Bjørn Stærk, the extraordinarily sensible Norwegian who has been posting since September 11th, posted an immensely important post on August 8th. I'm going to link to his post here, and add my own comments on the topic of anti-Muslim hatred in blogs, the problems trying to find the "essence" of a religion, and the importance of distinguishing between Islam and Islamism.
(Note: this replaces a previous incarnation of this post because Joe felt it wasn't right to quote so much of Bjørn's post; please make sure to read his post in full.)
First he posts a list of reasons "why Islam should be banned in America" that a commenter posted to his blog.
He concludes:Again, I'm not saying these views are shared by the owners of these websites, or the majority of their readers. But neither do I see many strong, principled objections. Phil says above that "the failure of good Muslims to object or organize and stop bad Muslims indicts the whole Islamic movement", which doesn't justify a ban on Islam, but is true in a sense. We all have a responsibility to speak up clearly against extremists in our own ranks, whether we are Muslims or peace activists or bloggers who criticize Islam and support the war on Islamist terror.Damn straight. Now go read the entire post. This is mandatory before commenting, please, because it's the heart of this post. I didn't rewrite what Bjørn Stærk wrote because I didn't have to. So go read it, please, or skip this post.And so it's time to stand up for the basic values of our democracies and confront those in our own ranks who want to abandon those values. Because if we don't, outsiders will be justified in interpreting this as silent approval or apologism.
Something has gone rotten. We can't blame it on the "left", the "relativists", the "PC crowd" or the "multiculturalists", (and don't anybody dare blame it on the Muslims). It's gone rotten here, among people who on 9/11 woke up to the danger of Islamism. The ban Islam meme and all its relatives (Islam is Islamism, Islam is war) must be confronted here, now, before it spreads.
I recently posted some comments to this "Hatewatch" thread here at Winds of Change:
There are a variety of sites on the Web with idiotarian hate. Here's a random example from one guaranteed site:I subsequently had the following exchange:Probably is a muzzie though.And it just goes on and on; that's from only about the top five percent of comments on a single post.[...]
If the bastard wasn't a muzzie they would have said so.
[...]
We've already had Islamo-spies in Guantanamo, muzzies blowing up their officers in Kuwait... We also have illegal aliens with fake IDs, and assorted non-citizens (since we accept LPRs). There are several thousand throughout the military. Given the ideology they adhere to, suspicions must be raised far higher.
[...]
A few months ago I would have been very opposed to condemning all Muslims, but now I am at the point that they are going to have to prove that all Islam is not the problem.
[...]
While this is not an incitement to violence, my prediction is we'll see the slims hanging from light poles after the next attack. Their lies aren't going to mean squat to the great unwashed hordes. I'd just be satisfied with covering them with pork chops and putting them in a pit full of rottweillers.
[...]
Has anybody ever done any surveys or studies to determine how disloyal your average muzzie is to their new homeland?
[...]
Your allah (satan) lied to you, fool.
[...]
My grandchildren will wear muslim the fabric without ever being aware there was another definition.
[...]
Allah was the name given an idol to HaBa'al, brought from Assyria, and may indeed be the same false god Ba'al from the Bible.
Mohammad raided camel caravans, broke treaties, tortured and killed prisoners of war, and got hard-ons for six year old girls.
Any questions?[...]
They whine about rights? Get rid of em. Inhale oxygen within our borders? That's right. Get rid of em. I'ts a disease. Kill it before it kills us.I've long, as a Jew, found a highly useful test for distinguishing legitimate commentary from hate; I take the noun of the statement in question, switch it to "Jew," or the adjective to "Jewish," and see how I think it stands up.
One can also switch out, say, one religious figure for another who did things, in a different religious tradition, we now would call horrible and despicable. Enjoy the game! "If the bastard wasn't a Jew they would have said so." "I'd just be satisfied with covering those Jews with pork chops and putting them in a pit full of rottweillers."
Feel free to use "Christian, " or "atheist," or "Hindu," or whatever works best for yourself. lewy14, I thank you for your efforts, and very much hope you'll keep a sharp eye out for, as well, anti-Islamic hatred, which is a very great danger and quite prevalent in our time, and that you'll call it wherever you find it. It's a moral test for all of us today to distinguish between Islamic terrorism and Islam, between terrorists and Muslims, just as we largely failed, in 1941-2, in the U.S., to distinguish between those who served the Japanese empire, and our own loyal citizens of Japanese ethnicity.
"Don't worry, Gary, when Jews fly planes into skyscrapers I'll be hunting them too."And then my two last comments:Yes, I know.
"And so I prefer to consign such repugnant comments on all blogs to a well deserved obscurity."And, excerpted:This is purely my own opinion, of course -- that should be clear, but I want to make it ultra clear -- my own policy is that I believe blogs are responsible for what they publish. Period. That includes comments. I believe blogs should have prominently posted commenting policy as to what are and are not acceptable comments. I believe that posters should be warned that if they violate the guidelines/rules, their offensive comments will be deleted, and if they continue to offend, they will be banned. I believe blogs need to enforce that policy, and if they do not, they are completely responsible for what is posted on their blog. If enforcing such policies is too much work, they should shut down comments, because they are responsible for what is posted on their blog.
To me, that's a matter of individual responsibility. It's a matter of accepting that responsibility.
I believe that sites that are full of hate for white people, for black people, for red people, for yellow people, for Christians, for Jews, for Moslems, for Hindus, for animists, for atheists, for religious people, for short people, for tall people, for whatever kind of people, are hate sites.
I boycott hate sites, regardless of whatever value might be attached to them. Hey, Krupp built great guns, but I wouldn't have contracted with them in the Forties.
Again, that is purely my own personal policy, and I respect the right of all to have their own policy, of course.
[....]
It strikes me that if we are "looking hard at the dark places most mainstream media seem determined to look away from," and we, as bloggers want to see blogs achieve large-scale, mainstreamish, success and recognition, that we can't turn a blind eye to hatred in blogs. Better an early start than having to wait until our soles/souls are held to the fire later and inevitably. (And sooner or later we will read mainstream stories about hate in blogs; mark my words; I'd rather we started policing ourselves first.)Anti-Muslim hate is hate. And hate in blogs is hate.[...]
Ten thousand words would be far too much. But it occurs to me that, in fact, a reasonably (a thousand or two, words, perhaps; perhaps even less, just a naming of blogs with a couple of sample comments each) sized monthly (or so) round-up of the most significant sites spewing hatred in comments -- whatever the form or target of the hatred -- would be a useful way to point a spotlight at these much-read blogs, and perhaps -- just perhaps -- give them a nudge towards being shamed, and cleaning up their act. (And I include, myself, sites that spew political hatred, as well as ethnic hatred.)
Both need to be fought. Neither should be tolerated.
Read The Rest Scale: 0 out of 5.Gary Farber's home blog is Amygdala.
When you write "extraordinarily sensible Norwegian," what exactly do you mean?
BTW, the notion that this site doesn't condone irrational prejudice against certain nationalities is absurd.
If you want to sway the readers of LGF, refute the post "why Islam should be banned in America", point by point. Labelling these discussions as "hate" really adds nothing to the debate.
"When you write 'extraordinarily sensible Norwegian,' what exactly do you mean?"
I mean that he happens to be Norwegian, and he's extraordinarily sensible, based upon my nearly three years of reading him on and off.
"BTW, the notion that this site doesn't condone irrational prejudice against certain nationalities is absurd."
Which site? Winds of Change? The site doesn't condone anything; only posters to it can do that, and they're individuals, with wildly divergent points of view in many cases.
"If you want to sway the readers of LGF...."
Doesn't strike me as a productive use of my time, thanks.
Gary, I think I agree with everything you've written in this post but there's something in its penumbra, so to speak, that makes me uneasy. I think that Islam is going to be a tremendous challenge to our values as Americans and post-Enlightenment Westerners. On the one hand, if we fail to criticize the vile behavior of some Muslims for reasons of cultural sensitivity it smacks of "What can you expect of the wogs?" paternalism. On the other hand, if we attribute vile behavior to all Muslims because of the acts of a few or even because of the acts of the majority of Muslims we've thrown our values overboard wholesale.
We are at war and those with whom we are at war are Muslims. We're going to have to deal with that somehow.
BTW I neglected to mention that for quite a bit of this nation's history criticism of the government was sedition. That doesn't make it right but it is food for thought.
Does freedom of religion extend to religions that instruct there adherents to destroy those of other religions?
>> Anti-Muslim hate is hate. And hate in blogs is hate. Both need to be fought. Neither should be tolerated.
Substitute "Al Queda" for Muslim above. Do you tolerate that? Or is hate bad in all cases?
The proper response, Gary, is: "when moderate Muslims crash planes into buildings, then you may have a point."
Gary
There is always what once was referred to as the 10%. You know, those who don't aspire to your beliefs or your particular way of life. Here in the U.S. we pride our selves on being tolerant of others and their beliefs The 10% however refers to activists who see no other way (terrorism / force) of achieving their goals what ever they might be. This is what this war is being waged against. The 10% who would show no quarter and ask for none. Identifying that 10% is a matter of profiling. This war is not being waged against Islam. It is however being waged against people of Islamic Muslim faith. You can argue the outside circumstance of those who sympathize with the people of Islamic Muslim faith that are in that 10%. Some even become members for the cause of that 10%. Some even change faiths for the cause of that 10%. What can be said and what I am saying is this 10% uses their faith as the dividing factor. Does it mean eradicate the Islamic Muslim faith? Not at all. In as much as it doesn’t mean eradicate Christianity because all members of the Ku Klux Klan are Christian. Or eradicate all of Jewish faith for what ever reasons you choose. What is more ironic is our constitution states that the government on any level will not intervene in matters of the peoples faith yet we do it on a continual basis (separation of church and state yet another a hot topic). Our government is for the people, by the people and of the people. None of which shall be put to a religious test. I for one do not condone religious persecution of any kind. What Bjørn Stærk has identified is 10% of a different kind with a different profile which is not the entire populace view.
Dave, who said anything to the effect that we must "fail to criticize the vile behavior of some Muslims for reasons of cultural sensitivity"?
Or that we mustn't criticize or talk about or fight Islamism (or "Islamofascism" if one prefers)?
"Does freedom of religion extend to religions that instruct there adherents to destroy those of other religions?"
If we look at all, we can find plenty to denounce in any religion. Christianity preaches that either I need to convert or I'll burn in hell, according to many adherents; it's not much done now, but there's plenty of history of Christians engaging in mass slaughter of heretics and nonbelievers. Judaism, well, if you read the Torah, God is commanding the Jews left and right to smite and slaughter. Hinduism is has plenty of conquest and slaughter in its past (and not a little in India in the past century). Shintoism.... And so on.
The point is that most Moslems are demonstrably not running around slaughtering, or terrorizing, despite all the hysterical claims about All Moslems and What Islam Commands.
"The proper response, Gary, is: 'when moderate Muslims crash planes into buildings, then you may have a point.'"
Good formulation, praktike.
"This is what this war is being waged against. The 10% who would show no quarter and ask for none."
I don't know what the precise percentage is, but generally speaking, yes. It's, again, demonstrable that we've not had a significant number of American Muslims running around conspiring to kill people; the number caught or believed involved are measurable in quite small numbers. The number caught outright are literally measurable by handfuls, though it's reasonable to assume that at least hundreds may ultimately be involved, or perhaps even a few thousand. But given that there are several million American Muslims....
Hi praktike,
How do you define a 'moderate Muslim'?
My definition is 'apostate Muslim'
Gary,
Why don't you also employ your moral superiority to cajole Muslim dominated countries into allowing freedom of worship and religion to non-Muslims? And allow Muslims to choose not to be a Muslim anymore and become Christians?
You see, I really believe my moral superiority is greater than yours because my moral superiority endorses all non-Muslim dominated countries to ban Islam until all Muslim dominated countries lift their ban on freedom of religion.
Why isn't this article showing up on the Main page anymore? Is it only my browser? Everything else seem fine...
Lurker:
No, its the same for me.
#27108 Gary,
How many people did Christ kill/murder? How many swords does he say are sufficient for usage by the sum total of all Christians? Do you know why he counted the swords?
Be careful how you define 'Christian'. Christ was very clear that many will come to deceive in his name but are not of his thinking or teachings.
Gary
This is how it starts Gary the presumption that there are or could be or we could create by our own actions several million. The fall out of trying to be politically correct in my opinion. All we need do is look at the facts to determine at this point that this is not the case. When and if it comes to the millions point then I would say the globe and the Islamic Muslim faith will have a very huge problem. Not only in regards to the global war on terror but in regards to a global genocide which will be one directed from both sides of the fence.
I believe I have argued my points clearly throughout all of the postings that a directed discrimination of those of Islamic Muslim faith is not necessary or required at this point. However; that does not mean that it should be ignored concerning the profile of those that commit acts of terror. Any more than it means ignore the current profile in all cases in favor of some utopian non-discriminatory waste of actions. The more pieces of the puzzle that can be added to the profile the better off we will all be.
The question by papijoe
"Does freedom of religion extend to religions that instruct there adherents to destroy those of other religions?"
has not yet been answered. I'm still waiting...
"Substitute 'Al Queda' for Muslim above. Do you tolerate that?"
Sure, that's fine, unless perhaps you're a Christian. I'm not qualified to speak to that.
"This is how it starts Gary the presumption that there are or could be or we could create by our own actions several million."
Um, what? My point was that there are several million American Muslims, and only a handful are acting wrongly.
>>Substitute "Al Queda" for Muslim above. Do you tolerate that? Or is hate bad in all cases?
This is a very important question. IMHO, it is not useful to hate members of Al-Qaeda. It is very important to STOP Al-Qaeda, and it's probably going to be necessary to KILL some of the people in it, but HATING them isn't a wise move.
Again I'd recommend reading the following interesting essay by Roderick T. Long:
http://libertariannation.org/a/n030l2.html
Excerpt:
"Our topic tonight is hate. Yet so far I’ve spoken about anger rather than hate. One might suppose that what I’ve said about one will apply mutatis mutandis to the other; but I think there is an important difference. Anger is often justified; but hate, I think, is never justified, at least against a person.
Where does the difference lie? Well, we can be angry with a person and still wish that person well; after all, we are often angry with those we love, and we do not stop loving them while we are angry with them. But we cannot hate a person and still wish that person well. I think this makes hate morally problematic in a way that anger is not. For I accept Aristotle’s conception of happiness as a life of virtuous rational activity. Surely we should wish our enemies to be more virtuous and more rational; after all, if they were more virtuous and more rational, they wouldn’t have hijacked two airplanes and sent them crashing into the World Trade Center. Any move, by anybody, in the direction of greater virtue and greater rationality should always be met with approval. But if Aristotle is right about happiness, then to wish for our enemies to be more virtuous and more rational is ipso facto to wish for them to be happier.
I think this must be what such moral teachers as Socrates, Jesus, and the Buddha mean when they advise us to wish our enemies well. Obviously we should not wish success to our enemies’ projects; for those projects are evil, and they could not cease to be evil without ceasing to be the projects they are. Hence hatred for those projects is quite in order. But people can always cease to be evil without ceasing to be. If they refuse to cease being evil, we may find it necessary, in self-defense, to make them cease to be; but we should always prefer that our enemies cease being evil. But what is that, but to prefer that our enemies become better people—that they live better, more worthwhile, less destructive, hate-filled lives? And if that is what we ought to prefer, then we ought to wish our enemies well. And while that is compatible with being angry at them, and with killing them if necessary, it is not compatible with hating them."
#27127 T.J. Madison,
It's just sounds strange to wish a member of Al Queda well even though you are 'angry' with them.
STOP Al-Qaeda? Isn't that in this case the same as KILL Al-Qaeda?
We should also keep in mind Joe's Maxim (different Joe): "Nice people can use any religion to justify their niceness. Mean people can use any religion to justify their meanness."
There are nice Christians, Muslims, Atheists, Satanists, etc. just as there are mean members of the above groups. What crazy crap happens to have been in which holy books doesn't seem to adjust the percentages much AFAIK.
Most people are hypocrites, and thank goodness for that! If people went around acting on the basis of the tenets of their religions, there'd be much less niceness.
(I periodically razz my Jewish friends, accusing them of being heretics for their refusal to enthusiastically embrace the mass murder and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians as their LORD commands. These friends demonstrate their tolerance and niceness, as well as their heresy, by refraining from throttling me.)
#27130 Posted by T. J. Madison, "If people went around acting on the basis of the tenets of their religions, there'd be much less niceness"
Please explain where this is true according to Christ and his teachings. In what way would a Christian following the basis(Christ's teachings) by less nice?
>>It's just sounds strange to wish a member of Al Queda well even though you are 'angry' with them.
Indeed is is strange. That's why people like Jesus are considered "radical." I suspect it's a necessary component of any strategy to defeat the enemy without becoming the enemy.
>>STOP Al-Qaeda? Isn't that in this case the same as KILL Al-Qaeda?
Clearly not. Some of those guys in Gitmo may, by random chance, actually be part of Al-Qaeda -- and they aren't dead. They have been neutralized without being destroyed.
It's possible most of the Al-Qaeda guys are puppets, pawns like the human missiles launched from the West Bank. If intercepted, maybe they can be flipped. Perhaps some sane clerics could work on these people, use the very same Koran to convince them the path they had chosen was wrong.
Gary
"Um, what? My point was that there are several million American Muslims, and only a handful are acting wrongly."
I understood your point and expanded on it. Yes we know there are millions of American Muslims. Yes we know there are a handful of terrorists that are Muslim. It's when the two are married that things get out of hand. We both know the two are tied at the hip as the current profile indicates. Muslim / terrorist / young teens to mid-twenties/ ME / male. This is in response to your policing the blogs by silencing and discrediting those that believe terrorist and Muslim are all inclusive. I don’t believe that is the way to proceed because the seeds have already been planted. The way to proceed is to add to the profile to direct the attention to where it should ultimately be placed. If they were distinguished somehow by other than those attributes it would be much simpler. The question before us now is how to do that.
Juding by conditions in the Muslim world, I'd say that either they've had an absolutely amazingly bad run of luck, or Islam adjusts those percentages more than you'd like to admit. But I agree we're not at war with Islam. Perhaps one or two sects of it are at war with us, though.
>>Please explain where this is true according to Christ and his teachings. In what way would a Christian following the basis(Christ's teachings) by less nice?
The tricky bit here is where Jesus is said to endorse the Old Testament Jehovah. (Maybe that part was jive added by bureaucrats later.) Most Christians cheerfully read out of the Old Testament and assume Jesus was fine with all that stuff. I wonder what Jesus thought about this bit from Numbers 33:
"Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye are passed over Jordan into the land of Canaan;
Then ye shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy all their pictures, and destroy all their molten images, and quite pluck down all their high places:
And ye shall dispossess the inhabitants of the land, and dwell therein: for I have given you the land to possess it.
...
But if ye will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you; then it shall come to pass, that those which ye let remain of them shall be pricks in your eyes, and thorns in your sides, and shall vex you in the land wherein ye dwell.
Moreover it shall come to pass, that I shall do unto you, as I thought to do unto them."
