Terrorism creates more terror. Now, here's an assignment for all you moral equivalence advocates. Please compile a list similar to the one below of similar bombings and other attacks taking place in and around churches since 1980. The shootings by Muslims in Pakistani churches, as well as the destruction of churches by Muslims in Indonesia and Nigeria, don't count: this must be Christian-on-Christian violence. Send your lists to director@jihadwatch.org.
From AP, with thanks to Bob:
BAGHDAD (AP) — At least 648 people were killed in a stampede on a bridge Wednesday when panic engulfed a Shiite religious procession amid rumors that a suicide bomber was about to attack, officials said. It appeared to be the single biggest loss of life in Iraq since the March 2003 invasion. Scores jumped or were pushed to their deaths into the Tigris River, while others were crushed in the crowd. Most of the dead were women and children, Interior Ministry spokesman Lt. Col. Adnan Abdul-Rahman said.Deadly incidents in Islam
Wednesday's stampede is far from the first fatal accident to befall Islamic religious ceremonies:Aug. 31, 2005: At least 648 Shiite worshippers taking part in annual commemoration of a saint's death are killed in a stampede on a bridge in Baghdad, with many trampled or tumbling into the Tigris River.
March 10, 2005: A suicide bomber blows himself up at a Shiite mosque during a funeral in the northern city of Mosul, killing at least 47 people and wounding more than 100.
Dec. 19, 2004: Car bombs tore through a Najaf funeral procession and Karbala's main bus station, killing at least 60 people and wounding more than 120 in the two Shiite holy cities.
March 2, 2004: Coordinated blasts from suicide bombers, mortars and planted explosives strike Shiite Muslim shrines in Karbala and in Baghdad, killing at least 181 and wounding 573.
Feb. 1 2004: 251 Muslim pilgrims killed in stampede in Saudi Arabian city of Mina during the stoning ritual at the annual Muslim pilgrimage.
Aug. 29, 2003: A car bomb explodes outside mosque in Najaf, killing more than 85 people, including Shiite leader Ayatollah Mohammed Baqir al-Hakim. Although officials never gave a final death toll, there were suspicions it may have been higher.
July 4, 2003: Gunmen in the Pakistani city of Quetta storm a Shiite Muslim mosque packed with prayer worshippers, killing about 50 and wounding hundreds.
March 5, 2001: 35 hajj pilgrims killed in stampede during stoning of the devil ritual in Mina.
April 9, 1998: Some 180 pilgrims trampled to death when panic erupted after several fell off an overpass during the stoning of the devil ritual in Mina....
May 23, 1994: 270 pilgrims killed in a stampede in Saudi Arabia's holiest city, Mecca, as worshippers surged toward a cavern for the symbolic ritual of "stoning the devil."
July 9, 1990: 1,426 pilgrims killed in a stampede in an overcrowded pedestrian tunnel leading to holy sites in Mecca. It is the worst hajj-related tragedy.
July 31, 1987: 402 people, mostly Iranian pilgrims, killed and 649 wounded in the Saudi city of Mecca when security forces clash with Iranians staging an anti-U.S. demonstration.
Ah, the "Religion of Peace", in "the shade of the quran".
I've said it before, Huntington said, "islams borders are bloody", to which I add, so is most of what's in between. Societal "explosive rage disorder". I am constantly astounded at the boundless islamic capacity to flip-the-f***-out.
The list of Shi'a reliigous processions, and Shi'a mosques, and Shi'a imams, attacked in Pakistan by Sunnis would be very long. The Shi'a Hazara in Afghanistan have experienced similar attacks, especially during the Taliban's reign (not as much, of course, during the American-supported interregnum of Karzai).
And what goes on in the wilds of Yemen, between Shi'a and Sunni, we can only guess. And we can only guess about the depths of Shi'a resentment in Hasa, the eastern province of Saudi Arabia, where the oilfields are found.
In today's Bandar Beacon, in the midst of an article (by Ellen Knickmeyer and Omar Fekeiki) about a tribal leader who had turned on the "foreign Jihadists," not out of principle, but because 31 members of his tribe who had joined the national security forces had been killed by those "foreign Jihadists," there is this:
"This month in Ramadi, the capital of Anbar, tribes took up arms to block Zarqawi's group from enforcing his ultimatum for all Shi'ite Muslim families to leave the city."
