Comments work again. Go ahead and use them!

Joe! PLEASE don't use the 'idolatry' word! Some idiot may want your head on a platter for that Infidelism...

Joe! PLEASE don't use the 'idolatry' word! Some idiot may want your head on a platter for that Infidelism...

Of course it is the hate. Thank you, I was searching for that spark which clarified it for me. We are the counterrevolutionaries as well. It is up to us to fight racsism and supremacist attitudes wherever they are organizing, because specific groups must link up now or forever hold their peace., The countries of the world seem to have settled much of thier differences. Now it is the tribals that we must deal with and what makes tribe in this day and age seems to be the media.

I think Marshall McCluhan once made that adage that states that the media was the message. The implications means that resistance toward the sum of all fears must be varied and dynamic, as dynamic as they are. But hate is an emotion and emotions in the religious sphere is a test of faith. These freakazoids believe that they are overcoming the instinct of self preservation precisely because the media portrays so much corruption, from the west, from our freedoms. Freedom = corruption to thier level of thinking. We just have to motivate to such a degree that the few are stopped by the many.

It seems absurd to suggest, but the dynamic seems improbable to begin with.

But Paul Krugman says it's all because of Bush's support of Ariel Sharon. You mean the phenomenon has roots that go back farther than the current American presidential administration? I'm confused ;)

Eric, I think you misread Krugman. He is not saying that there is an attitude of hatred toward Israel because of Bush's support of Sharon alone. He is saying that Mahathir, and leaders like him, feel they have to routinely use the rhetoric of anti-Semitism because of Bush's support of Sharon, in order to show that they are "keepin' it real" and not becoming puppets of Bush. As the occasional brush with the law is to rappers, so the occasional outburst of anti-Jewish bigotry is Muslim politicians.

If Bush ceased to support Sharon -- for example, if the Administration showed serious opposition to settlements' expansion -- Mahathir would be able to adjust his own position slightly, away from "The Jews control everything! Including America!" to "The Jews control too much! but maybe not America totally!"

Obviously this Administration is controlled not by Jews but by Christian evangelicals/ fundamentalists ;-)

Liberia, Rwanda, Colombia, Northern Ireland, etc. Nobody call them an arch of Christian Conflict and Bloodshed.

Using a religion as a point to explain conflict, without pointing out other factors is useless in understanding the nature of the conflict itself.

Religion is just another factor and label to use as a weapon, to HIGHLIGHT differences and increase CONTRAST, along with Race, Nationality, Class, socio economics etc.

Take a look as this as an example (in regards of 9/11)

"JERRY FALWELL: And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say "you helped this happen.""

None of the outrage followed include a mass blaming on Christianity. Most people condemned his statement in public. His statement and his motivation behind it.

That's the way it should be. There's little need to drag the rest of Christian in his mud.

Apply the same to Islam.

Cap'n... idolatry is exactly what it is, and perhaps it's time we started using that word since we're facing off against religious opponents. If you're going to engage your enemies for maximum impact, do it on their terms.

The new idol is hate. The associated practice of child suicide-sacrifice is Baalite, or you could use 'Aztec' if you wanted the local flavour to be North American instead of Middle Eastern - but either way, it's idolatry. The justifying name now is Allah, which is used to cover for promoting an idol of hate. Anyone reading LGF and paying attention to the imams' sermons he quotes will see all this, and quickly.

Using G-d's name in this way is itself a serious sin... doubly so in light of the fact that it's being used to promote suicide, which is also forbidden by Allah.

"Thou shalt have no other gods before Me." A man who orients his entire life around money and sacrifices all to it is an idolator, even if he goes to church every Sunday. His real god is money. Even if he says he wants a genuine connection with Jesus, his other god takes precedence and so is in the way. A man who practices and/or teaches orgtanized hate as an integral definition of his religious identification is also an idolator, even if he prays 5 times per day facing Mecca - and even if he is the imam. His real god is hate. Even if says that he wants a genuine connection with Allah, his other god is in the way, as it is "before Allah" in his thoughts and teachings.

As you can see, I used the word "idolatry" carefully, and with full intent. Not just in a philosophical sense, but in a historical one as well.

The last global movement to feature this combination of organized hatred, a frustrated supremacist complex, and cpmspiracy theory unreason were the Nazis. Indeed, you could throw totalitarian statism into that witches' brew to completely define their ideology and seperate it from communism. The Nazis were also idolators in a very literal sense. Veneration of Norse gods, occultism practiced at the highest levels... there are some great books out there on the subject, but the Nazis were at heart a pagan creed. (Logic note: All pagans are NOT Nazis. All Nazis, whatever their professed religion, followed a pagan ideology.)