This is the sort of stuff that makes Sharon look like a hippie peacenik. After all, he has failed to fully cleanse Israel proper of non-Jews. Fundamentalist Christians and Orthodox Jews should logically endorse ethnic cleansing and genocide in Palestine, since it's in accordance with God's will, as revealed in His holy word. (This is why I find it particularly amusing when Orthodox Jews complain about the Holocaust.)
Since everyone here at Winds of Change is a heretic, hypocrite, or infidel, we don't stand for the ickiness like that in Numbers 33. We don't feel the need for spot executions of homosexuals, witches, people who work on the Sabbath, etc. Those of us who are Christian or Jewish can just say, "Well, those were the bad old days, those rules don't apply anymore." Somehow God must have changed his mind.
>>Judging by conditions in the Muslim world, I'd say that either they've had an absolutely amazingly bad run of luck, or Islam adjusts those percentages more than you'd like to admit.
Let's just look at statistics. "Uncle Joe" Stalin, a fellow atheist, killed 40 million of his own people. Mao killed 60. Hitler was Christian, no?
The Islamofascists have a LOOONG way to go to rack up those kind of numbers. The closest so far is probably Saddam (not really like Al-Q at all) with maybe 1.5 million. The stuff in Sudan is pretty bad too.
Al Qaeda & Co. still likely have a much lower score than the Enola Gay crew. Yes they're bad guys, but their power just isn't that impressive on a historical scale. IMHO it's just the propaganda system: they're the Demons of the Week.
My social circle includes ten or twelve Muslims, and all of them practise their religion in a manner not unlike the Jews, Prostestants, Catholics, etc. that I know. They follow the many "good" parts of the Koran and more or less ignore the "bad" parts (i.e., kill the infidels). They've simply matured beyond that stuff.
I firmly believe that as the Muslim culture continues to evolve, so to will it continue to moderate. How or when will the Muslim reformation come about? Wish I knew -- but it WILL come. Part of that will be in doing a better job integrating those who come to the West more fully into our societies.
In the meantime, however, I for one at least remain perfectly happy to hate USMC's 10%-ish (I think the percentage is much, much lower) who would happily behead me just because I'm an agnostic.
Thank goodness! I thought I was hallucinating. First it was there. Then it was gone.
Gary:
Dave, who said anything to the effect that we must "fail to criticize the vile behavior of some Muslims for reasons of cultural sensitivity"?
Or that we mustn't criticize or talk about or fight Islamism (or "Islamofascism" if one prefers)?
I didn't mean to imply that you had said anything of the kind. If you took it that way, I apologize.
Western society has spent considerable parts of the last seventy years (or more) making excuses for the vile behavior of some Muslims. I don't know whether it's been due to paternalism, or pragmatism, or post-modernism, or what. But it's obvious it's been happening. I don't think we can afford to do that anymore.
The point is that most Moslems are demonstrably not running around slaughtering, or terrorizing, despite all the hysterical claims about All Moslems and What Islam Commands.
All Japanese were demonstrably not running around slaughtering during World War II. But we interned thousands of innocent Japanese-Americans (wrongly in my opinion) and killed hundreds of thousands of other innocent Japanese (correctly in my opinion). Would acting differently have brought the war to a conclusion more quickly? I don't want to take this analogy too far because I think it has serious flaws.
IMO Arab-Americans and Muslims in the U. S. have responded in a very human fashion—with indignation and outrage at being singled out. But there are circumstances that call for more than a natural human reaction. Under significantly more severe conditions Japanese-Americans responded heroically and put the lie to the fears about them.
I believe that sites that are full of hate for white people, for black people, for red people, for yellow people, for Christians, for Jews, for Moslems, for Hindus, for animists, for atheists, for religious people, for short people, for tall people, for whatever kind of people, are hate sites.
I boycott hate sites, regardless of whatever value might be attached to them.
I hate Nazis. I wuz gonna tell you about my anti-Nazi site, but, well, nevermind.
I'd hate to paint all Nazis with a broad brush or anything. Diversity makes us stronger and all that. Maybe our "big tent" has room enough for teh Nazis too, eh?
Good post Gary.
There is one problem that gets lost in all the words, however. We are at a point in history where a major world religion is going to be changed internally by the actions of outsiders more than its believers. This will not be fun for anyone, but the alternatives seem worse. I suspect that the nature of what constitutes a religion will be argued about in highly inflatory words for years to come.
Deal with it, it ain't going away.
"(This is why I find it particularly amusing when Orthodox Jews complain about the Holocaust.)"
Quite a knee-slapper, indeed.
"Maybe our 'big tent' has room enough for teh Nazis too, eh?"
In case anyone hasn't read my site or writings over the years, I'll provide the news flash that I'm anti-Nazi.
"All Japanese were demonstrably not running around slaughtering during World War II."
No, but the nation had declared war upon us, and most subjects of the Emperor didn't dissent in their own minds, let alone vocally. And, as you note, we mistakenly locked up about 120,000 innocent people because of their ethnicity, and our fearful, angry, generalizations. Some people would repeat that mistake today, having learned nothing. And, last I looked, there were about 4000 Muslims bravely serving in the U.S. armed forces, Dave.
>>IMO Arab-Americans and Muslims in the U. S. have responded in a very human fashion—with indignation and outrage at being singled out. But there are circumstances that call for more than a natural human reaction. Under significantly more severe conditions Japanese-Americans responded heroically and put the lie to the fears about them.
Heroic, or pathetic? These Japanese-Americans were sold out by their own government, and they just went along with it?
When the Jews were first transported to the camps, did they know they were being sent to their deaths? How did the Japanese know they were not being sent to their deaths?
IMHO the Japanese-Americans got lucky. In forensics, there's often Crime Scene A, where people are kidnapped, and Crime Scene B, where the remains are found. Your best bet is always to resist at Crime Scene A, and that's true with the State as well.
>>I hate Nazis. I wuz gonna tell you about my anti-Nazi site, but, well, nevermind.
>>I'd hate to paint all Nazis with a broad brush or anything. Diversity makes us stronger and all that. Maybe our "big tent" has room enough for teh Nazis too, eh?
John Rabe, the Living Buddha of Nanking, saved 300,000 Chinese civilians through chutzpah. He's probably the greatest paladin in recorded history.
He was a Nazi.
And, last I looked, there were about 4000 Muslims bravely serving in the U.S. armed forces, Dave.
And I am grateful for their service. But, unfortunately, that illustrates my point. In 1940 there were roughly 130,000 Japanese-Americans. Approximately 18,000 served in the U. S. military during World War II. And, as you say, there are several million Muslim Americans. There is simply no comparison.
In case anyone hasn't read my site or writings over the years, I'll provide the news flash that I'm anti-Nazi.
But, of course, you'd loudly denounce a website with an anti-Nazi theme, though. Hate the Nazis? Perish the thought. Hatred is wrong.
Look: just as there are people who I love, there are people who I hate. My loves and hatreds - both - tell a lot about who I am as a person.
Show me someone who doesn't hate anything, and I'll show you someone who doesn't have a strong enough moral position to love anything either.
I'm secure in my Nazi hatred; just as I'm secure in my Islamofascist hatred.
Perhaps you just need to give hate a chance.
Hating Islamofascists will interfere with your efforts to defeat Islamofascism. Likely it will lead to your adoption of tactics that will inadvertantly advance fascism locally. Hating the philosophy is quite reasonable. Hating the people themselves is not useful.
#27139 Posted by T. J. Madison,
I didn't ask for the 'tricky bit' answer. But it shows that your in the mode that you can make an answer that avoids the original question no matter what lengths it takes.
On the one hand you attribute Jesus to being a radical who wishes Al-Qaeda members well but on the other hand hint that Jesus endorsed Numbers 33 for all time. Which is it?
Remember when they brought the adultress woman in front of Jesus to trap him with a question? You know what he said and it was contrary to Leviticus law. Right?
How many people did Christ kill/murder? How many swords does he say are sufficient for usage by the sum total of all Christians? Do you know why he counted the swords?
There is also Scripture that indicates that Jesus would not be wishing the believers of Islam well because they knowingly commit an unpardonable sin.
What are the fundamental foundation blocks of Islam?
P.S. You need not answer every question I pose; I do it to provoke thought even when we are not in dialog. And also to make a point without telling other people what to think. But let them if they want search and find more answers than I have.
Cheers,
Roger
Hmm, the discussion here has gone in a much more interesting direction than I would have predicted.
T.J. Madison, I'd like to hear more about this John Rabe guy. Sounds like a very complex character, and/or a really great story.
With respect to the responsibility of blogs for their comments sections and the direction of HateWatch here on Winds, Lewy and I have commented. Start here and read, in order, Lewy, Gary & myself for the key exchange.
Roger, I don't mean to rag on Jesus, who by all accounts was a good guy. Jesus's way of handling the adulteress is evidence of his considerable wisdom in these matters. I'm quite willing to buy that any NT passages that could be directly or indirectly quoted as Jesus's support for theft, murder, etc. are jive. But they are there, for the benefit of any assholes who wish to use them to support their wretchedness. Since we aren't assholes, we can safely dismiss any such (mis)interpretations.
>>There is also Scripture that indicates that Jesus would not be wishing the believers of Islam well because they knowingly commit an unpardonable sin.
Hmm. This is the same Jesus who forgave the people who nailed him up, right? I can certainly see Jesus believing that followers of Islam were making a horrible mistake that would damn them. I can't see Jesus WANTING Muslims to be damned for their sins. Surely Jesus would prefer that Muslims abandon their sins and be saved, right?
>>How many people did Christ kill/murder? How many swords does he say are sufficient for usage by the sum total of all Christians? Do you know why he counted the swords?
Does it not follow that Jesus would not advocate resisting Islam with violence at all? This would certainly be a controversial point of view around here. Would Jesus qualify as an idiotarian?
>>What are the fundamental foundation blocks of Islam?
It strikes me that the main advance by Islam is the refocusing of worship on the Creator and away from the messengers. The 99 Names of God in particular strikes me as a useful exercise. Maybe Osama & Co. could stand to spend some more time contemplating Ar-Rahman, Ar-Rahim, and Al-Ghaffar in particular.
The big problem with Team Jesus these days seems to be too much hero worship and not enough contemplation of his philosophy, goals, and methodology. The WWJD notion, corny as it is, seems like a step back in the right direction.
>>T.J. Madison, I'd like to hear more about this John Rabe guy.
I think I've ranted about him before. He was an executive for the Siemens Corporation who was assigned to Nanking, and a member of the Nazi party.
When the Japanese were approaching Nanking in 1937, Rabe headed up the 15 member Nanking Safety Zone committee. Their intent was to provide some island of stability near the embassies where the locals could find shelter amid the expected mayhem.
The pre-invasion population of Nanking was around 1M. Roughly 300K people ran for their lives when the Japanese arrived. Some KMT military units were foolish enough to surrender -- the nearby river literally ran red with blood and body parts. The Japanese then went about slaughtering the civilians, rounding up people and using them for bayonet practice. It's called the Rape of Nanking because it's the single largest incident of mass rape in recorded history, at least 20,000.
Essentially everybody who wasn't inside the 7 square kilometer safety zone got killed. (~300K fatalities.) John Rabe housed 650 refugees on his own estate. He personally patrolled the edge of the safety zone, encouraging random civilians to get inside and using his diplomatic status as a German and a Nazi to stop atrocities. He repeatedly had to hold off rifle-toting Japanese soldiers (demons?) by using his swastika armband as a badge of authority -- as a holy symbol, if you will.
300K people survived the multi-week rampage by packing themselves in the safety zone under the protection of Rabe and the rest of the Zone committee. Without Rabe's chutzpah and insane bravery, it's quite likely the rest of them would have been killed as well.
After the rampage ended, Rabe went back to Germany, armed with movies, pictures, and other documentation of the massacre. The Fuhrer had be informed of the atrocious behavior of these Japanese barbarians masquerading as "allies." He wrote a long letter to Hitler, detailing what had happened.
Naturally he was arrested and worked over by the Gestapo.
Afterwards Siemens transferred him out of the country to the safety of Afghanistan (!) After the war he was arrested and harrassed by the Allies for his Nazi affiliation. Thereafter Rabe lived in poverty and died of a stroke in 1950.
And that is the tale of the great paladin John Rabe, the Living Buddha of Nanking -- may it never be forgotten.
Lest it be thought that all who participated in the massacre are beyond redemption, it should be noted that there is an elderly physician in Japan who to this day has in his waiting room videotape and other evidence detailing the horrible crimes he was a part of. This is some small measure of penance.
>>>Hitler was Christian, no?
>>Ah, no.
Well, I'm pretty sure Jesus wouldn't take kindly to actions taken by Uncle Adolph in His name. That said, Hitler seems sincere enough here:
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited."
-Adolf Hitler, in his speech on 12 April 1922
Let's not forget good old Martin Luther either. He was a Christian, right?
I'm not a big fan of collective punishment -- it would be foolish to judge Jesus, Mohammed, or any other person by the actions of the most insane of their followers.
"Hatred is wrong."
Didn't actually say that, did I?
I'm not going to philosophize on the pros and cons of various forms of hatred. But if you can't see any difference between Nazism, and the religion of Islam, and lump all Muslims in with the terrorists, I believe you are missing vital distinctions.
"But, of course, you'd loudly denounce a website with an anti-Nazi theme, though."
By all means, Google the millions of words I've written that are on the net, and find me doing that.
"Perhaps you just need to give hate a chance."
So I've been informed.
Just for the record, Joe, since I'd not seen your response on the Hatewatch thread until just now, regarding this: "I would suggest, however, that you contemplate walking a mile in Charles' shoes (or Calpundit's, or any other blogger with major traffic and a comments section) before issuing that proclamation."
Sure. I'd shut comments down in a second if I couldn't police them (or have people I trust police them). I thought I'd indicated that, but just to be clear.
I think comments are very nice, but I don't -- speaking purely for myself, obviously -- regard myself as under obligation to provide them as a service to people.
No one is obliged to agree with me on this, of ocurse.
T.J. Madison
But if ye will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you; then it shall come to pass, that those which ye let remain of them shall be pricks in your eyes, and thorns in your sides, and shall vex you in the land wherein ye dwell.
As any good Zionist knows, the 'palestinians' are not the inhabitants of the Land.
Sadly, I missed all the fun today. Mostly working on the next Hatewatch update, ironically.
Rather than recapitulate todays discourse, let me throw out what I think would be an interestig topic for discussion.
My position is that “Islam” is not the problem. I argue for this position not because the negation of this position is politically incorrect, insensitive, or hateful. I argue for this position because I believe the negation is wrong.
Robert Spencer has a thesis which I find interesting: that the radical, violent, hateful Islamists who are our enemies have a religious and political philosophy which is well founded both in Islamic cannon and tradition. (My words). It’s a thesis I would like to examine more closely. But if we stipulate Spencer’s thesis, does this necessarily entail that “Islam is the problem”? I don’t think so, (and neither does Spencer), but the articulation of the distinction is a useful exercise. Further, is Spencer’s thesis hateful on it’s face? Again, I don’t think so – I think we have to be able to discuss ideas such as his without facing accusations of hatred and racism.
Gary: Quote as much as you like from my post. And thanks for picking up on this - I was beginning to worry it would be ignored. One thing I've begun to notice is how much easier it is to get links by taking another cheap shot at left-wing idiots than by criticizing people on your own side. (Bush, right-wing bloggers.) Here's another example of an important story many people don't want to hear. This was how much of the left went rotten. It wasn't because they started out with fully rotten ideas, but because they didn't protect those ideas from corruption and didn't work hard enough to keep them alive. Everyone should learn from that, and don't be afraid of taking shots in both directions, wherever we stand.
I think what bothers me most here is seeing all these right-wing Islam critics fall into exactly the same logical fallacies many of us bloggers have been targetting on the far left for three years. A lot of people should ask themselves: Are we for a particular, rational method of thinking, which we'll follow wherever it leads us, or are we for a particular point of view, which we'll use any argument to support? Is it okay to use a bad argument in a good cause, or should the cause follow the good arguments, whatever they are?
I agree with your point about similarities to antisemitism. In the 90's I once debated a neo-nazi at a Norwegian BBS. He could present all this evidence that the Jews were evil and powerful - secret quotes from Jewish scriptures, examples of evil Jews had done. This wasn't a vague fear, it was concrete and detailed, with lots of "evidence" to back it up. The main difference between him and the Islamophobes is that his examples were usually false, (the Islamists actually exist), but there's a similarity in style, in willingness to believe the worst, to overgeneralize, and to think selectively.
Hope more bloggers pick up on this trend. It's early enough to kill it, but it won't happen if everybody gives these people the benefit of the doubt, or tolerate them as over-zealous but harmless and well-intended Islam critics. Not suggesting anyone should moderate away these views, of course, the point is to stop implicitly approving of them by saying nothing.
#27167 Posted by T. J. Madison
"The big problem with Team Jesus these days seems to be too much hero worship and not enough contemplation of his philosophy, goals, and methodology."
I couldn't agree with you more on this point. There are too many that inject mysticsm back into it. Completely unnecessary and actually opposes Christ's teachings. However, that is a whole other topic and really is for a different thread or readers/posters.
"What are the fundamental foundation blocks of Islam?" Your discussion on this question needs a little work. I got to go to work right now but after I'll make an attempt at a cogent answer. It pertains to what Bjørn Stærk wants to discuss which he handles in a lopsided fashion.
I'll also discuss the notion 'that all religions are evolving toward your views; it's just the 'progress' of Islam lags behind all the others'. This is a modern fallacy and a poor solution. It even shows or is based on a fundamental missunderstanding of evolution. We need words like deevolution and bifurcation(stability/instability mathematical machines) to become understood by the 'intellectuals'.
Is it just me Gary, or did you change the references to LGF except for the link?
I've never understood the mentality of those who claim to support the war on terror but slam other sites that do an effective job of exposing facts about the same terrorists. You can't seem to distinguish between anger and what you call hate. Your test of replacing the word "Jew" for Muslim is moral equivalency. Statements that I would make about Muslims would never apply to Jews, there is a fundamental difference in the cultures. I don't believe in referring to Muslims by epithets, but this is what soldiers do. The way soldiers feel about their enemies is more complex than simple hatred. You say we are abandoning our democratic values. How? By realizing we cannot apply them to Islam?
You are woefully ignorant of the values that Islam is based on. You claim to value democracy, yet you ignore despotism, claim to value honesty yet you ignore taqqiya, you claim to value tolerance, yet you ignore the fact that war has been declared on us by the most intolerant society on the face of the earth.
And you never answered my question.
What ever the reason you have for attacking LGF, please don't justify it by your bogus crusade against hate and intolerance.
Robert Spencer's thesis is key to understanding Islamist terrorism. Islamists are not "a group of fanatics which have hijacked a religion", as President Bush has characterized them. Their interpretation of Islam is well supported by the Quran, Hadith, etc. If you don't believe this, read Onward Muslim Soldiers.
So why isn't Islam the problem? How can one defend a religion that instructs its followers to "slay infidels wherever you find them"?