That Zarqawi and those who back him believe that the Shi'ites are no better than Americans -- i.e., are Infidels -- is something that needs to be not ignored but emphasized. And it needs to be emphasized for the Shi'a themselves, who may begin to question, just a bit, the nature of Sunni Islam, or even of Islam. In the Islamic Republic of Iran, where impatience with or hostility toward Islam is far advanced (not becasuse of anything, incidentally, the Americans have done or tried to do -- it has been entirely a response to what, within the sealed-up nightmare of the Islamic Republic of iran, Muslims themselves have done to Muslims), this evidence of Sunni malevolence, and the belief that Shi'a are not "real Muslims" could be a push out of Islam altogether, for those disinclined to go the other way, to behave so as to prove their Muslim credentials.
Just one more tell-tail sign of something rotten in the state of Islam.
Social pathologies in the Western world exist in abundance, but most of them are recognized for what they are and society at least attempts to remedy them. Not so in the Muslim world.
Honor killings are a perfect example. Even though not codified into Islamic Law, this barbarous treatment of women fits nicely into the collective Muslim cultural psyche.
Victor Davis Hanson tells us that a free society can be distinguished from a totalitarian one by whether or not people are allowed to freely assemble and protest the policies of their government. In my opinion, he's wrong.
A given government in the Muslim world may be moderate and tolerant of dissent, but if the people of that country regularly engage in barbarities such as Honor Killings and pogroms against religious minorities, then that society is hardly free.
I don't like the tone of this post, you should remove it or revise it. It almost sounds as if you are gloating over the deaths of 650 people, because somehow it makes islam look savege when compared to christianity. Islamic doctrine may be savage but there are FAR better ways of making that point than using an event like this in such a manner. I'm sure that is not what you have intended.
Most of the dead were women and children, and many died from drowning. Stampedes happen in the most civilized of countries, and they happen whenever a large group of people are gathered together and are spooked. I guess if you wanted to make this somehow related to islam, it would soley be because islam has a way of encouraging large groups of people to mass together.
But if a bunch of christians or buddhists were bunched together in a similar situation, no doubt a similar outcome would occur if people thought there was a fire or suicide bomber nearby. The force of even a handful of people pushing one-another is enough to knock down most people and the ensuing and uncontrollable trampling of those unfortunate enough to fall down is almost always deadly. The panic of the stampede also magnifies the initial panic and makes the situation worse.
I still fail to understand why shiite pilgrims want to risk their lives massing together on their way to some shrine in a war zone. My only guess is it has something to do with their fatalistic outlook on life.
These stuff happens in 'peaceful' Saudi Arabia during many regularly-scheduled Hadj's.
They go out en masse to ritually 'stone Satan', somebody gets panicky, and 200 people are crushed underfoot by the faithful.
There is a basic undercurrent of hysteria in Islam that tends to them stampeding like sheep.
Too much submission weakens the hinges of the soul.
I feel sorry for any spirit caught into this theocratic headlock.
May a billion apostates regain their freedom one day.
"Too much submission weakens the hinges of the soul."
Very nice.
Prophet Geoff
If I thought there was a bomber headed my way, I would probably run too.
Crowds misbehave around the world (witness soccer championships in Europe). It is tragic that so many died for no reason, particularly the children.
The only people gloating over this are the Arab supported terrorist in Iraq.I'm sure they are quite pleased by this.
The reason for the stampede is meaningless.In the end,the entire thing will be blamed on the Americans.
JLP
Todd;
Sorry, I went back and reread the post and I can't find anything that makes it look like gloating. Nothing. It's a straight-up relay of the pertinent facts, with additional data relating to similar events. RS is successful precisely because he lets facts, and quotes, speak for themselves. If anything, the list of like events provides an explanation as to why people(Shia) would act in this way.
It shows that the Shia, accustomed to being preyed on by Sunnis, reacted instinctively, not wasting a second with thoughts that it may not be true. The possibility of a suicide bomber amongst them was, in their minds, completely plausible, and not something that they cared to stand around and clarify. The fact that it wasn't true is tragic, but the fact that they believed it(or couldn't take the chance on not believing it) enought to stampede is far more tragic.
Also, do you think the Sunni's won't "take" a freebee when it's handed to them? They will celebrate just the same, maybe even try to repeat it as a no-cost alternative to real bombs.
JLP: You're wrong. The Jews will be blamed.
"Iran, where impatience with or hostility toward Islam is far advanced (not becasuse of anything, incidentally, the Americans have done or tried to do -- it has been entirely a response to what, within the sealed-up nightmare of the Islamic Republic of iran, Muslims themselves have done to Muslims)..."
