Ralph Peters, retired military officer and author of several books on this present conflict, has published an op-ed in the New York Post entitled "Islam-Haters: An Enemy Within," which is one of the most confused and irresponsible pieces I have ever seen in an American newspaper -- and with the likes of S. I. Rosenbaum and Jim Ritter working the news beats, that's saying a lot.
Peters is exercised about "a rotten core of American extremists" -- right-wingers, of course, who are worse than Leftist appeasers because they insist that "Islam can never reform." If you "read between the lines, that all Muslims are evil and subhuman."
Zowie! Who are these awful, Hitlerian bigots? Peters never tells us. Nor does he give us even a shred of an example of how they imply (nudge nudge wink wink) in ways that are clear to discerning fellows like Ralph Peters, that "all Muslims are evil and subhuman."
Of course, not naming his opponents gives Peters a free pass to flail away, throwing everything but Der Stuermer and the kitchen sink at his shadowy opponents, and allowing himself the coward's retreat of being able to deny, if challenged by anyone, that he had him in mind. Well, I'm going to ask anyway. You talkin' to me, Ralph? You talkin' to me? I guess you must not be talking to me, since the people who have you so wrought up have sent you emails, and I have never sent you anything. But I nevertheless think it necessary to try to clear some of the fog of confusion you have billowed out here, since some -- only some -- of the points your villains make sound like some things I have said. Sort of. And more importantly, since some people will be taken in by your piece, as nutso as it is, and be thereby diverted from some important truths.
September 7, 2006 -- ISLAMIST fanatics attacked us and yearn to destroy us. The Muslim civilization of the Middle East has failed comprehensively and will continue to generate violence. The only way to deal with faith-poisoned terrorists is to kill them. And the world's only hope for long-term peace is for moderate Muslims - by far the majority around the globe - to recapture their own faith.
Peters' Assumption #1: the Islam of moderate Muslims is the genuine Islam, and all they need to do is "recapture" their faith. In fact it is not for Peters or any other non-Muslim to say what genuine Islam consists of, and there is no Pope of Islam to rule on what is Islamic orthodoxy and what isn't. What we can do is look at the teachings of the various sects and schools of law -- which I have done, and have found that all mainstream Sunni and Shi'ite sects and madhahib (schools of jurisprudence) teach that it is the responsibility of the umma to subjugate unbelievers under the rule of Sharia. Can Peters point to a sect or school that ever existed in any period of Islamic history that represents the Islam that moderates must "recapture"? Perhaps the Mutazilites? If so, can he explain how a modern revival of such a movement would escape the charges of Islamic heterodoxy that scuttled it in the first place?
But a rotten core of American extremists is out to make it harder for them.The most repugnant trend in the American shouting match that passes for a debate on the struggle with Islamist terrorism isn't the irresponsible nonsense on the left - destructive though that is. The really ugly "domestic insurgency" is among right-wing extremists bent on discrediting honorable conservatism.
How? By insisting that Islam can never reform, that the violent conquest and subjugation of unbelievers is the faith's primary agenda - and, when you read between the lines, that all Muslims are evil and subhuman.
Here is Peters is setting up straw men, blurring distinctions and drawing unnecessary conclusions. I have never said that "Islam can never reform or that violent conquest and subjugation of unbelievers is the faith's primary agenda," and I certainly have never stated or implied in any way that "all Muslims are evil and subhuman." I have said, of course, that Islamic reform will be extraordinarily difficult, because of the closing of the gates of ijtihad, the understanding of the nature of the Qur'an, and other issues. I have also pointed out, as I said above, that violent conquest and subjugation of unbelievers is an element of the teaching of all Islamic sects (except the Ahmadiyya, who are persecuted as heretics as a result). This is simply a question of fact. Its truth or falsehood can be established by anyone who examines the teachings of the sects and madhahib. I invite all to do so -- and if you do, you will see that I am stating this accurately. Does this constitute the "primary agenda" of Islam? No. At some times and among some groups it has been central, but at other times and among others it has been for certain periods of time deemphasized almost to non-existence.
Above all, does the existence of this doctrine mean that "all Muslims are evil and subhuman"? That's just ridiculous. The existence of any religious doctrine, even if someone thinks it is false and wicked, doesn't make all those who hold it evil and subhuman. Those who are killing the innocent, or helping those who are killing the innocent, are certainly evil, if not subhuman. But within Islam, as within every belief tradition, there is a spectrum of knowledge and fervor.
I have never said or implied that all Muslims are evil or subhuman because of the doctrines of Islam, and neither has anyone else with even the smallest amount of awareness of human nature. If Peters is referring to me or anyone else who has published on Islam and terror -- Trifkovic, Bostom, Ibn Warraq, Bat Ye'or, or anyone else -- he would be hard-pressed to substantiate this outlandish charge from anything any of us has actually said or written.
I've received no end of e-mails and letters seeking to "enlighten" me about the insidious nature of Islam. Convinced that I'm naive because I defend American Muslims and refuse to "see" that Islam is 100 percent evil, the writers warn that I'm a foolish "dhimmi," blind to the conspiratorial nature of Islam.
Here again, he is just setting up a straw man. Let him document from any of the writers I named above any of these statements, or name these evil people he's talking about.
Web sites list no end of extracts from historical documents and Islamic jurisprudence "proving" that holy war against Christians and Jews is the alpha and omega of the Muslim faith. The message between the lines: Muslims are Untermenschen.
Web sites, eh? Yes, I have here at Jihad Watch on many occasions provided extracts from "historical documents" like the Qur'an and the approved hadith collections, as well as from Islamic jurisprudence, "proving" that holy war against Christians and Jews is part of (not the "alpha and omega of") the Islamic faith. You talkin' to me, Ralph? If so, come out from that hiding place and show me where I ever implied that "Muslims are Untermenschen." Or show me that I have misused these texts, since you appear to believe that Islam doesn't really teach these things. I'll be right here, at director@jihadwatch.org.
We've been here before, folks. Bigotry is bigotry - even when disguised as patriotism. And, invariably, the haters fantasizing about a merciless Crusade never bothered to serve in our military (Hey, guys, there's still time to join. Lay your backsides on the line - and send your kids!).It's time for our own fanatics to look in the mirror. Hard. (And stop sending me your trash. I'll never sign up for your "Protocols of the Elders of Mecca." You're just the Ku Klux Klan with higher-thread-count sheets.)
As for the books and Web sites listing all those passages encouraging violence against the infidel, well, we could fill entire libraries with bloody-minded texts from the Christian past. And as a believing Christian, I must acknowledge that there's nothing in the Koran as merciless as God's behavior in the Book of Joshua.
Sure, Ralph. That's why there's a global terrorist movement of Christians committing violent acts and justifying them by quoting the Book of Joshua.
Peters' Assumption #2: Christianity and Islam are equally violent in their core texts (or maybe Christianity is more violent) and equally capable of inspiring violent fanaticism. This, of course, is a deeply held belief among many, many people. And like Peters, many of those people apparently believe that it would be a species of bigotry to suggest that Islam is more likely to inspire violence than Christianity. But here again, this is simply a question of fact. The Bible contains no open-ended, universal command to make war against and subjugate unbelievers, a la Qur'an 9:29. Muhammad commanded his followers to wage war against unbelievers who refused to convert to Islam, and to subjugate them as dhimmis (Sahih Muslim 4294). When did Jesus ever say anything like that?
Another trait common among those warning us that Islam is innately evil is that few have spent any time in the Muslim world. Well, I have. While the Middle East leaves me ever more despairing of its future, elsewhere, from Senegal to Sulawesi, from Delhi to Dearborn, I've seen no end of vibrant, humane, hopeful currents in the Muslim faith.
Well, Ralph, I've spent time in the Muslim world too. And everywhere I see cultural Islam in retreat and jihad advancing -- even in Dearborn, which I didn't realize until you just told me was part of the Muslim world. But anyway, there are reasons for the resurgence of the jihad ideology -- notably, the ability of jihadists to point to the Qur'an and Sunnah to justify their positions. But I expect you would just call them "bigotry."
As I have said many times, I am all for encouraging and working with moderate Muslims. But for their moderation to be effective, they have to confront, repudiate, and help other Muslims to repudiate the elements of Islam that are giving rise to violent fanaticism. Most self-proclaimed moderates instead simply deny those elements exist, while the mujahedin continue to use those same elements to recruit new members. And now Ralph Peters, in his fog of confusion, has just contributed to that destructive denial.
Robert,
Yesterday's article by Ralph Peters took me aback. I have always have respect for this writer and for what he wrote has gotten me very outraged, days before the 5th anniversary of 9/11. I hope that the Saudi prince whom I have heard owns a percentage of stocks in the company that owns the NY Post has not been ill-treated him to the point that he is now a dhimmi.
Clearly, Ralph Peters shows no understanding of the nature of Islam. Were he to do so, then he would understand that it cannot be reformed.
Islam is what it is, what it always has been, and what it always will be. How can a 'religion' be reformed when the adherents of that religion believe that the Qur'an comprises the literal words of Allah? For if they are considered to be His literal words, then who would have the courage to try and change them? To do so would be considered heresy and a sign of disbelief.
This man's article is, to say the least, irresponsible. It also shows how ignorant he is.
The pity is that he has been allowed to disseminate his ignorance in the 'New York Post'. Doesn't this man realize that there's a war on?
As I have said many times, I am all for encouraging and working with moderate Muslims. But for their moderation to be effective, they have to confront, repudiate, and help other Muslims to repudiate the elements of Islam
And so the noble Unicorn will rise up, repudiate Islam, and an a apostate horse have its head sawed off with a steak knife by an intense boy named Ahmed wearing one of those funny little doily hats like The Hoop wears when he apprears on Tim Russert.
Isn't it odd with all the Islamophobic hate mongers in this country that there are about
33% more hate crimes against
Asian/Pacific Islander 217
than against Muslims Islamic 156
So I don't really think Americans have become violently
Islamphobic since 2001
More wary of the dangers maybe?
How many Asian/Pacific Islanders have every hijacked an airline
In the New York Post ???!!!
It looks like the Saudi investment in Fox is paying higher and higher dividends.
/And BTW, yesterday evening at 7.31 PM I turned from FOXNews to Glenn Beck and WOW AND WONDER ! he was ACTUALLY talking about...the reality !!!
FoxNews has largely abandoned that kind of sport since the Saudi money got in.
I've always been one to search for what motivates people because it has saved my skin many times, I can only conclude this man has a vested interest and is more than likely making a good quid from a muslim acquaintance...
What a total disappointment. I used to respect that guy. I am so tired of these Vietnam era warriors telling Americans that “If you didn’t serve shut up. Well I have a question for you Ralph. Did anyone in you family tree serve during the American Revolution? No? Then you cant possibly understand anything about fighting for American freedom. I have already called my local recruiter, in response to the light unto the muslim world bologna and told him in no uncertain terms “Get your **** together or you aren’t getting my son. They agreed. I guess I need to make another call. Shut up and go sit on your porch, we need to win this thing and you aren’t helping.
As usual with critics of the "Jihad Awareness Movement", Peters fails to point out where those of us concerned about Islam's ingrained intolerance of Infidels and it's expansionist agenda have misinterpreted Islamic scripture, history and the statements Islamists themselves make. He falls into that old, false line about all religions being intolerant and calling Islam's critics bigots without engaging in a scholarly debate or at least backing up his points. He doesn't see anything in the Koran that matches God's intolerance in the Book of Joshua? He must be reading a sanitized copy provided by some Muslim apologist organization.
However, reality will not be denied. The Jihad will continue, more acts of barbarism lie ahead from the Religion of Peace. "Moderate" Muslims will continue to moan and groan about how they hope these acts won't increase Islamophobia instead of uniting with Infidels to combat "extremism." And hopefully more and more Infidels will continue to see the truth about Islam, regardless of what fools like Peters have to say.
I know that this is not cricket on these sacred grounds, but would it be ok to mention at this juncture the nexus between Islam and Marxism?
I read Peters' entire article. I think the disconnect is that Peters has deliberately (and perhaps disingenously) limited the nature of the threat to those radical Muslims who are violent; i.e., the ones committing terrorism as part of armed jihad. And as Peters says, that's a "minority of a minority"--why stigmatize the vast majority of Muslims who are non-violent?
