Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald discusses the dhimmitude of the moral equivalence "all-religions-are-equally-violent" crowd:
One form of denial of the global jihad is that of pseudo-symmetries and moral equivalences. There are those who have made comparisons between the American kid-glove treatment (well, the gloves which Infidel soldiers are instructed to wear when handling the Qur’an so as not to offend Muslims by touching it with their “unclean” –najis -- hands may not quite be made of kid) and the Nazis, or the Soviet secret police (whose idea of fun would be to insert a glass rod in a male prisoner’s urethra, and then to smash it in ways you can imagine -- so very like the Americans in Guantanamo, no?).But another is the telling pluralization in such Karen-Armstrongesque titles as “Religious Fundamentalisms” or “The Fundamentalism Project” or anything which implies that Jerry Falwell or Jerry Vines (whose accurate description of Islam, one that no brave defector from Islam would quibble with, is actually one of the “exhibits” of so-called “intolerance” at one of those Museums of Intolerance that the Wiesenthal Center supports -- how stupid can some people be?), or those West Bank “settlers” who keep using those Biblical toponyms “Judea” and “Samaria” (my, my -- why then do we keep using the Biblical toponym “Gaza” if not because the Arabs forget to rename that in 1948 as well?), are of a piece with Osama bin Laden and Al-Zarqawi.
There is a difference between those whose religion instructs its adherents that it is “to dominate and not to be dominated,” that insists that everyone in the world was actually born into that religion but fell away, that attempts to acquire converts (“reverts”) by withholding complete information (all one has to do is recite the Shehada in the presence of a Believer), that treats all believers, whether born into the religion or converts to it, as akin to soldiers in an army, and treats those who wish to openly declare their apostasy as deserters from the army who deserve to be killed, and other religions that simply do not teach such things. Islam puts all of its emphasis not on individual salvation but on the collective, the communal, the umma, the Community of Believers to whom all loyalty is owed. No loyalty can conceivably be offered to an Infidel nation-state -- which raises a delicate but important question: can any true Muslim conceivably, logically, be a loyal member of an Infidel nation-state? How?This business of “all religions do it” is comforting, however false. It makes Infidels feel better. We don’t have to really worry. It is just the hotheads, the extremists. Oh, maybe there are a few more of those in Islam than in other religions, but if they can only get rid of their poverty -- we all know how “poverty” explains so very much -- and can just get that “democracy” running in Light-Unto-the-Muslim-Nations Iraq, well Iraq will show the way. And with everyone taking time to run the country, get the sanitation system going, and a new subway system, and elections for Town Alderman, and having little New England Town Meetings in the Sunni Isosceles Triangle, they will be just like those Atlanta businessmen who had that slogan in the 1960s: “The city that is too busy to hate.” Yes, the Muslims in Iraq will show the way. Others will build their countries on the wonderful model of the nation-state of Iraq that we Americans will build this year, and next year, and the year after that, with the $595 million embassy we are building to show we are there for the long and expensive haul, and all those secret military bases that the Iraqis are allowing us to build. You don’t really think they just plan to take them away from us soon after we finish building them, do you? Why would they do that? We know that there will be no problem because once poverty in the Muslim world is licked peace will reign everywhere. (Sorry, we don’t have time to dole out hundreds of billions or even billions, or much of anything, to the non-Muslim poor. Since their poverty, for some reason, doesn’t cause them to be hostile, they’ll just have to fend for themselves. And we can’t ask the rich Arabs to support the poor Arabs, because that would annoy them, and we have annoyed them quite enough already -- don’t you agree?).
All religions are not the same. The word “fundamentalism” should never be employed in the plural. When you find someone doing so, immediately swoop down on that usage and dissect it for what it is -- an ill-concealed attempt to pretend that Islam does not contain elements that are peculiarly virulent, hostile, malevolent, and totalitarian. Obviously, some of those who call themselves Muslims are, on a personal level, friendly, affable, and so. The less they truly believe in Islam, the more lax they are in observance, the more indifferent they are, or ignorant of, the texts, the less of a threat they may be, for now, to Infidels. But one cannot base policy on the continued ignorance, or continued indifference to the tenets of Islam, of people who consider themselves Muslims. And that very affability, of the local Pak-Indian grocery where you just bought that large jar of Ginger Pickle (the grocery with the big new sign, in cardboard, that has been taped to the lamppost outside the store, on the city street, that reads “Halal Meat”), deceives. Deceives about the nature of Islam.