Actually, it has a lot to do with Americans -- specifically American support of the Shah of Iran, who more than anyone else helped to develop a culture of tolerance, progress and modernity in a Persia horribly backward due to centuries of Islamic culture before he came along. That the Shah had to be often brutal & tyrannical about bringing Islamic Persia into the 20th century was due to the recalcitrant Koranic clay out of which democratic methods seem to be insufficient to wrest humanity.
Well, in 1572 10,000 French Calvinists were massacred by the Catholic Party.
And then we have all the violence between Irish Catholics and Scottish Protestants in Northern Ireland.
Once again, Mr. Spencer proves himself to be a cheap-shot artist, attacking Muslims as if what they do is unique to their religion.
CJK, we're not talking about ancient history! The abysmal situation that Mr. Spenser writes about is happening in this day and age predominantly in one and only one single religious community, that of Islam.
Panic stampede??? No way, it was a well orchestrated Sunni attack:
"Earlier, mortar rounds had been fired into the crowd, killing at least seven people. About 36 others were injured when four mortar rounds landed close to the Kadhimiya mosque. .. There were also reports that some worshippers had been poisoned."
[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4199618.stm ]
Its not the same as the tramplings during the Hajj. This was an attack, in yet-another-stream of Muslim-vs-Muslim violence. Nearly a THOUSAND brothers were killed by their BROTHERS. Who'd even notice that American soldiers were there?
The BBC of course. They aired a diatribe by an Sunni-Iraqi member who stated that "the blame falls on the Americans for placing auto barricades on the bridge, and for failing to protect us from these terrorists". Of course he did not mention the mortar shellings and machine-gunner who helped to get the paniced people started.
The duplicity of Sunni's is the root cause of the civl war in Iraq. Sucks to be toppled from being the top dog, and their going down fighting with every bit they can muster.
Panic stampede??? No way, it was a well orchestrated Sunni attack:
"Earlier, mortar rounds had been fired into the crowd, killing at least seven people. About 36 others were injured when four mortar rounds landed close to the Kadhimiya mosque. .. There were also reports that some worshippers had been poisoned."
[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4199618.stm ]
Its not the same as the tramplings during the Hajj. This was an attack, in yet-another-stream of Muslim-vs-Muslim violence. Nearly a THOUSAND brothers were killed by their BROTHERS. Who'd even notice that American soldiers were there?
The BBC of course. They aired a diatribe by an Sunni-Iraqi member who stated that "the blame falls on the Americans for placing auto barricades on the bridge, and for failing to protect us from these terrorists". Of course he did not mention the mortar shellings and machine-gunner who helped to get the paniced people started.
The duplicity of Sunni's is the root cause of the civl war in Iraq. Sucks to be toppled from being the top dog, and their going down fighting with every bit they can muster.
Debka file is reporting al-queda is gloating over 1000 dead...
Al Qaeda-Iraq claims mortar and machine gun attack that killed 1,000 “Shiite heretics at the Kadhimiya mosque” in Baghdad.
DEBKAfile Exclusive: Three explosives-vested suicide bombers, one an Afghani, and two bomb cars were captured after the deadly attack. The captives named Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as plotter of the atrocity.
August 31, 2005, 11:35 AM (GMT+02:00)
Most of the victims were women, children and old people. The attack was staged – first mortars shelled the edges of the million-strong procession at the Imam Mousa al Kadim mosque, then Katyusha rockets were fired from afar, finally rumors of suicide bombers.
This set off a panicky rush to the Tigris bridge. Hundreds broke through a railing and fell to their death in the contaminated river.
The Shiite government is at pains to keep this information dark to prevent Shiite popular reprisals that could tip Iraqi into wholesale sectarian violence. Shiite prime minister Jaafari declared three days mourning.
Wonderful Religion....
"Most of the dead were women and children..."
Thank Allah, only the least-valued members of Islamic society were victims:
Qur’an 8:28 “And know that your property [ie. wives] and your children are just a temptation.”
Qur’an 64:14 “Believers, truly, among your wives and your children there are enemies for you: so beware of them! ... Your wealth and your children are only a trial.”
Qur’an 4:11 “Allah directs you in regard of your Children’s (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females…. These are settled portions ordained by Allah.”
So, we can see that women have only half the value of men, so the death toll should be divided by two (well, children have even less value than women).