Here's why: Many of us are also concerned about Muslims who want to overturn the basic pillars of Western society, even through peaceful means like the ballot box. Specifically, I'm referring to the 40% of Muslims in Britain who, in a recent poll, said they would prefer to live under sharia than under British law. There are similar percentages in other Western countries. Most are non-violent. But they will, if they can, bring lawsuits in court, elect representatives, and vote on plebiscites, in such a way as to advance their goals.
When nearly half the Muslims in a Western country want it to be run like Iran, you've got a problem even if no violence has taken place. If Ralph Peters wants to consider such concerns "right-wing extremism," that's his choice. I consider it patriotism.
Who is this idiot? I've read his crap before, telling us how wonderful things are going in Iraq; is that the Peters in question?
So, Jihad Watch is 'the problem,' otherwise moderate Islam would somehow wake up and play nice? If only Little Green Footballs would cease and desist, Atlas Shruggs fall of the next, the Gates of Vienna would go offline, and if Hugh Fitzgerald would move to Napa Valley and lose his internet access: if these things would happen, Islam would breath deeply and 'moderate?' Yea, thats the ticket.
Yea, we need to stop mocking the prophet as well, right Ralph. Many of these people laughed about the 'aweful' Prophet cartoons. Maybe stop the bikinis and other Western vice to stop infuriating 'them.' He, Peters, is an idiot and should go back to focusing on Iraq the light onto the Universe project.
biorabbi,
I will continue to laugh at those Danish cartoons because they are simply inocent satire, when in the Muslim world their newspapers post real ugly cartoons demeaning Jews and Christians.
Oh come now.
Islam was founded by the sword. Muhammad was a violent and repugnant person.
Islam teaches an extreme dichotomy between the Believers and the Infidel and that the Infidel is to be barely tolerated.
Yeah, yeah the Meccan surahs are full of me-too mis-quoted Old and New Testament stories, but the Meccan surahs abrogate all of the nice stuff.
The point is that a TRULY-BELIEVING-I-WANT-TO-LIVE-LIKE-MUHAMMAD
IN-THE-WAY-OF-ALLAH Muslim has zero compassion for non-Believers and thus has lost his humanity.
The excuse of the rest of the umma that they do not know what is in the Koran, just does not wash in the West, where any idiot can read Shakir in English at least to surah 9.
Islam cuts people off from the rest of humanity, it kills the soul and the intellect and is evil from the word go.
Why should we be under the obligation to accept it, just because?
What part of "DEATH TO AMERICA" did he miss? Just keep on paying your jiyza Peters! And in case you forgot, there are 130,000 troops in Iraq fighting for YOUR right to print YOUR garbage.
Oh..and as for Islam....I hate it!
Thank you, Robert, for posting this thread and the information about the Peters' op ed piece. Generally, I have liked a lot of what Peters has written in the past, but this one has me floored. True, I have seen hints of this in the past from not just Mr. Peters' writing. For example, I have a lot of respect for Mr. Daniel Pipes, but I no longer agree with his central theme and thesis, which he enunciates quite often. Plus, now he has the President's ear. After I read a couple of your books, Robert, I picked up a Qur'an and started reading it, cover to cover, to see for myself what was in it. And I read it with a more discerning eye than the average layman, since I am theologically trained (an ex-Jesuit)and was looking not only what the text actually said but the overall image and idea of Allah, to juxtapose their god with the Father of Jesus and the Yahweh of the Jewish people. No comparison. The experience of Muhammed, in my opinion, was about as far away from our experience of God as you can get, and seemed to me to be a sacralizing of bedhouin culture, in all its savagery. In theological jargon, Muhammed "anthropomorphizes" his own experience and creates his own divinity. The Qur'an is also disjointed and is a literary mess, even accounting for the fact that I do not know classical Arabic. It reads like a litany of utterances, without nuance, story, rhyme, or reason. It is perhaps the most difficult piece of "literature" I have ever challenged myself with.
The vast majority of people in this country, like Col. Peters, simply are not aware of what is actually in traditional Islam's hermeneutics of its own texts. Plus, they need to read the texts themselves. Until this happens, this very clever disinformation and "damage control" being done by certain interests will have more cache than they should have. And it does indeed seem to be assiduously orchestrated these days...
I am also copying your posted thread to post to another weblog site, properly attributed, of course.
Please keep up the good work on this site and in your writing and research. This weblog is a place I log into daily for insight and analysis.
Ralph Peters, another armchair retired military blowheart, should just sit and think before he puts ink to paper. Ralph Peters there is no more waiting for the "moderate muslim" to regain what ever you deem is regainable. The more you learn about islam the more you understand it has to go. the moderate muslim is like the "mythical unicorn", you cannot find it, you were told it exists somewhere. if Islam began today as a religion it would be regarded as a dangerous cult by even the far leftist of the liberal side of the Democrats, and EU.
Why doesn't this yahoo get as worked up over his fellow "christians'" treatment by muslims all over the world? I am sick to death of idiots like him taking the enemy's part.
There is a video on FNC site now telling us that muslims are really helping law enforcement to stop terrorism in the US. Maybe some are, but the videos' purpose is to soothe the dhimmis fears and cause us to forget what is happening to our society.
"I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future...But I'm not going to do anything violent to promote that. I'm going to do it through education." - Ibrahim Hooper CAIR Spokesman.
"Those who stay in America should be open to society without melting, keeping Mosques open so anyone can come and learn about Islam. If you choose to live here, you have a responsibility to deliver the message of Islam ... Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth." - Omar Ahmad Co-founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations
BTW, I watched Flight 93 last night....and I am p#**ed. Any "christian" that defends them is a dumbass.
"While the Middle East leaves me ever more despairing of its future, elsewhere, from Senegal to Sulawesi, from Delhi to Dearborn, I've seen no end of vibrant, humane, hopeful currents in the Muslim faith."
Speaking of bigotry, I remember somebody not too long ago stumping with the phrase 'the soft bigotry of low expectations.'
I can't wait for the humane and hopeful currents in the Muslim faith to take hold of its followers. The 'American extremists' are watching; and I think they place more stock in actions than hopeful currents.
Enjoy the cocktail circuit Ralph.
Murdoch always goes with the winners to protect his financial options for the future. He moved the Sun wot won it for Maggie Thatcher to Blair, now he's throwin' soirees for Hillary, and his NY Post is spitting in the eyes of its loyal Judeo-Christian conservative readership. Now there's no paper left to read in NYC!
Robert, You more than handled the strange rantings of Ralph Peters. He is an unhinged person. Keep in mind that this writer saw a parrallel between a U.S. soldier falling on a grenade to save his men and suicide bombers blowing themselves up on busses. I wanted to address his (often repeated) "chickenhawk" point about the necessity of having served to have a opionion. Basically this would have disqualified FDR from wartime leadership, who like Ralph Peters, never saw combat.
Ralph Peters solution to the Middle East was to redraw the map giving every group a piece of the pie.
Maybe no one ever explained what a effort in futility this would be.
He should go to Tehran, walk around without armed guards and see how long it takes to be kidnapped or killed. Or walk in Bagdad, or Mogadishu, or Jammuu, or any number of similiar places.
If he survives, he could then walk the streets of Miami, Atlanta, St Louis, Denver, San Francisco.
On which streets would he feel "safer".
WHO LOVES YA BABY.
As for the books and Web sites listing all those passages encouraging violence against the infidel, well, we could fill entire libraries with bloody-minded texts from the Christian past. And as a believing Christian, I must acknowledge that there's nothing in the Koran as merciless as God's behavior in the Book of Joshua.
Ralph believing Christians dont judge GOD...get a clue.
I have to wonder if this isn't one of the opening salvos for the fall campaign... was there not something about Democrats NOT talking about the terror problem this fall, as a means of getting the Public's attention off the issue? Which of course is another reason they are so upset about 'The Path to 9-11.'
I'm probably wrong... but it sure looks like Roberts went out of his way to sound exactly like the Kos-piracy nuts.
Ok. So he's not quite so virulent...
The entire world is dividing up into camps. We're finding out which side of the moral divide they stand. It's a good thing that people like Peters reveal they are dhimmi collaboraters. We can keep an eye on him and now we know where he stands. He's not to be trusted.
Murdoch is a joke. He has no conscience. He plays to the audience... PERIOD.
He owns Fox News and Sky News - Fox News is right and Sky News is left. They couldn't be more different.
He's like Clinton....change your position constantly to whatever will get you what you want.
Phoney
Carolyn2~ expect nariz along at some point to explain to you why it is practically the Duty of a Christian to support such people. After all, he was the one who lumped us in with the muslim when he said 'three billion muslims' the other day.... or at least, I have seen him quoted as having said that here...
P.S. I notified Fox News about the Chicago train station bomb and guess what? They didn't report it.
So, even Fox is going left?
Ralph is one more of many leftist-infiltraitors who joined the US Armed Forces in order to undermine from within, (e.g. Rep.s J.F. Kerry, J. Murtha, C. Hagel, who infiltrated particularly in the late 1960's, the 1970's and beyond).
He represents a very small, yet growing minority fringe opinion, inside the US military ranks.
That he receives any MsM attention is proof of this, as a majority of US Armed Forces personnel have a 180 degree view as compared with that of Ralph Peters', in fact 90% or more do not hold such views. But this majority -or any representative of it - will never be given a public voice to express so.
Do not believe for one second, as the left and its propaganda wing -MsM- demands you do, that this infiltraitor is a majority representative of any past or present US Armed Force.
This guy (Peters) is a model useful idiot. He needs a copy of your books.
I have not commented here before, however, I regularly visit the site. I am not a scholar of Islam. I consider myself an average, thinking American. I am puzzled by Mr. Peters’ article.
Is Islamofascism a perversion of Islamic doctrine or an integral part of the doctrine itself?
Robert Spencer and other scholars have clearly demonstrated that Islamofascism is not a perversion, but an integral part of Muslim doctrine.
It should be obvious that this fact does not imply that all Muslims are Islamofascists. Just as each individual Christian and each individual Christian sect interpret and practice Christian doctrine differently, so individual Muslims and individual Muslim sects interpret and practice Islamic doctrine differently. Mr. Peters’ clearly recognizes this truth.
The truth Mr. Peters avoids is the truth that a clear difference between Islam and Christianity is the principle of theocratic rule. Christ was unambiguous in his teaching that Christians should render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and to God that which is God’s. Yes, Mr. Peters may find historic examples of “Christian” states, but clearly these states were early perversions of Christ’s teachings.
Mohammed was equally unambiguous in his advocacy of the theocratic state. Clearly, the Islamic state is not a perversion of his teaching, but the essential consequence of it. Because of this theocratic principle embodied in Islam, the philosophy becomes not a voluntary religion but a mandatory belief system as it subsumes all the coersive characteristics and mechanisms of state government. It is in this most important respect that Islam resembles a social philosophy rather than a religious philosophy.
When the social philosophers of fascism, Nazism and communism officially and totally seized the power structure in the governments of Italy, Germany and Russia in the past century, the question of whether or not these social philosophies were inherently dictatorial became moot. After their respective revolutions, Italian, German and Russian citizens no longer had the luxury of deciding such esoteric questions for themselves. In effect, these citizens ALL became fascists, Nazis or communists, or lost their lives. Whether these citizens actually believed in these destructive philosophies or whether they just went along to get along is moot. The reality was they had no choice but to follow, no means to peacefully change the minds of their keepers, and no effective power to resist the brutes in charge.
So, the question is: How do “moderate” Muslims or “ordinary” Muslims who believe theirs is a religion of peace, “recapture” their faith from the theocratic, doctrinaire and fundamentalist thugs who wield absolute power in a theocratic state over all Muslim citizens? Even “moderate” Muslims living in the relative safety of Dearborn, Michigan cannot avoid being cowed by their more fundamental Muslim colleagues, for they are ALL well aware that should they oppose the principle of a Muslim theocracy they would no longer be Muslim. And should they oppose the fundamentalist Muslim extremist colleagues in their midst they would be the first to pay the ultimate price should these thuggish colleagues ever succeed in seizing the power structure of the state.
I’m glad you had time to deal with Peters’ article in more detail than I was. I am reminded of ibn Warraq’s quote: “there are moderate Muslims but there is no moderate Islam.” If I remember correctly, the quote is from his forward to this book.
Think about Hooper's statement:
"I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future...But I'm not going to do anything violent to promote that. I'm going to do it through education." - Ibrahim Hooper CAIR Spokesman.