The fact that "Mein Kampf" is a bestseller in the Islamic world - not only in the West Bank and Gaza, but in Muslim neighbourhoods within Britain - is not a coincidence.

This combination of complexes is not trivial. It's really, really dangerous stuff. Merge the world's most dangerous philosophical complexes with the world's most dangerous weapons, and the result is not a pretty picture.

We can remove much of the immediate threat by doing whatever it takes to keep access to those weapons away from such people. But as long as the world's most dangerous philosophical complexes are widespread in the Muslim ummah, the war will continue and so will the threat that the twisted Islamist philosophy will one day marry up with the destructive capabilities it seeks.

Dody,

Falwell was off his rocker. Question is, how many joined him? If a wide and deep cross-section of Christian priests and ministers agreed with Falwell's words, and preached it to their congregants, then we would indeed be justified in talking about a problem with Christianity... and there have been times in Christian history when that was the case.

But in Falwell's case, he got little agreement and even fewer followers. So when we do talk about Christianity's problems (and every religion has 'em), that issue isn't on the agenda.

The same cannot be said for the Muslim ummah, unfortunately. Indeed, the day we hear blaming statements like Falwells instead of exhortations to outright bloodshed and destruction, it will actually be an indication of progress.

Joe,

The guilt by association by using the label of Islam is a real problem.

Take this Falwell guy. No Christian will rise up to defend this guy because, well, he fucked up and the outrage correctly squared against him. It would have been another reality if everybody start saying "This religion that Jesus found is to blame and Christian around the world is responsible for allowing this person to speak".

The same thing with the blame on Islam right now. Osama Bin Laden and its like are the horror version of Falwell and no, they didn't have widespread support in the Islamic community, even until now.

However, you will definately see the rise of resentment in Muslim communities around the world to have their religion trashed and get an indiscrimate blame for what the terrorists did.

Do you know what's the earliest documented of guilt by association? I'm guessing that would be the interepretation that the Jewish people are responsible for the death of Christ because there were some Jews supported his crucifixion at that time.

You need to broaden your scope and view the diversity of 1.3 billion who adopt Islam as their religions around the world. Refrain from making a list of conflicts in widely disperse geographical region, soci-economic, historical context around the world and try to find a commonality in it, and suddenly get a aha moment, look at this: Islam is in that, that and that conflicts and make a blanket statement of Islam roles in all conflicts.

The hate problem around certain communities are real. But that's humanity problem. Labelling them with certain attribute according to religion, race, nationality blur and prevent us to really understand the causes of these conflicts and create resistance for real change.

Dody, as the resident libeal here, I'd love to get pointed to some examples of the kind of Muslims you're talking about here.

Sadly, what I can find in the western media, and in the translations I can find of Arab media support Joe. I maintain some distance on this, because I don't have direct knowledge (which is why I'd love some pointers), but I'm looking for th kind of disavowals I've seen from mainstream Christianity of the more raving moonbat types who have tried to claim Christian leadership.

A.L.

Dody,

The comparison is not accurate. Falwell is way out on the fringe, and hasn't been particularly relevant for the past 15-20 years. The violent terrorist movement within Islam is NOT way out on the fringe--many of the muftis, imams, and mullahs in Mecca, Medina, Jerusalem, Damascus, Cairo, Riyadh, Teheran, Islamabad, etc. vocally support jihad in its violent militaristic sense, and have done so for several years. 9/11 changed nothing for them, but it forced us to realize the preexisting situation.

I'm not claiming that the whole ummah is against us, or supports the terrorists. But a large, powerful fraction of the ummah DOES support the terrorists, and that fraction IS against us. Also, pointing out the Islamic context is not irrelevant to the discussion, since the terrorists themselves frame their ideology in Islamic terms, and a big chunk of the most significant spiritual leaders in the ummah agree with them.

I agree with AL here. Falwell is way out there, and the American people think that way. However, extremists like Bin Laden are not "way out there" in the Islamic world. Else why is Ossama the most popular name now to name you son in the ME? Face it, Islamic extremists are BECOMING the norm, not the exception in the world of Islam. Saudi money is being poured out of the country to espouse the Wahhabi version of Islam. Until we stop that funding, the situation is only going to get worse.

Very pointed post.

To me, while I accept the inevitability of the use of "hard" solutions to this problem sometimes, at the end of the day, the only real long-term solution is spiritual, psychological, whatever you want to call it.

Basically, the whole world has to get enlightened, pretty damn quick. For the Arab world, this takes the form of a 17th century kind of Enlightenment (reflecting on taken-for-granted assumptions re. society, religion, etc.). For us in the West, our path is a bit further on (personal kinds of reflective enlightenment, more in the psychotherapeutic or Buddhist sense). But everybody needs to do some kind of shifting, if only in order to give a good example to others.