One can only be greatful that the brave warriors were able to push the women and children off the bridge to save themselves and live to jihadicize another day.
This Al-Qaeda gloating should be well-publicized, and put on every European and American station. It will help people in the West understand that many Sunnis regard the Shi'a as Infidels, and of course one can gloat over the death of Infidels. It will help Shi'a in the West question more their loyalties, and perhaps one or two or more will find that, after all, they would not mind helping the American or English or French intelligence services monitor the activites of Saudi-financed mosques. It will help Infidels who might have been tempted by Islam to think again at one more example of the attitudes that Islam fosters -- for what are those celebrating Al-Qaeda supporters if not prompted by the attitude that Islam inculcates toward the enemy, and in this case the Shi'a, as Infidels, are the enemy.
And not least, it should be beamed into Shi'a homes in Iraq, and in Iran, so that fury against the Sunnis can build and build. That, after all, is in our interest -- if, unlike some in the Administration and a good many in Congresss as well, we understand where our true interest lies.
My dear CJK,
Not that I would accuse you of anything so base as a "cheap shot," but please read the assignment again.
Note that it says this: "Please compile a list similar to the one below of similar bombings and other attacks taking place in and around churches since 1980."
Since 1980. In response, you give me one from 1572 and one that is politically, not religiously, motivated.
And then you accuse me of making the cheap shot.
I see.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Latest report says the death toll is now in excess of 800.
RS,
The post lacks any compassion for the victims, that is why I find it creepy. If I was going to write anything at all, I would not start out implying the moral superiority of christian or western, culture, nor would I end it with a silly challenge to find comparable atrocities in our morally superior socieities in the last 25 years - what a morbid proposition.
I would've just said it's a damn shame this happened and it is just one of many tragedies to befall iraqis at the hands of ruthless jihadists who have imprisoned them in a atmosphere of terror for years now.
Mr Spencer,
why do you assume that everything that happens between Muslims is religious rather than politically motivated?
Northern Ireland is a political cause to you, but the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a holy war between Jews and Muslims?
George Habash (PFLP founder) and Sirhan Sirhan (assassinated RFK) who were both Greek Orthodox would be surprised to hear that they were fighting Israel in the name of Islam. As would Nayef Hawatmeh (Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, or DFLP founder) who also was Christian. And so would Abu Nidal, who was an atheist. Yasser Arafat was a Muslim, but he was very secular. So anytime Muslims do something it's Islam-driven?
As for Christian on Christian violence since 1980, again, I would point to Northern Ireland, as well as Kosovo, where the Albanian Catholics and Albanian Muslims fought against Serbs. Or in Lebanon when there became infighting between various Christian political leaders? In Albania there is 3-way violence between Muslims, Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox.
Why do you assume this incident in Iraq was theologically driven? It's political just like Northern Ireland or Israel-Palestine. Two groups of people that happen to be religiously different fighting for control or freedom or whatever on a certain piece of dirt. Bottom line.
Best regards,
CJK
Todd said "I would not start out implying the moral superiority of christian or western, culture"
As RS challenged, it would be the, ahh, rare, some might say, non-existent, occasion to find Christians firing mortars on a Christian religious procession, resulting in hundreds of deaths. To you, this implies no moral superiority of Christian societies over Islamic societies where it happens weekly. Okeedokie.
The role that the Qur'an might play in justifying, encouraging, or mandating violence against non-Muslims (or Muslims who are not Muslim enough), is also apparently irrelevant to you.
After all, we are all the same, right? Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are pretty much the same, right?
If you don't recognize the moral deficiencies of Islamic society as implemented in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, or Saudi Arabia, then you're giving me the creeps.
No, I'm not a Christian, but even I can recognize the difference in the teachings of Jesus and Muhammed:
Qur’an 5:33 “The punishment for those who wage war [ie. defensive war] against Allah and His Prophet and make mischief in the land [ie. live and breath], is to murder them, crucify them, or cut off a hand and foot on opposite sides...their doom is dreadful. They will not escape the fire, suffering constantly.”
The one was crucified, and the other was a crucifier. Other than that, they're pretty much the same, right?
CJK, please read the following quote:
"Please compile a list similar to the one below of similar bombings and other attacks taking place in and around churches since 1980."
No-one has said that no Christian or Jew has ever fought or killed another Christian or Jew. That would be ridiculous, and no made that claim. Please read the following quote:
"Please compile a list similar to the one below of similar bombings and other attacks taking place in and around churches since 1980."