And where do we draw the line between the religion and totalitarian political philosophy that is inherent in Islam? And what is a "religion" that is protected by the First Amendment? Does any system of beliefs that include the concept of God qualify as a protected religion, even if those views also include a political philosophy that is entirely incompatible with liberal democracy.
Does my asking these questions qualify as "hate"?
Roger:
What are the fundamental foundation blocks of Islam?
There is nothing intrinsically oppressive or (IMO) intolerant about these. But the devil is in the details as they say.
papijoe: "I've never understood the mentality of those who claim to support the war on terror but slam other sites that do an effective job of exposing facts about the same terrorists."
You mean: don't be so hard on them - they're on our side? Another far left fallacy. But it's the other way around. If Noam Chomsky adds yet another dangerous or irrational idea to his worldview, it's not like you and I have much reason to care. But when people who support the war on terror, and who believe that Islamism is a threat, begin turning to dangerous or irrational ideas about Islam, that's our worldview they're corrupting. So we should focus just as much on what people on "our side" are saying, and work to make sure that it's rational and moral. If they're wrong, say it. If they're dangerously wrong, say it loud. There's nothing inherently rational about being critical of Islam or being against Islamism. We have to work to keep it rational. And part of that is to criticize people who may in other ways do good work. That's not backstabbing, that's avoiding the mistakes of others.
"Your test of replacing the word "Jew" for Muslim is moral equivalency."
Depends on the original message. The point of Gary's test is to highlight disturbing similarities in rhetoric, similarities that first become apparent when you take a step back and apply a consistent standard. It's too easy to become so captivated by all the perceived evils of Islam that you begin making all kinds of exceptions for it, allowing yourself language that stands out as paranoid or extremist when you see it an a different context. Such as calling for a ban on Islam without considering the democratic implications, or the more pragmatic but just as disturbing "we can't ban Islam but it would be nice if we could".
And since Christianity has been bandied about a bit in this thread as well and in the interests of equal time here are the fundamental foundation blocks of Christianity:
And FWIW blood has been shed over each and every clause.
If this is thread-jacking, please delete this comment.
T. J. Madison:
Unfortunately, I don't think that this will do it. Didn't the murderers in Iraq before beheading their victims call out to Allah, Ar-Rahman, Ar-Rahim, Al-Ghaffar? (the beneficent, the merciful, the forgiving) Either these mean different things to them or they are now merely empty forms.
Hi praktike,
How do you define a 'moderate Muslim'?
My definition is 'apostate Muslim'
What you are essentially declaring here is: Osama Bin Laden is right.
#27191 Posted by praktike,
Well it lunch time. So quickly.
You are correct. "Osama Bin Laden is right" is what I am essentially declaring. Osama knows what I know. Therefore he and his are my enemies as they are the enemies of Christ. The apostate Muslims who do not follow their originator(makes them nicer as following mine makes me a nicer person:-) are more amenable to sharing this earth with me and mine. Sunday evening I ate dinner with an apostate Muslim and we had good conversation. Women's volleyball, soccer, etc. I don't think it would go as well eating with Osama. There might be a little hatred displayed.
More later, gotta grab some food and get back to work:-)
#27188 Posted by Bjørn Stærk,
Why don't you work also on lifting the ban on all other religions in Muslim dominated countries? That problem is here today. Immediate problem. Right now.
"apply a consistent standard" And you are the judge of what is consistent?
Why is it alarming that some of us say that all non-Muslim dominated countries should ban Islam until all Muslim dominated countries lift their ban on freedom of religion? Their ban enforced with extreme cruelity has been around for a very long, long time. Yet you are not alarmed until there is talk of banning Islam. You cannot see how irrational your position is?
Roger:
Because it's inconsistent with our post-Enlightenment values. However I'm no post-modernist. I believe that we should hold Muslim countries to the same standard to which we hold ourselves in this regard. E.g. to me this means that we need to raise the issue of religious intolerance in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia at every opportunity. They're in obvious violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Are we in perfect compliance with the Declaration? Undoubtedly not but it shouldn't dissuade us from pointing out grievous deficiencies in the behavior of other countries.
"Is it just me Gary, or did you change the references to LGF except for the link?"
Haven't changed anything.
"I've never understood the mentality of those who claim to support the war on terror but slam other sites that do an effective job of exposing facts about the same terrorists."
It's great to do a good job of exposing facts aboout the terrorists. It's not necessary to tolerate bigotry to do so.
"You can't seem to distinguish between anger and what you call hate. Your test of replacing the word 'Jew' for Muslim is moral equivalency."
Yes, quite. Worshippers of God are morally equivalent until their behavior morally diverges. When it diverges into terrorism or support for it, they are not equivalent. Mere worship, however, is.
"Statements that I would make about Muslims would never apply to Jews, there is a fundamental difference in the cultures."
And the same is said by anti-Semites of Jews and Christians.
See, there's the thing: all these statements about the Muslims have been said before about the Jews. Rationalizations for bigotry against an entire religion or people are always available when one doesn't want to distinguish between individuals and a group.
"I don't believe in referring to Muslims by epithets, but this is what soldiers do. The way soldiers feel about their enemies is more complex than simple hatred."
I wasn't aware that posting blog comments qualifies one as a "soldier."
"You are woefully ignorant of the values that Islam is based on."
I know a moderate amount. Enough to know better than to believe that the harsh interpretations shared by both terrorists and many rhetorically-anti-terrorists is not, in fact, held by a vast number of Muslims. I have Muslim friends; do you?
Have you studied shura's for years? If not, please don't claim vast expertise you don't actually possess.
"...yet you ignore despotism...."
Oh, please. My record of thousands of posts on the topic over the past decade rather belies that, I think.
American opinion of Islam is driven as much or more than the actions of Muslim nut-balls as by the failure of non-nutball Muslims to denounce the nutballs. This is not confined to actions by Al Qaeda - in particular it includes attacks on Israeli civilians.
The real cause of all this is the failure of the Arabs' tribal culture. It has become psychotic. Arab oil income has let them propagate their version of Islam elsewhere, and promote it as the only version.
There will be a reckoning.
"How can one defend a religion that instructs its followers to "slay infidels wherever you find them"?"
Are you familiar with the Old Testament? How can one defend two religions that instruct its followers to stone to death people for adultury, for wearing clothing with wool and cotton mixed together, or for eating shellfish?
"Yet you are not alarmed until there is talk of banning Islam. "
Clue: Bjorn has been one of the most respected warbloggers and bloggers on the Islamic terror threat since September 11th.
In my own small way, when I started posting in December of 2001, I've consistently posted over a thousand posts on the terror threat and the specifics of Islamic terrorism.
In other words, you have no idea what you are talking about, and you are making baseless accusations without bothering to have checked your facts. I'm sorry for being blunt, but it's not as if Bjorn is unknown or as if we don't have records checkable with a few clicks if you've not been reading terrorist-war blogs since September 11th.
Ask Glenn Reynolds, say, if we're crazed lefties who cut the terrorists slack.
Thanks Bjørn Stærk for commenting so extensively on the comments to your original post. No Hall of Mirrors, I hope!
Regarding the "Moderate Muslim" meme, Daniel Pipes' article "Do You Believe in Modernity?" usefully poses seven questions one may consider to address this point.
Damn Gary, you beat me to it. I had a draft post on Bjørn Stærk's post but it didn't feel right yet. :)
Roger (#27203),
You're making Bjorn's point. A tit-for-tat ban meets the virtue test of reciprocity - but fails others. Against it, one must set the Western principle of non-interference with conscience, and freedom of religion as an outgrowth of that.
Strip those away from the West, and what you're left with is, well, the Left - who see the Dominion of Souls as their proper political purview. Or totalitarianism in various forms, where there's no place to hide from the state's prying gaze.
When people start talking about bans on the free exercise of religion, I have to stand with Bjorn. That's Medieval talk, the kind of thing our civilization mercifully dragged itself out of a few hundred years ago - and a key bastion against Western civilization's most recent nightmares, too. People who want to turn that clock back or collapse that bastion are not my friends, or my allies.
RE: banning Islam in America, I can only ask... exactly what part of their Constitution are we not understanding here? That's UN-American. Period.
And if the EU-crats saw a successful precedent of banning a religion because it is deemed hostile, I believe it would soon be extended to other religions - either entire or by forcing them to adopt statements of principle that were "friendly" to EUcrat views. Given what we've seen of the EU and its organizational worldview, that's not a vast stretch. American evangelicals would be my prediction for the "next in line" lottery.
Bjorn Staerk, with front row seats to EU idiocies, probably sees that future pretty clearly. And he's appalled when he looks around the blogosphere and sees that some of the folks on "his side" may not be defending the same things he is.
But there's another issue here, one that goes deeper than the obvious foolishness of giving the state the power to ban religions.
When people say "Islam is the problem," like Lewy14 I think that's a topic for debate. Like Lewy, I also think it's wrong. Beyond the issue of flawed analysis that Lewy raises, that characterization insults some very brave people in Iraq, in the U.S. Army, and in other locations who are serving proudly in the war and/or struggling to reform their faith. I think those people deserve our respect and a helping hand. Others may disagree. Fine. At the very least, however, I don't want to hear derogatory crap like "Muzzies" used to refer to them. There's no excuse for that.
"Islam has a problem"? I think so. "Wahhabist Islam is a problem"? Hard to argue. The silence of many (but not all) Muslims in the face of hate and evil is a problem, too. But there are things we can do to address that, strong things, that don't require us to rip up the fabric of Western civilization.
Now, if we were having a debate about immigration, I'd be willing to listen to arguments about variable treatment for Muslim immigrants or visa applicants on grounds of security concerns. I.E. proposing to deny a Pakistani Islamist admission to Norway (Bjorn's own post, FYI, which also rips the weak response of Norway's Islamic community to this man's hate). Entry into another state's borders is a privilege, and privileges can be denied if the polity wishes. I'd want a good case on the immigration front because I think we have smarter alternatives, but I'd be willing to listen.
Germany will even ban some parties from running for office, on the grounds that they do not accept the fundamental premise of the state's existence. This principle may be extensible to Islamist political parties and organizations, and we could talk about that in jurisdictions where such action is constitutional.
The bottom line is that if necessary, we can take aggressive action on several fronts in fighting this war. I'm all for that. But we're also fighting FOR something here.
LGF is a good blog. I respect Charles, and I learn a lot from it. But there's little question that some of the commenters have let their fears overtake them, and forgotten what we're fighting for (as I point out above, a blog admin. may legitimately choose different responses to this behaviour - but the character of the behaviour itself remains).
The fear that I feel from some people is that our civilization cannot remain true to itself and win. I disagree.
Furthermore, I believe that unless we defend our civilization from a base of understanding re: what made us strong and great, we will diminish both the rewards of our victory and our odds of same.
#27212 Posted by Gary Farber
See #27160 and #27167 Posted by T. J. Madison.
I thought we had some agreement on this thread concerning the penalty of adultery? You don't agree? If you don't agree that Jesus never stoned anybody to death for adultery, quoting you, "In other words, you have no idea what you are talking about, and you are making baseless accusations without bothering to have checked your facts."
Joe,
Thank you for that excellent post (#27216).
I've only been reading this blog for a couple of months (found it through LGF, by the way) and have come to rely on it a great deal as a starting point for the kinds of information I am interested in reading about. Plus, the discussions which take place in the comments section are often as good as or even better than the post which started it all off.
Something I've noted in quite a number of blogs, however, is lots and lots of problems identified, and plenty of talk about those problems, but typically not much offered in the way of proposed solutions. Maybe its been done elsewhere here at WofC and I've just missed it, or maybe its just not one of your focuses.
Nevertheless, it seems to me like you've got a fair number of people here who've invested a lot of thinking into issues such as those discussed at WoC. I'd be very curious to know what you, or Gary, or Praktike, or others here think we need actually need to do, specifically, to solve the problems western civ is facing.
I'd love to see some straw men we could all bash around for a while to see where it takes us.
Please accept my apologies if all of that has already been done to death here and I'm just not aware of it, or if my questions are too OT.
>>If Noam Chomsky adds yet another dangerous or irrational idea to his worldview, it's not like you and I have much reason to care. But when people who support the war on terror, and who believe that Islamism is a threat, begin turning to dangerous or irrational ideas about Islam, that's our worldview they're corrupting. So we should focus just as much on what people on "our side" are saying, and work to make sure that it's rational and moral.
How very Chomskyan. (I mean that in a good way.)
>>Why is it alarming that some of us say that all non-Muslim dominated countries should ban Islam until all Muslim dominated countries lift their ban on freedom of religion?
Would Jesus support the use of state coercion (invariably backed by violence) to stop people from worshiping a different religion? Seems unlikely. Not the Jesus strategy.
>>RE: banning Islam in America, I can only ask... exactly what part of their Constitution are we not understanding here? That's UN-American. Period.
Minor technical point: The FEDERAL government doesn't get to establish religion, but the STATE governments can, though amendments to state constitutions might be required. That's assuming that the Constitution is worth the paper it's printed on which, as I've mentioned before, it isn't.
>>Entry into another state's borders is a privilege, and privileges can be denied if the polity wishes.
This is an interesting thought. The assumptions on which it's based lead to real trouble IMHO. More on this later.
>>See, there's the thing: all these statements about the Muslims have been said before about the Jews. Rationalizations for bigotry against an entire religion or people are always available when one doesn't want to distinguish between individuals and a group.
Yes, precisely.
#27188 Bjørn Stærk
#27210 Gary Farber
So we are not allowed to ban a religion that among it's fundamental principles requires it's adherents to kill non believers (and yes Gary, I've read the Koran).
I don't know what Constitutional rights you think are in danger, but the Supreme Court upheld the rulings against Mormon polygamists and peyote practitioners to "express their religion" I find these thinks less threatening than Jihad.
BTW Gary, my Muslim friends have not been the most reliable source of information on Islam. Why do you suppose that is?
Bjørn Stærk's points are good ones and well taken, but I'd offer a couple observations:
First, that not all "disturbing similarities in rhetoric" are necessarily damning, and this line of reasoning ("you sound like a bigot") is also used extensively by genuine apologists for Islamist terror, according to whom every Muslim accused of serving in the cause of terror is a victim of bigotry and racism.
Second, Bjørn identifies a phenomena, that of warbloggers turning towards the irrational. I would counter that there is another phenomena, that of pre-existing bigots and paranoids who, in finding a real enemy (radical Islamism), in no way exculpate themselves for their bigotry and paranoia.
papijoe asks: You say we are abandoning our democratic values. How? By realizing we cannot apply them to Islam? Excellent question. My answer to this challenge would begin with the assertion that "Islam" does not exist. (How can this be? Hint: "The Jews" don't exist either). An answer to Foo's challenge would also lie in this direction. You'll have to allow me to be playfully cryptic here, gotta run… but this is an idea I'd like to return to.
And Tom Holsinger touches on a another point that need be made: that the political and social constructs of too many moderate Muslims are a problem, which is many ways is more difficult to grapple with philosophically and practically than the problem posed by the radical Islamists.
Finally, BooPear's questions deserve further treatment, and perhaps their own post.
BTW Gary, my Muslim friends have not been the most reliable source of information on Islam. Why do you suppose that is?
Islam isn't a monolith?
Islam isn't a monolith?
Quite right Dave, and neither is it a megalith, nor an obelisk. Thanks for pointing that out.
You people have a pretty naive view of Islam. Try reading http://www.jihadwatch.org/ every day, to see what Islam is doing to the world. Read the testimonies of ex-Muslims at Ibn Warraq's website, http://www.secularislam.org/testimonies/index.htm , and debate with ex-Muslims at forums such as http://knowislam.info/forum//
#27233 Ali Dashti
I don't think it's naivete. It's PC multi-culti narcissistic breast-beating trying to have it's cake and eat it too. Moral relativism isn't going to see anyone through this fight. It will collapse, just like it's doing in Europe.
Ali,
From what I've seen, I think there is a great deal of realism here about the problems Islam presents to the world.
Nevertheless, Islam CAN change. What do I base that on?
Just because, in many places and with many people, we still have a long, long way to go, doesn't mean its impossible to get there.
"Damn Gary, you beat me to it. I had a draft post on Bjørn Stærk's post but it didn't feel right yet. :)"
By all means, Sebastian, link to this and original version (I'd appreciate your not neglecting that), and comment away at ObWings; I'd be very much interested in your POV, and the more discussion this issue gets, and the more widespread that discussion and attention is, the better. Please post. Please.
Very well said, Joe.
#27221 Posted by RogerI said "Are you familiar with the Old Testament?" I wasn't aware that Jesus featured in the Old Testament. They neglected to mention this to me in Hebrew school.
papijoe:
Okay, let's try again. Not all Muslims believe in exactly the same things or practice their religion in exactly the same way.
papijoe:
Here's the dictionary definition of monolith:
I was using the word in the third sense.
"Minor technical point: The FEDERAL government doesn't get to establish religion, but the STATE governments can, though amendments to state constitutions might be required."
The Bill of Rights extends to the States through the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. Old principle of Constitutional Law. See here.See the affirmation in Molloy v. Hogan.
"You people have a pretty naive view of Islam."
Indeed, the major problem with Winds of Change is that not enough attention has been paid to Islam and Islamic terrorism. Bad job, Joe. Shame.
As a tangent, it's remarkable how people can use the rhetorical trope "you people" to mean "you people who disagree with me."
BooPear: quite right.
Gary,
Thank you--and Bjorn--for taking on a thankless task. LGF, Daniel Pipes, Jihadwatch among many others do belong on a hate-watch list. They will inexorably take the worst possible examples and try to make them seem the norm. They differ from Nazi sites only in the group they target.
One need not be an apologist for Islam--or even staunchly Muslim countries--to see that 1.3 billion people are not identical in their beliefs or actions, even if they identify themselves by the same group name.
Muslims must do more to protest the highjacking of their relgion by the zealots (and doesn't that word just have a history!). They cannot sit in silence while others create chaos in their names. But their inability to publicly condemn should not be seen as support of the extremists.
There are efforts toward reform within even fundamentalist Islam. The Middle East journal has an excellent article on current religious reform movements within Saudi Arabia. It's well worth reading.
And I'll ask one (rhetorical) question: how can you hope to defeat an enemy if you're not even clear who that enemy is?
#27235 BooPear (10:52pm):
Your point that a part of the (nonmonolithic) Islamic religious community is changing in a way that accepts modernity is a key part of the answer. Those of us in the Christian cultural tradition should be humbled that it took much of "our" religion plus-or-minus 1400 years to germinate the Enlightenment, and centuries more before its benefits gained widespread acceptance.
Many Western Muslims, the nation-state of Turkey, and the Sufi tradition can tolerate concepts like secularism, apostasy, heresy, and unbelief. Given time, I would expect large parts of dar-al-Islam would evolve in the same direction. As Wretchard (Belmont Club) and others have pointed out, one tragedy is the absence of that time in the presence of technologies easily adaptible to mass destruction. But our Achilles' heel is surely the growing affinity of the Western believers in Western cultural guilt for the Islamists and their war aims, as Staerk and others have written
John:
From your post:
They will inexorably take the worst possible examples and try to make them seem the norm.
How does that differ from cherry-picking the more extreme quotes from LGF and attempting to make them seem like the norm?