One may mock the occasional Elmer Gantry among Christian preachers. Mock them for all they're worth. One may not always share a taste for the most extreme of the holy-roller programs with lots of shout-outs and so on. Turn the program off. But none of that represents a mortal threat. And no atheist is threatened, really, by so-called “fundamentalist” Christians or “fundamentalist” Jews or “fundamentalist” Hindus or “fundamentalist” Buddhists, all of whom have views that hardly threaten. Christians seek the salvation of individual souls, not recruits to an Army with a totalitarian system of Total Explanation and Total Regulation. Those “fundamentalist” Jews want, at most, to be able to retain at least part of the land that they may claim on religious grounds, but which they might equally claim on historical and moral grounds. They are not claiming, as Muslims are, the world. Rather, they focus on a sliver of territory so small (not to mention devoid of resources) that it can scarcely have its name discerned on maps of the world, or even of the area. “Fundamentalist” Hindus, too, have no world-conquering schemes. Mostly they would like some recognition of the terrible results, to Indian civilization, that the Muslim invasion and conquest caused, and some attempt to recover that Hindu past and Hindu identity. Even if there are the odd ducks (Mr. Thackeray, for example) whose views and words are unacceptable, the very idea of Hindutva should not be mocked. It has its points, and is certainly not a threat to people living in Thailand, or in Russia, or in France, or in Bolivia, or in the United States. But people in Thailand, or Russia, or France, or in Bolivia, or in the United States, are threatened by Islamic jihad. Not some “fundamentalist” understanding of jihad. Just traditional Islamic jihad. When that is better understood, there will be far less waste, financial and human, in such dismal efforts as the current wrong-headed campaign in Iraq -- which is naively based on a misapprehension of what this “war” really is all about. It is ultimately not about “terror” but about Jihad, and not the Jihad promoted only through combat, but through money, propaganda, Da’wa, and demographic conquest from within.
Little by little, this will come to be understood. The steady stillicide of news about Muslim attacks has its effect, as do Muslim attempts to shut down criticism (see the Hate Speech law in operation in Australia’s Victoria State, and now being bruited about in the United Kingdom; see the informal ways -- murder and threats of murder -- that are employed wherever and whenever deemed to be an effective instrument, as in Holland today). Muslim outrages will, despite the best efforts of governments and The New Duranty Times and Le Monde and The Guardian, sink into the consciousnesses of many.
All it takes is for someone to say what so many are thinking, but have been afraid, or unable, to articulate.
Hugh,
Perhaps I misread, but one sentence may need an edit: "When you find someone doing so, immediately swoop down on that usage and dissect it for what it is -- an ill-concealed attempt to pretend that Islam contains elements that are peculiarly virulent, hostile, malevolent, and totalitarian." Seems it should read, "...that Islam does NOT contain elements..."
Thanks, Del.
I just fixed it.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Hugh, great piece . . . spot on, as usual. In college, I met about the most fundamentalist Christian that you could imagine. About the only thing he wanted to save was my soul. That's it. Not money, not prestige, not territory, not 'submission,' just to know god(from his perspective). From him, I learned the sermon on the mount, and the message of peace and love, integral within Christianity.(not that all adherants always practice what they preach). This devout Christian was a straight A+ student, forsaked medical school to become a missionary in the Philipines(was a naive as the day is long), and I hope and pray that he's ok today. Despite his fanatical approach to his creed, I learned something else . . . he was self-critical, would aplogize when he felt he wronged or offended somebody(including me), was creative--liked to pain, listened to Christian(and non-Christian music), liked film and debated philosophy with our professors, was fascinated with(and wanted to learn)about other religions . . . you get the picture. There are obviously many many Muslims like my missionary friend. This is not the point. The point is that these are lax, liberal, semi-apostate Muslims, for the real McCoy among them would not like art, fine music, philosophical debates with his Jewish roommate or listen to jazz music. As much as many draw moral equivilencies between Pat Robertson, Falwell and Jihadists, at a very basic level, all know it isn't true. Falwell sometimes goes too far(in my view), but don't we all at one level or another? I remember being disgusted when he went on about how the abortionists or whomever caused 911, but then he self edited, apologized with sincerity, and made the comment that what he said was wrong(and didn't represent his heart), was said on the spur of the moment. When's the last time you've ever heard an islamist say he's sorry????????????? We hear Robertson or Falwell saying there sorry, but I don't recall Bin Laden or Aymen or the saudis saying there sorry or wrong.
HUGH: "Little by little, this will come to be understood...Muslim outrages will, despite the best efforts of governments and The New Duranty Times and Le Monde and The Guardian, sink into the consciousnesses of many.
"All it takes is for someone to say what so many are thinking, and have been afraid, or unable, to articulate."
CORNELIUS: I wish I could share your optimism. The future I see is a continuation of the present, where all but the most spectacular jihadist atrocities go unreported..except in sub-culture forums such as this and LGF.
biorabbi, what you say is so true. Unfortunately many Jews have painted Evangelical Christians as illiterate redneck KKKers. Sure, they get emotional about their faith. Sure, they want to convert everybody to something that has given them peace of mind, what is so terrible? Showing up on one's doorstep with a pamplet or an invitation to the church social just doesn't meet my definition of terrible.
Killing, raping, enslaving or stealing from somebody for the sake of Allah, however, now that's terrible.
Christians and Jews are natural brothers and allies in this time of struggle with an alien religion that makes no real distinction between us except to say, "Jews first."
Sure, I agree that those howling evangelicals are no mortal threat. But as an unclean heathen and kaffir and idolator, I see no reason to tolerate intolerance. I visited Boston for Thanksgiving. As I exited South Station, there were these 'Bible Thumpers' threatening hell to all those who did not accept their flyers. Their jerseys had Biblical verses condemning heathens to hellfire and whatnot. Anyway, this is America and everyone has the right to preach as long as its not sedition.
So I was in a sort of hurry as I had to catch the next subway to Central, so I just waved casually when one of these guys offered me a couple of flyers...and he screams "Its Jesus...its not Hinduism or dirty Paganism...you should have accepted it".