How is he going to"educate" us?
Bukhari:V4B54N482 “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘The Hell Fire complained to its Lord saying, “O my Lord! My different parts are eating each other up.” So, He allowed it to take two breaths, one in winter, the other in summer. This is the reason for the severe heat and bitter cold you find in weather.’”
Tabari I:232 “Gabriel brings to the sun a garment of luminosity from the light of Allah’s Throne according to the measure of the hours of the day. The garment is longer in the summer and shorter in the winter, and of intermediate length in autumn and spring. The sun puts on that garment as one of you here puts on his clothes.”
Tabari I:233 “When the Messenger was asked about that, he replied, ‘When Allah was done with His creation He created two suns from the light of His Throne. His foreknowledge told Him that He would efface one and change it to a moon; so the moon is smaller in size.”
Tabari I:234 “Allah thus sent Gabriel to drag his wing three times over the face of the moon, which at the time was a sun. He effaced its luminosity and left the light in it. This is what Allah means: [in Qur’an 17:12] ‘We have blotted out the sign of the night, and We have made the sign of the day something to see by.’ The blackness you can see as lines on the moon is a trace of the blotting.”
Tabari I:234 “Then the Prophet said: ‘For the sun and the moon, Allah created easts and wests on the two sides of the earth and the two rims of heaven. There are 180 springs in the west of black clay-this is why Allah’s word says: “He found the sun setting in a muddy spring.” [18:86] The black clay bubbles and boils like a pot when it boils furiously.’”
Tabari I:244 “Allah then created for the sun a chariot with 360 handholds from the luminosity of the light of the Throne and entrusted 360 of the angels inhabiting the lower heaven with the sun and its chariot, each of them gripping one of those handholds. Allah also entrusted 360 angels with the moon.”
THAT EDUCATION, Hooper?
If I remember correctly, the quote is from his forward to this book. (corrected link)
Can not forget these...
Tabari I:267 “And Allah taught Adam all the names as follows: He taught him the name of everything, down to fart and little fart.”
Bukhari:V9B87N115 “If you spit on the left side of your bed the bad dream will not harm you.”
hari:V7B71N590 “The climate of Medina did not suit some people so the Prophet ordered them to drink camel urine as a medicine.”
i:V2B21N245 “A person slept in and missed the morning prayer. So the Prophet said, ‘Satan urinated in his ears.’”
Bukhari:V4B54N516 “The Prophet said, ‘If anyone rouses from sleep and performs ablution, he should wash his nose by putting water in it and then blow it out thrice because Satan has stayed in the upper part of his nose all the night.’”
That is only a tiny bit of islamic science.
"Even “moderate” Muslims living in the relative safety of Dearborn, Michigan cannot avoid being cowed by their more fundamental Muslim colleagues, for they are ALL well aware that should they oppose the principle of a Muslim theocracy they would no longer be Muslim."
Exactly. Well said, Sherman.
Random lemming: "Group hug!"
Peters: "Um..Ali, have you gained some weight recently?"
Ali Gotzagunja: "Allahu Akbar!!"
Peters: "Oh, crap."
----
These last minutes of the First Annual Ralph Peters 'Love Thy Muslim Neighbors' convention in Dearborn, Michigan brought to you by a concerned American citizen.
Retired US Army officer? Go figure. Officers were usually the last to find out the truth about anything when I was in the navy, but besides that, he should come to realize that truth isn't bigotry, sit down, cozy up and read the Quran. Willing to bet that this clown at one time worked for the State Department over at Foggy Bottom; the name sounds vaguely familar to me.
Assalamau Laikum all,
Please excuse me for being off topic for a moment. On a different thread peoples like 1069 and IP expressed alarm and concern when they heard that the Pak government is banning certian sites and could include JW..and hence lose contact with me, Naseem.
Let me put you all at ease and say that I will be right here...you need not fear me disappearing.
You see due to our business connections, my son has set up something called a VPN across the internet to an ISP in another country. By all accounts he says it is like a private tunnel. The ban would not affect me unless there was a ban at the far end.
Further he says it is protected by DES (I don't know what that is, but he said it was some sort of electronic key, which could take several days to decode, provided you stay on line). He said that he asked for 3des but this was allowed by the infedel/Kafur 3rd country to Pak.
So, by all accounts this ban will not affect you know who.
With my knowledge of Islam, I will be right here to guide you through conversion and beyond.
1069, IP never fear, Naseem is here. With that good news ...over to you.
Ralph Peters' article exposes his ignorance of the nature of the Mohammedan belief system in Western society, and the fact that he is a retired military officer should have no bearing on his journalistic abilities. He should aim his pen in the direction of the effeminate purveyors of moral equivalence and political correctness, the true "enemy within", and not toward men who are speaking the truth and trying to preserve a nation.
Clearly, from an historical perspective, Mohammedanism fosters and perpetuates all of the characteristics detrimental to the future of freedom and liberty in the Western world, and indeed, to the continued enlightened advancement of human civilization. Encountered singly, the majority of Mohammedans exhibit the qualities of kindness and courtesy one would expect of any citizen, but it is at the doorway of the mosque and beneath the cover of the Quran where the paths of peaceful Christian and Mohammedan coexistence diverge.
Christian faith and cultivated Western society work on the principles of freedom of thought and expression, good will toward one's fellow man, and the individual rights afforded ALL its members, and is progressive by its very nature. Directly opposed is Mohammedism, an improvident system, that represses its female adherents, demands the submission of nonbelievers, and worships the teachings of its brutal founder.
By 21st century standards, Mohammedanism must be seen as subhuman.
I, as always, am glad to have you back Naseem and would have hated for you to be gone.
I continually pray that you and your Islamic brothers and sisters will learn the truth by reading these pages, before it is too late for you my friend.
Again, glad to have you around.
Jam47
Hi, everyone. This is my first post -- I've been lurking on JW/DW for over 2 years now. Mr. Spencer, I want to express my gratitude for this site and the work that you are doing. I have referred many people to your website and your books to educate themselves about the current geopolitical situation.
I work in a facility run by the Mennonites, who are conscientious objectors. Being Catholic myself, I am intrigued by their "peaceful" worldview. What I've observed is the same "fog of confusion" that Mr. Spencer observes in Ralph Peters. Of course, peaceful conflict resolution should always be the best course of action, but what do we do about people wish to destroy us and refuse to negotiate? Some of the responses that I've observed at my place of work are: (1) deny the truth, (2) ignore the truth, (3)blame the situation on someone who won't retaliate (eg. the Jews, the Bush Administration), (4) come up with some alternative explanation of what the truth really is, (eg. conspiracy theories), (5) distort the truth that is being presented in order to "shoot it down", or (5) shoot the messenger. When I suggested to a co-worker that she should read the Koran before jumping to the conclusion that terrorists are "misinterpreting" Islam, she said "I don't think I should read the Koran, because there are probably things in it that will upset me."
I find it difficult to wrap my mind around a world view that can't stand up to the truth. Truth seems to create tremendous cognitive dissonance with these "peaceful" types, and I fear that this worldview will ultimately cost a lot more lives than it will save.
With my knowledge of Islam, I will be right here to guide you through conversion and beyond.
1069, IP never fear, Naseem is here. With that good news ...over to you.
Naseem if you have any brain cells left over for reason you would leave islam faster than you can say pakistan. lol..
how in one's mind can you follow a child rapist molester, slayer of innoncent people called mohammud? with your knowledge read Robert Spencer's upcoming book on the real mohammud. if you have the nerve to follow truth, you will humbly ask for forgiveness for allowing yourself to be manunipulated by such an evil ideology. if you want look towards Budda or Jesus, these men followed the path that one author said once, less travelled.
Mr. Peters,
This immigration is ahistorical, and our grandchildren will wish it had not happened.
Have you glanced at Andrew Bostom's book, The Legacy of Jihad? Islam is a social order, far more than a religion. It won't change; it is what it is, Muhammed's self-serving "dictation" fantasy.
If we need to be wise as to when and where to mention the danger... does that mean that it is wise to speak falsely, as you have?
The phrase "fifth column" is unpleasant but exactly true.
A comment on Peters's seeming inability to sit down with the texts, and his willingness to substitute his own anecdotal evidence (a visit to Senegal, his impressions of the marabouts, that sort of thing -- no different from what Madeleine Albright or Tom Friedman do when they collect their impressions, or what Paul Wolfowitz did when he learned all about Islam as the dynamic, take-charge, get-out-in-the-field ambassador in Jakarta):
Here is one comment from a 2004 appearance:
"Ralph Peters is a retired officer who is often sensible about the uses of military force, and he takes a dim view of the Arabs. He is also said to be a scholarly sort, with books in Russian and German in his library (at least, this is what the articles about him unfailingly convey). So why doesn't he exercise the same caution, and engage in the same kind of mental preparation, in proceeding to make assumptions, and utter pronouncements, about Islam -- especially since, what with the dreamy idea that Occupied Iraq is not a whit different in its prospects from Occupied Germany or Occupied Japan after World War II (and all those who claim differently must either be appeasers, or Nay-Sayers, when in fact some of those Nay-Sayers want the "Light Unto the Muslim Nations" Project stopped not because they do not worry about Islam, but because they really worry about it, and worry most not about the "war on terror" but about the likely islmaization, through Da'wa and demography, of Western Europe, and having studied the history of Islam, agree with Reza Afshari and Ibn Warraq and Ali Sina that the sharia and human rights, are flatly incompatible (free conscience, free speech, equal treatment of women and minorities are all impossible under the Sharia, or under a legal system, that "takes its inspiration" from the sharia, as the Egyptian legal code does, or as the "new" Iraqi Constitution, which gave in so much to the Islamists, infuriating Allawi (he could not have been pleased with the naivete of Noah Feldman et al).
This unwillingness to study Islam -- study first the Qur'an and a few hundred of the hadith, and then the sira, or to immerse oneself in the classic scholarship about Islam ("classic" meaning not the shallow apologetics of the past 40 years, which includes Esposito, Sells, Ernst, et al)--means that no one, and that includes those whose instincts and heart may be in the right place, but who have not permitted their minds to follow -- has a right to utter an opinion about Islam without such study, or at least paying attention to those who have engaged in such study.
One hopes, in the case of Peters, that he will allow himself the leisure to read -- beginning, perhaps, with Bat Ye'or's "The Decline of Eastern Christiantiy Under Islam" and then, perhaps, looking at Muir's biography of Muhammad (not outdated), at Ibn Warraq's "Why I Am Not a Muslim," and at a number of the articles to be found on-line at www.secularislam.org and www.faithfreedom.org. Ibn Warraq's essay on the similarities between "Islam and Fascism" should also be studied.
If Ralph Peters is reading too much Schwartz et al in the pages of The Weekly Standard, that might explain the problem. Amir Taheri is the best of their writers on Islam, but even he has to, at time, pull his punches.
[Posted by: Hugh at November 17, 2004 12:58 PM]
I was too hopeful that he would start to study, too trusting that he would not substitute his own anecdotal evidence for study of Islamic tenets, immersion in Qur'an and Hadith and Sira, and further immersion in the history of Isalmic conquest and subsequent subjugation of non-Muslims. Instead, this "author of 21 books" substituted his own travels, his own brief encounters, in countries where he did not know the languages (but he is careful to demonstrate, on every conceivable and some not-so-conceivable occasions, his knowledge of Russian and, especially, German), and the Muslims he saw were not in the Arab lands, but on the periphery, in countries where specific local conditions had diluted the effect of Islam, had blended it with local easygoing ways and easygoing customs (those marabouts of which he speaks, for example -- and of which V. S. Naipaul also writes with far greater keenness in his "Among the Believers" and "Beyond Belief").
Ralph Peters fails to see that where he finds Islam acceptable, or unmenacing, it may be for reasons having to do with the fact that the Muslims he sees are not the full-blooded thing. It would be as if he took the Ahmadi sect -- treated as non-Muslims by the orthodox -- as representative of Islam, or took Andrey Sakharov as a representative product of Soviet Communism, or Oskar Schindler as a typical member of the Nazi Party. He sees, but uncomprehendingly.