Either this happens, or the world will end.

George -

I'll agree, with one pointed difference. Our world won't end. It will be harder, less pleasant, etc. But we will be here after the big fight. They won't. As I've noted often in the past, that's not a desirable end-state for me (although it's better than the alternatives in which they're here and we aren't, or neither of us is here), and so I'm looking for ways to prevent it.

A.L.

Joe, I understand your perspective, and I was being sarcastic for a reason. Lt. Gen Boykin termed allah as an 'idol'. If Wahabbi is the dominant stream in Islamic religious theology (and I find it hard to believe it is not), then The General misused the term. We have a difficult task ahead of us all to convince the luke-warm to rise up and be fervent about their toleration of religion in the social sphere, and tolerant (as in treat women as they ought) in both the religious AND social sphere. That has come, even in this Country, at a very high price and not all that long ago. I will respect a man's right to believe as he will, but I will have no one impose any restrictions on those beliefs. I am sure that many Muslim MEN feel the same way, but until they recognize that one (religion) must be a Right and the other (social) must be a Duty, then we have this dilemna. We have it right here at home!

A few pointer:

http://www.int.islamlib.com/en/aboutus.php (run by a leading Muslim scholar from the largest Muslim organization in Indonesia - which in turn the largest Muslim country in the world)

http://www.int.islamlib.com/en/sites.php
http://www.lebanonwire.com/0212/02121319DS.asp

http://www.unc.edu/~kurzman/LiberalIslam.htm

http://www.liberalislam.net/

I hear again and again the conflict and the practice of Islam in the Middle East brought in discussion.

Do you know that there are more Muslim in South East Asia compared to the whole region in the middle east? Or check out Turkey, you might not know it's a muslim country because nobody blow themselves up daily there.

It is difficult to understand the rainbow and plurality in the world of Islam if you always stuck with the notion of Islam = Arab = Conflict.

And what's this fear about extreme practice of Whabbism become mainstream in the Islam community around the world? Just because they are one of the most backward practice and with the highest level of militancy doesn't mean the rest of the Muslim community will adopt it. You guys gotta get out of the violence = influence mentality.

Dody,

I wouldn't make the violence = influence parallel, but I think you can argue that money = influence, and a whole lot of oil-rich Saudis are aggressively exporting a violent theology around the world through the madrassahs.

Look, I understand that the set of predominantly Islamic states stretches far beyond the Middle East, and includes far, far more non-Arabs than Arabs. But the violent movement within the Islamic world is not limited to Arabs, either. Iran is not Arab, yet the mullahs that control Iran are some of the biggest supporters of terror in the world. Indonesia and Malaysia are not Arab, and yet they are also home to indigenous branches of al Qaeda. I'm not saying that there is the vast popular support of terrorism in Indonesia or Malaysia that there is in, oh, the West Bank or Egypt, for instance, but the problem is both deeper and broader than you claim.

One problem is that the center of the Islamic world is also the center of Islamic terror. I think that the reasons for each are separate--the holy cities of Mecca and Medina are where they are because of ancient history, while the Middle Eastern center of terror has, fundamentally, a lot to do with oil wealth and far more recent history. Frankly, I think one of the larger internal problems within Islam has to do with the fact that the terrorist-supporting element controls Mecca and Medina. That point alone gives them a relevence and weight that can only be estimated from an external perspective, but I suspect it is significant.

Ironically, despite the press it has (deservedly) been getting lately, Indonesia has historically been a pretty good example of a fairly syncretic, tolerant form of Islam.

Unfortunately, these days it's also an example of less tolerant forms gaining at the expense of the moderates. Hence the large-scale persecution of Christians, forced conversions, and terrorist activities. It's still a minority there, but it's a growing minority that doesn't seem to particularly fear the reaction from rest of Indonesian society.

As for SE Asia... well, that's why Mahathir's recent comments were so relevant and illuminating. Didn't exactly hear Muslims in the region rise to condemn him. In fact, it looked to me like he got a lot of support.

Maybe Falwell should write Mahathir and find out how it's done.

As I mentioned, there are voices of sanity out there in the ummah. There is hope. But I won't kid myself, either. The voices of insanity are louder, and their actions - and a goodly portion of the hatred animating them - are usually either tolerated or supported.

If that continues, the odds of major global-scale tragedy will continue to rise. And the West may be the first to pay the price for that -- but they won't be the last, or the ones who pay the most if/when push comes to shove.

Denial doesn't help us or the Muslim ummah to escape that dark future. Honest reflection and willingness to confront the real pathologies described by commentators like Irshad Manji, might.

"You guys gotta get out of the violence = influence mentality."

