This kind of thinking is common: if you point out the Islamic bona fides of the terrorists, you are just helping the terrorists. But it is not actually true. The Islamic world has a massive problem; to ignore, deny, or sugarcoat is what actually helps the terrorists, because it does nothing to stop them from operating in a panoply of Islamic contexts. To shed light on how radical Muslims recruit and motivate terrorists is not to help the terrorists, but to identify the source of the problem. Until the non-Muslim world at large is ready to do this, the problem will continue.
Also, of course, Azoulay is talking about "those who blame the whole Islamic world," which is a misstatement and mischaracterization if he is indeed referring to those who point out how terrorism arises from Islam. From ArabicNews.com, with thanks to Nicolei.
Those who blame the whole Islamic and Arab world for the tragic developments in the world could "turn into the most reliable aides of the most dangerous extremists," underscored Andre Azoulay, adviser to the Moroccan king.Before the Ambrosetti Forum, held over the weekend in the Italian lake region of Come under the Peace, Security and Terror, Azoulay reviewed the historical and spiritual realities of more than a billion Moslem faithful who cannot be blamed for the acts of individuals or groups who chose to act contrary to ethical values.
Azoulay stressed the Islamic religion must be respected the same way other religions are respected and underscored the nature of modernity, creativity and openness that mark the Moroccan society under the leadership of King Mohammed VI.
He called the participants in the forum not to ignore Islamic realities and stressed the need to hold a global discussion where political, economic and cultural issues should be treated with the same importance and priority.
That is just what I am trying to do here at Jihad Watch and in my books, Azoulay: not ignore Islamic realities.
This is nonsense on stilts. No "religion" or, in this case far better, belief-system, is entitled to automatic respect. Why should it be? Many people have spent a good deal of time studying Islam, to discover things they wish they had not discovered. And that is only from their encounter with Qur'an and hadith and sira. Had they had the leisure to spend a year or two studying Muslim history -- even just one teeny-tiny example, the treatment, as recorded by Mary Boyce, of Zoroastrians in Iran -- they would have learned a lot. Or, if they had read and studied the books, two of which are available on-line, of the Indian historian K. S. Lal, or read further in the history of Muslim mass murder in India, with the books of Sir Jahundath Sarkar, Sita Ram Goel, and others (and anyone who wishes a priori to dismiss these people as "Hindu fanatics" -- the usual strategy -- are fools, or collaborators in murder).
Mohammed V was, like a number of enlightened despots, about the best one can hope for in the Islamic world. He was not, himself, vicious, and because he could claim descent from the Prophet, and the Moroccan monarchy has a whole series of rituals that remind the king's subjects of that descent, and that has, in the past, allowed for a certain tiny liberality. In World War II, for example, the Moroccan king had a "good war." And while so-called Moroccan intellectuals, once the veneer of smiles and Western ways have been pierced, one reaches the layer of resentment and then, below that, of hate and hysteria, quite rapidly, are beloved of the likes of Thomas Friedman -- remember him, the big expert on Islam, who is right now taking three months out of his busy, busy schedule to "write a book" about the current problem -- who is always reporting on his lunches or dinners with "Moroccan intellectuals," it is a farce.
Of course couleur locale goes a long way, and for those "Dialogue of Civilisiation" junkets that everyone loves (especially those who, back in the U.S. are deeply involved in "Muslim-Jewish Dialogue" and "Christian-Muslim dialogue" and every other sort of meaningless, except insofar as it prolongs the unwariness of Infidels, and allows some of them to think that this is the way to go, that interfaith dialogue racket) Morocco is the place of choice. You know, the king can guarantee security, and it looks sufficiently exotic. No wonder that Anthony Quinn movie about Muhammad started to be filmed there some 30 or so years ago, until some Saudi got the king on the phone, and read him the riot act, and those making the movie -- not to the Saudis' liking -- were booted out overnight.
