline Islamic states are so concerned about the insertion of democracy into Iraq is because they see ….apparently more clearly than we… that democracy, for all its faults, has one major advantage ; That it by its very nature injects social change, by way of what I will call “Social Darwinism”. Such evolution has no chance whatever under, say, a Saddam… but it DOES stand a chance under a Democracy. Under a democracy, the ideas and ideals of western culture will filter through, as they have every other place where Democracy has been installed. Japan, for example. South Korea. Etc.

    This change will undoubtedly allow a more western attitude, and thereby will create the environment in which Islam’s Luther can stand forth. But this isn’t going to be a quick process. It’s going to be along slow and likely (given whom we’re dealing with) very bloody process, because changing hearts and minds is always the longest , slowest, hardest job there is. And, of course, that assumes we actually have the courage to see it through. Given the recent election, I have my doubts.

    and well, now that Obamas mucked all that up, I honestly dont see a way forward.

  • A decade or so ago, PBS or BBC did a piece about a couple of German scholars who had found a Qur’an from the 15th century in Yemem or Somilla.
    This was quite a find because usually when a Qur’an is copied, the retired Qur’an is destroyed. This insures that the claim that the Qur’an is the direct word of The Prophet can’t be impeached (like Bibles are claimed to be “reinterpreted”).
    Well, these scholars took pictures of all the pages and returned to Germany leaving the Qur’an behind.
    Then 9/11 happened followed by the “Mohammad cartoons.”
    I’ve seen nothing about the old Qur’an again.

  • There should be some SACKETTS left that we can turn lose on all those redheads.

  • Should have been ragheads.

  • White House: It’s not combat, but US troops will return fire if they’re shot at …

    I was sure that was a quote from the LBJ White House

  • Having done considerable research on Islam for a course on “Islam and the West,” the reality is a religion is what people make it. There was a time when Christians were far more barbarous than Muslims – think of the Spaniards in South America. In the crusades when the Christians took Jerusalem they said “convert or die.” When the Muslims won it back, they allowed Christians and Jews to stay and do business, as long as they paid a higher tax. Muhammad’s more violent commands in the Koran were orders before battles with the Meccans and others who tried to defeat Islam, but it was clear that the higher jihad was the good fight of faith, the lower was ONLY to protect the umma.

    Now, of course, afterwards just as Christians would fight in the name of God, Arab leaders used religion to rationalize conquest. But the Islamic world was far more tolerant than the Christian one – and more progressive – until the Ottomans. They embraced a very conservative theology (pushing aside Muslim rationalists) in exchange for clerical support of their empire. Islamic rationalism inspired Aquinas, and without knowledge from the Islamic world, the West would not have modernized so fast.

    Christianity changed as the culture modernized. That is what will happen with Islam too – though the path there can be bloody. The reactionaries are fighting against modernism – a modernism that took centuries to take hold in Europe, but is being forced on them all at once. Since no sane person thinks a religion like Islam can be “defeated,” the goal has to be to support modernizing tendencies and to remember that a religion is what people make it to be.

    • “Having done considerable research on Islam for a course…”

      Given your usual standards that probably means you spent ten or fifteen minutes using google.

      “But the Islamic world was far more tolerant than the Christian one – and more progressive”

      Even if true , which I do not concede, so what? I hear Camelot was glorious, too, and just as relevant to today’s situation.

      • “given your usual standards”….

        yeah, well, ponder this… Erb just made the strongest possible argument for Bush invading Iraq.

        I can hear the “D’OH!!!” from here.

      • It means that religions change – they reflect culture. Christians once killed “infidels” without concern – convert or die! Modernism (which in many ways was a gift from Islamic rationalist scholars ) changed Christianity. It will change Islam too. ISIS and Al qaeda are reactionary forces trying to stop change – they are fighting the French revolution! They will lose, and the worst thing we could do is to help them and make it seem like Islam vs. the West. Half the Arab Islamic world is under 23 years old. They will choose – extremism or jeans, Ipods, and hope. We have to help them choose the latter, and not support the idea that we’re they’re enemy.