What is the point of your gobbledygook? That Sirhan Sirhan killed RFK in an act of Orthodox Greek vs. Catholocism jihad? You're saying that the war in Lebanon was generally a war between Christians? That Abu Nidal was fighting a war of atheist secular humanism against the People of the Book? Please read the following quote:
"Please compile a list similar to the one below of similar bombings and other attacks taking place in and around churches since 1980."
Holy Shi'ite, Batman!
Todd "would not start out implying the moral superiority of christian or western culture." Well, that's only because poor Todd has been soaking too long in the vat of multiculturalism and moral equivalence.
The fact is: western culture IS SUPERIOR. Not perfect, but SUPERIOR. And a lot of us are working on making it better. Plenty of other cultures have been positively improved by adopting or copying some of western culture's methods and attitudes.
Some of Mr. Todd's friends think that western culture can be made better by denying it, destroying it, diluting it, ignoring it, and attributing its advances, discoveries, and inventions to someone or something else.
But the fact remains. The world is a better place because of western culture. And a damn big part of that western culture is the Jewish & Christian ethic that has fueled it, reformed it, entertained it, and pushed it along.
Yes, western culture IS SUPERIOR. Even though Mr. Todd would deny that statement, he has either voted with his feet, or voted with his seat. He enjoys the fruits of this western cultural heritage. He did communicate on his computer, over the web, in English, didn't he?
Todd:
You say: "The post lacks any compassion for the victims, that is why I find it creepy."
You are assuming that on the basis of silence. Arguments from silence are always tenuous.
You say: "If I was going to write anything at all, I would not start out implying the moral superiority of christian or western, culture, nor would I end it with a silly challenge to find comparable atrocities in our morally superior socieities in the last 25 years - what a morbid proposition."
Suit yourself. Every day I am confronted 10 or 12 times by someone who invokes the Crusades and the Inquisition as if their very existence, so long ago in history, somehow excuses contemporary Islamic terrorism. This happens so often that I have come to see such attempts at moral equivalence as a primary distraction from the facts we must face in order to deal effectively with Islamic terrorism. Hence I issue such challenges, do not believe they are silly, and will continue to issue them.
You say: "I would've just said it's a damn shame this happened and it is just one of many tragedies to befall iraqis at the hands of ruthless jihadists who have imprisoned them in a atmosphere of terror for years now."
Good points. Start your own website and say them.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
CJK:
You say: "why do you assume that everything that happens between Muslims is religious rather than politically motivated?"
I don't, but in any case, it is much harder in a Muslim context to separate the religious from the political. Islam is a political religion that knows no distinction between the sacred and secular spheres. These Shias were probably targeted because of their growing political power in Iraq. Does that make it not a religious attack? No, it does not.
You say: "Northern Ireland is a political cause to you, but the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a holy war between Jews and Muslims?"
Don't ask me. Ask Hamas. Read their Charter. You'll find the answer to your question there.
You say: "George Habash (PFLP founder) and Sirhan Sirhan (assassinated RFK) who were both Greek Orthodox would be surprised to hear that they were fighting Israel in the name of Islam. As would Nayef Hawatmeh (Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, or DFLP founder) who also was Christian. And so would Abu Nidal, who was an atheist. Yasser Arafat was a Muslim, but he was very secular. So anytime Muslims do something it's Islam-driven?"
You are assuming far too much about what I know and what I believe, but in that you are hardly alone. In fact, the answer to your question is no. Habash and early Arafat represent the secular Arab nationalist movement, which is now on the wane. Had they prospered and Hamas withered, you could legitimately say the conflict there was largely political. Instead, the religious element has gradually become dominant. The trajectory of Arafat's career illustrates this well. To get some idea of the lay of the land here you might also be interested in looking into the career of Michel Aflaq, founder of the Baath Party. Another Christian, he constructed the Arab nationalist movement as an opportunity for Christians and Muslims to stand together as equals. But toward the end of his life he became a Muslim: "Arab nationalism," he said, "IS Islam."
You say: "As for Christian on Christian violence since 1980, again, I would point to Northern Ireland, as well as Kosovo, where the Albanian Catholics and Albanian Muslims fought against Serbs. Or in Lebanon when there became infighting between various Christian political leaders? In Albania there is 3-way violence between Muslims, Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox."
None of this is primarily religiously motivated, but I'm sure you will assert otherwise.