Other enlightened despots were the Shah of Iran, who was by far, when it comes to the treatment of Infidels, the best of the lot, though not in constraining Islam, as Ataturk did, through a series of coherent and clever measures. Still another was Habib Bourguiba, and his Destour Party, who had little use for real Islam and was quick to raise the status of women; his legacy is maintained by a mild police-state, and thank god for that. And finally, there was Ataturk himself, whose measures, from the Hat Act to eliminating use of Arabic script to giving women the vote, to discriminating in government and army service against those who showed too keen a faith either because they insisted on wearing the hijab, or studied in a madrasah, or were seen reading the Qur'an with a bit too much fervency. Ataturk's lessons -- his understanding that there was no "reformation" (a favorite topic of young Muslims trying to get tenure these days -- it's the hottest and the latest shtick to fool the Infidel academics voting on your future -- hell, what do they know? And perhaps you can even fool them into thinking it will bring in all kinds of government grant money -- you know, the "Reformation Project"? Can Esposito, can Diane Eck, can Abou El Fadl, can Hamid Dabashi be far behind?
No one can match Hugh's excellent, thorough, and erudite comment. I can only add that the Muslim world, in as much as it refuses to repudiate the tenet of jihad, has much to answer for.
Extreme Jihadists don't spring from nowhere. They are the cultural and religious fruit of an ideology that values death more than life. Mothers and fathers inculcate this ideology into their offspring, and even though they MIGHT NOT expect that their children strap on bombs, they do support the effort to expand Islam into regions that are populated by other religions and cultures. Thus, they, too, bear some of the guilt.
Fueled by petrodollars and manned by Western-technology, cunning and resourceful individuals are operating behind the scenes, sending out their jihadists foot soldiers to do their dirty work, either as bombers, gunmen, or even as university professors. If we want assign blame, we must search for the names of those that are operating behind the scenes; scheming, planning, funding, and sending out their minions on their multiple jihadist missions. Cut off the heads of the snakes will do much to lesson the scourge of jihad.
Once again the Islamic world extends the hand of peace, and one again you people spit on it. It becomes clearer every day that, as the Prophet (saw) said, the nonbelievers never will accept or cease attempting to destroy Islam and its believers.
In thread after thread here you people repeat your barbaric cries for the extermination of all Muslims and the destruction of Islam. Are you so hopelessly deluded as to believe that you can kill 1.2 billion people? Do you not see that the triumphal march of Islam is irrestible? Do you not appreciate the obvious facts that Western civilization is in an advanced state of decay and that the Islamic ummah grows stronger every day?
Please, you must overcome your irrational fear and hatred. Reach out and grasp the offered hand of peace. Stop waging war against Almighty Allah (swt) and stop abusing and oppressing Muslims. Embrace Islam and live in peace in submission to the commands of Allah. The time grows short.
Your grandchildren will be Muslim.
Allahu akbar
"Reza":
I didn't expect to see you again.
I have heard that you were exposed as a non-Muslim agitator, as I had long suspected.
Please explain why "Joe H." posted several anti-jihad messages from your IP address at LGF.
Otherwise, I will have to ban you too, although I am impressed by your cleverness at convincing so many people for so long that you are a Muslim.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Director, Jihad Watch
Mr Spencer
Has also wondered about' Reza' as his/her English was so good and some of sources mentioned were odd choice
for a Muslim.We don't need an Agent Provocateur dear Reza so depart to stir up other sites...
Re:Respect - this needs to be EARNED in all things
including Religion. How can I respect the Koran when it incites hatred and killing of Infidels
and justifies acts of Terrorism as being 'sanctioned by Allah!!'
Robert-
Please, please, please don't ban Reza!!!
His idiotic attempts at subterfuge and enigmatic attempts to be Muslim really make my day, to say nothing of others on this board.
If we ban him from this site, he'll go back to wallowing in his extremist right-wing hate literature, saluting the Nazi flag at breakfast, burning crosses on lawns (whoops! Reza might not be American. Sorry.) Well, anyway, you get my drift.
Besides...has anyone here (Hugh and yourself not included) ever used the word "titular" correctly??