Actually, in a way, violence does equal influence, but only because more moderate, open Muslims will fear speaking up because of the frequent use of violence by the terrorists. When I think of the Middle East, I think of the Old South. The KKK ran amock terrorizing black Americans and most of the people either directly or indirectly encouraged their behavior. But there were no doubt people who also disagreed with the Klan, but were afraid to speak up because of the violence that would surely be visited upon them. There were some things they weren't allowed to question. Does this sound like an apt comparison or am I completely off?

Sam,

Madrasah simply means school and it existed in all Muslim dominated country regardless whether the Saudi export them or not.

You are over-estimating the influence of the Saudi's in the Muslim world. Guess which country the Saudis is holding by the ball? This one, United States of America. Which else? Western Europe (I hope nobody has forgotten that Western Europe refused to accomodate the USAF cargo shipment to support Israel in the Yom Kippur war for the fear of angering their Arab allies and disturbing their oil supply).

The current Islamic government in Iran was a failed experimentation in Islamic government. But it was also a reaction to another FAILED government, the Shah, which was installed by the US. The Iranian at that time didn't choose to support the Mullah and then HATE America. The hate towards America grew during the period of the oppresive of the Shah rule and the Islamic government system thought to be a better alternative. Off course they were wrong.

Libya, the major terrorist nation in 1980's is not an Islamic government. Neither is Iraq, Syria , Lebannon, nor Jordan, nor Eigypt.

Nasser of Egypt declare Pan Arabism in the 60's, not Pan Islamism.

Taliban movement in Afghanistan didn't come out in a vacuum, but as a reaction to the brutal and chaotic civil war after the 10 years proxy war between the US and Soviet Union.

Chechnya bloodshed doesn't happen just because they are majority of Islam.

Bosnia-Herzegovina + Kosovo didnt' happen because the Muslim decide to attack the Christian.

"But the violent movement within the Islamic world is not limited to Arabs, either. "

Calling it Islamic world just because the place of conflict practice Islam is not helpful. The genocide in Rwanda, Liberia, Congo, and war in much of Africa, oppresive regimes in the past in Latin America, civil war in Colombia is never, ever described at "violent movement within the Christian world" just because in those place of conflicts, Christianity is primary religion.

Again, it is very simplistic to tack on the label of Islam on terrorism. Terrorism is nothing new. It has been a phenomena in the past 30 years. We in the US never really care about it because those terror attack mostly occured overseas. It was not about Islam 30 years ago, and it still is not about Islam now.

Joe,

As you pointed out, Falwell is on the fringe of American society and majority here in the US don't takes it seriously. He crap out violence words, but until he did something, nobody can touch him.

The same thing apply to Violence Islam in Indonesia (Fundamentalism doesn't equate violence);I lived there for 17 years. It's is a fringe within the Indonesian society and the majority there don't take it seriously. They crap violence words, but until they did something, nobody bother touch him.

Their growing influence at the expense of the moderate is true, but only in the Western media, in terms of coverage. You guys barely hear about Indonesia until 9/11 or at least until the Bali bombing. And guess who get the most quote. The one that has KILL in their sentence. Moderate is just not exciting.

When the violence is explicitly committed in the name of religion, and this happens consistently, there's a connection.

Rwanda was a tribal conflict (ditto Liberia, ditto Congo), not religious. The fact that many Rwandans are nominally Christian (in many cases, very nominally) isn't relevant, therefore, because that fact had no connection to who lived and who died. Latin America's conflicts were and are political. Though the Catholic Church is sometimes involved, it is certainly not an instigator of conflict - quite the reverse, it often serves as a neutral peacemaker. The only religion involved in Colombia's troubles is the idol-religion of money (narco-terrorism). Again, your analgy falls flat.

The Christians being persecuted in Indonesia, however, are not caught in a tribal or political or money war - they're being killed and persecuted in numbers, by Islamists, for their religious beliefs, with the intent of wiping them out as a non-Muslim community of believers via deaths and forced conversions. The government's response? Nothing of substance, they mostly just let the violence happen and have for many years. I assure you the Christians of Indonesia do NOT consider the jihadis a joke.

Your attempts to whitewash that or make excuses for it with inappropriate analogies only serve to illustrate my points about the current state of Islam that much more strongly. Hatred + thwarted supremacism + conspiracy theories + DENIAL, the critical enabler of the first 3 within the community as a whole.

We need more exceptions to those rules.

NOTE: Ireland is a Christian religious war that reminds us of something that used to be common in Christendom. Which is why Ireland is often described as a Christian religious conflict, and properly so.

To switchgears for a moment here...

"Moderate is just not exciting." Well, that's true. Like the reconstruction of Iraq, a lot of good can happen with nary a peep of media coverage from CNN... and we know Al-Jazeera isn't going to help much either.