My blood boiled. I don't care what you preach just dont f***ing harrass me in public you bible thumping dolt. You go to the most religious of places in India and you might find a few nuts in constant chants...but no one of them is ever going to harrass you or threaten your soul to hell forever this way. What a goddamn disgrace!
I checked back to see if this really was Boston or had I arrived in Alabama instead.
Anyway...this is Jihadwatch. I was just sharing a little anecdote.
Peace
Excellent article. Very soon Islam will make itself known through its fruits. The need for these Armstrongesque equivalencies is fear. Fear of what it means for the rest of us if the words of Spencer, Fitzgerald, Yeor, Bostom, and Warraq are indeed true. For several reasons this seems like a more daunting challenge than Communism and Nazism because neither were sacralized and neither had a history so long as to grant them "legitimacy". The reality that there is no simple solution makes people more susceptible in believing that there is no problem. The notion that Every Religion Does It is dangerous. Perhaps these apologists could tell me which other religion elevates the killing of non-believers to a pious act by mandating it in its foundational texts? The only religion I can think that does that is Islam.
The other fear is that the demonization of Islam will lead to the demonization of Muslims (read: brown people) and that will eventually play into the far right and we'll see another Holocaust. Nonsense. Race has nothing to do with it, it is soley about ideology. There would be nothing wrong with these Muslims if they became ex-Muslims. The lifting of their mental restraints imposed by Islam would only better their lives. Who can honestly say that Ayaan Hirsi Ali is worse off intellectually for jettisoning Islam and that Stephen Schwartz is better off intellectually for embracing it? Nobody can. Ali fights for human rights and defends the dignity of the individual whereas Schwartz has to defend the indefensible by supporting Muslim causes in the Balkans and the Caucasus. Ali has transcended the tribal mentality that was imposed on her as a child by Islam and her goals are universal that will benefit humankind as a whole whereas Schwartz has embraced his new tribe and his goal is only to further the goals that benefit that tribe.
There is nothing to fear. If we educate ourselves of the challenge of Islam and understand its political machinations, we will be better off even if we don't have a "plan" to deal with it right away. But we must first admit to ourselves that there is a problem and the problem is not "fundamentalisms" but Islam. I know it's very trendy to criticize our own culture nowadays, but if Islam is victorious, that will become OUR culture and we all know what happens when people try to criticize Islam.
Tushar:
Did he behead you?
Just wondering.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Cornelius,
If you feel bad, just try to get one person
who's eyes are closed to read PIG or something
similar. You'll probably fail with some people,
but it is a worthwhile exercise.
Every one who is awakened to the threat will
awaken others, and make you feel like you've done
soemthing.
Tushar,
That guy was rude, you're right. Not very
Christian behavior, IMO. But, as RS points out,
he didn't take it to the physical. Still, I
hope someone, ummm, enlightens him.
Both Christians and Muslims are called to convert those of other faiths; in this respect, their desired "ends" are similar. From a psychological perspective, one may argue that this is driven by the fact that -- like other belief systems -- religious views are unprovable and subjective (a matter of faith) and therefore draw their legitimacy almost exclusively from the sheer weight and force of the number of adherents who hold the same beliefs. The more believers, the more "valid" the belief. Indeed, if every human being on the planet accepted the Qur'an as the explicit word of God (God forbid), it would be so -- for who would argue that it is not. The ultimate strength in numbers game.
The difference between Christianity and Islam (with specific respect to proselytizing) is in the means to the end. Whereas the former uses old-fashioned appeals to save one's soul combined with modern marketing techniques, the latter is fully prepared to use coercion, extortion, enslavement, and murder to achieve its ends.
The West's current "War on Terror" is a feeble and ultimately doomed attempt to force a modification in the Islamic means to the end.
It is really annoying when people equate Christian fundamentalism with Islamic fundamentalism. The Christian fundamentalists I knew at university - God botherers, we called them - were harmless, if rather smug. They just used to play guitars a lot, drink orange squash and eat piles of rice with tiny little sausages poking out of them. I could never work out the rice and sausage thing; perhaps it is an updated version of the loaves and fishes thing.
Anyway, if anybody is feeling too mellow and wants to get really angry, read this pile of shite from Karen Armstrong. Moral equivalence does not even begin to cover it. Here's a small taster:
Then later:
Bless.
Excellent post, Hugh... And Biorabbi -- Three cheers for your post above... I have had MANY similar experiences... Living as I do in one of the major metropolises of America, and especially ensconced in the rabidly secular entertainment field, I have begun over the years to confront the anti-Christian contempt I have often heard in meetings and whatnot, though I didn't always... I, too, had bought into many of the slanders about Christians, despite personal experiences that rarely fit the ugly stereotypes... Sadly, comments by the likes of Falwell, Swaggart, and Robertson, were always enough to put meat on the bones of many of the uglier accusations against the larger Christian flock... And the greedy hypocrisy of the televangelists loomed larger in my mind than the personal experiences which nearly always proved contrary to the stereotypes... So among my friends and colleagues (even before 9/11) I came to understand I was observing a garden variety bigotry practiced by glib and arrogant intellectuals who never fathomed that they were sometimes ugly prejudiced bigots themselves...
The 9/11 atrocity forced me to permanently realign my compass, and couldn't agree with you more in your sentiments... Furthermore, I now feel a deep responsibility to rectify my former laxness in confronting this kneejerk anti-Christian bias which still seems omnipresent...