        • “It will change Islam too.” And how long do you want us to wait for Islam to progress from the 8th Century, approximately where it is today, to the 21st? And what do we do in the meantime? Kneel to them? Offer our throats to their knives? The “rest” of the world does not have a problem co-exiting with Muslims, Muslims have a problem co-existing with the rest of the world.

          • Well, at some level we have no choice – the Iraq war proved how military power can’t shape change. But I think if the international community works together, isolates ISIS, supports those who are fighting it, it can dramatically turn this around. My prediction – book mark it and remind me if I’m wrong – is that within 3 years ISIS will be neutered and perhaps even destroyed. They aren’t as powerful as the fear mongers make them out to be.

          • But, Erp, military power can’t shape change. (Whadda moron…!!!)

          • Right. Can’t shape change.
            Carthego delende est.
            Veni vidi vinci.
            We hold these truths to be self evident…
            Four score and seven years ago today…
            A day that will live in infamy…
            Damn I lost all my mongol and hun quotes, rats.

            But you’re right history is just overrun with instances where peace in our time was preserved by idiots like you talking better armed and aggressive opponents out of proving that military power can shape change.
            You teach this stuff do you? So it was, what? Aquinas’s philosophy that led the spread of Islam from Mecca to Madrid?

          • And when ISIS is neutered, in 3 or more years, what organization will then rise to take its place. So many thought “Let’s get rid of Al Qaeda and then all will be well” and now we have ISIS and Boko Haram rising out of the ashes of AQ (even while AQ recovers). And for the record, I do not fear ISIS per se. I fear Islamic Fundamentalism as a whole. You may not want to admit it but this is “The Long War” and it is with Islam.

          • By the way, I never mentioned ISIS.

        • … was a gift from Islamic rationalist scholars.

          No, it was a gift from the West to itself. Ancient Greek and other Western philosophy and knowledge came under the control of Muslims. Centuries later, Westerners were reacquainted with the work of Westerners of old.

          You keep repeating this lie, as though Islam was responsible for the work of the classical Greeks.

          And, you also forget the massive slave trade the Muslims had, capturing the dark-skinned pagan tribesmen and selling them throughout the Islamic world. That would be where the European colonialists bought the slaves, centuries after the Muslims started the practice. Meanwhile, even in this century, women are treated as chattel in much of the Muslim world.

          But I guess if you’re out to make the downtrodden feel better about themselves, you can pick and choose what to notice, hype the positives and ignore the negatives.

        • “It means that religions change – they reflect culture.”

          Given that the cultures practicing Islam indulge in female circumcision, slavery, and assorted other abominations that is not an encouraging statement. It does, however, explain why the Islamic world is still mired in medieval misery.

          Of course your statement would also imply that the “moderation” of Christianity (no more crusades or inquisitions, etc.) was due to the gentle nature of Western civilization.

          Perhaps you could reconcile your contradictory ideas for us.

          “ISIS and Al qaeda are reactionary forces trying to stop change”

          Change in this case meaning basically Westernization; Democracy, individual liberties, etc.

          ” Half the Arab Islamic world is under 23 years old. They will choose –”

          They already have–Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.

    • Really.
      So all we gotta do is watch and learn, errrr wait and see, uh be patient and MAYBE in a couple hundred years the religion that is still hacking off head 1400/years after it was founded will become more moderate.
      Religion is what people make it to be.
      That was profound! I always thought it was what salamanders made it to be, and I’m really glad you dispensed this hitherto unknown wisdom for us, yesindeediedoo.
      That was wicked helpful Scottie, as usual, thanks.

    • I mean….till the Ottoman……bwahahahaha.
      Tell it to Spain. Till it to the dead Jews from Medina, tell that to the dead Hindus.
      Where do get your history, the golden picture book series for progressive humyns?