#27240 Dave Schuler
Since we're not using rhetorical shorthand anymore, maybe you can elaborate on what the third sense of the word "monolith" has to do with the unreliability of information from Muslim friends.
#27244 John
So if catastrophes like the fail of the Ottoman empire and the creation of Israel didn't lead to reform in Islam, why should it happen now?
#27186 Posted by Dave Schuler, Thanks. These five are the facade.
The foundation stones are quite different.
1. Jesus was never on the cross. G-d deceived the disciples into thinking Jesus was on the cross but it was another man made to look like Jesus.
2. Jesus is another prophet. But don't trust any of his teachings because the Jews altered the writings and everything we know about Jesus.
3. Christianity is a poly-theistic religion because of the concept of the Trinity; therefore it is the responsibility of Islam to destroy Christianity because allah hates(yes hates) polytheism.
4. Mohammad was the Comforter(instead of the Holy Spirit) referred to in the Gospels which you should never trust because of 2 except for this one truth.
5. The Jews did not fullfill their covenant with G-d and Christians have not obeyed the teachings of Jesus even though we do not know what the Jewish covenant with G-d was and what the teachings of Jesus are because of 2. Therefore it is now the time for Islam to fullfill the will of allah and punish the Jews and Christians.
Want a reference? Go ask Muslims with whom you can have some form of dialog and see if they do not agree with these 5 foundation stones of Islam. That is how I came upon these five before studying the koran starting two weeks after 9/11. Some were apostate; others were practicing Islamists. Some were very much intent on convincing me that Jesus was never on the cross and that I should become a Muslim. This in the wake of 9/11. These were of the 'moderate' Islamists spoken of in blogs and the news media; taking the opportunity of 9/11 dialog to try to convince me to join their religion. Many were excited that there was an increase in the distribution of the koran and people like me asking questions. See? 9/11 is helping fulfill the will of allah! Pretty heroic figures those believers willing to sacrifice their lives for the will of allah! But it back fired on them because any one of them that has an ear and wants to learn the truth can find out that their foundation stones are clay. Read the Scriptures banned by Islam for yourselves.
Pull these foundation stones out from under Islam and you will have the only reformation possible. Islam cannot reform and stay Islam because there is nothing to turn back to in their writings to build on for good. It was written to oppose Jesus Christ; to elevate Mohammad in his megalomaniacal aspirations. He( and Islamic founders) rewrote the accounts of many Biblical characters and prophets and instructed Muslims not to read the Bible because it cannot be trusted because of the Jewish scribes. Mohammad could not have people around him following the teachings of Christ and get them to follow and elevate him and increase his wealth at the same time. Islam is a violent anti-religion. To survive, Islam needs to keep the Bible out of the hands of as many people as possible.
#27238 Posted by Gary Farber,
I apologies. I thought you were refering to Judaism and Christianity in post #27212.
My mistake.
#27216 Posted by Joe Katzman, I understand your well defined points.
I think Bjørn Stærk's "More on banning Islam" would be stronger if it would say(in better words than mine) something to the effect "Even though Islam bans all other religions, we shouldn't ban Islam". And then state his reasons why. Then the article would have more credible weight for folks like me:-)
#27244 Posted by John
highjacking of their religion
Islam is a highjacking from it's beginning. Maybe they should start there?
Thomas Jefferson did not have to wrestle with the problem of Islam. I wish he could have because I don't think we have a replacement for Jefferson.
#27235 Posted by BooPear,
Hopeful thinking. Relying on evolution again. However politicized Christianity was an usurption of Christ teachings the same as Islam by suppression of the Gospels. Will Islamists ever recognize the truth? It took the Waldensians to break politicized Christianity. It took writing the Gospels by hand in the common folks venacular until Gutenberg came along to help out.
They started in the late 1100's with believes such as:
...
1 The Church of God has failed.
2 The Holy Scriptures alone are sufficient to guide men to Salvation.
3 The blessings and consecrations practiced in the Church do not confer any particular sanctity upon the things or persons blessed or consecrated.
4 Catholic priests. . .have no authority; and the Pope of Rome is the chief of all heresiarchs.
5 Everyone has the right to preach publicly the word of God
6 Every oath is a mortal sin.
7 Purgatory is a dream, an invention of the sixth century.
8 The indulgences of the Church are an invention of covetous Priests.
9 There is no obligation to fast, nor to keep any holy day, Sunday excepted.
10 The invocation of Saints cannot be admitted.
11 Every honor given in the Church to the holy images of paintings, and to the relics of Saints is to be abolished.
...
To this list, he adds doctrines that belong to the period between the Hussite revolt and the Lutheran Revolution:
1. Auricular Confession is useless, and. . .it is enough to confess our sins to God.
2. The definition of the church is, "the whole of the elect from the beginning of the world to its end." and that regarding ministries, "the holy Catholic Church is the congregation of all ministers and people obeying the Divine will, and by obedience united. . ."
3. It is necessary to receive the Eucharist under two kinds.
...
1. The church and the state should remain as separate authorities.
2. The Eucharist is to be viewed as a memorial, not as a sacrifice.
...
When do you think that Islam will ever 'evolve' to this level of understanding? Why do these concepts need evolution to occur in Islam at all when we already have the knowledge? We can share it now and save 'evolution' a laborious and impossible task.
John (#27244)
I can see how that might be the view from Saudi Arabia. But displeasure that Saudi Arabia's ox is being gored does not = an argument. And using this kind of over the top rhetoric just makes you look foolish.
RE: "LGF, Daniel Pipes, Jihadwatch among many others do belong on a hate-watch list. They will inexorably take the worst possible examples and try to make them seem the norm. They differ from Nazi sites only in the group they target."
Daniel Pipes has a long record, and it's a record of seeing both the possibility of coexistence with moderate Islam and the harmful (and usually hateful) influence that Saudi Arabia's financing of Wahhabi ideology has had in the Islamic world. He is not even remotely about hate, unless it's the hate the Saudi Kingdom and the mullahs in Iran have worked so diligently to export for so many years.
I'll say this, too - your criticism of LGF might carry more weight if these "worst possible examples" weren't so distressingly common and reflected at the highest levels of many Muslim states (paging Dr. Mahathir... paging Dr. Mahathir...). Because they are, LGF performs a valuable service. I have a lot of respect for Charles and his efforts, even if some of LGF's commenters are idiots (which unfortunately obscures the fact that LGF's comment section often has very insightful posts too).
I can't speak to Jihadwatch; I don't read it much.
I can say that both Daniel Pipes and Charles Johnson differ in at least one important way from Nazis: both defend and support liberty and free government, and oppose totalitarian ideologies that presume to dictate their adherents' identity and control every facet of their lives. Like Naziism, say. Or, come to think of it, Wahhabism.
Bottom line: I've had a look at your blog, and it has some interesting posts in it. You seem to be following reform in Saudi Arabia very closely, and that's a good thing. I'm sorry if outside pressure has created a race between that reform and less pleasant futures, and taken away the luxury of time. But it's a situation that Saudi Arabia has behaved itself into over many years. Deal with it.
Because, you know, my American friends aren't exactly thrilled that 3,000 of their countrymen are dead, and that 15 of the 19 perpatrators, plus Osmama, were all Saudis. And the more they've lifted the veil on the Saudi kingdom, the less happy they they've become at what they see. Expect less than friendly scrutiny of the USA's relationship with Saudi Arabia, and of the Kingdom's conduct, to increase right across the American political spectrum.
The only way to avoid that is to fix real and serious problems, not cry "hate" whenever people criticize the Saudis or express concerns about American policies vis-a-vis the Kingdom (as you did for Mowbray, too).
When you step into that mode, it's hard for me to take you seriously.
"I thought you were refering to Judaism and Christianity in post #27212."
I was. I am unaware that Christians have disavowed what they call the Old Testament as part of the Word of God, but as I am not a Christian, I am not expert on this.
"Islam is a highjacking from it's beginning. Maybe they should start there?"
It would be just as reasonable to argue that Christianity is a "hijacking" of Judaism (and, of course, the Church of Latter Day Saints is a "hijacking" of Christianity), from this point of view, but, you know, it's a funny thing: these sorts of assertions are what lead to religious wars.
Funny, that.
Building on Gary Farber's post (#27263), the generalizable funny thing is the disagreeable aspect of many religions. We can abstract Religion as a pleasant Meeting of Quakers or Unitarians. And, indeed, some religions are as unobjectionable to tolerant secularists as those two.
Others aren't. Most make claims to exclusivity of enlightenment or salvation, or to superiority, or to greater virtue. Most have a founding history of struggling to overcome long odds and the hostility of predecessor creeds or intolerant authorities.
Jefferson (op. cit. #27254) and the other Founders were neither stupid nor ignorant; they knew all this and yet wrote the First Amendment anyway.
I, for one, could use some guidance from wise political philosophers on the problem of Tolerance for the Intolerant.
Could we afford to break with this tradition to "ban Islam"? Given the vagaries of the human heart and the Law of Unintended Consequences, is there any there there? Once launched on this slippery slope, where would we stop?
#27249 CAM: because I'm not cherry-picking. The tone of LGF is nothing but hatred, snarky or blatant.
#27249 papijoe: The fall of the Califate in Constantinople actually had no effect on Islam as the Ottomans had been seen as weak or false Califs for hundreds of years. Nothing there to shake the religion: they simply gave up on the idea of a Calif (excepting, of course, people like UBL, who quest for the never-existent "golden age".
The foundation of Israel was a purely secular event, whose only religious connotation was the placing of a non-Muslim government over the Muslim population already resident. There was nothing there to cause a religious crisis, but plenty to cause political and military conflict.
9/11, however, has caused a crisis. It's led to a major introspection across the Islamic world.
#27259 Joe Katzman: Sorry you feel that way. In my years of reading Daniel Pipes, I've come to the conclusion that the only just world he can see is one that keep Muslims under the heel of somebody. I've simply never seen a "kinder and gentler" Pipes.
Charles Johnson, if his blog speaks for him at all, is a pure bigot. He shows no understanding whatsoever of the Islamic world and either cannot or refuses to put things into any kind of context.
Mowbray is a farce, pure and simple. He knows he can grab an audience by outraging them, so he does. He takes cheap shots exlusively and considers facts elastic. The instance I cited in my blog, of his gross exaggeration of the problem of child custody cases is proof positive. Why go exclusively after Saudi Arabia when it represents 1% of the problem and totally ignore Germany or Mexico?
I've no problem whatsoever in criticizing Saudi Arabia and Saudi Arabs. They've a lot to explain and a lot to reform. They've painted themselves into a very tight corner.
But they are actually trying to fix their system and their interpetation of Islam. They have re-written their textbooks. They have culled most--if not all--of the firebrands from the mosques. They are preparing for their first elections.
Saudi progress has always come slowly. Too slowly. They have needed to be pushed and they are being pushed. But the more effective pressure comes from within, not from the pages of the NYT or hacks like Mowbray.
The hatred that comes their way is, in fact, counter productive. It permits the traditionalists to say "see, no matter what we do we'll never win, so let's stop reforming." It makes it too easy for them to deflect effective pressure by saying "you're only folding to the Americans".
Reform can be usefully supported, but not at the end of poison pens.
Again, I encourage you to read the Middle East Journal article I cited.
BTW, I've not only had friends killed in both the WTC and Pentagon on 9/11, I've had them killed in two Beirut embassy bombings, on PA-103, and in Nairobi. I've also had guns stuck in my ear in Egypt, my wife and infant son caught in a crossfire in Syria, and had to deal with the 5/12 bombings in Riyadh. I know exactly how serious this war is. I also know you have to fight the real enemy, not everyone in the universe who might share some of his values.
#27265 John:
I disagree. I think that if you were to attribute the comments you are posting, you would find that you are picking from a rather narrow spectrum of the posters there. I agree, there are some that are over the top, and I have seen Charles rebuke them publically, actually one toight. Most I find are reasonable people who are concerned and want to find an effective way to solve the situation.
My humble opinion.
#27262 Posted by Gary Farber,
Then I withdraw my apology:-)
#27263 Posted by Gary Farber
Not 'reasonable' at all.
Ever heard of 'grafting in' of the Gentiles? Ever hear of leavened bread; if one part is so is the whole?
Romans 3:1 Therefore what advantage does the Jew have, or what is the value of circumcision? 3:2 Actually, there are many advantages.1 First of all,2 the Jews3 were entrusted with the oracles of God.4 3:3 What then? If some did not believe, does their unbelief nullify the faithfulness of God? 3:4 Absolutely not! Let God be proven true, and every human being5 shown up as a liar,6 just as it is written: "so that you will be justified7 in your words and will prevail when you are judged."8
You want to with-hold G-d from the gentiles?
There is much more but do we want to go into Old Testament/New Testament connections and validation of each other? On this thread? If so show me where in the New Testament it instructs Christians not to read the Old Testament? Is there any prediction of a Messiah in the Old Testament? Are there writings in the Old Testament about occurances that have not yet occurred?
Talk to your Muslim friends and confirm #27251. you will be astonished. If they cannot engage in dialog before going to war like they did on 9/11 then you think my words start wars? How many of the people who died that day ever had any dialog with the terrorist before they were engulfed in flames and falling debri? Forced to jump to their deaths because they could no longer take the pain? Because of modern technology, making phone calls to love ones right before to say one last good-bye? Heroic people going to help without ever having a dialog with the Islamists and know why their lives were being cut short? Given a reason like, "You've failed G-d and allah hates you because you believe in Jesus and we are your executioners fullfilling the will of allah?" No time to argue against the Islamists?
I'm given time.
Michael J. Totten has weighed in, by the way. Also Glenn Reynolds.
#27265 CAM: I'd really like to believe that of Charles. But he's called me a "dhimmi" once too often and also tracked down my ISP, then a USG server. I can think of no reason for tracking the ISP that is benevolent.
Perhaps he's mellowed, or realized what a monster he's created. I still look in, but can't stay there for long.
"There is much more but do we want to go into Old Testament/New Testament connections and validation of each other?"
I think not, thanks.
"Talk to your Muslim friends and confirm #27251. you will be astonished."
Oh, I have talked, many times. They don't agree with you. A couple of them are as religiously observant as I am -- more so, come to think of it, but not much -- their religiosity extends to avoiding pork, and respecting the Koran as an important book. The rest are somewhat more so, but none hold the opinions you insist they must. Surprise!
I miss the days when MuslimPundit used to post to this site. Ever read him? Give him a try. (Whatever happened to him?)
#27272 Posted by Gary Farber
Out of curiosity, you observe which religion? I ask respectfully.
good night,
Roger
Perhaps I did not make myself clear.
Failure by non-nutball Muslims to loudly, publically and repeatedly denounce Islamic extremists is what principally drives prejudice against Muslims.
This failure tends to convince non-Muslims that Muslims in general support Islamic extremist violence.
Which is a particular concern where Americans are concerned because America is so bloody powerful, and willing to engage in genocide when that might improve things from America's perspective.
If and when America finally does uncork, Muslims risk getting no mercy unless enough of them have convinced American public opinion that the root problem is Islamic extremism instead of Islam in general. I do not regard this as a significant possibility, but it is a possibility, and that is scary.
IMO the problem is really the Arab version of Islam, but that is another story.
I see your point about the essence of rage, and the need for even handedness. And, I suppose an assumption is made that just to use this medium one has to be literate, implying an ability to reason. However, the truth of the matter is many people like myself are tired of so much politically correct retraint from facing the truth. It ain't natural.
Even George Bush has spent his entire administrational tenure drumming up the courage to name the enemy. Twenty eight out of thirty wars and flash points in the world are Islamic instigated, not to mention all the daily arrests. A person gets dizzy just thinking about them all. Then we have the slick and unctious administrative types and "clerics" keeping the machinery lubed and driver ready.They absolutely refuse to condemn Islamism in concrete terms. And, hey, most people who can peck on a keyboard have bought a used car or two. They have learned a thing or two about bullshit.
So let us not forget that the brave new world of the Information Age, guaranteed to decentralize news decemination, is a revolution, a popular revolution. That means vitality, some of it visceral.
Enough information is coming through to suggest the Qur'an is too literal a document to be tempered through exigesis. Muslims really don't care what we do; it is what we are that bothers them. They are the first Crusaders yet take offense at our own. This latest revival to conquer us from within or without is hard to dispute. If the 'moderates' in the Muslim community truly care how they are perceived, then they must get off their butts and into high gear to prove their true interests loud and clear before it is too late and their reputation is set. Just like anybody else in this world, it is harder to regain a reputation than to preserve it. They have little time to lose or they will pay the price. America is going to win this battle.
"Out of curiosity, you observe which religion? I ask respectfully."
I'm non-observantly Jewish, raised Reform. I'm pretty close to being atheistically-inclined agnostic, however, though somewhat more complicated than that; but this is the short version. Although not particularly religiously observant, I strongly identify with my heritage, nonetheless. I also have great respect for sane and reasonable religiously-minded people of almost any faith (I hedge because I don't regard Scientology as a legitimate faith).
I forgot to ask, Roger, why you ask. What relevancy do you see as to my religious background?
Not a major relevancy, I noticed you mentioned "A couple of them are as religiously observant as I am" and I pondered how it effects your dialog with Muslims.
Other than that I wish not to be offend any sincere beliefs.
BTW
In #27251 the 5 points come from direct dialog with Muslims in universities. There is more but those are the essentials. And then I turned to the koran in disbelief that it would ever endorse what they told me and this is what I found:
Qur’an 5:68 “Say: ‘People of the Scripture Book! You have no ground to stand upon unless you observe the Taurat [Torah], the Injeel [Gospel], and all the Revelation that has come to you from your Lord.’ It is certain to increase their rebellion and blasphemy. But grieve you not over unbelieving people.”
Qur’an 5:72 “...Lo! Whoever joins other gods with Allah or says He has a partner, Allah has forbidden Paradise, and the Hell Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help.”
Qur’an 5:73 “They are surely disbelievers who blaspheme and say: ‘God is one of three in the Trinity for there is no Ilah (God) except One, Allah. If they desist not from saying this (blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall them—the disbelievers will suffer a painful doom.”
Qur’an 5:75 “The Messiah, Christ, the son of Mary, was no more than a messenger; many were the messengers that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had to eat their food. See how Allah does make His signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded!”
Qur’an 4:157 “‘We [Jews] killed the Messiah, Jesus,’ but they killed him not, nor crucified him. It appeared so to them (as the resemblance of Jesus was put over another man and they killed that man). Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself. Those who differ with this version are full of doubts. They have no knowledge and follow nothing but conjecture. For surely they killed him not.”
Qur’an 4:171 “O People of the Book! Do not exaggerate in your religion; nor speak lies of Allah. The Messiah, Christ Jesus, the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a Spirit proceeding from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. Say not ‘Trinity.’ Cease and Desist: (it is) better for you: for Allah is one Ilah (God). (Far it is removed from him of) having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs. The Messiah is proud to be a slave of Allah, as are the angels, those nearest. Those who disdain His worship and are arrogant. He will gather them all together unto Himself to (answer)…. He will punish with a painful doom; Nor will they find, besides Allah, any to protect or save them.”