Of course, on those lightning-tours, to places where neither English nor German nor Russian (his apparent languages) are spoken, where he is an Important Personage, where those to whom he is introduced are those who would not mind meeting this Important American Personage, and whose Islam, modified by syncretism and local custom, is not the real thing but Islam Diluted, Islam Minus -- diluted by easygoing ways, diluted by the lack of knowledge, or lack of fervor, of the locals.
He comments on Senegal. But why not ask black Africans from Niger, students in France, who return to Niger from time to time, what they have to say about the effect of Saudi money and Saudi mosques and Saudi-funded madrasas on the practice of Islam in Niger -- where that syncretism, and those marabouts, are on the run, and everywhere,now, the once-unknown burqa can be seen.
I was too kind to Peters. I believed him capable, though a product and participant, apparently, in the Cold War, of being able to learn new and sometimes difficult things. The difficulty comes first in learning the doctrine, and then in seeing how the phrase "moderate" Muslim is distinctly unhelpful, because there is no bright line separating the "moderate" from the "immoderate" Muslim, and the "moderate" in mnay ways furthers the Jihad -- which Peters apparently conceives of only as one involving violence as its instrument, rather than recognizing that jihad fi sabil Allah is the struggle to spread Islam, by whatever means are most effective, including the use of the money weapon, campaigns of Da'wa, and demographic conquest. He leaves all this out. In this respect, he is a True Believer in the Administration and in the policy, based on the smug assumption that there is no problem with Islam, but only with those "terrorists" who "hate freedom" -- and which has led to tarbaby Iraq, and the squandering of men, money, and materiel, now too obvious to hide.
And while Peters, that ex-military man who is careful to bring journalists to his home to see his library of German and Russian books, which never fail to be mentioned, as if that were a guarantee of something, he appears not, after all, to be such a great reader, such a dutiful student. It was permissible on 9/10/2001 to know nothing about Islam. In the five years since, it has become impermissible for any one to comment on Islam without having studied it first.
And he has not.
In that comment, from 2004, I was too hopeful, too kind.
"And, invariably, the haters fantasizing about a merciless Crusade never bothered to serve in our military..."
Really Ralph? That's funny. The DD214 with my name on it says otherwise.
Ralph Peters also had a piece, one of those Grand Schemes that people like to throw out, whereby all the borders all over the Middle East would somehow be withdrawn. This is the kind of silly thing that some like to play with, as if it is a substitute for, and superior to, sensible measures, such as that, for example, of identifying, and then doing nothing to remedy but everything to exploit, the natural pre-existing fissures within the Camp of Islam. That would be too boring for Ralph Peters. Besides, in his view Islam is not the problem, but rather such things as borders that can be rectified, and those who think otherwise are islamophobes and hysterical peddlers of hate. I leave it to readers of his full article above to discern whether it is he, or the principals at this website, who are hysterical in both their manner and their proposals.
My comment on the Grand Scheme of Border Changes Hither and Yon was as follows:
"Not possible, but an independent Kurdistan is morally, and more importantly, geopolitically, to our, Infidel, advantage. It would be a disturbing threat to both Iran and Syria, and Kurdistan's claims on the Kurdish-populated areas of both Iran and Syria should and could be backed.
But what, some say, of Turkey, that they chose to describe, quite backdatedly (it's not the 1950s or the 1960s anymore) as "our NATO ally Turkey." Turkey is a member of NATO. But the main reason for NATO's existence in the past was the military threat posed by the Soviet Union, and Turkey, which was happy to collaborate in efforts to contain its ancient enemy Russia, was a good ally. But how good an ally can Turkey, with Islam in the ascendant and Kemalism under constant siege (only now are the Turkish secularists becoming aroused and fighting back against sly Erdogan and his troops), be if the main purpose of NATO is now to protect Western Europe, and preserve the Western alliance, from those who, within Europe, either Muslims or collaborators with Muslims (stupidity, cupidity, and timidity together providing the Esdrujula Explanation which I put forth at this site some time ago -- Copyright Office please take notice). Turkey is part of the damn problem, the problem of Islam, not part of the solution. Kurdistan, for complicated reasons, including a long history of enduring persecution and even mass murder at the hands of the "purest" Muslims -- that is, the Arabs whose ethnicity does not detract from, but merely reinforces, identification with Islam. Kurdistan could, if the Americans back it, a power with its own oil, and would always have to rely on the Americans for support.
What could Kurdistan do for us? It could concentrate on emphasizing "Kurdishness" and slowly, but surely, de-emphasizing the role of Islam, that "gift of the Arabs" that keeps on giving. It could provide a haven for Iraq's Christians, and prove its goodwill by punishing any Kurds who have behaved or intend to behave islamically (we know what that means) toward those Christians.
What about other map redrawings? We should not care whether or not Qatar or Kuwait or Abu Dhabi or any of the other sheikdoms any other place is bullied by a larger neighbor, but of course being indifferent, we could also charge a very large fee to protect Qatar, Kuwait, and other statelets from Saudi Arabia, or Iran, or even a conceivably intact Iraq. At the moment we appear to be so grateful for the use of bases. We are selling ourselves, and our implied protection, cheap -- far too cheap for what the Al-Sabah and Al-Thani and Al-Maktoum and the other ruling families could and should be paying. They not only need our protection, but they need the assurance that their assets abroad will remain intact, and not turned over to successor regimes. They need all kinds of things, and it is the Americans who appear not to realize this, nor to charge nearly enough for their services. Tens of billions annually should be the figures bruited about -- has no one ever neogiatied in an Arab souk? Does no one know how to deal with these people?
Christians in the Middle East should also be encouraged, on a one-for-one basis, to replace Muslim Arabs who should be forced out of the West Bank. It should be made clear to them that the farce of the "one-state solution" is over, that the farce of the invented "Palestinian people" will soon be over, and that the Israelis will not surrender, will not be allowed to surrender. If Olmert proceeds with his crazed plan as formerly announced, it is up to the American government to discourage or prevent him -- neither Judge Reinhardt's Ninth Circuit, nor the Supreme Court, nor the World Court, nor any court of the mind one can imagine, would ever sanction Ally-Assisted Suicide. The Western world would become unhinged, in more ways than one, if Israel were forced to surrender still more territory, including control of the aquifers, and forced to live in a condition of maximum peril until such time as the Muslim Arabs could, at long last, go in for the kill. [It would do the kind of secret moral damage, create the kind of wounds, that were caused the Western world, in ways scarcely recognized, by the genocide of the Jews during World War II.] Christians or those who are no longer Christians because they cannot believe, but recognize the great and civilizing value of Christianity if practiced correctly, should stake a physical claim to the Holy Land, and not leave the Jews of Israel alone to stave off the Muslims. Middle Eastern Arabic-speaking Christians, such as those now in Iraq, may wish to consider moving to eastern Judea and Samaria (the "West Bank" as it was ridiculously renamed by the Jordanians in 1948, and even more ridiculously, that name became standard in the Western world, reather than the toponyms that had been in use for several millennia, and were good enough for, inter alia, Jesus of Nazareth). Christians in the West could agree to spend a year or two, as living witnesses, living in Israel, and possibly deliberately choose to live in that area now called "the West Bank."
But the Muslim Arabs should be encouraged in every possible way to leave that area, for if they realize that the Israelis are not going to leave, not now and not ever, and that Christian refugees from Islam will be moving in, they will not stay for ever. They are not "bearing witness" to anything. They are simply there as the shock troops of the Jihad, and if their lives are made sufficiently difficult, some of them, perhaps many of them, will see the reasonableness of leaving. Why should they sacrifice themselves on the altar of Jihad, if the Saudis and the Kuwaitis and all the others do nothing or so very little to support them?
[Posted by: Hugh at July 8, 2006 01:40 PM]
confused?!
Check this eeedjut out:-
slam is not the enemy By Charles C. Haynes
Re "Reform" and JihadWatch:
One of the consistent points Robert and Hugh make is that Islam is the only major religion with a developed theology that mandates violence against unbelievers, that there may be Muslims that ignore that mandate(probably the great majority), but that until the Jihad obligation of violence in Islam is confronted by all, Jihad will continue to be a danger to "Infidels" and Muslims alike.
The site makes the point that until that fact is confronted, debated, openly discussed, until the problem is named, Jihad will have power over peace loving Muslims. If there is to be reform in Islam this fact must be confronted by Muslims and non-Muslims: Islam is the only major religion with a developed theology that mandates violence against unbelievers. The other major religions are not = to Islam in that.
There are other aspects of Islam that need to be addressed (dhimmitude, etc.), but it is critical that the issue of mandated violence against unbelievers be discussed, without any hypocritical charges of "Islamophobia", or any other manipulative appeals to emotion, that get in the way of the truth.
No one, not even the self righteous and all knowing Ralph Peters can stop the American people and the peoples of the West from discovering the truth about Islam.
I have been to the Middle East, am quickly learning to read and write Arabic and have read the Qur'an from cover to cover in English and Arabic (what a schizophrenic experience) and it is one of the most violent religious texts, at time it dominates the Muslims life with mind boggling minutia, the Bible even the Old testament is child's play by comparison.
Ralph Peters, has lost all credibility with me.
Ditto for O'Reilly. Glen Beck becomes more interesting everyday.
As storm clouds gather on the horizon and the world takes a step everyday towards a cataclysmic confrontation with Islam, the comments of Peter's become more and more irrelevant if not dangerous.
This is a war we did not choose to fight, but one we must win.
A belief system with a well developed theology of mandated violence against unbelievers is not a religion of peace. That is the truth.
I read the article at the NYP page.
Never heard of the man before, but he sounds just like any "mainstream" conservative, the Grover Norquist type, who (according to Paul Sperry in his book inflitration, not only cofounded the Islamic Institute with a terrorist, but runs around calling people who criticize Islam..bigots, also sounds like Bill Oreilly who called people who rebuked Bush's plan (which finally succeeded) to give the ports to Dubai Ports world.."Islamophobes".
Who can disagree with this statement of Peters
Peters didn't have anything savory to say about "leftists", but let his own words speak
"Irresponsible nonsense on the left and right wing extremists..(note he doesn't call the right wing extremists, just mentions extremists on the right, much like Bush et al talks of Islamic fascists as opposed to those "regular good guy, moderate, peace loving Muslims". LOL.
So we have Bush's and Peters and Oreilly's and Norquists average, ordinary, everyday, peaceful good guy muslims and the "extremists", the Islamo fascists. And we have the average, ordinary, everyday, peaceful good guy right winger and the "extremists" the right wing fascists.
An interesting article: Reclaiming The Issues: Islamic Or Republican Fascism?
Excerpt:
On the left, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. specifically indicts the Bush administration for fascistic behavior in his book "Crimes Against Nature: How George W. Bush and his Corporate Pals Are Plundering the Country and Hijacking Our Democracy."
Genuine American fascists are on the run, and part of their survival strategy is to redefine the term "fascism" so it can't be applied to them any more. Most recently, George W. Bush said: "This nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation."
In fact, the Islamic fundamentalists who apparently perpetrated 9/11 and other crimes in Spain and the United Kingdom are advocating a fundamentalist theocracy, not fascism.
But theocracy - the merging of religion and government - is also on the plate for the new American fascists (just as it was for Hitler, who based the Nazi death cult on a "new Christianity" that would bring "a thousand years of peace"), so they don't want to use that term, either.
While I agree with Peters and Thom Hartmann about the new fascism, the Republican Fascism, I disagree with them about Islam and their ignorant attempt to seperate a theocracy from fascism.
Islam is indeed fascist, but it is not the only fascism that plaques our world and society.
Ah, The 14 Defining Characteristics of Fascism which applies not only to much of those who now consider themselves the Christian right, but also to Islam.
Ralph was on the Laura Ingram show this morning. I didn't know it was Peters when I tuned in but she asked him "who are these right wing haters". He was very vague and never said anyone or ny group specifically.
Last week Laura had some muslim republican representative (I forget his name) who was blathering a lot of nonsense. The usual mantra of "Islam literally means peace". I always thought islam meant submit.
"How? By insisting that Islam can never reform, that the violent conquest and subjugation of unbelievers is the faith's primary agenda - and, when you read between the lines, that all non-Muslims are evil and subhuman."
With only the change of of Muslims to "non-Muslims", this is the truth re those (BinLaden, etc.) who claim to represent "true Islam". Peters has correctly identified the problem, but not the enemy.
Eightteen 21...He is also paying a jiyza. I wonder how many mosques he has visited? I wonder if he even speaks arabic? He can go visit whenever he wants to and let us know what he thinks...but i'll pass.