Anyway -- it's time for Americans, and if remotely possible, Canadians and Europeans, to discover who their TRUE enemies are -- and whatever they might think about George Bush, or the Pope, or down-home American evangelicals, these are not the persons who today are determined to make them into slaves or who are lusting to annihilate them... Far from it... These are the persons who embrace a faith which has allowed true pluralism to flourish, for humanism to be born, and for the laws of man to finally rule separately from the laws of God as various persons understand them... Have other religions done as well as Christianity, warts and all...? Perhaps... But today we are threatened by the malign cancer of Islam, which exposes itself with every crime, every act of hatred, every pronouncement of contempt, and disagreement, and vitriol to be the complete antithesis of the Christian credo... The fulminant hatred of the Muslims threatens to destroy the world...
American,
I've been quoting the Quran to family and friends since the early 90s...the Hadith since I finally got myself on-line in 1999. I've tried to immerse myself in Islamic theology and history over the years to better convey my sense of urgency that Islam is a reactionary force that threatens to suffocate human freedom around the world.
Until 9-11, I ran up against a brick wall. My siblings and closest friends got so tired of hearing about Islam from me that I had to make a conscious effort to check my tongue at the door on social occasions in order to avoid alienating them completely.
After 9-11, they were all deferential to me for awhile, until the Iraq war, when the liberals among them reserved their angst and rath for Bush. Liberal or conservative, to a person they no longer have any illusions about Islam. But our culture is such that they just don't talk about it in their wider circles. I call it the "Swedish syndrome." We're aware, but the powers-that-be, our cultural watchdogs, keep us from openly acknowledging that 2 + 2 = 4.
I fear it is the jihadis themselves who will finally push the envelope too far, with a WMD attack killing tens of thousands. Is that what it will take to awaken our larger culture from its somnambulance?
After the first WTC attack in '93, I read where one FBI agent confided to a colleague that it was "too bad" more didn't die. It's not that he wanted the bloodshed of his compatriots. It's just that he knew an attack of sufficient magnitude might just finally wake us up.
9-11 happened and over 3000 were killed. Sufficient magnitude, yes?
No! We're as locked in the grip of political-correctness as we ever were. Oh sure, most of the conservative op-ed writers have woken up and are writing things they probably wouldn't have written before 9-11. Personalities like Robert Spencer certainly has more visibility than they otherwise would have had the attack not occurred. But the parameters of acceptable discourse about Islam remains shockingly narrow in our universities, media and larger culture.
Hence, my pessimism. If the premeditated slaughter of 3000 was of insufficient magnitude to awaken us, what will it take?
Cornelius: "We're aware, but the powers-that-be, our cultural watchdogs, keep us from openly acknowledging that 2 + 2 = 4."
I happened to catch Fox's "Dayside" today, hosted by Juliet whats-her-name and Mike something, and they had a guest on who was discussing proposals of profiling on the basis of behavior and he mentioned that this would presumably entail approaching folks in the airport and asking them certain questions and then guaging their reactions. He mentioned several possible reactions that would trigger concern, among them, something like 'muttering quotes from the Koran'. After he said this, Juliet whats-her-name sort of mumbled into her microphone something along the lines of - well, yes, quoting from the Koran might be a clue - but she muttered it so quickly and almost as an aside that I am hard pressed to recall precisely what she said. But after whatever it was she said, what I DID notice, is that the whole live audience laughed out loud! Her comment was basically a politically incorrect insinuation that everyone understood and the fact that they all spontaneously laughed out loud, struck me as a guage of the extent to which people do understand what's going on but also understand that they are not to openly state what is going on, which I think produces a certain state of tension, which in this particular instance resolved itself into a spontaneous eruption of group laughter, in an unguarded moment. In retrospect, it was rather encouraging.
"The Prophet Muhammad is the most magnificent example who inherits the most appalling situation - in Arabia at the time there was a bloodbath - and brings peace out of it. And at a great personal cost to himself..."
-- Karen Armstrong
There is no evidence of a bloodbath in Arabia before Mohammed appeared. There is ample evidence that Mohammed knowlingly started a massive bloodbath, at no personal expense to himself. Indeed, Mohammed and his successors personally profited by the genocides to an extent beyond our comprehension.
HARVARD TREASON GEORGETOWN TREASON SOCAL TREASON COLUMBIA TREASON
"Little by little, this will come to be understood. The steady stillicide of news about Muslim attacks has its effect ... Muslim outrages will, despite the best efforts of governments and (varoius MSM outlets) sink into the consciousnesses of many."
-- posted by Hugh
Maybe. I like your optimism, but keep in mind the Twin Cowers of:
1) Fake history (Cf., Karen Armstrong above), and
2) Opinion programming, an extremely powerful tool that came into fruition in the 70s, which has thus far successfully kept hidden the 5,000 foot tall and 30 million ton Pink Elephant that is Islam's awful history and nature.
Hey Robert and American, I clarified in my first line itself that they weren't 'mortal' threats. I was just sharing a little anecdote so to speak...no equivalence meant.
It was just as a response to Rebecca's point about them wanting the best for us...to save our souls and the like. I would still call them nuts. No equivalence whatsoever, but thats all I wanted to say. Please do not make extrapolations where none exist.