Qur’an 4:159 “And there is none of the People of the Book but will believe in him (Jesus as only a messenger of Allah and a human being) before his (Jesus’) death. He will be a witness against them.”
Qur’an 5:77 “Say (Muhammad): ‘People of the Book, do not overstep the bounds in your religion, or follow the people who erred and led many astray. Cursed are the unbelievers among the Children of Israel by David and Jesus.... They do vile things, allying themselves with the infidels so that Allah’s indignation is upon them and in torment they will suffer for all eternity.” [Another translation reads:] “Curses were pronounced on the unbelievers, the Children of Israel who rejected Islam, by the tongues of David and of Jesus because they disobeyed and rebelled.”
Qur’an 5:80 “You see many of them allying themselves with the unbelieving infidels. Vile indeed are their souls. Allah’s wrath is on them, and in torment will they abide.” Qur’an 5:81 “If only they had believed in Allah, in the Prophet, and in what had been revealed to him.”
Qur’an 5:82 “You will find the Jews and disbelievers [defined as Christians in 5:73] the most vehement in hatred for the Muslims.”
Qur’an 5:110 “And God will say: ‘O Jesus! Recount My favor to you and to your mother. Behold! I strengthened you with the Holy Spirit so that you spoke to the people in the cradle and in the prime of life. Behold! I taught you the law and the judgment, the Torah and the Gospel. And behold, you made out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird and you breathed into it and it became a bird by My permission. And you healed those born blind by My permission and the lepers by My permission. And behold! You raised forth the dead by My permission. And behold! I did restrain the Jews from harming you when you came with clear proofs. And the unbelievers among the Jews said: ‘This is nothing but magic.’”
Qur’an 5:111 “Behold! I inspired the [Christian] disciples to have faith in Me and My Messenger. They said, ‘We are believers, and bear witness that we prostrate ourselves to Allah as Muslims.’” Qur’an 5:112 “Behold! The disciples, said: ‘O Jesus, can your Lord send down to us a table well laid out from heaven?’ Said Jesus: ‘Fear Allah, if you have faith.’ When the disciples said: ‘O Jesus, son of Mary, is your Lord able to send down for us a table spread with food from heaven?’ He said: “Observe your duty to Allah, if you are true believers.’” Qur’an 5:113 “They said: ‘We only wish to eat thereof to satisfy our hearts, and to know that you have told us the truth. We want to witnesses a miracle.’ Said Jesus, the son of Mary: ‘O Allah our Lord! Send us from heaven a table well laid out, that there may be for us a feast, a Sign from you.” Qur’an 5:115 “Allah said: ‘I am going to send it down unto you, but if any of you after that disbelieves, resisting Faith [Islam], I will punish him with a torment such as I have not inflicted on any one of my creatures, man or jinn. I will punish them with a torment such as I have not inflicted on any one of my creatures.”
Qur’an 5:116 “And behold! Allah will say: ‘O Jesus, the son of Mary! Did you say unto men, worship me and my mother as two gods besides Allah?’ He will say: ‘Glory to You! Never could I utter what I had no right.” Qur’an 5:117 “I only said what You (Allah) commanded me to say: Worship Allah, my lord and your Lord. I was a witness over them while I dwelt amongst them but you took me up. (This is a great admonition and warning to the Christians of the whole world.)”
I was dumm struck for days as I digested the quran; in my busy life I never got into it before. I couldn't believe all the things I came upon. And came to some very difficult realizations that most are not ready to face.
Contrast the quran with #27189 Posted by Dave Schuler
IMO the problem is really the Arab version of Islam, but that is another story.
So in your view, would it be correct to say that you don't think the Iranian mullahs and their adherents are a large part of the problem? Because the vast majority of Iran's citizens are ethnic Persian, not Arab, and the majority of Arab Muslims are Sunni.
It might be more accurate, although by no means all-inclusive, to say that Wahhabi Islam is "the" problem. I think, however, that you meant to say "Islamist extremism", but feel free to correct me.
Eugene Volokh wrote the post I didn't have time to this afternoon. Shorter Volokh: "Islam" (and "Christianity" and "Judaism") does not exist.
>>(I hedge because I don't regard Scientology as a legitimate faith.)
Is this just because Scientology was set up as a scam to make money for the founders?
How do we know the other religions weren't set up this way?
Amusingly, mid-level "chumps" in Scientology may end up replacing the scam artists, leading to it evolving into a "real" religion.
Help me here.
I'm convinced that Islam in all its signifcant variants is a dehumanizing death cult. I believe that Islamic ideology is fundamentally incompatible with Western democracy. And I believe that this ideological incompatibility will turn into a violent conflict when Muslims achieve a critical mass of the population. This has been the pattern throughout history, and I see no evidence that things are different this time.
However, I'm senstive to the arguments made here about hatred. The only way that I can see to stop the clash that I see coming is to take actions that are morally repugnant. I feel like I'm being forced to choose supporting actions that are incompatible with my value system in order to ensure that our civilization will survive.
As I look around the Western world, I see a process of Balkanization going on. Muslim populations are moving into Europe in massive numbers. They are forming enclaves and refusing to assimilate into the native societies. Given current demographic trends continue, some Western nations - notably France - will see their native populations become minorities within 2-3 generations. Is this immigration or colonization?
If Europeans were migrating to Islamic countries and behaving the same way, we would call it colonization. And we would be right. Are we so arrogant and perversely racist to believe that only white Christians can be colonizers? Are brown Muslims incapable of being colonizers? The historical record proves otherwise.
My life has been blessed. I came of age at the perfect time and perfect place of late 20th century America. I've had it just about as good as the human condition has thus far provided. But as I look into the future and project trends going on today, I can only conclude that my children and grand-children won't be so lucky. The world they are growing up in will increasinlgy look more like the medievil world than the modern world.
So what do I choose? My values or my civilization?
This is weird.
Roger says, of Islam :-
"The foundation stones are quite different.
1. Jesus was never on the cross....
2. Jesus is another prophet....
3. Christianity is..."
i.e. the first three foundation stones of Islam are about Jesus and Christianity.
(and the fifth is about the Jews).
I'm an ignorant atheist, but this seems implausible to me. Anyone else?
#27265 John
The fall of the Califate in Constantinople actually had no effect on Islam as the Ottomans had been seen as weak or false Califs for hundreds of years. Nothing there to shake the religion: they simply gave up on the idea of a Calif (excepting, of course, people like UBL, who quest for the never-existent "golden age".
In most cases it wasn't a matter of giving up the idea of al Khalifa, it was a matter of being defeat and occupied by European powers either before or after WWI. Are you saying that had no effect on the Muslim/Arab sense of honor? And Osama bin Laden is the only one dreaming of restoring al Khalifa? It's the goal of every Wahabi and jihadi on the planet. Surely living in SA you know that? Or do you only read the local papers?
The foundation of Israel was a purely secular event, whose only religious connotation was the placing of a non-Muslim government over the Muslim population already resident. There was nothing there to cause a religious crisis, but plenty to cause political and military conflict.
There's now point arguing whether it was a secular event or not because it is irrelevant. Muslims want to extirminate the Jews regardless of whether they are religious or non-observant. Are you hung up on religion because you see that as the real problem, as Gary apparently does? My point was that this event was more likely to cause the introspection that would reform Islam than current events.
9/11, however, has caused a crisis. It's led to a major introspection across the Islamic world.
What the heck kind of introspection are you referring to? I appreciate there may be some decent Saudis expressing qualms about their country's role in the 9-11 attacks, but when the Wahabis from the KSA have infiltrated 80% of the masjids in the US, I for one am not going to get too excited about some guy muttering in his coffee.
The only current event which would cause any kind of positive introspection is the defeat of Saddam an the Taliban.
So why hasn't Islam reformed itself yet?
I'm convinced that Islam in all its signifcant variants is a dehumanizing death cult. I believe that Islamic ideology is fundamentally incompatible with Western democracy. And I believe that this ideological incompatibility will turn into a violent conflict when Muslims achieve a critical mass of the population. This has been the pattern throughout history, and I see no evidence that things are different this time.
A "dehumanizing death cult"? Well, there you go. You've chosen a starting point which doesn't leave much room for compromise, I'm afraid. If all of your assumptions and beliefs about Islam are true, then surely the only rational courses are to exterminate it from the earth or quarantine its believers. Is this what you advocate?
There is a great deal of imagery and doctrine in the Qur'an which is problematic. Equally problematic, if not moreso, is the blind eye so many moderate Muslims turn towards their extremist elements. But just as most Christians have managed to evolve beyond their bloody adherence to Old Testament violence in favor of Jesus' path, so do most Muslims eschew the violence in the Qur'an in favor of its peaceful lessons.
I think it is more productive to think about how we can encourage the cultural paradigm shifts and reforms that will encourage moderation and remove the silent (and not-so-silent) approval for violence in the name of Allah that allows the terrorist mindset to take root and flourish.
Norman Geras has eight words.
"Failure by non-nutball Muslims to loudly, publically and repeatedly denounce Islamic extremists is what principally drives prejudice against Muslims.
This failure tends to convince non-Muslims that Muslims in general support Islamic extremist violence."
What does failure by non-nutball bloggers and pro-war folks to loudly, publically and repeatedly denounce anti-Islamic bigots tend to convince people of?
"Is this just because Scientology was set up as a scam to make money for the founders?"
Yes.
"I think it is more productive to think about how we can encourage the cultural paradigm shifts and reforms that will encourage moderation and remove the silent (and not-so-silent) approval for violence in the name of Allah that allows the terrorist mindset to take root and flourish."
That's exactly the kind of discussion I'd love to see take place, too.
I should note that this entire thread started, in part, because some pretty unpalatable "solutions" have been proposed elsewhere, e.g.:
"A few months ago I would have been very opposed to condemning all Muslims, but now I am at the point that they are going to have to prove that all Islam is not the problem." Or, "They whine about rights? Get rid of em. Inhale oxygen within our borders? That's right. Get rid of em. I'ts a disease. Kill it before it kills us."
This led to a pretty fascinating and informative discussion on hate (among other things), but no alternative proposals on how to solve the problem I think a lot of us agree exists (I grant we might not all agree on the precise nature of that problem, but so be it) vis-a-vis Islam and its current relationship with the rest of the world.
This is not a criticism, by the way -- I haven't the foggiest notion of what a good alternative proposal might be. I just think it would be, in the long run, a more productive discussion.
Eugene Volokh is entirely right.
Catsy,
Islamic extremism was a problem before the fall of the Shah, and will be after Iran's mullah regime is terminated. Certainly the mullahs contribute a lot, but they didn't start it and it won't end with them.
It did start with the Arabs, and I fear it may end with them.
Iran's mullah regime is a large part of the problem now. It won't be in about 18 months, but the Islamic extremist problem will still be there.
And Islamic extremism existed before the post-1973 Saudi funding of Wahabbism started.
The Arabs interpreted Islam in light of their tribal past. Areas with greater Islamic populations than the Arabs' developed their own forms of Islam based on their own cultures - Indonesia, the Indian subcontinent, etc.
But there was a distinctive Arab variant of Islam before the 1973 explosion in oil prices provided the money for its most extreme variant - Wahabbism - to mestatisize elsewhere.
So IMO there were, pre-1973, major geographically based variants of Islam based on pre-existing cultural patterns in the areas where Islam had become dominant. While there were considerable variations even within those areas, each had a recognizable dominant strain.
Wahabbism was just a minor variant within the Arab version of Islam before the Saud clan got control of Mecca and Medina. It became dangerous only courtesty of post-1973 Saudi oil income and Saudi domestic politics.
My gut feeling is that there was a relationship between Wahabbism as practiced by the dominant faction in the Saud clan (there are less awful and generally geographically-based varieties of Wahabbism held by other, non-Saudi, tribes in Saudi Arabia) and the Arab variant of Islam. There pretty much has to be for it to have spread so fast among Arabs even with post-1973 Saudi funding. Note that Wahabbism has had much less success in Pakistan.
Gary,
I'll answer your question when they fly planes into buildings and kill people in other ways.
You can do better than that.
>>I'm convinced that Islam in all its signifcant variants is a dehumanizing death cult. I believe that Islamic ideology is fundamentally incompatible with Western democracy. And I believe that this ideological incompatibility will turn into a violent conflict when Muslims achieve a critical mass of the population. This has been the pattern throughout history, and I see no evidence that things are different this time.
"I'm convinced that Judaism in all its signifcant variants is a dehumanizing death cult. I believe that Jewish ideology is fundamentally incompatible with Western democracy. And I believe that this ideological incompatibility will turn into a violent conflict when Jews achieve a critical mass of the population. This has been the pattern throughout history, and I see no evidence that things are different this time."
I could dig up piles of stuff out of the Old Testament to support the above hypothesis. I could present quotes from Shamir and Begin endorsing terrorism as a legitimate tool of politcal change. I could list dozens of dirty tricks pulled by the IDF, Mossad, etc. on innocent people, including US citizens. I could demonstrate that the Jewish state had killed many times more innocent civilians than Al Qaeda. I could talk about Rudolph Kastner. (Don't make me bring out Rudolf Kastner.)
And NONE of that would change the fact than 99% of Jews everywhere are ordinary people, much like everyone else, except for their nominal worship of their particular Lord of Murder, whose incitements to killing and plunder they regularly ignore so as to get along with everyone else.
Islam is ONE BILLION PEOPLE. How many of these people have attempted to FedEx their explosive hatred of American culture, etc. to the US proper? 100? 200? Maybe 1000? That's .001%.
If it's acceptable to ban a way of life on the basis of .001% of it's members, then the destruction of the WTC was justified 100x over. But it's not and it wasn't.
"I'm not a big fan of collective punishment -- it would be foolish to judge Jesus, Mohammed, or any other person by the actions of the most insane of their followers."
Let's reverse that. Judge the followers by the actions of the followed. I don't believe our A&E Network has done the 'Biography' episode on Mohammed yet. We don't even need Michael Moore for this one... the truth about him would suffice. Oh, and Gary, if you haven't read the NT even in a historical context, it's pretty bad form to discuss what Christians believe by referencing Deuteronomy, etc.
John (#27265)
RE: Daniel Pipes. Your assertion doesn't make it so. The Evil Isn't Islam is actually quite relevant to this debate. So is Fighting Militant Islamism, Without Bias - if you see these articles as racist and bigoted, then we can't really have a conversation on the topic because you're using those words to mean "views that disagree with mine" rather any conventional understanding.
RE: Charles... my personal take is that he probably has a clearer understanding of the Islamic world than you do. He isn't the one closing his eyes to the reality of the problem and screaming "hate".
"Why go exclusively after Saudi Arabia when it represents 1% of the problem and totally ignore Germany or Mexico?"
Maybe Mowbray is concerned because the Saudi government is completely non-cooperative in these cases, and because the treatment of girls who are kidnapped and taken to Saudi Arabia by a parent is repugnant and outrageous by American standards - especially as a way to treat American citizens, which they are. That isn't true in Germany. Or Mexico.
John, You seem to equate strong criticism with "poison pens". It isn't the same thing. The fact that the Saudis may be trying to reform does not diminish the reality of the things Mowbray, Pipes, and LGF point to. And surprisingly, in an open and free society it's entirely legitimate for them to makes these points.
Just because you find the realities they describe uncomfortable, doesn't make them bigots.
Oh, and Gary, if you haven't read the NT even in a historical context, it's pretty bad form to discuss what Christians believe by referencing Deuteronomy, etc.
I will concede that referencing the OT is no longer relevant in arguments about Christianity when a substantial number of Christians no longer cite (or look to) Leviticus et al to support their particular biases and opinions about the world.
Tom Holsinger says: "I'll answer your question when they fly planes into buildings and kill people in other ways."
You're saying that bigotry is acceptable, and no one should comment upon it, so long as it is only verbal? Or so long as murder isn't involved?
So I guess that Jim Crow was peachy, and it's acceptable and inoffensive for us all to call people
[ JK: various ethnic slurs used to define various ethnic groups et. al., deleted. The example and use of such terms was a fair one in this context - but filtering software exists in many workplaces that contain Winds readers, and it is blind to context. There were other ways to make this exact point.]
#27330 Gary Farber
Well done Gary. It's all about labels, pidgeonholes and rhetoric for you. All religions are basically the same with slightly different window dressing and it's all sauteed together in a sauce of moral relativism and equivalency. No wonder you're so lost in this discussion. Once you're presented with more facts and logic than your worldview can handle, you melt down into hysterics.
Not one single person here has said bigotry is OK.
Sorry that we didn't unanimously appoint you arbiter of what's politically correct and proper.
I have to say I'm embarassed for Joe and anyone else associated with this blog that you dragged your own thread down to this level.
I don't recall declaring myself such an arbiter; are you saying you disagree that the words I listed are commonly considered unacceptable signs of bigotry? If not, where is your disagreement with me over what's "politically correct and proper," in your phrasing?
So, to repeat the rephrasing of Tom Holsinger's point in (#27279) ("Failure by non-nutball Muslims to loudly, publically and repeatedly denounce Islamic extremists is what principally drives prejudice against Muslims....") that I asked in #27302:
What does failure by non-nutball bloggers and pro-war folks to loudly, publically and repeatedly denounce anti-Islamic bigots tend to convince people of?
Mr. Holsinger's insubstantial response was If he's not saying there that the question need not be answered because mere verbal bigotry is unworthy of response, I invite him to clarify his point. I also invite him, you, papijoe, and anyone else, to answer the question.A commonly agreed upon opinion, by, I think, all of us, is that the Islamic world must confront the Islamic extremists (some say they are all extremists, others disagree, and that's a crux of disagreement here). Do we who believe in the need to fight terrorism feel we are exempt from the need to confront our extremists? If so, why?
"What does failure by non-nutball bloggers and pro-war folks to loudly, publically and repeatedly denounce anti-Islamic bigots tend to convince people of?"
A before and after of this failure:
Before there is no ban on Islam but Islam continues to ban all other religions.
After there is no ban on Islam but Islam continues to ban all other religions.
Hmmm, no change. This is called a weak correlation and therefore does not feature strongly in the scheme of things.
>What does failure by non-nutball bloggers and
>pro-war folks to loudly, publically and
>repeatedly denounce anti-Islamic bigots tend to
>convince people of?
Gary,
It means they are paying attention to current events.
You cannot credibly denounce some one on your side for dehumanizing the enemy when the enemy is busy dehumanizing himself.
The only public Muslim discussions of beheading snuff videos and pre-teen suicide bombers is whether or not they are proper. It is not a question whether those acts are a monsterous evil to Muslim scholors and lettered elites. For them it is only a matter of when the tactic should be used.
Americans that are point out that and say they hate all Muslims for that cultural depravity are a great deal more honest both with themselves and with objective reality than those of the left who think the only danger in the world is America under the Presidency of George W. Bush.
In order of submission:
#27298 papijoe:
When the Caliphate fell in Constantinople, the Islamic world remained silent. After a while, Sharif Hussein of Hijaz declared himself to be Caliph. That triggered Ibn Saud to take over the Hijaz. Since then, there has been no Caliphate.