First of all, I would like to ask Mr. Peters PERSONALLY where the following quote appears: "and when the forbidden months have ended, slaughter the non-believers everyhere they are found; besiege them, capture them, torture them, prepare every stratagem of warfare against them; levy the tax upon them if they convert to the ways of al-lah..." and EXACTLY WHO HE THINKS THE NON-BELIEVERS ARE AND WHO HE THINKS THIS PASSAGE IS BEING DIECTED TOWARDS AND WHY. Although answering these questions is a 'nobrainer' for anyone reading Jihad Watch for others such as Peters it is a stretch that lies outside their ken at present.
Obviously Peters hasn't a clue and is swimming up Sh*t Creek. If he had any clue at all, he would IMMEDIATELY REALIZE THAT Islam categorically assigns those who do not follow its doctrines the status of enemy--with possibly fatal consequences for the 'non-believing' enemy of Islam. And THAT understanding would lead him to the logical conclusion that America's mortal enemies (and his won too) are MUSLIMS and Islamic doctrine--and not "Islam-haters."
Anyway, is loathing persons who blindly believe that targeting people for first-degree murder on the basis of a belief really so terrible? or is it an intelligent and natural response? Would categorizing such beliefs as inherently 'evil'b e off the mark, really?? Peters can not answer that because he has no real grasp of Islamic doctrine. SO he offers us red herrings instead.
Islam makes no bones about eliminating human freedom--that is why this creed calls itself 'submission' since the individual has no choice but to consign his total being and conscience over to 'al-lah' and it is the Muslims' duty to spread al-lah's agenda everywhere--including America. Any imam will tell you this much. So, doesn't this guy Peters believe in freedom anymore? If not, HE IS NO FRIEND OF AMERICA HIMSELF. Islam does not permit liberty for individuals anywhere and thus has destroying America on its list of "things to do." According to Islamic doctrine, the US Constitution is illegitimate and America must be destroyed. And Islamic groups are working on this day and night, night and day across the world and around the clock. Peters might want to redefine the 'enemy'--especially if he values liberty and democracy as Islam does not, as we have mentioned.
I dare say that this man painted himself into an intellectual corner through his usage of the concept of "left wing" vs. "right wing" political philosophy--which I think most of us can now see is an outmoded concept. What matters politically to our society is UNDERSTANDING OF REALITY and using our knowledge to obtain the optimal political good. Placing "left" and "right" parameters may be useful at times in gauging the political character of some individuals but it is putting people and ideas into boxes which is COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE since what matters most to our society is THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX."
Somebody needs to tell this guy to start thinking "outside the box" and develop ideas of intrinsic value instead of rehashing outdated political pigeon-holing which is taking America and its people NOWHERE in a big hurry at a time when an infusion of fresh, intelligently-conceived approaches to the problems we face on the homefront and abroad is urgently needed.
I will also mention that the only way anyone will ever be able to make sense of the global jihad crisis is to educate themselves. That means reading parts of the Kuran and at least making an attempt to see what Islam's 14 centuries on earth has done to the world (it ain't pretty, to put it nicely). Peters hasn't done his homework which compounds his problems. Peters clearly doesn't know what the hell he is talking about! And oddly, he exploits that and substitutes sentiment for knowledge of the subject that he conspicuously lacks. He wouldn't even know if he was being a dhimmi, so bereft of knowledge on this matter is he.
Maybe this guy and his obsolete ideas should be mummified--that is, if he doesn't get us all killed first.
'But theocracy - the merging of religion and government - is also on the plate for the new American fascists (just as it was for Hitler, who based the Nazi death cult on a "new Christianity" that would bring "a thousand years of peace"), so they don't want to use that term, either'~ nariz
Yep, nose: a 'new' Christianity.
One Devoid of the TRUTH of the Bible.
One devoid of the REAL Jesus.
One in which the Catholic Church in Europe would have been wiped from the face of the Earth.
But of course, you have NO desire to mention any of that.
Maybe the person who quoted you as saying there are '3 billion muslims' is correct: you ARE one of them.
"I think the disconnect is that Peters has deliberately (and perhaps disingenously) limited the nature of the threat to those radical Muslims who are violent; i.e., the ones committing terrorism"
Peters is only dutifully following the PC Multiculturalist template, according to which Islam itself must always be detached from any bad things any Muslims do, and if any dares to hint that one source (even just one source, let alone the main source) of the problem might lie within Islam itself, he must be ostracized as a bigot.
If only Peters were not a voice of the majority, and Spencer not a voice of a small minority. We're still in the upsidedown world of Alice's Wonderland, folks.
HoosierGal and Sherman, well done, and well said.
About Peters. Peters is simply using websites such as this one, and authors such as those Spencer mentioned, to cast himself in a new light. A couple months back, Peters was interviewed about his new book on C-Span. And his interviewer slammed HIM as effectively calling for a new crusade, and for quasi imperialist, WWII measures to win the present war. Well, Peters had a very comfortable tap dance trying to explain that his calls for sterner actions and a more ferocious war effort shouldn't be understood as a call for hammering the muslim powers, {i.e. states, i.e. cities, ports, and other military targets...}. In short, his interviewer asked him to SPECIFY those actions he desires to see taken that will procure victory. AND HE DIDN'T ANSWER, he dodged, he weaved, it was rather sick.
He says one thing, and then when asked to elaborate, he goes into some vast song and dance.
What I suspect has happened is that PETERS HIMSELF HAS FALLEN AFOUL OF THE DEVOTEES OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS. And thus in a mad scramble to maintain his little corner in the vast national conversation, to make sure that his voice is heard, he goes off on some incoherent rant against those further to his political right, ALL IN AN EFFORT TO BURNISH his own multicultural, non-prejudiced bona fides.
It's all posturing.
Thing is, IT COMES AT OTHER'S expense, AND IT COMES AT THE EXPENSE OF THE TRUTH, or at least at the expense of those who, like Cardinal Pell in Australia, want a GENUINE thrashing out of what islam exactly is, and what jihad exactly is.
Peters just spent some time trying to repair the badly repaired wall of political correctness, which is falling down all around us, especially with each subsequent atrocity.
Everybody make a note of this column by Peters, because rest assured, he'll be singing a different tune five years hence, and most assuredly a decade hence.
"We've been here before, folks. Bigotry is bigotry - even when disguised as patriotism. And, invariably, the haters fantasizing about a merciless Crusade never bothered to serve in our military (Hey, guys, there's still time to join. Lay your backsides on the line - and send your kids!)."
Here are some short profiles of some ex-military men I have known:
Navy aviation electrician, served four years in Florida and Texas
Navy machinist's mate, four years in the French Riveria (home port) when France was in NATO.
Army intellegence - two years in Germany with an 8 to 5 job and most weekends off
Marine infantry man, the only survivor out of six when a bouncing Betty was tripped
Navy machinist's mate serverd on the USS Bunker Hill from 1944 to 1946, escaped burning to death by mere inches when the second Kamikaze struck.
What do these five men have in common? Two of these are real veterans and three are ex-service men. The gentleman who served on the Bunker Hill always said, "If you ain't been shot at, you ain't a veteran."
I am sick and tired of these ex-servicemen throwing their military service in my face as if I am less patriotic.
Four years in Florida is not a free ticket for anything.
Muslim activist gets congressional award
Honoree's organization publicly called for 'invading evil Western heartland'
Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water!
WASHINGTON – The Black Congressional Caucus tomorrow night plans to honor a Muslim activist whose organization once publicly admitted it sought to impose on America an Islamic Sharia state.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51900
I thought there was something about treason in the American Constitution; but since no one running the country actually believes in America or the Constitution that they ceremoniously "swear to uphold," then I suppose there is not; and we should join in the crescendo of applause!
However, I'm going to pass, thank you very much!
Please take it from me, that not all military types are as obnoxious or as grandiose as Ralph Peters.
Unfortunately, like some ex-military types, he has been spoon fed the official line
regarding Islamic History and it shows in his spiteful comments. I
have come across this from him in his articles and a handful other military
writers as well. Those of us who have family in the military just shake
our heads. His latest diatribe only underscores the fact. Needless to
say, my friends and family will not be purchasing any of his books.
His column comes across as very hateful, intolerant and hypocritical in pointing out how
hateful, intolerant and hypocritical others are.
It is a shame, because his articles offer a unique perspective on
military situations, but his resolute adherence to his own pet theories
on Islam or anyone who is critical are cause for concern. Apparently
for him anyone who disagrees with him is to thrown into the camp of the
Fehlerhafter. (Notice I am also using the same kind of trendy trick of
attaching either a German prefix or word to my argument to put the right
kind of insinuation to Nazi Germany?)
We certainly are not going to reach a dialogue with "moderate" Muslims by having critics of Islam
lumped together with weakly veiled references to National Socialism.
Ralph Peters, look in the mirror for a very, very long time.
Peters, military service notwithstanding, is one of these self-deluded leftists. As a leftist, he is ideologically in cohorts with whomever happens to be the enemy of the state, in this case, it is islam. He defends this enemy because his real enemy is anything conservative. And we all know how the Left loves to use the world fascist. Remember when cops were fascist pigs in the late '60s?
Ya, that thinking. Well, it is no longer the 60s, so it is no longer the cops that are the fascists. It is the people who are the fascists now. And patriotism is the new fascism.
However, lately, a REAL fascist ideology has come to the west, islam. And it has recently been described as such.
This pisses off the Left and its agents like Peters. So they want to turn it around AGAIN, and go back to the old standard of calling everything to the Right, fascist. Bush is a fascist. The GOP is fascist. The Christians are fascists. And the islam-haters, well, they are fascists, too.
Don't you love this line:
"We've been here before, folks. Bigotry is bigotry - even when disguised as patriotism."
Of course. "We've been here before folks". The muslims are the old Jews of Europe, right? And those, like us here, who are appalled at the brutality of islam, are the real Nazis. Us. The fascists. While the people on the Left, who support islam in the west, and support the destruction of freedom and liberty, they are ... the good guys. Okay.
George Orwell was right. In the future, right will be wrong, wrong will be right; good will be evil, evil will be good, war will be peace, and peace will be war, freedom is fascism, and fascism will be the new freedom.
It is always the Left vs. the fascists in their minds, even when it is really the Left vs. the anti-fascists.
Believe in women's equality? You are a fascist. Believe in upholding the constitution and protecting it from subversion? You are a fascist. Believe in rooting out those that seek to kill the innocent? You are a fascist. Believe in shutting down centers for hate and violence? You are a fascist. Are you fanatically opposed to forced marriages, stonings, cruelty, honor killings and all those nice things? Then YOU are a fascist.
Oh, how the Left loves to use that term. I call it the F-word. You can't talk to a leftist about these issue for more than 1 minute before they get angry and use the F-word.
This is why I have said before, and will continue to say, until I die, that the real fight in the west is with the Left. For they are the defenders and enablers of the ideologies that seek to destroy us.
In the cold war, they championed the marxists and the socialists. Now that those ideologies are dying, they have a new dog in the fight - islam. And so islam it is for them.
Never forget the immortal words of Abraham Lincoln, the man who was wise beyond his time. He talks about how America can only be destroyed from within, not from without. He warns about how America will only be defeated by subterfuge. This was a warning about the dangers of what we know today as the Left and how such in our ranks will align themselves with America's enemies to bring it down from within:
“At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant to step the ocean and crush us at a blow?
“Never.
“All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, could not, by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer that if it ever reach us, it must spring from amongst us; it cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we ourselves must be the authors and finishers.
Indeed.
Islam threatens our constitution, and our very way of life. But only through alliances with fellow Americans, can it be successful. Today, that alliance is seen with the Left and with the authors and finishers like Peters.
"Four years in Florida is not a free ticket for anything."
In a effort to get this posted before I jammed my fist in the monitor I meant to say that military service does not mean that one has any special credibility. "No Free Ticket" means that I will not atuomatically assume that military service means that one knows what they are talking about. A career spent in the Pentagon does not give a retired officer a blank check to criticize anybody.