Thanks
Hugh: "One form of denial of the global jihad is that of pseudo-symmetries and moral equivalences....One may mock the occasional Elmer Gantry among Christian preachers. Mock them for all they're worth. One may not always share a taste for the most extreme of the holy-roller programs with lots of shout-outs and so on. Turn the program off. But none of that represents a mortal threat."
Since you explicity used the term 'denial', I think the applicable psychological term here (ego defense mechanism) is "displacement":
"Displacement is the redirecting of thoughts feelings and impulses from an object that gives rise to anxiety to a safer, more acceptable one. Being angry at the boss and kicking the dog can be an example of displacement."
This would also partially explain why the U.S. and Israel are the targets of so much over-the-top, irrational vitriole.
Cornelius,
The road ahead won't be easy, I've faced the
same thing you have, but you owe it to the
society that allowed you to be who you are, not
to let it commit suicide. We are making progress.
Maybe they'll ignore you, but as more people
accept the truth, they won't be able to ignore it.
BTW, I had a similar experience to you, long
before 9/11, meeting and talking to real
muslims. I knew then they'd be trouble.
Keep on keepin' on!
Hugh,
A fantastic and very important piece. How can we spread the word that there is no moral equivalence between Islam and other religions, fundamentalist or otherwise? This is of critical importance, because westerner's "multicultural good, judgements bad" filter engages after only a few soundbites. Jihad watchers only have a short window to plant doubt in a mind.
With Jews, it is fairly easy. Jewish denial about Islam is fragile and can be dispelled without too much effort in most cases. I retell the story of the Banu Qurayza (i.e. the beheadings) and the fate of Raihana, and bring up the Hadith about Muslims exterminating the Jews on judgement day:
It is taken from Volume 4, Book 52, Number 176 & 177 of the Sahih Bukhari edition of the Hadith. The title of this chapter is, "Fighting for the Cause of Allah (Jihaad)"
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 176:
Allah's Apostle said, "You (i.e. Muslims) will fight with the Jews till some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, 'O 'Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.' "
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177:
Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."
However, this is not enough. We need an even more concise message, one that is personal enough to grab hold of any infidel mind, forcing it to ponder, and begin sowing the seeds of doubt. Whether this can be accomplished by comparing Muhammad with Jesus; highlighting Muhammad's diabolical treatment of the Jews; Muhammad's frank endorsement of rape; or the promise of heaven for those who kill in the name of Islam, really depends on the listener.
I find if very difficult to do this tactfully, but I am working on it. I do not want my friends and acquaintances to think of me as someone who hates Islam, but rather someone of whom they can ask questions about Islam, when these doubts begin to surface.
Quijybo
"I do not want my friends and acquaintances to think of me as someone who hates Islam, but rather someone of whom they can ask questions about Islam, when these doubts begin to surface."
-- from a posting above
A wise strategy.
Isn't it annoying that most here are volunteers for this army that should be funded by the government but isn't. So we not only do not get combat pay right now, but there will be no veterans' benefits in the future.
I don't generally go for adhominin (sic?) attacks, but there is a factoid in Karen Armstrong's autobiography "The Spiral Starecase" that I believe sheds some light on her. A good part of that biography was devoted to her seven years of trying to be a nun. As she gets to the end of describing that period of her life, she only then reveals that she never believed in the resurrection of Christ. To me, personally, that speaks of having a spiritual screw loose (if not missing altogether). I wanted to ask her then "Why did you try to be a nun if you didn't even believe in the resurrection of Christ? What in this world is the possible point of that? St Paul himself made it plain that if the resurrection has not happened, the Christian faith is vain. Part of the appeal of Karen Armstrong's books is that people perceive her as being a spiritual guide because of having been a nun. In my opinion, she is the last person anyone should look to for spiritual guidance. Hence, I see her loose-screw as infecting what she puts forward as truth.
"I wanted to ask her then "Why did you try to be a nun if you didn't even believe in the resurrection of Christ?"
I'd wager that there are far more Christians now who no longer believe in the resurrection of Christ (or who at least wonder whether it's true and maybe even agonize about their lack of certitude), than there are Muslims who no longer believe in Mohammed's miraculous flying donkey-ride (to pick one fable from 1,001 out of a turban in which most Muslims believe literally). To me, this speaks to the health of the West, and the disease of Islam. I don't say this because I mean to denigrate the resurrection of Christ, but because I mean to honor the Western adventure of wonder, questioning and skepticism, which can have, like any free life, good and bad consequences -- but not as bad as the consequences that follow from the fear and hatred of uncertainty.
The problem with the disintegration of traditional beliefs is that we're not in an Enlightenment-style trend, where revolutionary philosophical thought and scientific advances also required the casting of a newly critical eye on dogma.
Nowadays, it's associated more with a general lack of principles. By watering down one's beliefs, one can simultaneously keep from offending one's neighbor in a difference of opinion, and feel no pangs of conscience for cheating on their taxes while watching softcore porn on pirated premium cable. In the interest of instant gratification, it's a win-win situation.
Perhaps, however, there are those who think world peace can be achieved by mutual apathy and a series of entertaining distractions. ;)
Not you, of course, Dr. P. Thought I'd better clarify that emoticon.
Igor@5:20 pm: "The other fear is that the demonization of Islam will lead to the demonization of Muslims (read: brown people) and that will eventually play into the far right and we'll see another Holocaust."