      • I have studied this extensively. It sounds like you get your info from Islamophobes. There is an incident where a tribe betrayed him. He had given tribes mercy before, which was contrary to Arab tradition. His followers were angry, thinking that it would induce others to betray without concern for the consequence. So when a Jewish tribe betrayed him, he did order them killed. Not nice, but not because they were Jewish – and totally in line with the context of the times. Muhammad was a social reformer, especially concerned with the rights of the poor and women. That spirit is alive in Islam – and is what we must support. Because Islam is here for the long run, whether you like it or not.

        • And you obviously get your info from CAIR.

        • ” and totally in line with the context of the times. ”
          Oh, there was an established context of the times.
          I see.
          That context was established by, uh, something or other, and they were within the parameters of the context so that made it and makes it, okay.
          and the current context is ordained because, uh, the year has a 20 in front of it, yes?
          If you slaughter a whole tribe, it is precisely BECAUSE they are members of the tribe, because they are Jews of the tribe, that you are slaughtering them. So it is exactly because they were Jews, it just wasn’t done in the modern context of slaughtering Jews because they are Jews, it was done in the old context of slaughtering Jews because they are Jews. Totally different!
          Aren’t you the same guy that preaches that there aren’t any natural rights or valid moralities and that it’s all what we decide it is because we answer to no higher power and there is no actual right or wrong?
          So, there IS no actual current context, and Islam can slaughter to their hearts content because it’s within the context that they decide is their moral framework, or not, either way it’s okay, right Slick?
          Your random two-penny philosophies are going to bite you in the keister every time.
          but I respect your childish coloring book view of the world, of course.

        • I have studied this extensively.

          That is irrelevant, Scott Erb, because you’re not very smart and you’re a liar.

          Just shut up and go away.

        • “and totally in line with the context of the times.”

          Just like that nasty old Jesus, who also upheld tradition and the status quo, not wanting to upset anyone. After all, God wouldn’t want to impose his own will on anyone, that would be divine imperialism or something.

          That’s sarcasm, by the way.

    • Aquinas. Thank God you used the right spell word, otherwise the Loa might curse your post and come inhabit your dreams and bring you bad juju.

    • Heh, how’s that weak Putin thing working out for you these days Slick?
      Right up there with Arab Spring, greatest presidents and the scandal free administration huh?

      • I have to commend Erb on his persistence. A while back (the last time that I saw him on a Q&O comment thread being remarkable for his obtuse and absurd behavior), I went looking for his history of other comments on the Internet. I kid you not, the sphincter has been being schooled for over 20 years by his moral and intellectual superiors, yet he keeps on being a blatant, pompous jackass. I bet he’s no fun to be around, although he likes to think himself the belle of every ball. Over 20 years of being told that you are a tool and ignorant has to have a psychic cost. Nah…he’s still a pompous jackass that is as wrong about everything as ever. He was somebody’s super-special snowflake when he was younger, because he’s incapable of learning from his incalculable errors in judgment, logic, and accuracy.

        • LOL! Yet I understand history and teach, and you don’t. Too bad for you.

          • There is no support for those lies.12

          • And Caligula made a race horse into a senator.
            So you being allowed to teach history is really just another case of history repeating itself.

          • “LOL! Yet I understand history and teach, and you don’t. Too bad for you.”

            Translation; Nyaahh Nyaah Nyaah!

            My compliments on a keenly reasoned and thoroughly documented argument.

            That’s more sarcasm, by the way.

    • Here Asshat – this arab/muslim dude probably didn’t do as much considerable research on Islam as you did up there in Whitefolkville Maine, but you still might learn something by reading his article anyway.

  • Another explanation of “why Islam can never change” (it’s the one that gave me that “Aha!” moment on the possibility of a moderate Islam) can be found at

    Essentially the same points: If you’re Muslim, the Koran is the Literal Word Of God — perfect, eternal, immutable. Your duty as a Muslim is to Submit to God’s Perfect Plan For The World, which is right there in the book. It doesn’t matter if you understand it or not, or if you like it or not, or if the Book is self-contradictory, or if it contains a handful of words that even scholars of ancient Arabic don’t understand. It is what it is, and it’s Perfect, period. (And, incidentally, so is Mohammed- “the perfect man, worthy of emulation by all”.) Any change to the Koran -anything at all- renders it “no longer the literal word of God” and anyone who accepts a changed version is no longer “submitting” to God’s Plan.