In WWI, the Arabs did not rise to fight the Allies or Germany; they mostly stood on the side, even when Turkey (and the Caliphate) was allied with Germany. (There are exceptions: The Sharifs of Hijaz fought with the British in return for promised--but never actually delivered--statehood.)
I am saying that the fall of the Caliphate had absolutely no effect on Arab states other than to relax even more the despised power the Turks had held over them. There was no loss of honor, face or dignity.
I am trying to avoid getting into an wrangle over Israeli-Palestinian rights and wrongs. This argument is about the demonization of a religion which over 1/6th of the world follows.
My starting point is that you don't mess with religion lightly, even if you don't like it. Both Muslims and Jews bring religion into the argument which should be restricted solely to secular politics.
You're simply wrong in your assertion that "Arabs want to extirminate the Jews." Arab states are ready to recognize Israel, but they demand that Israel first return to its 1967 borders and that some compensation be found for the people (and their decendents) who left the area (for whatever reason) as a result of that war. The Arab League has acknowledged as much. And Arab countries realize that Palestinians will never have a right of "aliya", or return. Monetary compensation will have to do.
And I think you wrong when you state that the Arab and Muslim world are not in a deep state of introspection. You can read newspapers from practically any of the countries (and I qualify that as I don't regularly look at North African papers) and see that there is vigorous debate, reflected in those papers, about what Islam is or isn't. Arab Muslims are arguing about who defines Islam, whether Islam can be modernized, how far you can change things without losing your faith. Not all of the arguments are in favor of liberalization, of course.
One of my major complaints about LGF, Pipes, et al. is that they will never run stories about this. Instead, their focus is exclusively negative. MEMRI, however, which I think somewhat flawed, will post stories that show changes occuring.
#27309 Tom Holsinger:
Islamic extremism has been a problem since the earliest days of Islam. It popped up with the Kharajites in 7th C. Arabia; some could claim that the Shi'a/Sunni split was a result of extremist belief.
Religious extremism is not limited to Muslims and it's certainly not limited to Arabs. I'll note in passing how some people find religious authority to kill abortionists. And we can forego an in-depth examination of Roman purges of Christians, the Christian Wars of Religion, and the various pogroms carried out in the name of numerous religions around the world.
Extremist interpretations of relgion tend to get violent.
You can look at the division of India into Pakistan and India for an interesting example. While a million or so Hindus were killed by departing (or not) Muslims, a million Muslims were killed by Hindus. One side was Muslim; one side was Hindu. Neither were Arab.
Even today, non-Hindus are being killed in India for being non-Hindus. I don't point this out to excuse Muslim extremists, but to show that religious extremism--no matter the religion--is the problem.
I assume your fingers slipped when you were calling the Iranians Arabs. Of course they aren't.
I am not supporting Wahhabist interpretations of Islam. But in order to understand what it is or isn't, you have to take a look at what they think. In terms of how Wahhabis see history, try this:
Islam sprung from Arabia. It was based on a book, recited by God, in Arabic. As the word of God, it is not open for mankind to interpet it: what it says is what it says. The Quran gave the Arabs a special and central role in the religion. It also gave them a prosyletizing mission.
As the religion spread/was spread, it ran into other religions. After cohabitation with these other religions, Islam started to take on some of their colorings. Deviation from the origin was not a good thing and, in some cases, became heresy.
Global Islam, by the 18th C., had become many different things. A mystical strain, Sufism (not unlike Kabalah) was well-entrenched. Worship of saints and shrines (which fundamentalists consider to be sharing God's glory with others) had spread. Islam, as it was popularly practised, was nearly heretical in the fundamentalist view.
Ibn Wahhab set out to reform Islam by bringing it back to its origins, eschewing the pomp and rituals that had, in his view, polluted it.
He was able, through his partnership with the Al-Saud, to cleanse parts of Arabia of heretical practises. The fortunes of the Al-Sheikh (as Ibn Wahhab's decendents were called) and the Al-Saud saw ups and downs, but finally, in the 1920s, they were able to enforce both their secular rule and religious interpetations. They succeeded in establishing a fundamentalist state based solely on the Quran and the Sunna.
But in 1927, something interesting happened. For political reasons, the Al-Saud decided not to challenge the British, who surrounded them in Egypt, Jordan, Iraq and the Persian Gulf (Trucial) States. A branch of the Wahhabis, the Ikhwan, wanted to continue their reformation. A major battle put the Ikhwan out of business.
But with the extremists put out of the way, there was still a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam advising the state. It took every part of the Quran as authentic and actionable.
This wasn't any sort of problem until the 1960s, when Saudi Arabia started bringing in the money from oil.
But by that time, Islamic religious extremism, mostly in reaction to colonialism, had already sprung up in both Egypt (the Muslim Brotherhood) and India (the Deobandis). The extremists of those two schools were in direct confrontation with their own governments. They claimed to be mere fundamentalists, but were far more extreme than that.
When the Saudis started earning big bucks, they started to develop their own infrastructure, including schools. They needed teachers for these schools, but there were no Saudis to even form teacher training cadres.
So who did they turn to for teachers? And who was readily available to teach? The "fundamentalists" wwho were being chased out of Egypt, India/Pakistan.
These teachers went far beyond what Ibn Wahhab preached. And, in my opinion, they destroyed at least two generations of Saudi youth with their extremist teaching.
There's no question that Saudi schoolbooks had evil material in them; the Saudi government has acknowledged that and has changed them (with western support, I might add).
And most certainly the Saudis see it as a religious obligation to propagate their faith. But that faith is not axiomatically the same as extremism.
Wahhabism is closer to extremism that, say, Sufism, but in itself it does not lead to terror. It can more easily be distorted, however, which is exactly what has happened.
#27321 Joe Katzman:
RE Pipes: I guess we're not going to agree on the role of Pipes. As I noted above, his exclusive focus on what's wrong is polemic; he has never said anything positive about Islam, nor has he even acknowledged the on-going reform movements.
RE Charles: When Charles stops categorically demonizing Arabs and Islam, I can change my opinion. As with Pipes, LGF picks out the stupidity, hatred and racism that some Arabs and Muslims produce. He does not point out anything that counters the stereotype when there is much to be pointed out.
RE Mowbray: I've dealt with Mowbray professionally for several years. I know for a fact that he will not put into his articles any information that weakens his populist case. He either denigrates or ignores information contrary to his writing point.
The treatment of abducted children is not a light matter. But it is also a very complicated one, legally as well as humanely. To say that the treatment of abducted children in Saudi Arabia is worse than that in Germany assumes two things. First, that Islam is inferior to any other religion; second, that Arab culture is inferior to any other culture.
I think that Arab culture, based closely on tribal circumstances, is inferior to Western culture in many ways. But I think that because I am the product of the West.
Arabs are no more uncaring about their children than any other culture, but they express it differently. People's roles are different, their expectations are different, their values are different.
And laws are different. Would you accept the ruling of a foreign court that went against the US Constitution? My guess is not. Why, then, would you think a Saudi would happily accept an American court's jurisdiction that goes against his own constitution--which in this case also happens to be the basis of his religion?
I happen to think Western values are intrinsically more fair to the individual. But Arabs put individualism behind the good of society. If you look at Japanese culture--which we're not bashing this decade--you'll see they make a similar distinction.
I think that many Arabs--Muslim or not--when faced with unwanted change, use their religions to avoid making those changes. I do know, personally, a Lebanese Christian, with over 16 years of education in the US, who still killed his sister for the shame she brought on the family by getting pregnant out of wedlock. He linked it to "honor your father and mother".
Is a child raised in Saudi Arabia actually worse off than one raised in the West? If we use Western standards, the answer is an absolute "yes". If we use a standard accepted within Saudi Arabia for all of its children, the answer is probably "no". Vastly different, but for the child's own well-being, probably "no".
I'd rather have an American kid raised as an American, in the US, than raised as a Saudi, German, Mexican, even Brit. But most people come down on the side of their own countries and cultures.
Finally, I don't reject criticism at all, nor does it make me uncomfortable! (I come from a large family.)
But as we all learned in school, there's a difference between constructive criticism and destructive criticism.
The writers we've been discussing offer nothing constructive at all, insofar as I can see. They're excellent at pointing to problems, but nowhere do they come up with solutions beyond "Riyadh Delenda Est".
I think US-Islamic world relationship--including the US-Saudi relationship--is extremely important. It not only has to be maintained, but improved. Calling for the destruction of 1.3 billion people, even calling for radical reform on our terms just isn't going to get us there.
With all respect.
"Calling for the destruction of 1.3 billion people, even calling for radical reform on our terms just isn't going to get us there."
Agreed. Absolutely.
I don't want their destruction at all. I want plain old reform driven by macro-evolution instead of Darwinistic evolution. I don't care what drives it.
What do you think could drive it? What will get them to engage?
Sorry Joe. I wasn't trying to modify your quote; tried to strike thru "even calling for radical reform on our terms " but it didn't work.
No, John. It is to say that when a U.S. citizen is kidnapped, made a prisoner without freedom of movement or the ability to travel abroad without sanction from her male "guardian", subjected to forced marriage (and hence rape), et. al., that this is substantially worse than being taken to a democratic state where legal recourse is available to stop such practices and where she can make her own choices in all matters upon age of majority.
If you truly can't see that difference, then again, it becomes really, really hard for me to take you seriously.
"To say that the treatment of abducted children in Saudi Arabia is worse than that in Germany assumes two things. First, that Islam is inferior to any other religion; second, that Arab culture is inferior to any other culture."
As for Pipes, there is acknowledgement of Islamic reform movements within the very URLs I included last time. Your statement is simply untrue.
Likewise, your statement that Charles "does not point out anything that counters the stereotype" - he does, and he has. To use an example that comes to mind quickly because we linked over here, take the story of Syed Ali. Again, this statement is simply false.
You seem to have an awful lot of "understanding" for the Saudis, and not a lot for their opponents. Not to mention a predilection for assertions that fail the test of reality and proof when describing said opponents.
Personally, I believe that the "improved" status of the US-Saudi relationship is a big part of the problem, not the solution. And if the House of Saud increasingly finds itself confronting pointed calls for change on Western terms, it is simply the natural consequence of an ideology that has promoted hate across the Muslim world for decades - all with the Saudi's enthusiastic blessing. The ultimate result was an act of war against America, and a security threat to the entire planet that will not be ignored or airbrushed away with platitudes.
Islam is not the problem. But Wahhabism is certainly a big part of the problem, which is why it must be destroyed as an ideology or rendered impotent. What its founder wanted to achieve is far less relevant than the fact that it has always and will always be hostile to coexistence, and will continue to promote murder and war. This ideology and its offshoots must therefore be separated from the oil money that has financed their expansion and maintenance, before its adherents can get their hands on the destructive technologies they clearly and publicly desire to obtain. And use.
Once that has happened, there will be more space for other forms of Islam that preach and practice coexistence to grow. Until that has happened, however, we will have failed to address one of the key underlying strategic issues of the war.
That strategic truth may be inconvenient for the Saudis and their supporters... and you know what? I really don't give a damn.
#27359 Posted by Roger:
Roger, What does the above question convince people of about said bloggers and pro-war folks who tolerate said bigotry? Or do you assert that said anti-Islamic bigotry doesn't exist, or categorically can't exist?#27363 Posted by John:
Good work.Hmmm. Gary, you are demonstrating a basic misunderstanding of the function of LGF. LGF is An Early Warning System for Outrage. Charles is stingy with his opinion. Mostly he just shows facts. Charles is also capable of looking into the abyss. Not many are. I see YOU wanting to turn aside, make excuse. How are you going to fight atrocity if you can't even name it?
Gary, you and John and many others here also demonstrate a basic misunderstanding of Islam.
"Islam sprung from Arabia. It was based on a book, recited by God, in Arabic. " NO! Islam is based on the Beduoin tribal culture. The core of the qu'ran is the short suras, which were basically lifted from Beduoin tribal poetry. Jizziya combat, ritual beheadings, kidnapping and slavery all originated with the Bedoo. Mohammed discarded the parts of Beduoin culture that he had no use for, like wine, women, and song, and created in the qu'ran a brutally efficient recipe for reproduction.
It is useless to compare the qu'ran to other religious tomes. Both the genesis and the evolution are completely different. And yes, Gary, I do read arabic, and I have studied the Jahilyyah and the origins of Islam, and what is more important-- I understand spoken arabic. Mostly I listen to qu'ranic recitation to understand the qu'ran. Since arabic is an oral tradition language the memesets are passed most efficiently aurally, that is "heard".
"What does the above question convince people of about said bloggers and pro-war folks who tolerate said bigotry? Or do you assert that said anti-Islamic bigotry doesn't exist, or categorically can't exist?"
Currently "anti-Islamic bigotry" is too broad a term for your question to be easily answered.
Nasty, rude, crude speech is a form of bigotry that I believe is not tolerated by the group you are refering to (said bloggers and pro-war folks)so your question does not apply in this case.
Now if bigotry in your opinion includes people who are discussing a ban on Islam, conditions that make it a tool, can a Democracy do it and still be a Democracy? etc. then your question applies and I think it is entirely up to the said bloggers and pro-war folks to decide how much time and resources they expend on the subject. If they don't say anything does not mean they are tolerating or not tolerating.
It could mean they have lives outside the blogsphere:-)
For me I see the banning of Islam as the same as economic sanctions on countries not performing to human rights standards. It is taking the bully off the play ground until said bully learns to get along with the other kids. Learns to play by democratic rules. You, Bjørn Stærk, Eugene Volokh, etc. are simply not balanced in your alarm. The bully you want to keep from being banned practices banning at the pain of death in countries it dominates. Yet I don't hear balanced alarm yet alone recognition that the form of banning is vastly different.
John: You say: "Charles Johnson, if his blog speaks for him at all, is a pure bigot. He shows no understanding whatsoever of the Islamic world and either cannot or refuses to put things into any kind of context."
Hmmm. Would you say I might demonstrate some knowledge as a commentor? I have acquired my specific knowledge at LGF. Charles links the Iraqi bloggers right at the top of the blogroll. My training is in mathematics and statistics-- I really appreciate the lack of bias in Charles' data. Many posters also have invaluable, unreproduceable, domain-specific knowledge.
Also, all of you are uninformed about the nature of fundamentalism. Islam has not been "hijacked" into political extremism. Fundamentalism is a coalition attempting to preserve a particular hierarchy with a will to power. Islam has destroyed many schism sects over the past 1400 years, including the mutazili and falaysef branches, for the very reason that those sects were more tolerant and open. Moderates present the greatest danger to fundamentalists. In evolutionary theory of religion, one of the principal ideas is that the more appealing defection may be, the more horrific the punishment. Defection cannot be percieved as cheap and easy. For example, Rushdie's death sentence and the ritual beheadings of religious dissenters in Saud. Islam has evolved rigorous protection against dissent. "Moderates" are instant apostates.
And now, the last word. Organic argument, my favorite. :)
Let's say LGF is the first line immune system defense against atrocity-- like T-cells and leucocytes, LGF posters function as recognizers and detectors. What you call 'bigotry' or 'hatred' or 'anger' is just the flash response of a healthy detection system, a sort of protection.
Now, Winds, you guys are the cerebral cortex or cognitive function-- so get busy and find a solution! :)
I sure miss Robin. :(
"Hmmm. Gary, you are demonstrating a basic misunderstanding of the function of LGF."
Where did I say anything about LGF? (As it happens, although I had to pull examples from somewhere, I was very careful to not criticize or otherwise specify anyone, er, specific, because that's a useless distraction when I want to talk about a somewhat widespread phenomenon; I'm not presently interested in pointing fingers or arguing about individuals.)
"How are you going to fight atrocity if you can't even name it?"
Who is stopping anyone from naming atrocities? What are you talking about?
"Gary, you and John and many others here also demonstrate a basic misunderstanding of Islam."
I would welcome your pointing out where I engaged in such misunderstanding. I certainly don't pretend to be an expert in the subject, though I am not wholly ignorant, either.
"And yes, Gary, I do read arabic, and I have studied the Jahilyyah and the origins of Islam, and what is more important-- I understand spoken arabic."
I sincerely congratulate you for this, and applaud your effort.
#27398 Posted by Roger: "Nasty, rude, crude speech is a form of bigotry that I believe is not tolerated by the group you are refering to (said bloggers and pro-war folks)so your question does not apply in this case."
I'm confused. The statements Bjørn and I quoted don't exist? We made them up?
"You, Bjørn Stærk, Eugene Volokh, etc. are simply not balanced in your alarm. The bully you want to keep from being banned practices banning at the pain of death in countries it dominates. Yet I don't hear balanced alarm yet alone recognition that the form of banning is vastly different."
How many years have you read the blogs of the three of us? How many posts on al Qaeda, Saudi Arabia, terrorism, bin laden have I made over the years? You're maintaining that I've not endlessly posted in alarm on the topic? That Bjørn hasn't? The Eugene Volokh is oblivious to the dangers of Islamic terrorism? And you've been reading his blog, and his blog, and mine, since 2001?
I suspect not.
#27369 Joe Katzman:
Okay, under US and most international law, a child taken from parental custody by a non-custodian parent is considered kidnapped. Under US and most international law, an arranged marriage for a 13-y/o girl is considered child abuse. Under US and most international law, a woman has absolutely equal rights as a man, at least in regards to travel.
Well, we're not talking about US or international law here. We're talking abou the laws of a sovereign state that have as much validity as another country's laws. Unless and until they are changed.
Under Saudi law, a father has the custody of his children after they reach a certain age. Under Saudi law, marriage at the age of 13 is legal. Under Saudi law, a woman need the permission of her guardian to travel.
I don't like the Saudi laws. I think they should be changed. But they are still the laws that are enforced within the country. No amount of bitching about it by outsiders is going to get those laws changed.
Imagine, please, how you would feel when Botwswana says "You have to change that US law about gun ownership". You'd tell Botswana to get stuffed, in a hurry.
Well, guess how the Saudis react when the NYT headlines "Saudis must change their laws".
The point here is not whether we like the laws. The point is that the Saudis--and others--need to change the law from within. Calling them the adherents of a religion founded by a child rapist terrorist is not persuasive.
If Pipes has changed his tune (sorry, that really was unintentional), then I will change my opinion. I stopped looking at him last year when it became obvious that he wasn't interested (at that time, at least) in looking for solutions. I'll check him out again.
Again, I will state clearly, that I will look in again at LGF. Not particularly appreciating being called "dhimmi", I figured there was nothing much for me to learn from his blog.
They very well may have changed. If that is the case, then I will put my complaints in the past tense.
And, while we cast aspersions, you seem to not know very much about the dynamics of either the ruling family or Saudi society. Have you bothered to look at the Middle East Journal piece? Have you bothered to look at the Saudi papers? Even the English-language ones are filled with debate. And it's not being driven by the ruling family, either.
Your understanding of Wahhabism seems somewhat limited. Have you actually read any of his writings? I'm not saying that as an intellectual put-down, but rather to note that most of the books written about him and his writings are not from uninterested sources. Sort of like Catholics writing about Luther.
And I just know you're going to love this, but the Wahhabism practiced by the majority of Saudis is closer to the practices of the Mennonites than to Al Qaeda. They don't want change; they want the world to leave them alone. They don't want interaction with the modernizing world, though they will accept some/some technological advances.