Karen Armstrong (from Interested's link at 7:02pm):
"I wouldn't say I am an idealist because I am far too pessimistic to be an idealist. But I have a strong sense of dread, a prickly feeling that we have been here before and we can't go down this road again. I first got it during the Salman Rushdie crisis - a feeling that in Europe we have been here before. We have cultivated a distorted vision of a people for a thousand years and this ended in the death camps in the 1930s. And we can never go down this road again. When I started to hear people talking in this loose-lipped way about Islam, I felt a sense of real fear that somebody, even if it had to be me, had to correct these perceptions."
Another example of that holocaust fear:
The Next Holocaust
"Islamophobia is not a uniquely British disease: across Europe, liberals openly express prejudice against Muslims. Do new pogroms beckon? Ziauddin Sardar reports from Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and France."
Tushar...those nuts constantly chanting in India are not nuts. They are practicing elevated sanity. A condition most people cant relate to because they are too fragmented. Religion should mend mental fragmentation, but often it exacerbates it. All religious people who are loud, intolerant, obnoxious or pushy are fragmented. Islam produces the most fragmentation of all. There is distinct possibilities of ending mental fragmentation in many religions. Islam is not one of them.
I have had intense conversations with the most fragmented Christians imaginable. Many of them have Messiah complexes. A very few were dangerous. Not because of Christianity, but in spite of it. These people all have the ability and possibility to mend. When a muslim mends, he is called an apostate...We need more fragmentation mending and more apostates.
`
Oops - sorry - I hate posting links that go nowhere. I stumbled across the link to that last article in the New Statesman, through the website below and was able to read the whole thing. But apparently you only get one chance to access it. May be worth a try:
Islamophobia and the next holocaust
But apparently you only get one chance to access it.
That happens with New Statesman articles. You can access it once and then you have to pay. However, you can get round this by saving the page on your PC - just do 'File-save as'. I'd feel guilty about this if the New Statesman were not such a dhimmi rag. As it is, they are not getting a penny from me.
This article is a whitewash of Islam, claiming that 'Islamophobia' is all the fault of the host countries and nothing to do with the behaviour of Muslims.
Nick Cohen is generally worth reading, but otherwise I've not much time for the New Statesman.
Hugh your piece was eloguent eventhough long, l enjoyed reading it immensely! My problem is when l sent email of this website, and other similar to some of my siblings, the ones with the most education, with univerisity degrees, two of them with Masters,and one a depart.head at a high school they called me a racist! we were brought up R.Catholic by parents who wanted the best for their children. they never had education beyond grade school, but yet l know when they were alive were not confortable seeing these Muslims in our midst. l know my mother was horrified when she one in the mall with a complete sack over her! But these three siblings beleive all religions are equal, they are non practicing with the Church, and they dont want to learn the truth, the perfect Dhimmi l am sure!
l will drop one of Robert's book at my sisters, her husband is an avid book reader, l am hoping she will read it. maybe when the two of my unbeleiving brothers visit they will see the book. l think l am having head with my older sister! l just keep plugging on.. after the New Year, l will look into making business cards with website info.
"Making headway."
I just made my way through the pile of Armstrong linked by Interested above. Her total lack of respect for the truth and reverence for simple, sodden sentimentality sickens me.
Judaism has its roots in the (approx) 19th Century B.C. NOT the 9th and Hinduism is even older still. Yes, Taoism and Buddism originate in the 6th Century B.C., but compassionate religion was not invented then. The "Axial Age" good Lord!
And Karen sweetie, one more thing, compassion alone does not religion make.
AMERICAN: "Keep on keepin' on!"
Amen Bro. What else is there to do?
I have also just been reading Sister Karen's pile of manure. She blames the French riots on poverty and racism then says
"Similarly, with our British bombers, they were kept (kept ?) in a part of Yorkshire, in northern England, that I have never visited. And that is indicative - I wouldn't go there. "
My husband's family lived for some time in that area of Yorkshire. Last time I looked there was no enclosure round the town; the Dewsbury 3 certainly were free to come and go to Luton and London to murder 52 of my fellow commuters and maim many more. Sister Karen talks about compassion ("I get very upset now by unkindness in any form" she says) yet she wouldn't go to a poor area of Yorkshire where there is still a Christian presence trying to do some good in testing circumstances.
The Holocaust phobia mentioned above is what the eminently sane radio commentator, Mike Savage, means when he hammers home the phrase about liberals (i.e., Leftists who have perverted their liberal tradition) who are obsessed with "watching over their imaginary Maginot Line".
What Mike Savage is getting at is what war historians have noted about the World Wars of the 20th century: both began with miscalculations that caused terrible loss of life and advantage of the enemy. For World War One, the protagonists were taken totally by surprise by the new nature of war which they hadn't accounted for, since they had been fixated on the old strategies and tactics.
Similarly for World War Two, it was the same story: the politicians and military strategists were fixated on the style of war of World War One, and therefore the French had constructed the "Maginot Line" (a bulwark of defenses calculated to defend against the same type of attack as had happened at the start of WWI). They were taken totally by surprise by the new kind of war -- both in military-strategic terms and in terms of sociopolitical galvanization of ideology -- ingeniously spearheaded & exploited by Hitler and Mussolini.