You say: "Why do you assume this incident in Iraq was theologically driven? It's political just like Northern Ireland or Israel-Palestine. Two groups of people that happen to be religiously different fighting for control or freedom or whatever on a certain piece of dirt. Bottom line."
Here you are failing to take into account, or even to acknowledge, the political-religious imperatives that both Sunnis and Shias in Iraq have made abundantly clear are of paramount importance to them.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
The poster who calls himself "Todd" objects:
"The post lacks any compassion for the victims, that is why I find it creepy."
Have you ever seen Mohammedan 'compassion' for infidels, for example after 9/11, after Bali, Beslan, Madrid, London? All we ever hear is 'fear of backlash' and how much 'damage this does to the image of Islam' -as if the blood-cult did not sufficiently demonstrate to the world -on a daily basis- just how vile and evil the 'believers' are.
Another poster, who posts as CJK (which I presume stands for 'crackerjack') is clearly of Mohammedan persuasion:
In typical fashion he slimes and slithers, winches and whines, digs everywhere and comes up with a lot of obscurant nonsense, as if Arafat was not a Jihadist!
However, since RS unnecessarily dignified this nonsense with an answer I have nothing to add.
Terminator,
actually I am a Maronite Catholic of Lebanese descent.
Mr Spencer,
I know all about Michel Aflaq and that he was Antiochene Orthodox. But I also know about the alleged "note" that the Iraqi branch of the Ba'ath party said states that on his death bed he became a Muslim. There is no evidence of this. Amatzia Baram, an Israeli professor at Haifa University whom I am sure you know of, said in a symposium a couple years ago that he doubts Aflaq converted to Islam largely because the Iraqi Baath party failed to produce the note, as well as the fact that many of his associates insisted he never would have done such a thing.
Further Mr Spencer,
I would like to say I actually like being able to engage you in such discussions because I have followed your message for a while. I heard you on Dennis Prager yesterday and Mike Medved a couple weeks ago.
I am a 22 year old college student and I am writing a book about Islam at this point in time. The book is called "Why Islam Is The Way It Is." In it, I list five reasons why Islam (1) is the religion that currently produces the most terrorism at this point in time, and (2) Why many Islamic states (particularly in the Arab world) are failed nations.
Even though I may come off as such, I do not blame US backing of Israel, or the sanctions on Iraq/depleted uranium bombings, or US soldiers on Saudi soil as the total genesis of Islamist terrorism. That's why I have four other reasons: Despotic governments in the Muslim world, Radical sects (Wahabis, Deobandis, Salafis), Economic/military failures of Muslim countries (no Muslim countries in the G8, right?), and last but not least, lack of a strong internal reform movement in Islam, just as Christianity had Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and Vatican II, or Judaism had Conservative and then Reform Judaism.
My disagreement with you is that you quote the worst elements of modern Islam and then cite examples of bad deeds Muslims may do, and then say, "Well, Islam is an evil religion."
I could do the same thing with any religion. I could start up a web page, quote radical Hindus in India, point out the Gujarat massacres, or that Tamil Hindus have done more suicide bombings than Muslims, and point out India's human rights abuses in Kashmir, and cite historical evidence that Bhuddists in Hindu India were originally treated as second class citizens and conclude, "Well, Hinduism must be evil."
Or I could quote radical Israelis like Benny Elon of the Moledet party, and the radical west bank settlers, and post newsclippings every time settlers kill Palestinians, point out how 700K palestinians were driven out of their homes in 1948, and then point out violent verses in the Old Testament like 1 Samuel 15:3 for instance, and conclude: Judaism is evil.
Or Protestant Christianity. After all, in the colony of Maryland, the Protestant government forced Catholics to pay double taxation, denied them voting rights, and limited their religious practice, and Catholics continued to be second class citizens in America all the way up to the 1960s. JFK was scrutinized for being Catholic when he ran for Prez. I could point out that the KKK had strong influence in our government and claimed their deeds in the name of Christianity, point out their lynchings of blacks and Catholics, and then mention how FDR told a priest and a rabbi at a meeting one time, "Look guys, I'd like to do something, but America is a white protestant country and people just don't care that Jews and Slavic Catholics are being killed by the Nazis (paraphrased)." After all this, and citing historical examples of Puritan behavior, I could then say: Protestant Christianity is evil.
Mr Spencer,
when did you ever post anything about the girl in Pakistan that was sentenced to gang raping for the crime of her brother marrying outside his economic caste, and her local Imam supported her and her cause. Isn't that a positive example in Islam??