Moderate muslims??? Below is an example of why there is no such thing. I like to post this item by Bukhari every once in a while just for drill:
Book of Jihad, on page 580 of Maktba Dar-us-Salam’s publication of Sahih Al-Bukhari: “Jihad is holy fighting in Allah’s Cause with full force of weaponry. It is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its Pillars. By Jihad Islam is established, Allah is made superior and He becomes the only God who may be worshiped. By Jihad Islam is propagated and made superior. By abandoning Jihad Islam is destroyed and Muslims fall into an inferior position. Their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, and Muslim rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim. He who tries to escape this duty dies as a hypocrite.
Pay attention to the last two sentences and the words 'OBLIGATORY' and EVERY'. Where is the moderation in that?
Is there any muslim or apologist like Peters, who would claim to know more on this subject than Imam Bukhari? Probably,
Caroyln2, I enjoyed reading your posts of Qur'anic "Islamic Science"
Do the Imams, and devout Muslims who insist the Qur'an is the "perfect, unquestionable, complete, pure, word of God for all peoples and for all time" truly believe;
The sun travels across the sky in a chariot, pulled by 360 angels (350 are not enough?) and sets in a muddy spring.
The moon was originally a sun but Angel Gabriel's wings dimmed it; you can still see Gabriel's wing marks on the moon's surface.
Unlike the spiritual content of the Qur'an that can unfortunately, never be proved nor disproved, (ie: descriptions of Paradise) these scientific facts CAN be unequivocally proven false. But how does that reconcile with the idea that the Qur'an is divine, ergo flawless? How do faithful Muslims sidestep this dilemma or is there a technique to explain away these falsities? I can't imagine a Muslim would admit the Qur'an got anything wrong, therefore opening up the possibility that other parts of the Qur'an may also be incorrect?
As for the books and Web sites listing all those passages encouraging violence against the infidel, well, we could fill entire libraries with bloody-minded texts from the Christian past. And as a believing Christian, I must acknowledge that there's nothing in the Koran as merciless as God's behavior in the Book of Joshua.
*************************************************
Which is OLD Testament and therefore percursor to Christianity, Modern Judaism AND
Islam.
So your point is?
NOW find some passages in the NEW Testament equal to the intolerance and bloodthristy nature of the Quran?
OT, but does anyone want to serve this one up? Persoanlly, as a leftist, I want to encourage any of the behavior listed that D'Souza states causes Muslims to be uncomfortable in America, and hopefully, make them want to emigrate elsewhere.
"In THE ENEMY AT HOME, bestselling author Dinesh D’Souza makes the startling claim that the 9/11 attacks and other terrorist acts around the world can be directly traced to the ideas and attitudes perpetrated by America’s cultural left.
D’Souza shows that liberals—people like Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, Bill Moyers, and Michael Moore—are responsible for fostering a culture that angers and repulses not just Muslim countries but also traditional and religious societies around the world. Their outspoken opposition to American foreign policy—including the way the Bush administration is conducting the war on terror—contributes to the growing hostility, encouraging people both at home and abroad to blame America for the problems of the world. He argues that it is not our exercise of freedom that enrages our enemies, but our abuse of that freedom—from the sexual liberty of women to the support of gay marriage, birth control, and no-fault divorce, to the aggressive exportation of our vulgar, licentious popular culture.
The cultural wars at home and the global war on terror are usually viewed as separate problems. In this groundbreaking book, D’Souza shows that they are one and the same. It is only by curtailing the left’s attacks on religion, family, and traditional values that we can persuade moderate Muslims and others around the world to cooperate with us and begin to shun the extremists in their own countries."
Aye lads tis a dim day for people of the world to be so "repulsed" by a woman's right to her reproductive system. Aye, lasses tis a dim day for people of the world to disrespect our laws and our culture but demand that we respect theirs.
Real repulsion is in beholding murder, torture and rape. If you are repulsed by a naked body of a woman, even one moist from a good screw, then I would suggest that you look at yourselves.
My what high standards these cultures must have to stand in moral indignity over Gay Rights.
Let them live in the 17th century if they wish, castrating women, stoning women and beheading people.
Oh it is not our freedom eh?
The discussion of gay rights is freedom.
The true abuse of freedom is chaos. That is the measuring stick. Not someone's or some society's expectations of moral integrity.
If we excuse their judgements they will kill us. I see no recourse than to protect America's right to be self governing. If you don't like it, well then...... tough luck and kiss me arse...
Grin...
Father O'Malley
A comment on the exchange between two posters, which read:
"As for the books and Web sites listing all those passages encouraging violence against the infidel, well, we could fill entire libraries with bloody-minded texts from the Christian past. And as a believing Christian, I must acknowledge that there's nothing in the Koran as merciless as God's behavior in the Book of Joshua."
To which the other replied: "NOW find some passages in the NEW Testament equal to the intolerance and bloodthristy nature of the Quran?" Posted by: Dan Kauffman
I think that what the first person was pointing out is that an inordinate number of so-called Christians today pay far too little attention to the New Testament and far too much to the Old, which is indeed brimming with passages in which God exhorts his children to attack, pillage, smash, destroy and kill, not to mention take women and children in slavery. See how many times the command "destroy them utterly" is repeated in Deuteronomy and Joshua. The God of some parts of the the Old Testament (but by no means all of it), if one is to believe that every word of it is literally the command of God, is a genocidal monster. Does this make all Christians ipso facto genocidal? Of course not. It doesn't make Jews genocidal either, as they have, to their great credit, generally resisted approaching their holy scriptures with the unquestioning prosaic literalism of some Christians and some Muslims.
Believe me, if a mass movement took hold of Christians who took every word in the New Testament as a direct command of God, I'd be scared. People would be lining up to watch homosexuals being executed and adulterers stoned to death. And don't even get me started on the prospect of of forcing women to go into isolation seven days each month because their menstruation makes them "unclean." The whole world economy would collapse in a millisecond.
Finally, ryogo wrote of Dinesh d'Souza's pious vomit: "Personally, as a leftist, I want to encourage any of the behavior listed that D'Souza states causes Muslims to be uncomfortable in America, and hopefully, make them want to emigrate elsewhere." Alleluia to that! I hardly consider myself a leftist (although no doubt some of the far-right loonies who post on this site feel differently, but fuck 'em). d'Souza is a complete moron.
"He [d'Souza] argues that it is not our exercise of freedom that enrages our enemies, but our abuse of that freedom—from the sexual liberty of women to the support of gay marriage, birth control, and no-fault divorce, to the aggressive exportation of our vulgar, licentious popular culture."
I detest most of that "vulgar, licentious popular culture" too. But there can never be real freedom WITHOUT some abuse of freedom. That's what makes it so difficult. Still, I'd rather live with the vulgar stuff than in a state where the government decided what I, an intelligent adult, could and couldn't see.
And as for the rest of the so-called "evils" d'Souza gripes about...birth control? How exactly is limiting the size of one's family an "abuse of freedom?" Could it be somehow related to the next great evil...
"Sexual liberty of women!!!"
Yes, shocking. Not sexual liberty of men, mind, just women. Can't have those women actually deciding who to have sex with.
"No-fault divorce" - yes, we know it's far better to force people who hate each other's guts to stay married.
"Gay marriage" - when are people going to grow up about this? Why shouldn't gay people be allowed to choose to be just as bored, frustrated, and disappointed as married heterosexuals? Oh, you say that gay marriage "threatens the sanctity of marriage." How so? Nobody's ever yet managed to explain that one. And "sanctity of marriage?" What about marriages that were not performed in a church? Are those also abominations and travesties? If so, why hasn't there been a mass movement opposing these kinds of unions? Or all of Elizabeth Taylor's 87 marriages?
But seriously, folks - what exactly are we fighting for? As much as I respect and support what Robert Spencer is doing in bringing the truth to light about the threat we are facing, even he has to admit that SOME extreme rightwingers, end-of-days Christian evangelicals and Biblical literalists, and other assorted wingnuts of every ideology have leeched on to this cause, and, like the angry little bloodsuckers they are, refusing to let go. I'm not saying he should shut them up. Let them spew their venom by all means. Better to bring it all up to the surface so we can address it.
A slight erratum to a typo my previous post - of course I meant, if there was a mass movement of Christians taking everything in the OLD Testament as the literal command of God, I'd be scared. The New Testament is what Christianity is all about, although some would seem to deny it.
Peters wants to help himself to terms and phrases like “Islamist fanatics,” but of course when anyone else uses variations on those terms* they are supposedly “bigots.”
*(Terms to which most Muslims would object, BTW, including to the word “Islamist” or any mention of a word with “Islam-” in any negative connotation whatsoever). Perhaps Peters could explain why, when he says it, it’s okay, but when others say it, it’s bigotry.
What is the purpose of this article, except for Peters to do the “but I’m not a bigot” routine, which involves a wild, flailing assault? It appears to be an indirect attack on people who often, in fact, are qualified to criticize Islam or are basing their opinions on those of experts. But notice how the cowardly Peters does not name his targets. This allows him to do his “I’m not a bigot” preening and posturing while attempting to duck any responsibility for his wild claims.
Supposedly, in Peters’ mind, anyone who criticizes Islam also demands genocide of a billion people, etc. Isn’t it curious how the knee-jerk “You are a bigot” folks like Peters so often neglect to state what they think would be an acceptable form of criticizing Islam. This suggests that, in their view, there is no acceptable form of criticizing Islam.
Of course we should support any effort of the moderates to gain control and replace the hard-liners. But we should not be naive and should not over-rely on moderate Muslims. If Peters had actually studied the history of Islam, he would realize that the moderates have never “recaptured their own faith” from the hard-liners for any significant stretch of time. Why is the death penalty still used for simple public apostasy, or for merely criticizing Islam or Mohammad? Why are apostates and critics of Islam, all over the world, today, in danger of being killed? Part of the answer is that in 1400 years, moderate Muslims have been unable to dislodge those penalties from mainstream Islamic jurisprudence. If moderate Muslims alone have not been able to fix Islam after 1400 years, why should we expect them to be able to do so within the next years and decades?
In other words, Peters refuses to look at the evidence for himself. Yet he makes a sweeping judgement against anyone who dares criticize his wondrous, Disney-like vision of Islam. His argument against critics of Islam is sheer ad hominem. He does not cite any facts or Islamic texts to support his case. To support his case, he would have to show that the critics are wrong about Islam. Apparently unable or unwilling to do that, he resorts to the “they are bigots (and I am not)” routine.
Oh, they’ve perverted the religion? Yet Peters refuses to read the “evidence” pertaining to the religion. So how can he pass a judgement that it’s been perverted? Passing judgement on something about which he knows nothing makes him a bigot, by definition.
Peters might want to check the PEW polls on Muslim opinions re issues such as terrorism, approval of bin Laden, etc., before shooting his mouth off about moderate majorities. Terrorists cannot succeed without the social and political support they receive from those Muslims who are not themselves engaged directly in terrorist acts.
Here’s some stats for Peters: 58-68% of British Muslims demand that the Danish Mohammad cartoonists be prosecuted and criminally punished. What form of criminal punishment is anyone’s guess. But note that about 30-40% of British Muslims want sharia to be implemented in Britain, and the sharia penalty for blasphemy (involving insulting the prophet) is, as it has always been since Mohammad himself ordered it, death.
Peters is out-of-touch with the present state of world affairs, and is dangerously naive.
HoosierGal and Sherman - welcome, and well said. The original article has a spot for comments, so I think a little cut & paste is in order!
It's really very encouraging to see the reaction here at Jihad Watch, and to see Robert Spencer's response to this completely irresponsible attack from Peters.
El Cid is absolutely right. We will not be dissuaded in our persuit and dissemenation of the truth about Islam - no matter what some elitist liberal member of the US military establishment says - and no matter how many times he screams "racist." This applies not only for Americans and Europeans, but also for the Indian posters who regularly inform us here and those from other places in Asia and Africa who face the prophet's bloodstained sword.
Everywhere Islam is present in close proximity to other cultures, there is bloodshed. It doesn't matter whether it's in Europe, Thailand, India, the Philipinnes, Israel, Ethiopia, Sudan, or other places in Asia and Africa, the same theme of jihad repeats itself over and over in endless grinding monotony. If Peters can't grasp this simple truth, he is merely an ideologue who is blinded by a globalist utopian ideology.
I had no idea of the vast extent of jihad and slaughter directed against the peoples of the Indian subcontinent until I read some of the remarks from the Indians who post here and at Larry Auster's "View From the Right" site. The jihad slaughter in India is one of the great untold stories of world history.