Now, Mike Savage says, we are fixated on what surprised us in the beginnings of World War Two: we are hyper-vigilant against a Western racist fascist who will rise up like a Hitler when, instead, Mike Savage says, we already have "Hitlers with a headscarf" all over the globe who are employing new tactics, and we (i.e., the PC-dominant West) are not recognizing it.
Instead, we (i.e., the PC-dominant West) worry about the supposedly fascistic specter of "Islamophobia" and Bush's rational Patriot Act.
"When that is better understood, there will be far less waste, financial and human, in such dismal efforts as the current wrong-headed campaign in Iraq -- which is naively based on a misapprehension of what this “war” really is all about."
--Posted by Hugh
At school I have a friend named Habib, and he is a Muslim immigrant from Bangledash. We have talked extensively about Islam, freedom, and the West. He loves our values, his kids celebrate Christmas, and he is indifferent, not ignorant, to Islams totalitarian and violent impulses. Why? Because he has lived in the West and has tasted our freedom; he wouldnt follow what his religion obligates him--e.g., Jihad--if u paid him.
Although Hugh's article demonstrates impressive erudition, it is wrong that trying to introduce democracy in the Middle East is naive. Why do u think Zarqawi, bin Laden and his ilk proclaim that democracy is "Satanic"? Because democracy, by providing a system of government that allows men to govern themselves, represents a system that goes against the "pure" interpretation of Islam (which does not seperate church and state). Zarqawi and his ilk know quite well that democracy, coupled with a little Western culture, represents a threat to his totalitarian vision of the Middle East, a vision that, as Senator Liebormen tells us, will be easier to achieve if the U.S. withdrawls before the jobs done.
Look at the Muslim democracy's in the world, such as Indonesia, Turkey, Maylasia, and Bangledash. Although they have their extremists that are attempting to impose the true interpretation of Islam, none of these countries are building and using WMD (as Saddam did), nor are they invading and plundering their neighbors (as Saddam did).
Thus building a democracy in Iraq is essential for two principle reasons: Like other Muslim democracy's, it will be more peaceful and probably wont proliferate WMD; and, as Zarqawi makes clear, democracy is "Satanic". If Zarqawi follows the true path of Islam, then it logically follows that a democratic Iraq is the enemy of Islam--which is in the West interests.
The Middle East needs a dose of modernity. After eliminating Saddam, trying to introduce a constitutional democracy in Iraq is a worthy cause, and Bush is right to try.
Dimwit in Canada. FYI, Saddam was doing a good job of keeping the Democrats of Iran at bay, and squashing like little bugs the Jihadis that reared their heads in Iraq.
Saddam had no WMD's at the time of the invasion, he had disposed of them all, and thus the claim that he did was false. In fact the reason for invading Iraq had nothing to do with WMD's, and everything to do with Regime Change (because he was apparently perceived as a threat to his neighbors which included Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait and the not so tolerant Gulf States).
You make the classic western mistake of using your image or definition of words and applying them onto others.. What you consider Democracy is one thing, what the Arabs and Muslims consider Democracy is another.. essentially one man, one vote, one time.
Like it or not Iran is a democracy, because they have elections, a theocratic democracy but a democracy in every bit of the word, and now Iraq is also a (theocratic) democracy.
Pssst. Iraq is a constitutional Democracy it's constitution declares it an Islamic Nation, Islam the official religion and Shari'a the basis of law and constitution.. so there you are dimwit.
"Democracy is worth a try."
--- from a posting above
Not if it costs $350 billion. Not if it costs the lives of Americans. Not if it engages, apparently, the entire energies, and intelligence, such as it is, of the American government in trying to figure out how to respond, how to articulate, how to make sense of, what should be clear to anyone with a brain who simply refuses to parrot the various possible party lines. Not if that money, those men, that material, and the plummeting morale of those who might otherwise be enthusiastically enrolled in a campaign of self-education about Islam, and then, it would naturally follow, in supporting measures to counter the various instruments of Jihad, are all used up on a quixotic venture.
That is more than what can be easily accepted as merely "a try." It's far more costly than a simple "try." And the cost may permanently use up the various resources, including morale, that need to be husbanded, and not squandered.
Bush and company are squanderers. They are believers that Nature is infinitely malleable (what, me worry about global warming? Why?) and that the world of Men is also malleable, so that primitives in the grip of a primitive and menacing belief-system can be transformed overnight, in a year or a few, to become followers of Michael Oakeshott instead of their neighborhood imam, flogging his ideological wares.
No, it isn't "worth a try." Invading Iraq and stripping it of the power to do harm to the Infidels is fine. The rest is nonsense.
"and squashing like little bugs the Jihadis that reared their heads in Iraq."
--posted by Nariz
Your contention that Saddam was sqaushing Jihadists is a lovely propoganda line from either Al jazeera or some leftist website, but judging by your confidence in your falsehoods u probably got it from Al jazeera. Baathists from both Syria and Iraq have been funding Hamas and Hesbollah for decades. In addition, investigators found credible links between the Jihadists who bombed the World Trade Centre in 1993 and Saddams regime. Have u not heard the principle of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"?. Probably not.