The denial thing is a whole topic in itself, so we'll set it aside for now - but we're ignoring it. It's important, and must be fixed. If the "unexciting moderates" just go around saying "it's all a bad rap," the problem will only grow.

Still, there is the issue of communication within the ummah. So, here's a question for you, Dody... if we wanted to give Muslims who meet the test in this post (Recap: not necessarily Western in outlook, but their outlook is healthy within itself and opposes both the preaching of hate, bigotry, or supremacism and actions of that nature) more of a public voice - how would you do it? Since your experience is in Indonesia, let's use it as an example.

How would you do it?

"No Christian will rise up to defend this guy"

I still can't believe Jerry Falwell got one right. Does anybody remember why the Pilgrims left England to come to the New World? If they could see the polluted thinking now, they would without doubt point it out, and try their best to do something about it.

Ah Joe, you are getting one side of the story regarding Christian prosecution in Indonesia. You are definately talking about the case in Malluca, Ambon and Poso, Sulawesi.

Those are sectarian and communal conflicts and if you move beyond the headline you receive in the US, it goes beyond Christian vs Muslim religious violence. Christian is not the innocent lamb getting slaughtered by the Muslim. Both cases are horrible cases of the break down of law and order where apparatus of the local government takes side (some for the Christian, some for the Muslim). It resembles the Lebannon civil war 75-76 where active violence is committed by both sides with innocent civilian killed in the middle.

Joe, even Northern Ireland conflict goes beyond Protestant vs Catholics.

There is no natural path to violence in Islam. Take any conflict involving places with Muslim and you will see their part as aggressor and victims.

As you pointed out Joe::

Liberia is part tribal conflict. Majority Christian. The leading actor in the conflict do claim power from God.

Hutu and Tutsi are majority Christian. It is a ethic genocide.

In both cases, still no one label them as a Christian conflict. Which is as it should be.

Nobody is doing the lazy slap on sticker, Christianity problem !!

The lazy assumption would be saying look at those Christian, primitive and slaughtering each other in Africa. Or how about adding another easy label like "look at those black people, primitive and slaughtering each other in Africa".

And you should apply the same principle to the other conflicts, going beyond the label of Islam. Because otherwise, it's lazy thinking and you aleniate the majority of Muslim by guilt by association and enforcing the actors in the conflict that use the label of the religion as a means to gain support and power.

Muslim in Indonesia doesn't need to meet any test Joe. It is the largest Muslim country in the world and the 4th most populated country in the world as well. Christmas and Easter are national holidays, as well as Hindu's holy day and Buddhist (Vaisakkha). And naturally Islam's. It has an almost blind Islamic cleric (A. Wahid) as a president a couple years ago and it doesn't turn itself into an Iran or suddenly implement Sharia law. Now its president is a woman.

And no, the Muslim in Indonesia is not required to defend or bear the burden of the action of other Muslims in the world.

Its own challenge right now is to continue to take care of themselves through the progress in social and economic issue while strengthening its hard won democracy. They are all secular issues.

The US needs to pierce its bubble of fear of Islam, Arabs and the Middle East region. Right now the US listens more to its enemies than its friends because whereever it goes, it only see enemy through its fear induced eyeglasses.

On that day when the US society has the courage it used to have to reach accross the aisle, it will find a willing, strong and able partners on the other side.

I don't know if y'all would consider her a Christian, but Ann Coulter certainly defended Falwell's statements, and called them consistent with mainstream theology.

"Not after September 11th. I did find it quite astonishing that after September 11th liberals seem to be in overdrive watching out for the statements of Christians. I mean what Jerry Falwell said there, whether you agree with it or not, is really fairly standard Jerry Falwell Christian doctrine. Yes, he's against abortion, he's against [...]
what he said was that the almighty had stopped protecting America because America was no longer asking for God's help, this is straight Christian doctrine, and even if it had been some sort of peculiar sect of Christianity, as opposed to straight Christian doctrine, I think it's a little bit peculiar that everyone was jumping on the statement of a Christian minister after thousands of Americans were slaughtered by Islamic fundamentalists."

Seriously, were Falwell's words consistent with Christian doctrine? I can imagine that they were, and people just thought they had to condemn them because they seemed inappropriate in the wake of a tragedy.

Ms. Coulter isn't a cleric or religious authority of any stripe.

In this one case Jerry Falwell's remarks WERE consistent with Biblical doctrine. Nothing in the universe happens without God seeing it - even a sparrow falling to the ground. He either causes or allows everything that happens. Without a doubt America has been highly blessed, and used to attribute her rise in greatness to "One nation, under God..." While most other countries actively oppressed Christians, this country protected them and allowed them to flourish.