Islam is very likely the single deadliest ideology in Human history, even exceeding the 150 million or so slaughtered by communists and other utopian leftists. Diana West is right. The only way to deal with this deadly threat is to apply a strategy of rollback (getting Muslims out of places they don't belong), divide (exploit and encourage the natural sectarian and ethnic divisions within the Umma), isolate, and contain.
Before anything like this can even commence, people must know the truth. It's a real challenge when we have a ruling elite whose view is essentially identical with that of Peters. Nonetheless, my profound thanks goes out to Mssrs. Spencer and Fitzgerald for bravely standing up for the truth here, and to the many readers here who continue the fight.
"This suggests that, in their view, there is no acceptable form of criticizing Islam."
This should come as no revelation. The PC Multiculturalist template, by which Westerners are not permitted to criticize Islam itself, and must always detach a blameless Islam from any bad actions any Muslims commit, has been firmly in place as the dominant paradigm for assessing Islam at least since the early 1980s (when the French philosopher Jacques Ellul noted that "you can't criticize Islam anymore"), if not perhaps back to the 1960s.
But seriously, folks - what exactly are we fighting for? As much as I respect and support what Robert Spencer is doing in bringing the truth to light about the threat we are facing, even he has to admit that SOME extreme rightwingers, end-of-days Christian evangelicals and Biblical literalists, and other assorted wingnuts of every ideology have leeched on to this cause, and, like the angry little bloodsuckers they are, refusing to let go.
Posted by: angloirishslav [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 8, 2006 07:51 PM
I appreciated some of the arguments you made in your post, but to be so dismissive of certain peoples view points is a bit much. I have learned many important facts and opinions by listening to those very same people you seem so dismissive of.
Chill out man.
Remote, I also beleive the fear of criticizing Islam is a by-product of the 60s and 70s counter-culture. If one looks at the pop culture of the time, especially in the "new age" movement, one finds that alot of religious liberals took a more universalist view of religion and felt that rational examining of all religious or psuedo-religious belief was improper.
The 60s idea in a nutshell is that all religions contained some "truth" and were equally valid ways of "reaching god." You still see it today, where some religious folks insist that all Christians, of all denominations, Jews and Muslims, (and expanding it out to even Pantheistic Hindus and Atheistic Buddhist) all worship the same "God of Abraham." The belief states further that if you strip all the different religions of their non-essentual trappings, you will reach a core "truth about god." And if all religions contain "the truth," then they were all beyond criticism. Beleive it or not, when I went Catholic grade school,in the 80s, we were always taught that we should respect other religions, even when they were diametrically opposed to the teachings of the Church.
Now, when critical thinking kicks in, we can examine the various attributes of god given by the various religions and come to the obvious conclusion that they are NOT discribing the same being. The Old Testement "hands-on" god, is, to my eyes, different from the New Testement god of Jesus, and they are both very different from the "kill an infidal, win some vigins" god of Islam.
Now, I am an atheist (I gave up my Catholisism for Lent), it is easy for me to say to muslims, "listen, most of you are muslim because your parents are muslim or you live in a muslim dominated country, not because you examined all the availible religions and found Islam was the best one for you. And because you have not examined your beliefs in an open-minded manner, your beliefs are shallow unworthy of consideration."
Now, this is a very long-winded way of saying that religious liberals have got to drop this universalist view of religion and realize that critically and rationally examining the tenets of Islam (and all religions and para-religious belief) is necessary and proper. Personally, I think liberals will come to an understanding that belief in Islam is something to be actively opposed, but only after the next catastrophic terrorist event.
Thanks in advance for not making fun of my many typos. Vigins, indeed.
This is why, IMHO, PC is going to end up killing us all if we do not disregard it. The truth is that it is going to have to be up to folks like Robert Spencer, Daniel Pipes, Charles Johnson, ete. to expose Islam for what it is as well as the common everyday folks like myself who post here.
Money might have something to do with it.
What are Ralph Peters connections with the Arabs, was he on a 'speaking tour' of the ME recently, what Arab contacts does he have in the US or elsewhere, etc.
That might answer it.
I just don't believe that he is as naive as he pretends to be, I don't believe that his moral equivalency and his 'balanced view' is sincere at all. Money talks. This guy follows the money.
Just like Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Peanut Khadr and the KKK-Jew-hating freak who went to the UAE recently and got paid handsomely for bashing Israel.
What was his name again? Wasn't it David Duke?
"'...win some vigins' god of Islam."
-- from a posting above
"Thanks in advance for not making fun of my many typos. Vigins, indeed."
-- same poster, slightly later
The very same word in French, with a vowel rather than a consonant dropped, caused the noun in question to undergo a sex-change operation, which did wonders for a title by Apollinaire: "Les onze milles verges..."
No fun made. No fun intended. Merely the pointing out of a coincidence which, if I don't get away from this keyboard soon, may turn itself into a quincunx, which in turn may become...No, this has to stop.
Yorick was right. They do order these things better in France.
In a different vein:
"Another trait common among those warning us that Islam is innately evil is that few have spent any time in the Muslim world. Well, I have. While the Middle East leaves me ever more despairing of its future, elsewhere, from Senegal to Sulawesi, from Delhi to Dearborn, I've seen no end of vibrant, humane, hopeful currents in the Muslim faith."
-- from the original article by Ralph Peters
All kinds of people have spent "time in the Muslim world." Bassam Tibi has, so has Ibn Warraq and Ali Sina, and Azam Kamguian and Irfan Khawaja, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Many intelligent people have not only "spent time" in the Muslim world but were born into it, and raised in it, and finally, upon coming to live in the West, and able to breathe and think freely, have chosen to leave Islam. They do so only after having carefully analyzed what Islam teaches, what they hear being said in the mosques about Infidels, behind those Infidel acts. They know perfectly well the attitudes and atmospherics of societies suffused with Islam. Why does Ralph Peters think that his visits, “from Senegal to Sulawesi, from Delhi to Dearborn,” with “no end of vibrant, humane, hopeful currents in the Muslim faith” have given him an understanding and insight superior to that of these articulate, intelligent, thoroughly pleasant and altogether reasonable, and almost always humorful people – not to mention others who offer testimony that can be found, in book form (see “Leaving Islam”) or at such websites as www.faithfreedom.org.
There is nothing hate-filled and hysterical about any of these people, who are adamant in their implacable opposition to Islam, in their dismay at those Westerners who fall for every bit of taqiyya-and-tu-quoque, who seem never to get their fill of that “dialogue” or never to quite understand why it is that Islam cannot conceivably be reformed – god knows a few people, in the last century, tried, but kept coming up against the reality of the Qur’an and the Hadith, and the figure, or rather Model, of Muhammad.
Why does Ralph Peters think his impressions, “from Senegal to Sulawesi,” are more important and accurate than what these defectors tell us. Why, for that matter, does he think that the Islam analyzed in such piercing detail by Snouck Hurgronje or St..Clair Tisdall or Arthur Jeffery or another hundred people who devoted their lives to studying the subject, are to be so easily dismissed by him, for their views on the impossibility of the reformation of Islam, and their analysis of its suppression of free and skeptical inquiry, and encouragement of the habit of mental submission, are everywhere so evident in their writings, but when others, today, say or write the same things, Peters finds them “islamophobic” and “hate-filled.”
If Peters wishes to read further, he might wish to read the essay by Ibn Warraq on “Islam and Fascism” in which the fourteen defining features of Fascism that Umberto Eco once presented are set beside Islam, and the latter is found to exhibit all fourteen of them.
Perhaps Peters will beg to differ. But at least he should be willing to read Ibn Warraq, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Ali Sina and Walid Shoebat and many others. And he ought to actually read those books about Islam some of which have apparently (according to my informants) been sent to him, and the contents of which so disturbed him that he immediately lapsed into the “all religions do it” argument that some find so soothing to believe, but others – those who count on them for instruction – will find unacceptable as a response.
Peters is irrelevant. Don't pay attention to him. Don't listen to him. And for God's sake don't buy any books or articles he prints.
He is a career pencil pusher who earned his stripes in the ranks of Army intel and didn't fight in Vietnam or anywhere else. Not that his service should be shunned or disrespected. However, he has little or no combat experience and is uniquely UNQUALIFIED to speak or write on the subject of making war against anyone, especially Jihadists. We can rank him right up there with Witless Clark and the other buffoons who disgrace the vast majority of servicemen and women.
If he's so educated about Islam, how is that he missed the rise of the Jihadist movement from 1979-2001? Another empty suit fool.
Gov’t grants found their way to 7/7 plotters
I’ve seen Mr. Peters on TV but never really listened to him. Since he decided to associate me with a rotten core of American extremists, I’ve looked at his career and would like to give my impressions.
Impression #1.
He served as an intelligence officer. Intelligence officers are not ‘line’ officers (they are ‘staff’ officers) and not authorized to command troops. If a ‘Staff’ General and a ‘Line’ Lieutenant are the only two surviving officers after a hit, the Lieutenant takes command of the Unit.
Intelligence officers work in large tents and look at computer screens while they are in theater. Although their work is very important, they get three squares per day and sleep in warm beds. They don’t usually do well on the Physical Readiness Tests. Their detractors call them REMFs (Rear Echelon Mother F……).
Impression #2.
The military is an up or out organization. A retired O-5 is typically someone who didn’t make O-6 in the specified timeline and fell into the ‘out’ category. I get the distinct impression that Ralph would have stayed around longer if he was allowed.
This guy Ralph Peters is really out there, isn't he?
He's a part of the problem. Articles like his usually end up on the CAIR website.
limes,
I believe that the Colonel spent the first several years of his career as an enlisted man. He makes some good points, but is, IMO, unwilling to accept the facts about Islam.
Here's a letter I submitted to the New York Post:
Colonel Peters is wrong.
Muslim fundamentalists have neither hijacked nor perverted Islam, for it is they who believe in Islam with all their hearts.
That moderate Muslims do not know what Islam teaches, or that they selectively ignore or deny what it teaches, or that they lie about what it teaches, does not negate what it teaches.
This isn't about the past history of the Colonel's faith. It's about Islam today, and what's being done in Allah's name.
Robert Corrow
PRCS USN (Ret)
South Lake Tahoe
Web sites list no end of extracts from historical documents and Islamic jurisprudence "proving" that holy war against Christians and Jews is the alpha and omega of the Muslim faith. The message between the lines: Muslims are Untermenschen.
Ralph Peters
Facts Mr. Peters, just plain, simple facts. The Qur'an mandates that jihad be waged until the entire world is muslim. From a Western perspective, this is utterly ridiculous and unbelievable, but then so is the implausible, obdurate certitude of muslims that islam is the final, immutable word of God; all people are born muslim; and the Bible was corrupted by man and replaced by the Qur'an. Both books were written by man and that is where the similarities end. Muhammad was a warlord and a thief, and his biggest heist was his theft of the Biblical prophets. If muslims are stupid enough to believe that God Almighty is so capricious that He would abrogate the Bible and replace it with the heterodox Qur'an, they are stupid and sightless
enough to follow the mandates of islam.
Islam is a hard pill to swallow and nobody wants to believe a religion could be inherently evil, but the evidence is irrefutable. Ignoring the evidence because it is too unpalatable to swallow might provide temporary relief, but denial of reality will not change it. Islam's 1300 years of history cannot be changed; jihad and the quest for world dominance is its prevalent theme, accompanied by the most brutal genocides, conquests, and mass murders ever committed in the name of religion.
So Mr. Peters, you are either a dhimmi, an ignorant apologist, or a useful idiot for islam. Or you could have a personal reason to defend this insidious ideology, as so many pundits, former ambassadors, and politicians do. Whatever your reasons for condemning those who have studied and learned about islam, and who are very disturbed and concerned for the future and security of this country, you might some day be forced to eat every word of your asinine, ignorant diatribe.
Upon Further Research: He was released from Army service in 1998. He wrote fiction novels for a time under an alias, ‘Owen Parry’. His books include: Faded Coat of Blue (1999), Shadows of Glory (2000), Call Each River Jordan (2001), Honor's Kingdom (2002), Bold Sons of Erin (2003).
In a gripping interview done by a book reviewer with ’Owen Parry, Mystery Author’, Peters talks about ‘turning his back on a successful career’ to write. Speculated translation; mustered out of the Army.