Or when Imams in Saudi Arabia visited the jail cells of Al-Qaeda prisoners who had been involved in terrorist attacks inside the country in 2003, and the Imams admonished them as violating the principals of Islam??
Or the Shi'i clerics in Northern Baghdad who told women prior to the January 30th elections that they should ignore their husbands' control and make their voices heard at the ballot box??
There is good going on in the Islamic world, but you choose to ignore it and push an agenda of insulting Islam.
I know Christians and Druze from Palestine, Syria, and Lebanon, and none of them think Islam is an evil religion. They abhore what you say. They don't think Islam is without problems, but they disagree with your message.
Thank you for your time,
CJK
CJK:
I respectfully suggest you do a bit more research re Aflaq.
I don't post positive things about Muslims because this site is called "Jihad Watch." It actually only has to do with Islam when jihadists make it have to do with Islam. They are the ones using Islam to justify their actions. I merely report on this, and other jihad activity. When they stop invoking Islam to justify violence, I will stop reporting that they do.
You say: "My disagreement with you is that you quote the worst elements of modern Islam and then cite examples of bad deeds Muslims may do, and then say, 'Well, Islam is an evil religion.'"
Please produce your quote. I have never said Islam is an evil religion. If you think I have, cite the book or article or radio show. Say when and where. Be specific. Because in fact you are not being truthful here. I say that Islam has elements within it that justify violence, and that jihad terrorists use to justify violence. Do you dare say that that is false? I have several thousand pages of evidence supporting it.
You say: "There is good going on in the Islamic world, but you choose to ignore it and push an agenda of insulting Islam." Please produce a specific example of my insulting Islam. If quoting Osama and exploring his use of the Qur'an is insulting Islam, take it up with him, not with me.
You say: "I know Christians and Druze from Palestine, Syria, and Lebanon, and none of them think Islam is an evil religion. They abhore what you say. They don't think Islam is without problems, but they disagree with your message."
Aside from the fact that I have never said and would not say that Islam is an evil religion, I am not surprised to find that there are Middle Eastern Christians and Druze who "abhore" [sic] my message. I have met many of them myself -- for here again you speak without knowledge. My family is from the Muslim world, and like you I too am a member of a Middle Eastern Christian Church. I have met many Middle Eastern Christians with a dhimmi mentality in which they identify entirely with the Muslim agenda, and gloss over the centuries of oppression their fathers suffered at the hands of those who enforced Islamic law. However, I also know many, many Palestinian, Syrian, and Lebanese Christians who wholeheartedly support what I am doing and agree with me 100%.
But in the final analysis, what people think of what I say is immaterial. What I say about Islam is fact. Every assertion I have ever made about Islam is documented from Islamic texts. You have not refuted anything I have said; you have merely misrepresented what I say. Prove me wrong with facts. So far you have just piled up irrelevancies and distortions (your elaborate points about Judaism and Christianity founder on the fact that I do not do the analogous thing with Islam), but no facts.
Have at it, but I will not guarantee that I will respond to more half-truths and misrepresentations of my work.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
I cannot recall any Christian group attacking a children's school and holding young children hostage. Then as a final act of bloodthirsty, savage barbarism killing hundreds of innocent un-armed school children as was done at Beslan. But that's stinking paganism for you.
I do not see any gloating over the deaths of moslem women and children on this page. Yet I bet that this horrible atrosity is being gloated over by the dribbling murderous, gutless, braindead, insane moslem killers. numbat
CJK writes: I could do the same thing with any religion. I could start up a web page, quote radical Hindus in India, point out the Gujarat massacres, or that Tamil Hindus have done more suicide bombings than Muslims, and point out India's human rights abuses in Kashmir, and cite historical evidence that Bhuddists in Hindu India were originally treated as second class citizens and conclude, "Well, Hinduism must be evil."
Yes, you could start such a web site, but most of what you would have written could be categorized as utter nonsense. India's human rights abuses in Kashmir are as overblown as the Gitmo abuses that are being blamed on Americans... and none of these abuses can even begin to match the abuses that the muslims routinely employ on both non-muslims as well as other muslims within Kashmir. As for Buddhists in India being treated as second class citizens you must have been inhaling ganja to make such a claim. Nor do Tamil Hindus having more suicide bombings than Muslims. While the Tamil Tigers may have the dubious distinction of being the first political organization to use suicide bombings as a means of terrorism they certainly don't match the muslims in both the degree and the wide geographical range of their attacks. Nor do you have Hindu Tamils claiming verses from Hindu scriptures to justify their attacks as the muslims routinely do. So, yes, there are a few cases of politically motivated attacks/abuses by other religions than Islam; but they are clearly not driven by their religious doctrines and, in any case, are no match for the barbarism that we find routinely in the present-day Islamic world... which was the whole point of Mr. Spencer's posting.