But today, pride rules. It is certainly strange that after 9/11 one of the very few Americans who was roundly denounced was one who gave the truth - America is forfeiting the protection of God.

Joe Katzman, it makes no difference whether the bringer of truth is an AUTHORITY or not. "Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein (heaven)."

PG, yes, her books sells gazillion. Does it make her opinion on Christianity authoritative? Only to the ones that agree with her.

If you dig deep enough, you will find a Christian doctrine that agree with Falwell. And off course, you will find others that disagree with it. It boils down to interpretation of the bible really.

You just have to pick for yourself which one you think is right.

The bible said that God created human on his own image. Sometimes I feel that we, human, shaped our faith of God in our own image (that's why you'll find so much destruction under the name of God throughout history).

Many people think they know God, when they don't. Thus they are still under the control of Satan. That is why "you'll find so much destruction under the name of God throughout history".

"Drug Warriors and Their Prey" by R.L. Miller whose previous book was "Nazi Justiz" has done a wonderful job showing how powerful hatred can be in America. He shows the steps it takes to go from hatred to the ovens and gas chambers. He shows the parallels to the War on Jews in Germany of the 1930s.

In America we are quite a ways down this road re: users of some drugs.

The hate is not just from the Saudis.

Hi.

I do not see the problem only as hate, because the hate always comes with some doctrine or other, and the details of the doctrine matter. Naziism, Communism and Islamism were and are different beasts.

I do not see the current problem as hate combined with a system of chronic supremacist aggression and the concepts of jihad and the infidel. I believe all that will be a constant from Islam.

I see the real problem as this complex combined with hope of success.

Islam is a uniquely well designed religion of "sticks." It builds hate and lust for conquest and domination, and channels them into aggressive war and a system of dhimmitude, which imprisons, perpetually punishes, pulverizes and assimilates those who fall under its armed aggression. The system comes complete, even to divinely revealed laws on dividing the spoils, and ultimately the solution to everything is "sticks," various forms of coercion and punishments, not thinking, and especially not thinking for yourself. God has already done the thinking. It is the job of believers, slaves of the one true god, to implement the holy doctrine, not to revise it.

This system proved its superiority over Zoroastrianism, various native traditions, Hinduism and Christianity; expanding, as Allah promises, however averse the infidels may be - until the West changed the rules by cashing in massively on a tradition of curiosity deriving ultimately from the Hellenes. It turned out that voyages of discovery and exploration, scientific enquiry and so on can have disproportionate effects. And the Muslim world, which was set up for sticks, not intellectual adventures, was not as well placed as the West to reap these rewards.

As the balance of power went more and more to the West, the Muslim world slid into a depression, where the idea of massive violence against evil Jews, Christian filth etc. was less exciting to reasonable men, because the muscle to back up a project of conquest manifestly did not exist and was not about to exist.

That's how the world works. "Peace" more often indicates resignation rather than goodwill. Hate is common, but it's not a practical issue unless people are feeling their oats enough to do something about it. This is why I think the idea that "it's the hate, stupid" is an inner ring, but not a bullseye. It's the hate, plus doctrine - plus hope!

The Muslims never did anything substantial to get out of their depression, least of all creating a modern civilization. It was the West that uncorked the genii of perennial Muslim supremacist, expansionist hate, by paying for oil instead of expropriating it and liquidating the natives (which is what Islam would have none to infidels were the balance of power reversed), and by providing medicine and general assistance that fuelled a huge population bulge, a second-to-none "Go!" condition for aggressive war.

The natural consequences included a series of probing attacks, which grew more and more ferocious as they met with weak responses, and a (violent) reorganization of Islamic society in forms more suited to religious aggression. The establishment of the theocratic state of Iran was a huge breakthrough to hope. Afghanistan's victory over Communism, with American help, was another great triumph, inflaming the spirit of hope, and thus aggression, still further. Radicals were proved right, and their prestige is high. Islam is undergoing a Reformation, returning to the spirit of Mohammed.

But the end of that population bulge is still going to take some of the starch out of them. Comprehensive defeats like the three week sprint to Baghdad are still going to mingle their ferocity with frustration and caution. Profligacy will still dilute the potential leverage of trillions in oil wealth. Western demographic recovery, if and when it comes, will change the current round of the Muslim great game completely.

If the ethnic Russian population was booming, instead of in free fall, and if Russians were full of cultural confidence and aggression (which I think might follow), so that Muslim terrorism and rebellion resulted in resettlement of rebel areas with "spare" ethnic Russians, I think the Chechens would return to their former state of merely potentially deadly resentment, waiting for their next opportunity. And this is my model of the best that can be achieved: let the Muslims continue to hate, since we can do nothing about that, as long as they continue to wait.