    So Islam is, and must remain, exactly what it’s been since Mohammed and his Believers started raiding caravans.

    • They did that to spread the word of peace.
      Oh and back then like ISIS today.that wasn’t true Islam.

    • No, no no! Islam has had periods where the Koran is interpreted in the context of the times, and Aristotle was used to help understand the logic. Islamic rationalism was dominant for centuries! Islam is a great religion, and won’t disappear. So is Christianity. Christianity modernized (thanks in large part due to Islamic rationalist scholars and their keeping Aristotle and Plato alive), and so will Islam. Though the neanderthals who think their religion gives them the true God will always see the others as the enemy will cause problems, that weird and irrational view will eventually pass.

      • But Islamic rationalism is NOT dominant today. You can rationalize all you want, you don’t see Lutheran wearing suicide vests, you don’t see Methodists hacking people’s heads off, you don’t see Catholics murdering Protestants because their brand of Christianity does not set well with yours. I don’t see Christianity, as an entity, claim their God is the True God. There are an extremely few extremists but not in the main – not when compared to the Muslim side of the coin. And it doesn’t matter what happened in the 12th Century – this is the 21st Century. Quit defending the indefensible. Quit rationalizing what is not rational.

      • How long.
        And what are we to do till it moderates, die patiently?

        • “die patiently?”

          No, that’s the National Health Service you are thinking of. Die painfully is the Muslim injunction.

      • So perhaps you can use your extensive knowledge base to tell us why the modernizer, Islam, didn’t modernize while Christianity did? I know! Christianity stole all the modernizing thingees from Islam and forced Islam to be backward and medieval. Bad, bad Christians!

        “Though the neanderthals who think their religion gives them the true God will always see the others as the enemy will cause problems, that weird and irrational view will eventually pass.”

        Except for Christians, who will retain their weird and irrational views.
        Because, ergo sum.

    • Actually, that’s one theological view of Islam. In much of the pre-Ottoman age Averroes and Avicenna were promoting Islamic rationalism, which said the Koran was separate from God and should be interpreted with a view to cultural change. That view is what inspired Aquinas (he read those philosophers). At one point Islamic rationalism was embraced as the favored theology. The Ottomans changed that and embraced the conservative view you describe. But that can change again – and will!

      • Links, please. Several will be required to support that fantasy…!!!

      • Right. People were all about cultural change back in the day Scott.

      • You bring up Averroes (died 1193 AD) and Avicenna (died 1037 AD). There were other great Islamic thinkers including Al Farabi (died 950 AD), Muhammad Ibn Zakariya al-Razi (died 925 AD), Abu Rayhan al-Biruni (died 1048 AD), Ibn Khaldun (died 1406 AD), Al-Ghazali (died 1111 AD), Muhammad ibn Musa al-Kwarizmi (died 850 AD), Alhazen (died 1040 AD), Omar Khayyam (died 1131 AD), Al-Kindi (died 873 AD), Ibn Al-Nafis (died 1288 AD), Ibn Battula (died 1377 AD), Maimonides (died 1204 AD), Fakhir ad-Din ar-Razi (died 1209 AD), and Jabir ibn Hayyan (died 815 AD). All of these are great thinkers had great influences on not just the Muslim world. But do you see a trend here? 700 years separate those minds from today and where has Islam progressed from their teachings. Whereas the Western world had great tumult in what today is referred to as The Reformation, no such event has transpired in the Muslim world. No one here is saying Islam is leaving us anytime soon and it is disingenuous of you to suggest it in any way. We are just wondering how long do we, the western world, have to suffer the barbarity of the Islamic world before they come forward from the 14th Century to the 21st?

        • “how long do we, the western world, have to suffer the barbarity of the Islamic world before they come forward from the 14th Century to the 21st?”

          Or before we impatiently blast a lot of them them back into something approximating the dark ages.