There is a story, "Pierre Menard, author of the Quixote," by Jorge Luis Borges. It is about a man who, in the first third of the 20th century, writes, word for word, the adventures of that hidalgo, Don Quixote de la Mancha, he of the windmills, and Rocinante, and Sancho Panza. A feat of genius, Borges' narrator argues, far more impressive than the original by one Miguel Saavedra de Cervantes. For, in the midst of a very different time, give all the changes in language, and in moeurs, and in the entire mental makeup of any writer living more than three hundred years later, if the author, the Frenchman Pierre Menard, manages nonetheless to write, not copy but write, word for word the story of Don Quixote, in the style of 1600, expressing all the assumptions of that age, then he is surely superior to Cervantes himself, who could without difficulty write in the language of 1600, with the assumptions of Spain in 1600.
In the same way, Reza - de cuyo nombre quiero acordarme -- can be regarded as either a dim-witted fanatic, no different from a few million others, or as a kind of genius, who deliberately set out to impersonate, word for word, such a dimwitted fanatic, and did so quite well indeed. Whether this was wise, whether it did in fact achieve the aim of encapsulating Muslim beliefs so that some of the posters would feel their blood boil, and be moved to answer, is not clear. But if that was the point -- here, in this corner, one "Reza" will articulate the views of Muslims, then perhaps it was worth it. Creepy, disturbing, but perhaps useful (although one only has to go to any number of websites to see the certifiable, in every sense, real thing).
It would make things interesting if indeed the latter were the case, and this poster were no more a Muslim than Louis Armstrong or Jimmy Durante, or any of us.
Perhaps this has pedagogic value. Ordinarily, one knows that undue attention is paid, especially by terrible teachers of literature, to the ethnic, racial, religious background of the writers being studied, rather than paying attention to the words. But in this case, surely the most interesting aspect is whether Reza is a True Believer, or a True Fake, beautifully impersonating a True Believer.
Teachers of literature might consider giving their classes the Borges story to read, and then telling them to go to www.jihadwath.org and find 20-30 postings by "Reza," and then to consider whether or not he seems real or false, and perhaps give them a bit of advice to investigate the word "jihad" and the word "dhimmitude" and try to figure out -- all as an academic, literary exercise of course -- whether or not Reza "is like Pierre Menard in some sense." What a splendidly literary and inoffensive way to get your students to learn about Muslim beliefs. And if they have a question, or wonder if these really are Muslim beliefs or if Reza is just crazy, you can direct them to any number of informative websites, including www.dhimmitude.org, and www.secularislam.org, and www.faithfreedom.org, and, of course, all the Muslim websites which echo Reza, or he echoes them. A very salutary school exercise.
Reza I am so sorry...you have come to the wrong place to deposit your totalitarian propaganda. The person who would most agree with what you say here is Satan...I suggest you try finding his web-blog so you and he can chat in full agreement.
Your Grandchildren will be visiting you in jail.
Reza if you are a non-muslim agitator ...you know full well what you do is incitemnt to hatred...there is enough of that already...creating hatred here won't give any meaning to you life...Why incite hatred if you hate muslims so much...be more constructive. Your actions in the scheme of things don't have any real impact now...now that you are exposed...so the logical thing is to stop trolling this website. If you want to make a difference you can post to this website your logical analysis of the islamist totalitarian threat. But no matter what you say here to incite anger it pales into complete insignificance what real islamists are already doing in reality...eg. Beslan, sep11. Real islamists are doing a billion times more than you are to incite hatred...so why bother? Your past words are like a small drop in an ocean of negativity...a extremely big ocean...be more constructive and positive... just state the truth about islamist fascism and maybe you will contribute towards a great wave of change.
Reza,
Very good, you had me fooled, I won't waste my time with you any longer.
Whereas I can see where you are comming from, and understand that you must have found it irresistable to keep comming here nearly everyday and getting such an engaging response, and such attention, you are approaching it in totally the wrong way.
Goodbye old friend!!!
Hugh,
Churchill couldn't have said it better!!!
i'll try not to break my arm patting myself on the back, but my last blog on the topic of reza was as follows:
reza is a waste of time. when someone defines terms as antonyms, indeed, that person is living in unreality.
Posted by: ted at April 20, 2004 12:36 PM
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/001634.php