"actually I am a Maronite Catholic of Lebanese descent..."
CJK:
I don't think a Maronite Catholic of Lebanese descent would push the Muzzie-propaganda the way you do.
If you are not of the Mohammedan persuasion you are a seriously twisted fool.
I suggest you buy yourself a Koran and do some serious studying, or read JW/DW on a daily basis for a year or two without interfering in the debates. Learn something or go away!
And another thing:
Don't waste your time to write a book unless you do the research! (Unless you intend to join the realm of fairy-tales and fiction, that is...)
Robert Spencer gave you the light of day and responded to the nonsense you posted. Consider yourself lucky.
Nobody else should bother, you are not worth responding to...
If "CJK" above is a 22-year old Maronite, as he claims (a claim which, based on long experience with Maronites, I find hard to believe -- for they are in the main well aware of what Islam means for them, and what forced arabization, the vehicle for which is islamization, has meant for them), he should google "Habib Malik" -- the son of modern Lebanon's greatest statesman, Charles Malik, and perhaps as well the words "Islam" and "Christianity." He should read -- I presume he reads French -- the best book on the legal status of non-Muslims under Islam, Antoine Fattal's "Le statut legal des non-musulmanes en pays d'Islam").
Perhhaps CJK really is as he describes himself, simply one more Arabic-speaking (does he consider himself an "Arab" because he speaks Arabic? Why? Why not consider himself, as the acute Franck Salameh has argued, an "Arabic-using" non-Arab? Why accept the arabization, the false Arab identity, that has been relentlessly imposed by Arab Muslims on so many in the MIddle East? It is undeerstandable that in the Middle East Christians, including clergy, have to utter soothing and placaing remarks about Islam and the Arabs (this is something everyone knows, as the psychological phenomenon of dhimmitude becomes better understood).
In that regard, CJK might read "The Dhimmi," "Islam and Dhimmitude," and above all, "The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam."
And then ask yourself this: why did all those Maronites and other Christians flee Lebanon and Syria (or those parts of the Ottoman Empire now known as Lebanon and Syria) from 1880-1940, in such numbers? What was it that brought them to America, Canada, Australia, or even to West Africa? It was a series of massacres, of Christians by Muslims, in Damascus and elsewhere. If CJK does not know the history of the oppression of Christians, and specifically of the Maronites, he should learn.
It is particularly important that he learn about this because one of the main ways that Arab Muslims in this country are attempting to exploit those of Lebanese Christian descent in order to make themselves more palatable, and plausible, and seemingly respectable, is to fabricate some "Arab-American"
identity that would allow them, who embrace an ideology that caused the ancestors of those descendants of Christians in the Middle East to flee, precisely because of the pressure and persecution of Islam, to take advantage of, make use of for their own purpose (to protect Muslims, to further the cause of Islam), the innocence of those Lebanese-Americans (and other Arabic-speaking Christians) who may not realize just how that factitious "Arab-American" identyity (which yokes Christians together with the historic persecutors of those Christians).
Of course, possibly CFK is not on the level, not simply one of those "islamochristians" like Naim Ateek, or the gun-running icon-stealing Bishop Hilarion Cappucci, or that propagandist for the PLO/PA Hanan Ashrawi. Perhaps he is simply one more Muslim observing Muhammmad's lesson that "war is deception."
If CJK does decide to read Antoine Fattal, Habib Malik, Bat Ye'or (and her website, www.dhimmitude.org, for scholarly treatment of the phenomenon), and such articulate defectors from Islam as Ibn Warraq ("Why I Am Not a Muslim" and "Leaving Islam" and his essay on Islam as Fascism -- google "Warraq" "Islam" and "Fascism" to pull it up), and Ali Sina at www.faithfreedom.org, he will -- if he has a mind that thinks -- come to quite a different view.
If, however, he has come to this website only in order to fool, or to remain fooled, then he has picked on the wrong website. For as it happens, those who come, and read, and stay, inevitably learn too much, are forced to learn, to be fooled any longer.