I think the idea that Islam can be bouncy, confident and full of beans, and not hostile to infidels, is totally unrealistic and just a piece of denial. It cannot be what it is and on the charge and friendly, it can only be de-bounced, and that only with enormous effort, and only ever temporarily.

Civilizations that prove capable of making that effort repeatedly have no more future than Zoroastrianism in Persia. I think of it as religious evolution in action.

Since our crusading ancestors did fight hard enough, often enough to hold out under far, far harsher conditions than we face, they bequeathed us the right to make the same effort again today, for the same Darwinian prize: a future in which our subsequent generations will have to make the same effort again, whenever the balance of power should shift enough to supercharge Islam's perpetual inclination to jihad with ferocious hope.

"Since our crusading ancestors did fight hard enough,... "

"Thus they are still under the control of Satan"

Nice, we have a little holy war brewing here. It's time for me to move on.

David -

Since you seem interested in history, I'll suggest you spend some time reading the history of Christianity from, say 800AD to about 1400. Not a pleasant bunch of folks.

But something changed.

And while certain groups within Islam may be irredeemable, others may not, and somewhere some young mullah is ready to nail something to a mosque door, and say "Here I stand." I'm on his side.

A.L.

Well, Daniel, I don't know G-d. Draw your own conclusions there, but it was my understanding that working for Satan was supposed to come with lots of money and hot babes. Where do I send my complaints? On second thought, complaining might encourage Satan to fulfil my request by marrying me to Ann Coulter or a Dixie Chick or something. Better shut up and quit while I'm ahead.

On a more serious note...

"Nothing in the universe happens without God seeing it - even a sparrow falling to the ground. He either causes or allows everything that happens.

Here we run into a real religious disagreement. It isn't The Lord's job to run your life, or mine, or any living creature's. That ain't how it works. Nor is there any such thing as a nation under G-d's protection, as if there was some kind of divine 911 service that could be withdrawn for non-payment of spiritual fees. That's just silly.

Nations, like people, who work to apply the spirit of G-d's teachings will be better off, but not because G-d intervenes for them. They're better off because doing the right things puts them in a generally better position within a cause and effect world. It isn't a perfect shield or prescription, but then nothing is. What is certain, is that such people (and nations) will be stronger overall and better able to cope with whatever comes their way.

Vid: New York City, post-9/11.

There may be something deeper there, too, a set of "strange attractors" (it's a chaos/complexity science term) built into the very fabric of creation that subtly favour certain approaches, and lead over time to an unfolding tendency within the universe at large. That's closer to the way I'd expect a being like G-d to create and direct and work a "plan", rather than the clumsy and very human (and that's not a compliment) approach you seem to believe in.

I have an issue with Falwell, therefore, because I he think his statement was spiritually untrue in a deep and important way. Not only on a human level, but in its fundamental characterization of G-d and how the universe works.

And FYI, Daniel, I also don't believe in Satan the way you do, and neither does my religion, and for that matter neither does Islam.

Armed Liberal,

"Since you seem interested in history, I'll suggest you spend some time reading the history of Christianity from, say 800AD to about 1400. Not a pleasant bunch of folks."

(grinning) Are you quite sure of what you imply, that I have not already done any reading, and am ignorant of all that?

Nor am I entirely ignorant of the virtues and history of Islam and the Arab peoples. I grew up on Glubb Pasha, and the same education (e.g. Runciman) everyone who reads gets on the irredeemable evil of crusading and crusaders.

Only, the last two years have forced me to abandon my old ideas and consider new ones. All the things I "knew" about how the Muslim world was going to react to 11 September, 2001 turned out to be dead wrong, because the basic moral foundations I assumed to be in place and capable of forcing decisive action were not there. My literary education was mis-education. Western intellectuals who for ages had said nice things about Islam had done so because it was a stick to beat Christian elites with, and contemporary received wisdom was no better. When you go back and look at the history without the rose-colored glasses, the basis for a favorable evaluation of Islam is insecure, and the tacit assumption that those opposing it by force in past ages must have been villains because there was no really decisive threat that they had to react to is a bad joke.

"Disillusionment" with Islam as a civilisation would be putting it very mildly.

OK, if a Muslim Luther appears, and is clearly the goods, I'll applaud him to the skies. But show me. Till I see the goods, I go by the goods I've seen, and lots of history recently radically reevaluated in that light.