It is very much at the feet of the people who distort and pervert a fundamentalist interpretation that we can lay the violence.
And you know something... one Islamic country has atomic weapons. Another is getting close. The Iranians, of course, aren't Wahhabis, but neither are the Pakistanis. They are Deobandis, which I find a much more violent manifestation. Saudis aren't killing the Shi'a within their own country; Deobandis are.
Strategy is worthless if you can't recognize who the enemy is. Targeting the "ragheads" is hardly close enough. And I do give a very large damn about that.
#27395, #27399, #27401, #27402 Jinderella:
Your interpretation of the origins of the Quran are neither original nor accurate. If anything, the origins can be found in clerical writings of Aramaic-speaking Christians, Hebrew-ish speaking Jews, Farsi speaking Persians, and Amharic speakers from Ethiopia. Of course there's a lot of native Arabic in there too. The role of tribal poetry is very much in displute and is very much emoted these days.
The social polity proposed in the Quran was an attempt to tame the wildness of the Bedu. It regulated raids, told how captives were to be treated, regularized trade. It was in direct contradiction to bedouin practices.
I'm not particularly taken with your "aural is better" argument. The scholarship into Islam is not being done by preachers in a mosque. It is being done, in writing, by Americans, Germans, French, and--unfortunately--expat Arabs who have been chased from their countries.
The Quran has as much validity as any other "holy book." Those who believe it, believe it. Those who don't either ignore it or get bent out of shape by it. Muslims believe God recited the Quran. Jews think the Torah was revealed, or at least divinely inspired. Christians think the Bible is a combination of revelation, direct quotation, historical witnessing, and exegesis. And this proves....
As I noted above, if LGF has changed its ways, then I can change my opinion of them, and will. I base my judgment on the last times I looked.
Your theological analysis is wanting. A far better model for you to be using is the "Ghost Dance". A culture that is under stress from new, generally outside influences, takes certain steps to resolve that stress. The first step, usually, is to blame the outsider. Then to revert to a "purer" form of religion. When those don't work, violence follows, usually with magical claims of either immunity to death or rapturous immortality in the hereafter. They also tend to be Millenialistic. These either succeed or they fail catastrophically.
Today, we're seeing it in several cultures that feel they are being assaulted by modernity and westernization. Islam is the most obvious, but it's also happening within the Hindu culture as well as numerous cults in East Asia.
None of these "Ghost Dance" efforts will succeed. The radical fundamentalists are going to fail. But they are going to go down fighting.
There is very much a need to contain, control, reform or destroy the radical fundamentalists. They are a serious disease loose in the global community.
My point--and I think the point of this entire thread--is to recognize what the disease is and treat it appropriately, not to rid the world of all molds simply because some of them are lethal.
To use your analogy, the T-cells and leucocytes proposed by Muslim- and Arab-bashers threatens to turn into an auto-immune disease, where the body eats itself by compromising its strengths.
As I noted above, if LGF has changed its ways, then I can change my opinion of them, and will.
let's see ... Arafat with a fish head, Najaf is the holy city of beheadings, Canadian Muslims are making thinly-veiled terrorist threats ... yup, little Charlie's all grown up now.
John,
You're moving the goal-posts re: kidnappings to Saudi Arabia. You asked why they get attention from people like Mowbray. I explained why. You replied that this is Saudi Arabia's law and foreign pressure won't change it - but that's irrelevant to my answer. As long as this situation remins, the Saudis can expect continued hostile attention - from BOTH sides of the American political spectrum.
You think it's bad now? Wait.
BTW, If your Saudi friends would truly withdraw from the world and stop funding Wahhabism abroad, they might find that the rest of the world would be FAR more inclined to grant their wishes and leave them alone. We both know that neither eventuality will happen.
I did find the "Ghost Dance" thesis very interesting. Thanks for that.
Praktike,
Exactly why are veiled threats from Canadian Muslims not worthy of coverage? Exactly why is an article about the numerous beheadings in Najaf - many of the victims being Iraqis - not worthy of coverage?
Implying that covering these stories is improper, or that you'd read LGF if it stopped covering these things... let's just say that it isn't the most grown up response. I'm frankly surprised to hear that from you.
As for the regular Arafish™ posts, I'm afraid they're lost on me but it's a regular shtick. Everyone has their own local attractions, non-locals may or may not get them, c'est la vie.
It's not that they're "not worthy of coverage."
It's the sneering tone.
If you can't see that, well, I guess I can't help you.
John: "Your interpretation of the origins of the Quran are neither original nor accurate. If anything, the origins can be found in clerical writings of Aramaic-speaking Christians, Hebrew-ish speaking Jews, Farsi speaking Persians, and Amharic speakers from Ethiopia. Of course there's a lot of native Arabic in there too." I am only talking about the Short Suras. Wasn't that clear?
"The role of tribal poetry is very much in displute and is very much emoted these days." Source please? Michael Sells is mine.
I like the 'Ghost Dance' metaphor, but does it really cover extreme punishment for heretics as well as Boyer's model in Evolutionary Theory of Religion?
Gary: "Where did I say anything about LGF?" Do you think I don't recognize those comments? I can tell you which posters made them! :)
John: "I'm not particularly taken with your "aural is better" argument." I believe there is a biological basis for all behavoir. You may disagree with me, but I think the qu'ran may actually "sound better" than it reads, especially in translation.
"The social polity proposed in the Quran was an attempt to tame the wildness of the Bedu. It regulated raids, told how captives were to be treated, regularized trade. It was in direct contradiction to bedouin practices." Again, the Short Suras only. I argue that with the subjugation of the Poet Warrior Ka'b bin Zuhayr with the burda ode, Mohammed took possession of the pre-Islamic cultural values of the Bedouin tribes. The na'qaat (tribal combat poets) were the bearers of the cultural vales, and were fierce opponents of Mohammed. Mohammed discarded wine, women, and song, to fashion a warrior aesthete, but retained conquest and the Boast, from the classic format of the arabian ode.
Hi Praktike: :)
Fresh from the Style Wars myself, I can only say chacun a' son gout!
I find Charles terrifically funny. Sometimes gallows humour is the best defense, and sometimes the only defense.
Charles is very direct, some may find that offensive, but I like it. Like the Iraqis say, l-Eagrab duwaa in-naEaal (the cure for the scorpion is the sandal)
Gary: "I would welcome your pointing out where I engaged in such misunderstanding. I certainly don't pretend to be an expert in the subject, though I am not wholly ignorant, either."
You persist in looking at Islam as a religion-- it is far more. Consider, literature, law, art, music, education, history, everything defined by a single book, the qu'ran. The qu'ran informs every aspect of Islamic life.
"The qu'ran informs every aspect of Islamic life."
Presumably you mean 'every aspect of the lives of Muslims'. Because there's not much of a surprise in the statement as you've worded it. One would surely expect the Holy Book of Islam to inform Islamic life.
Mind you, having said that, culture varies to a significant amount in a variety of Islamic nation-states; in terms of clothing at the very least. The Qu'ran certainly influences but it's not the only influence. Pre-Islamic culture and history impinge too.
>>Let's reverse that. Judge the followers by the actions of the followed. I don't believe our A&E Network has done the 'Biography' episode on Mohammed yet. We don't even need Michael Moore for this one... the truth about him would suffice.
No, that doesn't work either! See my comment above about John Rabe, a firm believer in National Socialism and an epic hero.
I'm with Chomsky on this one: "People are responsible for the predictable consequences of their own actions." Not Mohammed's actions, not Jesus's actions, not the other 999 million Muslims actions.
>> Exactly why is an article about the numerous beheadings in Najaf - many of the victims being Iraqis - not worthy of coverage?
I'm irritated by the lack of scale involved. There's a drive-by shooting in my city every day, and it isn't national news. Dead is dead. Giving these idiots more press only encourages them. If it's less than 50 people killed in an event, it's not worth my time. My humanitarian efforts are best concentrated on stuff like Darfur and heart disease, which kill hundreds of thousands of people.
Many words have been spent on this thread advancing different views on Islam. But in the final analysis, none of these theories matter. What will matter is the behavior of Muslims. The bottom line is that if Muslims continue to engage in and/or support terrorism, intolerance of Muslims will continue to grow until we reach a breaking point. All the high-minded talk will count for nothing.
To solve a problem, it is first necessary to recognize that you have one. The people here who are defending Islam are doing Muslims no favor. Apologists for Islam are reinforcing the world view that Muslims hold and deferring the day when they recognize that THEY have a problem. In the meantime, terrorism will continue to increase. And so too will the backlash. All you apologists for Islam are accelerating the downward spiral.
HA -
"The bottom line is that if Muslims continue to engage in and/or support terrorism, intolerance of Muslims will continue to grow until we reach a breaking point."
Only if people confuse Islamic terrorist with Any Given Muslim. If people don't do that, it won't happen. I'm not going to do it. Can I count on you to do the same?
"To solve a problem, it is first necessary to recognize that you have one."
I recognise it. I also see that many Muslim imams in my country (UK) are condemning the terrorism and calling on their communities to do the same and work with the Police.
Are you prepared to acknowledge there is a problem with anti-Muslim bigotry?
"All you apologists for Islam are accelerating the downward spiral."
I think addressing the problem of bigotry is a surer way to put the brakes on said acceleration than to refuse to change one's behaviour yet expect others to change theirs.
#27405 Posted by Gary Farber
I haven't seen the meaning of the word 'muzzie' around before. I looked for it in Wikipedia and googled for it and didn't find much on it. Maybe it is gaining momentum but I don't really know it's full meaning and therefore don't react to it as idiotarian hate.
It shows up as a first or last name to people and places so those get in the way. But who would use a bigoted word for their first name?
The only thing I could gather is that it is a nonsensical way some commentors refer to Muslims because the word Muslim is becoming very distasteful to them and they don't want to use it but don't want to use a really bigoted word either. So they make stuff up. Maybe the term isn't friendly but hardly something you should be spanking other bloggers concerning their tolerance or intolerance of the term.
Is there a slang or bigotry dictionary that you know of that helps us be on the same page concerning this term?
"A few months ago I would have been very opposed to condemning all Muslims, but now I am at the point that they are going to have to prove that all Islam is not the problem."
Sheesh! You are censoring that?! And going after what other bloggers should be doing about it? Wow! Charles was supposed to delete that comment but failed his duty to you. The person is seeking proof to get them back to where they were a few months ago. They're upset about something( don't know the context any more) but they are asking for dialog.
We've already had Islamo-spies in Guantanamo, muzzies blowing up their officers in Kuwait... We also have illegal aliens with fake IDs, and assorted non-citizens (since we accept LPRs). There are several thousand throughout the military. Given the ideology they adhere to, suspicions must be raised far higher. Note that the title of Charles' post is 'RoP Moles in the Navy'. Other than if the term 'muzzies' is terribly offensive, what can you possibly pick about someone refering to news events pertenant to the topic?
"Allah was the name given an idol to HaBa'al, brought from Assyria, and may indeed be the same false god Ba'al from the Bible." And Charles was to do what? Delete because he has proof that this is not so and the commentor was lieing in a bigoted way about the origins of allah?
And then on this very thread you have people tying Christianity to Hitler and you say not a word.
One person ties allah to Baal on another blog comment section, you freak; on your own blog someone ties Christianity to Hitler, your mute.
As far as the imbalance I'm talking about, it is a criticism of Bjørn Stærk's article "More on banning Islam" and your support of the article. Regardless of what you or Bjørn Stærk wrote elsewhere the article should be balanced if you want it to have any weight with a larger audience. That's all I'm trying to point out but over and over you keep making it my (and other readers') responsibility to see you and Bjørn Stærk as balanced by going to other writings of yours. From my perspective you're not taking criticism well and I am therefore less interested in what you have to say on the subject.
P.S. Hitler was a pro-active Evolutionist.
>>One person ties allah to Baal on another blog comment section, you freak; on your own blog someone ties Christianity to Hitler, your mute.
I agree that giving evidence of historical context in good faith should be acceptable. Well-meaning humans will say a lot of things which turn out to be dumb. Ill-meaning humans are, well, typical and getting mad at them isn't going to make them less ill-meaning.
>>P.S. Hitler was a pro-active Evolutionist.
There's a big difference between understanding how genetic selection pressure operates and consciously using genocide as a form of selection pressure on a sentient species. Sort of like comparing Newton and Maxim.
This is yet more collective judgement garbage.
Don't make me bring out Kastner. I will if I have to.
James Casey,
The surest and fastest way to convince non-Muslims that all Muslims support or condone the wrongdoing of Islamic terrorists is for the only public opposition to Islamic terrorists to come from non-Muslims.
That is happening now.
NOTHING can stop the rapidly growing prejudice against Muslims in general unless Muslims themselves make the case in one particular way - by loudly, publically and repeatedly denouncing the violence of Islamic terrorists against any and every target. If they won't do that, nothing else matters.
And not only will they then deserve their fate, but it will be well-justified self-defense by non-Muslims.
Tom Holsinger -
"The surest and fastest way to convince non-Muslims that all Muslims support or condone the wrongdoing of Islamic terrorists is for the only public opposition to Islamic terrorists to come from non-Muslims.
That is happening now."
I can't speak for countries other than the United Kingdom, but that's not the case here in the UK. Leaders of Muslim communities have spoken out against terrorism and have made it clear to Muslims that it is wrong, should be opposed, and that the authorities such as the Police should be helped.
Publicising such denunciations by Muslims is very important - otherwise people think, as many obviously do - that it isn't happening. It is. It needs to happen more, but it is happening. And we need to encourage those doing it just as much as criticising those not.
Roger: "P.S. Hitler was a pro-active Evolutionist." Dear Lord! Hitler was an evolutionist in the same way that Gregor Lysenko was a geneticist, ignorant of the most basic precepts of science.
jinnderella and T. J. Madison,
So Darwin and Wallace knew nothing about evolution because they were "ignorant of the most basic precepts of science"?
#27412 Joe Katzman:
Joe, I don't think I'm moving the goalposts at all. I'm saying that there is a very real difference, legally as well as socially, in perceptions of the entire matter of "child abductions". For us it is a crime; for them, it is a crime to do otherwise. I think it very close to the issue of abortion; fundamentalists see it as murder and some of them behave in ways to prevent it--legally or otherwise. Others see it as perfectly admissible and so act accordingly. It so happens that strict Islamic law--as practiced in Saudi Arabia as well as elsewhere--see children as the legal responsibility of their fathers. I don't agree with it, but I don't see any legal grounds for one country to impose its legal interpretations on another. I note again, if it were turned around the other way, we would not accept it for a moment. We think we're right; they think they're right. In the absence of a meta-entity to judge these things, we can only have inconclusive decisions.
But I think that even inconclusive decisions can be acted upon. We can--and do--pressure the Saudis to lighten up on their interpetation. And while the Saudi government cannot repudiate its own law, they are willing to exert personal pressure on individuals, particularly in egregious cases, to give up their rights. I note in passing that this never gets reported.
Let me as a question... If a country finds the prosyletizing done by citizens of another country objectionable, should they shut those prosyletizing missions down? You would seem to think so in your attack on Wahhabism. Would you also apply that rule to, say, Mormons being kicked out of another country? Or Evangelical Christians? I really don't have a prefered answer here, but I'd appreciate a consistent one.
#27414 Jindarella:
I've just moved and my books are still packed; I can't give you an accurate cite at the moment. I will direct your attention to the recent "Christopher Luxembourg" book as well as his earlier writings under his own name. They make it very clear that on linguistic terms alone the Quran is a complicated book. His latest assertion is that parts of the Quran--which are largely incomprehensible in Arabic--make much clearer sense if seen as borrowings from Aramaic prayerbooks.
It's also pretty clear, I think, that a lot of what's in the Quran is a reaction to a variety of Christian heresies prevalent in pre-Islamic Arabia. There are also sources that point to explicit borrowings from contemporary Judaism. If I recall correctly, the Quran uses words that come from at leat 14 different languages.
#27415: I think you make too much of a supposed divide between the urban/bedu conditions. Urban Arabs in cities like pre-Islamic Mecca were still tied--by blood and treaty--with bedouin tribes. The Quran didn't need to introduce or pull in Bedouin influence: it already existed. When people were exiled, they went to stay with their desert cousins. They also depended on their desert relatives to form up into large forces for defense against urban or desert enemies. I see Mohammad as regularizing this more than introducing it.
And yes, I definitely agree that the Quran "sounds" better than it reads. But that is something that works at an emotional level, I believe, rather than as something open to analysis.
#27422 Lewy14: My point is that fundamentalist, literalist readings of any "sacred text" are more amenable to distortion than non-literal readings. That goes for any sacred text.
James Casey,
I believe the subject is American attitudes towards Islam, not that of other countries. Islam is not an issue in Brazil, and Brazil is a pretty big country. Islam is not an issue in Japan, and Japan is a very wealthy country.
Neither Brazil, Japan nor Great Britain have been attacked at home by Islamic terrorists.
The United States is a very big country. It is the wealthiest country in the world. It has more useable power, however that is defined, than any dozen other countries. The United States has repeatedly shown itself willing to use that power against enemies foreign and domestic.
And the United States has suffered the most horrific terrorist attack in history. All the attackers were Islamic.
This makes American attitudes towards Islam more pertinent to the discussion than those held by other countries.
Furthermore the starting post of this thread expressly said that the subject was American prejudice against Islam. Its third paragraph states:
John: You mistake me-- just strip out the short suras-- there is a direct lineage from the classic arabian ode. I don't pretend to know the geaology of the later contributions, and you are probably right, but the inital core was lifted from bedouin tribal poetry. I don't doubt you, there are multiple influences from other sources LATER. :)
You say: "And yes, I definitely agree that the Quran "sounds" better than it reads. But that is something that works at an emotional level, I believe, rather than as something open to analysis." I'm interested in evolutionary psycho-biology. Recently good work has been done on the biochemistry of attraction, at the levels of chemicals generated and receptors activated-- that's the level I am interested in. For example, what physiological processes are activated by, say, chanting? Qu'ranic recitation is very popular in Islamic nations. Converts learn recitation for dhikr and salat, not how to read and write arabic.
Tom Holsinger -
I understand the focus is largely American but since blogs formed a large, if not primary, part of the points made, well; blogs are global.
And sure, though I don't know as much as you or anyone in the States is likely to be able to know on the subject, I would imagine the question is a little more pertinent to the USA.
I would add that other perspectives are useful too; I certainly don't think it's America V Islamic Terrorists, and I understand your commander in chief isn't keen for it to be seen as that either. Quite a lot of my countrymen died in the World Trade Center attacks, of course, and there have been a number of would-be al-Qaida attacks thwarted which had UK mainland targets.
I would hope also that if British Muslims are condemning terrorism, and Americans take note of that, then American Muslims might feel more at ease doing it and American non-Muslims might not feel it's a case of all Muslims, anywhere, being anti-American.
James Casey,
I agree that statements by British Muslims will affect American public opinion on this to some extent, but that is more than British pubilc opinion will.
I repeat that the decisive factor in American attitudes towards Islam will be whether Islam is perceived as not opposing Islamic terror.