          The answer is, not a clue – it’s just words to him, devoid of any real meaning. It’s not a serious issue, he doesn’t really care, he’s not interested in solving a problem. Hell, he doesn’t SEE a problem, let alone want to resolve it. A world altering culture clash dealt with with his usual airy hand wave and “watch and learn” view on reality.

      • ” The Ottomans changed that and embraced the conservative view”

        Pretty potent, those Ottomans. managed to impose their unpopular religious views over an enormous geographical area, sometimes destroying about a thousand years of religious tradition and development, in numerous different cultures. All while exercising an amazing amount of religious and cultural tolerance.

        Yet more sarcasm.
        The contradictions never cease.

        I assume you are aware of that old saying “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds”. I would like to point out the presence of the qualifier “FOOLISH”. It is there for a reason.

  • I give Mohammed this, he was a genius. By claiming the books of both the Jews and the Christians as part of is theology he has managed for over a thousand years to keep people like Erb, Kerry and numerous other elite western idiots thinking they can reach an accommodation.
    Let me tell you if this were a religion based on say, Kali, there would be a lot less tolerance while idiots waited for their chance to submit.

    • Islam is never going away. Nor is Christianity (at least not until we reach a point where silly religious views are seen as childish). But the culture can shape them to be violent or peaceful. Our best future comes if the latter is true. If our actions help inspire those who want the former, we’ll be hurting ourselves.

      • Z

      • No one here is demanding Islam “Go Away” and it is disingenuous to suggest it. All we are asking of Islam is to bring itself out of the 8th Century and come closer to the 21st. Until that happens millions will die and the retribution will be a terrible thing.

      • You should finish your trite little posts up with a link to Annie singing “tomorrow”,
        Or maybe watch and learn, time will tell, only kabala knows for sure, you know, something that you think is profound when you’re talking to a 10 year old.

      • So, Christianity is silly….but we’re supposed to be patient while Islam evolves from being murderous, intolerant and misogynistic into being merely childish and then irrelevant.
        Good to know, and helpful in both the immediate and long term.

        • Asshat? *chuckle* I personally do not like religions, but have learned that one must respect them since so many put their faith in them. My dislike comes out sometimes (“childish”) but overall I accept that people have belief systems based on stories of deities. I actually have a spiritual perspective on life myself, and I find atheists to be people who also take a lot on faith.

          • And we respect things by calling them silly and childish.
            Oh good.
            Let me show my respect, asshat.
            So we’re supposed to tolerate Islam until it gets to your requisite level to be considered silly.
            But you respect them.
            You’re a real piece of arrogant hypocrisy you are. But of course that means I respect you.
            Why don’t you explain your non deity spiritualism, I’m sure there ‘re no holes in THAT system of belief.

          • Quantumy richness…with crystals…

          • “but have learned that one must respect them”

            You might start by showing a little respect for Christianity by stopping your continual slanders and exaggerations (to be polite) about it.

      • Can’t you just see Era on Jusgement day?
        “But at the college, they told us all this was Bullshit…..”

  • Erl, can we at least get a NEW broken record of stoooooopid bs?
    The Monguls ended any “rational” ARAB (not Islamic) period. And THAT was likely due to Arab trading and the size of a few cities. (Look it up, moron.)

    The notion of you “teaching” is an oscene joke…

    • Mobilerags – you really shouldn’t post when drunk. You embarrass yourself.

      • John Wayne fingers & Shirley Temple keys don’t make me drunk, liar. Your personal attack doesn’t refute my comment, either.

        You throw around terms and names without the slightest comprehension. It is really hilarious. Averoes had more influnce in Christendom than he had in Islam. There was never the Islam of your stupid moonbattery. There was never a rational Islam that was corrupted by the Ottomans. What an amusing and childish imagination you have!

        Now factually refute…with links…what I’ve said. You can’t. As we both know.

        • “There was never the Islam of your stupid moonbattery.”

          Sure there was! From Camelot go East to Oz, then take the second star to the right and straight on till morning!

          • His ignorance is only exceeded by his inability to think.

            Plus he just insists on showing his stark white ass…

      • Drunk, stupid, whatever. He’s just trying to communicate with you on your level.