Returning to "hate," I really hate the idea of the "top clamp" and the "bottom clamp" as decisive. Because the policy recommendation that flows from it is always going to be to remove the clamps, tacitly applied like this: "We could remove the elite's ability to set their entry conditions, which in effect means a social revolution imposed by hated foreigners - well to hell with that, except under very special circumstances (such as may apply in Iraq), that goes into the too-hard basket. What about the bottom clamp, in other words welfare and sustenance for the poor? There's the solution!" The guy constantly urges that hate arises because people aren't forced deep enough into desperation that they are thinking of nothing but survival and base physical needs day by day. "Bingo! All we have to do is destroy security and immiserate the vulnerable masses as much as we can, and the clamp of hate ceases to squeeze!"

World peace and religious harmony through gutting all forms of security and welfare - it makes me wonder why the right never thought of that one before. Oh wait, no it doesn't - they always think of that one; only the rationale changes.

Look, I am in favour of giving people utter hell, but only insofar as it seems to be necessary for the survival of my society, and as far as possible the people catching it in the neck should be real hostiles or at least their most zealous supporters. I can square that with an agenda of discouragement and relative resource reduction, not perfectly but close enough for government work. I can't square that scruple at all with defining succour for the more vulnerable classes as a "bottom clamp" and trying to remove it seemingly always and everywhere, deliberately in order to drive people into such desperation they won't have time to hate. Sorry, no sale.

You win wars by discouraging the opponent, so that they no longer hope for victory, and their spirit is broken and they no longer venture to fight you. Sorry, but that works. Pressing the enemy to adopt more efficient elite-recruitment methods and drive their lower orders into desperation, not for greater economic efficiency as such but deliberately just for the desperation, does not have the same historic track record.

I disagree with the apocalyptic view of the current state of affairs, especially with the implied solution of head to head confrontation. If anything, the West should look into its own soul first before pointing fingers outwards. Yes, there is a rising wave of religious extremism worldwide, but the spreading fire is continuously stoked by the West.

The additional gas on the fire is provided by the West's addiction to oil and continuous meddling in Arab affairs (starting with Europe in the past, and Russia and US more recently and presently) and by Israel's paranoic policy of preventing the creation of an independent Palestian state, policy fully supported and partly financed by the US. Another missed detail is that al-Qaeda is fully financed with oil money which comes from our pockets, without which Ossama and his budies would be no more than camel-riding bedouins today.

Only when we'll wean ourselves off the Arab oil, stop propping up corrupt regimes, stop bullying the Arabs, and force Israel to achieve an equitable resolution in the West Bank, will we have the right to cast the first stone. Without those changes we'll only feed the fire of Muslim extremists, and our mighty Western civilization will be crippled by guerilla fighters and suicide bombers. Worse yet, in order to achieve an impossible homeland security, we might have to soon throw the Bill of Rights into the crapper with the fouth revision of the Patriot Act.

PS: Dody Gunawinata,

"'Since our crusading ancestors did fight hard enough,... ' ... Nice, we have a little holy war brewing here. It's time for me to move on."

(gentle smile) Please don't understand me quite so quickly, and please don't move on.

I have no intention to try to make Winds of Change comments a forum for holy war. This is a good place to think and exchange new facts and basic new ideas in a spirit of amity and civility, and I like it that way. I won't break the peace.

Since it is now shabbat time at the Winds of Change, and I like this custom too, let me rephrase some of what I just said in quotes from The Living Wisdom of Ancient Egypt.

Regarding the removal of the "bottom clamp":

Do not steal from the unfortunate.
Do not be violent toward the weak.
Do not stretch out your hand to threaten the old,
And do not speak impolitely to them.
- Amenemope

On those who in past ages fought the same evils we fight now, and who have in my opinion not been sufficiently honored for it:

It is the duty of responsible men to fight evil and affirm goodness,
As they are the workmen who bring into existence that which has to be.
- Stories of the Oases

Is that better?

Hi Friends,

What the Mahathir says is now a days every peaceful person's heart voice! Angry are only those who got naked by the words of him. The scenario we are facing, full of terror and blood shed of our brother and sisters are due the wrong policies of americans and lust of Israil of "Greater Israil"- what they called.
Join the movement of peace and got the America's sons back to their home, they are not to work according to the will of Israil. We are not abide to follow them

The topic should read, "It's the Jewish supremacism, stupid." Are you aware of David Duke's book Jewish Supremacism, which has become a best seller in Eastern Europe, selling over 700,000 copies, and is about to be published in Arabic, with endorsements from prominent Syrians. You are probably not familiar with Nidal Kablan of Syria, that country's most prominent journalist, but I thought you might be interested in an interview Mr. Kablan did with David Duke where they talk about the book Jewish Supremacism. How impactful is it for a book like this to possibly be on the verge of selling millions in the Muslim world?

Audio file:
http://www.davidduke.com/mp3/nidalkabalaninterview.mp3

Here is an article from a Syrian newspaper on Dr. Duke's visit.
http://www.davidduke.com/?p=458

Sincerely,

Jill Henry