Iran is a democracy? Thats about as believable as Osama bin Ladens claim to want to kill Americans and Jews for "self defense". Many regions in Iraq, but not all, have a free press, a growing free market economy--which Iran regards as Satanic. Iraq's last election was montitered by independent international observers; Irans? Well thats monitered by the clerics, whose standards for counting votes are about as high as Al Jazeera's standards for anti Semitism.
Nariz, get your facts straight before u argue something
"and the plummeting morale of those who might otherwise be enthusiastically enrolled in a campaign of self-education about Islam"
--posted above
If there is plummeting morale, than why are reinlistment rates considerably high? Admittitingly, new recruit levels are not as high as many hoped, but if morale has plummetted, than it would logically follow that reinlistment would plummet; this has not transpired
"Bush and company are squanderers. They are believers that Nature is infinitely malleable (what, me worry about global warming? Why?) and that the world of Men is also malleable"
--posted above
Invoking skepticism about man made global warning to support the contention that Bush thinks men and nature are malleable is highly spurious. The priciple theory for man induced global warming is the hockey stick theory, which has been recently cast into serious doubt, because it does not explain why there was a brief warming period in the 15th century, nor does it explain why history shows that global temperatures have fluctuated naturally for millenia.
But theres more. Anybody with a basic understanding of economics knows that men are malleable to the extent that they respond to incentives. Of course many Jihadists are not amenable to any incentives (except perhaps 72 virgins), but history has proven, although not invariably, the transforamtive power of reasonbly free markets and free intstitutions.
Iraq is squandering resources? Imagine how much more an intervention would cost if Zarqawi types took power because of a premature withdrawl.
Dhimmiwatch: "Imagine how much more an intervention would cost if Zarqawi types took power because of a premature withdrawl."
Actually, not that much I imagine, if we were willing to just carpet bomb the place, like we did in Gulf I on the "road to death".
I should explain that I closely followed all the arguments for the Iraq war, including the light unto the muslim nations project argument (can we possibly abbreviate that at this point to LUMP or something, which would merely entail dropping the "nations" part merely on the grounds that the "N" is inconvenient?), which made a great deal of sense to me at the time. I also knew nothing at the time about Islam, which is obviously why it DID make a great deal of sense. I supported the war and I could list the 10 good reasons but why bother, other than to point out the most important precislone vis a vis the post war rebuilding which is obviously all about the LUMP?
BUT - I am of the mind that despite those who tried to tell us that because of Islam, LUMP would produce well, a pile of s**t, I am convinced that LUMP was something that needed to be tried. I think of it as the second battle in a long war, a battle that cost us 2,000 men, which is historically speaking, rather small for a protracted battle in a long war but that at the same time has provided so much important information from a strategic perspective (that could be the wrong term. I'm not a war expert, in case there was some doubt), in terms of 1. revealing the brutality of the enemy 2. smoking out the 5th column in the west, i.e. the "unholy alliance" between the far left and Islam 3. revealing the loyalties of the ummah who have embedded themselves in the west over 3 decades under the radar (and how fired up they have been about Iraq!!) 4. Dispelling many liberal illusions that the silent majority of Muslims shared our liberal values and were yearning for the opportunity to break free from the contraints of the illiberal dictatorships we had imposed upon all these supposed closet liberals. (Do remember that this was one of UBL's main "grievances" against the west - our cruel support of those dictatorships, which made many feel that we had 9/11 coming to us).
In short, LUMP may have turned out to be a mostly empty pile of coal, but there's a nugget of gold in there and it couldn't possibly have been discovered if we hadn't gone mining in the first place.
That said, I cannot endorse Hugh's completely Machiavellian perpective on withdrawing from Iraq. I think we need to draw down slowly in such a way as to save face and I think that saving face is important not only for maintaining promises we made to Iraqi's but also for our own sense of what is good and right and fair. And you can't dismiss the impact of the relevance of that to the long term morale that is needed to face this huge war.
In short, I would argue that LUMP was a necessary battle in this war. If Iraq does fall to chaos for reasons that we cannot reasonably control (not for the kind of Machiavellian reasons that Hugh endorses), I do not therefore conclude that further intervention would be more expensive. On the contrary, it could well be a great deal cheaper. But to do it more cheaply requires a democratic populace willing to take brutal measures and I think that reaching such a political consensus requires a certain evolution in terms of exhausting other plausible and more humane approaches first, such as LUMP, even if it has left bitter ashes in our mouths, or actually, precisely because of that.
"precislone"? - Must be the mother of all typos and frankly, I have no idea where it came from. Use your imagination...:-)
A very sober and insightful analysis Caroline. You are exactly right that LUMP had to be attempted, if anything to try to prevent the clash of civilizations. Further, a precipitous withdrawl would embolden the Jihadist forces in the Middle East, just as the Vietnam withdrawl embolded genocidal revolutionary's in south America and Asia.
Dhimmiwatch in Canada - thanks for the kind words DWIC - obviously we're on the same page. But the truth is, that after posting it and then reading it, I felt like a perfect SHIT. Good God - me - so calmly discussing carpet bombing of all things. I guess the choices we face just suck. And there's just no way around that fact. All the more reason to get more and more people to grasp the total picture of what is unfolding so that we can all somehow share in the burden and maybe, hopefully, collectively, manage to make the right choices in these impossible times.
Add Palestine to your list of Biblical toponyms as it is the anglicized form of Philistia. Modern usage aside, when is the last time you saw a Philistine?