Denunciations of Islamic terror by Turkish Islamic figures would be a real help here.
James,
"I repeat that the decisive factor in American attitudes towards Islam will be whether Islam is perceived as not opposing Islamic terror."
The problems here are:
1. When these repudiations are made, are they widely believed or simply written off as paying lip-service?
2. Do people even hear them? Repudiations of a beheading get a tiny fraction of the attention that the beheadings themselves receive.
3. Why should someone who believes that terrorism in any form is repugnant be forced to continually have to say so? Every time a bomb went off in Belfast, I don't remember people walking around saying "Those darn Catholics and Protestants better start denouncing that or we're kicking them out!" Terrorist violence is just as alien to the Muslims I know as blowing up people in Belfast was to the vast majority of Catholics and Protestants.
#27467 Jinnderella:
I guess we'll have to disagree on the root origins. I'm convinced that the milieu of Mecca, circa 600 CE was a very well mixed, polyglot, multi-cultured one. There were thriving Christian and Jewish settlements in the region, from the Bishopric of Najran to the Jewish enclaves both north and south of Mecca. The area had been the site of battles by invaders from Ethiopia, Persians and Christians from Yemen, as well as international trade routes. The Kabba itself was the shrine of a multitude of deities and was reputed--according to some hadith--to contain pictures of Jesus and Mary. There's another hadith that discusses Mohammad--pre-revelation--visiting and admiring a Christian hermetic in the Syrian desert.
I truly think there were just too many influences around to identify any single one as the "most important". Clearly, Mohammad's own culture was the dominant factor, but beyond that I couldn't venture safely.
Given your interest in psycho-biology, you might be interested in looking into the Yoga of Sound. (Again, I don't have my reference available, sorry.) This is something I looked into some years ago and found very interesting. Some strange parallels with Kabbalist thought, too. I deeply believe that sound has a shortcut into the brain, where it has both subtle and massive effect on a lot of different systems. I'm not sure, though, that the higher brain functions are the ones that get really involved.
BooPear,
That was me, not James Casey.
Nothing is nothing is nothing. The American people hear nothing of Muslim denunciations of terror by Muslim extremists because there isn't any.
It has to start somewhere. Turkish Muslim leaders would be a real good place to start - the nutballs have killed lots of Turks.
>>So Darwin and Wallace knew nothing about evolution because they were "ignorant of the most basic precepts of science"?
No, the scientific methodology of Darwin and Wallace was quite good, and in keeping with the evidence at their disposal. The key here is keeping the data ahead of your biases, because the world doesn't operate on magical thinking. If the data had been different, Darwin and Wallace would have likely adopted a different theory. Hitler would have rejected any theory which demonstrated that Jews weren't inferior, regardless of the evidence.
Most scientists would abandon or modify their theories of evolution if sufficient empirical data contradicted them. That's what makes them scientists, and Hitler not.
Oops, apologies, Tom, to both you and James.
John: We can agree to disagree! :-)
I'm fond of the arabian ode origin because I can make a memetic evolution example out of it.
I don't know much about Ghost Dance cultures-- how did the Dancers deal with 'heretics'? And can't modern Ghost Dancers be infinitely more successful with weaponized anthrax and suitcase nukes, than they were with pipe vests and warpaint?
Confronting Islamic terrorism and extremism is a worldwide issue, and we concerned with fighting it continually point that out and demand that the entire world pay attention and help, and rightly so. Islam is a world religion, Islamic extremism can be found on every major continent, and help fighting it, one way or another, is needed from everyone, as we rightfully ask both for contributions in Iraq and Afghanistan, at home, and everywhere; it all interconnects.
Britain is both our chief ally, and a country with a significant Islamic population; what is done there, specifically including by British Muslims, couldn't possibly be more relevant.
John,
First let me say I'm informed by you're knowledge of the origins of Islam and your debate with jinnderella. There is a strain of thought that Islam is simple and reducible (and intrinsically flawed), and exposing the complexity of the narrative helps counter that notion. I believe you're a bit too gentle with your interpretation of Wahhabism (more gentle than I'd be with my own Puritan ancestors) but since I feel I lack sufficient erudition I'll be quiet for now.
Having said that:
#27494 Posted by John
We think we're right; they think they're right. In the absence of a meta-entity to judge these things, we can only have inconclusive decisions.
You'd have to confess that this is an absolutist reading of the notion of relativism. Personally I'm a supporter of the idea that human rights are universal, that the dignity and autonomy of the individual (men and women), are not "American" or even "Western" values, but human values. And I'm not alone in this view.
In fact my main dispute with candidate "meta-entities" (e.g. the UN) is that their standards are pretty inconsistently applied. But the idea that there are instances where sovereign privilege is forfeit is not that revolutionary; the magnitude and mechanization of crimes against humanity have rendered Westphalia a dying letter (if not dead). Surely you’d have to abandon your “We think we're right; they think they're right” formula in the context of out and out genocide, no matter what the offending country's sovereign laws.
Kidnapping and child rape go pretty high on the scale of crimes, and the appeal to the universal nature of human rights in this case cannot be easily dismissed with the invocation of sovereign privilege. While I’m thankful that there are successful appeals to individual discretion in some cases, I find the advice to remain silent in the face of Saudi intransigence hard to accept. The search for recourse is bound to continue on this and other issues.
My grandchildren will wear muslim the fabric without ever being aware there was another definition.
Your allah (satan) lied to you, fool.
were in response to Reza
"RoP Moles in the Navy? Comment 55"
where the Reza post ends with
"Your grandchildren will be Muslim.
Allahu akbar"
As you know "Allahu akbar" is not a popular phrase to be saying to Americans and other people upset by the beheadings of kidnapped people. And the whole post of Resa is outragious. Go and read it in it's entirety. Then if you want to make a fair assessment of the lgf thread called "RoP Moles in the Navy?" and it's commenters, follow Reza's posts and the responses by lgfers. I believe they showed remarkable restraint. In fact the snips you took were remarkably cool-headed.
Gary, if I had just taken your word and hadn't gone back and studied the "RoP Moles in the Navy?" thread you linked, I would be under a completely wrong impression about lgf and Charles. This is an prime example of why you shouldn't cherry pick without doing thorough research and analysis. You avoided all of Reza's comments because you were on a prejudice mission; to find what you wanted to find so you could make this post, "Something Has Gone Rotten". The rot is closer to your own door.
Hundreds of comments, but no one is addressing the real issue. Hate is not bad; that's a PC view.
Hate is the rational human response to evil. Let's not confuse irrational hatred with well reasoned hatred.
#27141 TJM
You are asleep at the switch. Your nuance and moral relativism are amazing. You are trying to blame the victims. Pol Pot may have been a Buddist, so what?
It's the ideology of radical Islam we're fighting, just as we fought against fascism, communism and totalitarianism. Do it register with you that almost all Islamic states are theocracies, dictatorships or kingdoms?
They are fascists.
BTW, we have about approximately 5 million Muslims in the US. If the aforementioned 10% are persuaded to join the radical jihad, we've face an enemy larger than our combined armed forces, and that's just here at home. How will we identify them?
My grandchildren will wear muslim the fabric without ever being aware there was another definition.
Although it doesn't necessarily have any relevance to hate or bigotry, it's worth noting that this statement is simply stupid and ignorant on its own merits.
The fabric in question is muslin, not Muslim. Whereas Muslim is derived from the word for "surrender", muslin is derived (in a roundabout way through Italian) from the name of the city of Mosul.
And while it's certainly not unheard of, one typically does not make clothing out of it. In my experience, it's more commonly used in the West for sheets, drapery, washcloths, and baby swaddling.
Mohammad ... got hard-ons for six year old girls.
Any questions?
From the Hadiths:
Tabari VII:7 “The Prophet married Aisha in Mecca three years before the Hijrah, after the death of Khadija. At the time she was six.” Ishaq:281 “When the Apostle came to Medina he was fifty-three.”
How can the comment that offends you be hate when it is a reference to what we know from the Hadiths, the Muslim records of Mohammed's life?
Mohammad ... got hard-ons for six year old girls.
Any questions?
From the Hadiths:
Tabari VII:7 “The Prophet married Aisha in Mecca three years before the Hijrah, after the death of Khadija. At the time she was six.” Ishaq:281 “When the Apostle came to Medina he was fifty-three.”
How can the comment that offends you be hate when it is a reference to what we know from the Hadiths, the Muslim records of Mohammed's life?
#27222 BooPear
As to your point #4, "what can we as private citizens do, to help this along?
See www.divestterror.org
#27299
I'm sure that HA would agree with much of your sentiment of encouraging the transformation of Islam.
What I think you are missing is that we don't have 500 years and millions of non-Muslim souls to waste, on the road to the reformation of Islam.
What I got from HA's honest assessment was a question about what type of encouragement (considering the Iraq and Afghan campaigns) will be necessary to get their attention, like next Monday, without the West having to resort to nukes?
I read into many of the comments a failure to recognize the basic issue: This conflict is of Islam's making...and if they don't fix it soon, we will be forced to do it for them. Like in the next four years. And, we know beforehand that no matter how compassionately we do it, they will hate us even more.
I cannot excuse their actions because they are backward. It is our "human" duty to defend democracy, regardless of our religious beliefs. Except, Islam takes exception to that, big time.
Here's an exercise for you. Substitute "Alien" (as in the movie) for Islamist, and then tell us, we wouldn't being acting very differently, wrt the sensitivities of the beast.
And, yes, then the only option is clearing the globe of this plague.
Ref: #27299
BTW, the solution would include the problems of the leftwing media, PETA and the ACLU fighting tooth-and-nail to preserve every clutch of the monster's eggs. It's genocide! The horror! What about its rights?
#27302 Gary
Fine, but your answer to the question was?
#27363 Hey John,
How about we count up the innocent Israeli citizens killed by the Paleos and call it even?
Obviously not. Since you must know I have no powers of deletion at any other blog, I have to wonder what on earth you are talking about.
If you meant "you are for censoring that?," the answer is still "obviously not." I've never said a word about censoring anyone (which in strict terms can only be done by a state, anyway, but never mind). I merely spent two minutes pulling a few random illustrative quotes. I have no interest in arguing the specifics of any since thousands are available, and can be found with any given two minutes of effort. The end point still remains that reputable blogs shouldn't treat bigotry as tolerable, reputable, unworthy of response, and business-as-usual. This is not a controversial or unusual view, save, apparently, for some in regard only to Muslims. Funny, that. (And, amazingly, none of those who defend this see that it is precisely what anti-Semites do, or any other form of racist: find the "reasons" why this group is the "exception.")
I am a loss as to what your intentions are in stating that last sentence. #27498 Posted by Tom Holsinger: This is so wildly untrue I barely know what to say. See here, for example. #27530 Posted by Roger: Roger, where does it say anything there about their sex life? Catholic priests are "married" to the Lord. Would you advise no one taking offense at people restating that in a sexual way as a deliberately intended insult? Can you honestly maintain the quoted statement is not deliberately intended as a derogation and insult? Are you saying that you do not understand someone taking offense at deliberate insults of the primary figure of their religion? Are you saying that you would take no offense at someone pulling some statement out of the Bible to use as a basis for insulting a key biblical figure?A "yes" to any of those questions would be difficult to credit. That you are acting as if there's no reason anyone should be offended at the quoted statement does not suggest that you credit Islam and its worshippers as worthy of any respect. Which is part of the basic problem.
#27537 Posted by geoffg: Here's the difficult concept, geoffg: our neighbors and fellow humans, our scientists, soldiers, athletes, and companions, some of whom are Muslim, are not, in fact, it turns out, aliens from another world with acid for blood, huge teeth, inability to communicate, and a rage to implacably kill everyone they encounter.Further, most Muslims are not Islamists (the extreme militants who believe in killing unbelievers).
Inability to understand this, inability to separate ordinary Muslims from Islamists, and ability to blithely make the sort of assertion such as that people are Aliens, are the problem under discussion (yes, a separate problem from the genuine threat of Muslim extremism leading to Muslim terrorists, and the existence of the latter problem doesn't excuse us from confronting the less immediately deadly former problem).
#27517 Lewy14: Sorry, an earlier reply got eaten somewhere in the electron stream...
If you note in the paragraph immediately after the one you cite, you'll see I say that lack of perfect knowledge should not stop us from taking actions when we feel it necessary.
The point is that the "Universal Declaration" isn't actually "universal". It is a political statement made by heads of state. Many cultures do not agree with everything contained in them, even if their presidents, kings, prime ministers signed off. They value things that protect "society"--as they define it--more highly than individual freedoms.
I happen to subscribe to the "universal" values, but I also know that it's not just a matter of saying "I'm right and you're wrong" to billions of people who disagree. They have to buy into the declaration; at present, they don't.
Reform is going to take time.
I have not stated that we should remain silent. We shouldn't and we don't. But there is a difference between working on the actual issue, in real circumstances, and simply declaring "you're scum and you'd better change your ways, or else."
The legal age for marriage in Saudi Arabia is 13 years for women. The same as in Korea.
I do not approve of young marriages. I think the growing consensus of putting the lower age limit at 18 is about right, but with most European countries now putting the age of sexual consent at 15 or 16, I don't think that limit will stand.
But in Saudi Arabia, too, the lower limit is changing in practice, if not in law. Saudi women--who represent over 50% of the university population, by the way--are waiting until they're in their mid- to late-20s for a first marriage. And, contrary to popular belief, they do have an absolute and enforceable right to refuse any arranged marriage.
In rural areas, though--as in rural areas around the third world--women are being married much younger than legal limits. Some studies show the scale of the problem of juvenile marriages. Take a look at it. Take a look at what parts of the world present the real problem.
Roger found the quote. What he seems not to have found is any information about arranged or political marriages. Throughout the history of the world, you can find examples of child marriages that are performed, but not consumated until the woman reaches puberty. In ancient Rome (non-Muslim), women were marriaged at 12. In India and China (non-Muslim) they were sometimes married at birth. Consumation was delayed until puberty.
Nor did Roger find any of the hadith that say the marriage with Aisha was not consumated until she was 14.
Henry VIII and Anne of Cleves were married at 14. And in the Elizabethan period, the legal lower limit for marriage and consumation was 12.
I'm not belittling the problem of juvenile marriages, but contemporary practise is not historical practice. But if your issue is with little girls being married, then Saudi Arabia is not among even the top 50% of the problem. If your issue is with Saudi Arabia, then measuring historical facts with contemporary yardsticks isn't terribly effective. Well, I'm sure, you can cause the slow ones to get charged up.
#27550 Posted by Gary Farber,
We were talking about bigotry; is the use of the word 'muzzie' bigotry?
censor verb def: " to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable".
I've never said a word about censoring anyone but your original article says:
I believe blogs are responsible for what they publish. Period. That includes comments. I believe blogs should have prominently posted commenting policy as to what are and are not acceptable comments. I believe that posters should be warned that if they violate the guidelines/rules, their offensive comments will be deleted, and if they continue to offend, they will be banned. I believe blogs need to enforce that policy, and if they do not, they are completely responsible for what is posted on their blog. If enforcing such policies is too much work, they should shut down comments, because they are responsible for what is posted on their blog.
You pulled "a few random illustrative quotes"...no wonder we are a world apart in how we analyze and make a balanced argument. I see you still don't mention Resa. This truly shows the sad state of journalism if the media approaches things your way.
A Muslim can say anything they want to say. I definitely will not stop anybody from freedom of speech. However, in countries where they dominate they do not allow freedom of speech.
Tabari IX:131 “My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down. My nurse wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was then brought in while the Messenger was sitting on a bed in our house. My mother made me sit on his lap. Then the men and women got up and left. The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old.”
Chilling.
I missed an end italics after:
I've never said a word about censoring anyone
Gary,
The "P.S. Hitler was a pro-active Evolutionist" was for T. J. Madison. I think TJM got it:-)
#27551 Posted by John,
I stayed away from Aisha's story because the subject turns my stomach.
I am not trying to get into a debate about it at this time. What I am talking about is taking snips from other blogs and saying the things that Gary says in this article. He takes the quote
"Mohammad raided camel caravans, broke treaties, tortured and killed prisoners of war, and got hard-ons for six year old girls.
Any questions?"
uses it to illustrate bigotry and hate while apparently unfamiliar with it's origins. He had opportunity to ask the author but didn't bother. Just writes that other blogs are rotten and hateful and this quote is a perfect example. I'm saying it is a matter of debate.
The Resa comment that caused quite a few reactions , is not mentioned in Gary's article so here it is.
Are you people so blinded by your fear and hatred of Islam that you cannot accept reality? There are already 8 million "documented" Muslims in the United States, along with an estimated 10 million additional "undocumented" Muslims. Every one of these 18 million people prays and works every day for the establishment of the Islamic Caliphate and the replacement of the corrupt and unjust system of man-made laws and government by Allah's (swt) divine Sharia.
The long struggle is nearly over, and its outcome has been preordained according to the promise of Allah (swt) to His (swt) believers. As far as the American military is concerned, consider this statement by the well known Saudi Professor Nasser bin Suleiman al-Omar:
"Islam is advancing according to a steady plan, to the point that tens of thousands of Muslims have joined the American army and Islam is the second largest religion in America. America will be destroyed. But we must be patient."
Do you really desire more war and bloodshed? Do you really want your children to perish in a futile and foredoomed effort to hold back the inevitable triumph of Islam?
Stop warring against Almighty Allah (swt). Stop abusing and oppressing Muslims. Embrace Islam now and live in peace according to the commands of Allah (swt) and following the perfect example of his Prophet (saw). Be part of the bright, shining future of an Islamic America, not a forgotten part of a dim, dying past.
Your grandchildren will be Muslim.
Allahu akbar then Gary is upset that people write back:
Your allah (satan) lied to you, fool.
My grandchildren will wear muslim the fabric without ever being aware there was another definition.
I see this as a perfect example of how dialog breaks down to no ones benefit. Gary's article would be more balanced if he took this into consideration.
#27309 Tom
Extremist interpretations of relgion tend to get violent. Yeah, I noticed. We call it 9/11/01.
BTW Gary,
If 'muzzie' is fast becoming a word of bigotry, we should get it introduced into an online bigotry dictionary if it isn't already. My searches of wikipedia and the first pages of Google found nothing.
This is a new phenomenon of the internet; how fast nonsensical references to another person/group can become a word of bigotry. Gets used till everybody begins to realize it is getting dangerously over used.
John says:
I don't like the Saudi laws. I think they should be changed. But they are still the laws that are enforced within the country. No amount of bitching about it by outsiders is going to get those laws changed.
Not exactly. If any sovereign nation (even a democratic one) declares it the law of the land to kill and eat anyone not of that nationality, we'd have to interupt that sovereignty pretty quick, don't cha think?
Gary, when I say I don't know the full meaning of the word 'muzzie', I'm saying other bigoted words I don't care to mention have a meaning other than a replacement of another name.
The quote "If the bastard wasn't a muzzie they would have said so.". The word 'bastard' is refering to the mole in the Navy and the discussion is about why the news did not say he was an Islamofascists.
What I don't know is if 'muzzie' refers to a Muslim who does a certain agregious act or is meant for all Muslims in general.