Excerpts from Owen Parry, Mystery Author:
Owen Parry turned his back on a successful career to write. From early childhood, he was told of his ancestors who fell in Union blue, and each years his parents took him to our great battlefields. His own military service taught him about the unreported valor of the common man.
I'd like to see him team up with Austin Powers, 'International Man of Mystery' on his next work.
PRCS; Just read your post, his retirement rank is consistent with a solid career if he spent time in the ranks. His self assigned 'Mystery Author' status still makes me wonder.
Realize how lightweight his response is.........
It's difficult to believe that he actually meant the article to do anything other than scream: "I'm not a bigot!"
Islam has 1,400 hundred years of jihad behind it, of military history. And it seems to me, that an U.S. Army officer, AND AN INTELLIGENCE OFFICER AT THAT, should get some books, and get to the bottom of the long track record that is islam.
This isn't some Engineer, {although R.E. Lee was of that branch...}, this is a fricken INTELLIGENCE officer, he's supposed to be the guy ADVISING on the nature of the enemy, his intentions and capabilities.
It tells 'ya how bad the situation is that our government has creatures like him, Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson working for it. Not to mention Michael Scheuer, Mr. Anonymous himself.
I seriously expected better from him.
And I don't think he's a lefty, though he writes for a New York paper.
I've read a piece too, where he says the message of Christ was beautiful, but then Paul of Tarsus came around and screwed everything up by inserting doctrinal matters within that message.
His theology and Christology are badly flawed.
Sherman and StillBreathing point out, above, that islam is not a religion, so much as a social philosophy or social order. I prefer to describe islam as a political ideology with religious trappings, but that is the same point: islam is NOT a personal-faith-religion (which is generally what most westerners understand "religion" to mean). Make that a totalitarian political ideology. Beside islam's rigid differentiation between "believers" and "unbelievers", its emphasis on the collective, its supremacism and demonization of outsiders ("unbelievers") -- each typical aspects of a totalitarian worldview --, islam is political.
In personal-faith-religions, associated with at least a significant separation of "church" and "state", religious rules apply within the community of followers of a religion. In islamically based societies, the rules of islam are imposed on all, both muslims and non-muslims. This imposition of a social order or societal organization (i.e. a political system) is the heart of both the jihad conflict, and Mr. Peters profound misunderstanding of the conflict with adherents of islam.
The understanding of islam as a totalitarian political system underpins most of the comments on this website.
The understanding of islam as a political system is a lightbulb moment for many.
That understanding of the political nature of islam is necessary to understand the nature of jihad, and the reality of the conflict.
And that lack of understanding is evident in Mr. Peters op-ed.
"How? By insisting that Islam can never reform, that the violent conquest and subjugation of unbelievers is the faith's primary agenda - and, when you read between the lines, that all Muslims are evil and subhuman"
When the father of a 5 year old boy takes him to a mosque and tells him to saw off the head of a sheep/goat/cow, and actually is happy after the young one has done it, because the young one is performing what is the very basic of his religion, islam, I call such people evil. I call such people sub-human.
Naseem,
Have you asked yourself why Islamic Pakistan would even consider banning sites like JW? Are they afraid? Are they suggesting Islam can't "take it", that it can't handle the questions/jokes/barbs/offenses/etc. being directed at it and that it must be "protected", lest it get "hurt"? I mean, it's just a website, not an armored tank. Or maybe it's respect? But then, might Islam command more respect if it confidently confronts its challengers instead of merely unplugging them? Furthermore, if it's truly Islam's goal to convert non-believers into the fold, why would Islamic Pakistan make it harder for Muslims such as yourself to do just that here at JW? Here in the Western world, there is no banning of websites, no matter how anti-Western, anti-Christian, pro-jihadi, anti-pro-whatever they may be....a freeflow of information that lets individuals decide what and what not to believe, "without compulsion" as the Quran which you and your countrymen hold dear would say. Between the two, which is the more "Islamic" way to go?
yy
Is it bigotry to criticize religion? Atheists do it all the time to all religions, citing all the killing done in its name. Yet as a religious person, it never occurred to me to think of their criticisms toward my faith as bigotry.
Was it bigotry to criticize Nazism in the 40's? Communism in the 50s-80s?
Does Peters consider sanctions on an entire country a form of bigotry? Sanctions on Iran, Iraq, and N. Korea affected ALL Iranians, Iraqis, and N. Koreans, even tho' it was meant to send a message to a guilty minority. Yet websites like JW will never be as harsh as any govt-imposed sanction or boycott.
Ralph Peters' run of respect just went off the cliff with his convoluted, twisted, undulating, contorted piece regarding critics of islam's excesses, abscesses, abuses, dementia, lunacy. Yes! a man whose work and thoughts fueled my desire to read the New York Post has apparently petered out. For dogwalkers the competition for which paper to use to pick up the poop has just intensified by the total collapse of RP's incisiveness, acumen, clarity, coherence.
Thankfully, we still have the magnificent Michelle Malkin, and the invigorating sports culture guru Phil Mushnick.
You can describe the evaporation of substance of commentary in the New York Post as a growing puddle of amber void or a shriveling body mass.
Never before has 'doing our own thinking' become so critically important an exercise inorder to excorsise the foggies, fudgies, you can't be seriousites' influences.
I feel so privileged to commune in the company of people who know what's going on(WGO)
Ralph Peters says: "I must acknowledge that there's nothing in the Koran as merciless as God's behavior in the Book of Joshua."
So the Christian God can be as merciless as Almighty Allah? I'm not a Christian but even if true, so what?! The real point is that Christians leave most such critical judgments of life and death in the hands of God when possible, whereas Muslims are incited directly in the Koran by Allah (through his prophet messenger Muhammad) to take matters into their own hands, to 'Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them' etc. etc. Kill, subject, subdue, plot, enslave, deceive, ambush; i.e. whatever it takes to establish Islam atop all people and all lands. Yes, "atop" as in submissive slaves to Allah. This is the ultimate goal, to establish Islamic domination of the world. Allah says so in the Koran.
So it's not surprising that a radical minority of Muslims is killing in Allah's name. The favored method is to saw off the heads of 'Unbelievers', up close and personal. Why? It's in the Koran; "Cut at Their Necks!" i.e. the Unbelievers. This is a very exciting thing for the radicals to do, to bring the Koran to life/death in this fashion.
Obviously not all Muslims are engaged in such behavior; In fact the majority are not. But it doesn't take a majority for such evil to spread.
All it takes is a committed, inspired vanguard to get things started (like the Nazis in 1930s Germany) bound to Allah's explicit will (as set forth in the Koran) to undertake unrelenting warfare against the filthy unbelievers, until... (most apologists forget this part)... Allah's Dominion through Islam reigns atop all people and all lands. Yes, this is the ultimate goal.
If Ralph Peters was in Germany in the 1930s I think he would be just as oblivious to what was emerging there. Not intentionally so, but self-deluded all the same. He would be making all kinds of excuses for why the Nazis were gaining strength, from the treaty of Versailles to harrassment of German speakers in the Sudetenland. He would tell us that he knows lots of Germans and that they are really fine folks. All of it true! And all of it MISSING THE POINT!
The Nazis were a MINORITY in Germany, even in the thick of Total War (Totalenkrieg), but they were inspired and dedicated to carrying through with Hitler's ideology and program as set forth in Mein Kampf / My Struggle / My Jihad!
So it didn't take a majority of Nazi fanatics to unleash WWII. It just took a core minority of committed radicals, and most of the rest (including lots of 'good' German people) were swept up and carried along, contributing, to ultimate atrocity and disaster.
A similarly inspired core of radical Muslims is relentlessly at work within Islam today, planting the seeds for even greater crimes and disaster than witnessed in WWII.
The Big Lie is that this radical minority is 'hijacking' Islam, which we're constantly told is really all about Peace and Love [the peace is where Islam reigns; the love is for Members only, Muslims only].
In fact what the radicals are really doing is bringing to life (and death) a lot of what the Holy Koran explicitly instructs true believers to say and do. In other words they are taking Islam seriously and literally. Is that Hijacking??
No, but it's a radical program to be sure [Islam is a radical religion] and most Muslims aren't up to the rigors of jihad and Islamic expansionism any more [after 10 centuries it does get tiring].
But here's the rub; there are enough radicals now, hard at work, to stir up a critical mass of movement within Islam for confrontation with, and jihad against, Non-Islam. A majority of Muslims, including lots and lots of 'good' Muslims, may not necessarily approve of this movement but -- like the 'good' Germans of the 1930s -- neither do they exactly disapprove. This ambivalent passivity will only pave the way for even greater extremism as it did in Germany in the 1930s.
So the momentum builds and the radical Muslims are now basically in charge of where things are heading. Before long it will be too late to put the Jihad-Genie back in the bottle and the world will be plunged into terrible strife which will dwarf the destruction of WWII due to nuclear weaponry the jihadists, like the present Iranian leadership, will eagerly employ once acquired.
I repeat; Before long it will be too late to put the Jihad-Genie back in the bottle.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke
Reply to Peters that was sent to the Post
Ralph Peters in his article “Islam Haters, An Enemy Within” wrote that those who say that violent conquest and subjugation of unbelievers is Islam’s primary agenda are bigots and the enemy and wrote: “Why alienate the Muslims of Indonesia or West Africa (or California)?” California is where CAIR Chairman Omar M. Ahmad told an enthusiastic crowd of Muslims in July 1998 that, "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant." Are those of us who point this out “the enemy”? California is where an angry mob of Muslims surrounded Jewish students screaming "Get out or we will kill you" and "Hitler did not finish the job.” This is the bigotry and enemy I'm concerned about.
In Indonesia there is an ongoing Islamic war against Christianity where those women who aren’t killed are forcefully circumcised. In West Africa in 2004, an Associated Press reporter saw youths at a makeshift checkpoint of burning tires strike three young women with machetes after accusing them of being "nonbelievers" for wearing Western-style skirts and blouses. Nigeria’s civil war was a Muslim Jihad genocide that felled a million victims. The facts speak for themselves.
Greetings from Bedrock Guy.
Interesting reactions to the Peters' article. Having hosted him several times at conferences and listened to him speak, on and off the record, numerous times, I'm appalled at the comments made about his person on the site. Peters recognizes the threat of radical Islam. Believe me on that one. I think the most rabid commentors above missed the point of this article. We can't win this war by fighting all of Islam. We can't win this war by lumping all Muslims in the same boat as the extremists and suicide bombers. We can win it by realizing the need to buttress moderate Islam and by ensuring we do not enflame the situation more than required. And folks, for the record, people in this country should be allowed to bring up issues like this without being read out of the group. Strategy is developed by people looking at a variety of options and deciding where to put resources to accomplish the objectives which have been set. In this case, Peters is telling us that we need to be diligent to not make more enemies than we already have done. One more thing, retired Army here, and a retired Army officer, so spare me the crap about Peters being full of crap because he's a retired officer. He is one who is smart enough, and well travelled enough, to make a cogent argument about the problems of winning this war against extremist Islam. Man, and we talk about the leftwingers.
MAYBE PETERS HAD A DEATH THREAT AND HAS TO KISS SOME MUSLIM ASS. LET'S LOOK AT THIS FOR WHAT IT IS..........ISLAM WAS FOUNDED BY A VICIOUS MAN WHO SET HIMSELF UP BY SAYING HE SAW ALLAH. FOR 1400 YEARS THESE JERKS ACTUALLY BELIEVED THIS LINE OF CRAP. HALF OF THE FOLLOWERS ARE WOMEN WHO LIKE TO BE ABUSED AND USED, TO BE OF THE ANIMAL ORDER, NOT EVEN HOUSEHOLD PETS. MOHAMMED SOUGHT TO HAVE POWER AND PUSSY AND THROUGH ALLAH AND DIMWIT FOLLOWERS HE ATTAINED IT. IT IS TIME TO PUBLISH FACTS HERE ON HIS LIFE. INSTEAD OF CALLING HIM A GREAT PROPHET CALL HIM BY HIS REAL NAME...MURDERER, RAPIST, DEMENTED SICK BASTARD. THE WORLD WILL ONLY BE SAFE WHEN THIS PRIMITIVE IDEOLOGY IS DONE! ANYONE THAT CAN BELIEVE THIS LINE OF CRAP IS DEMENTED TOO....MEANING THERE ARE OVER A BILLION JERKS WHO TAKE THIS SICKO'S WORDS. CLOSE ALL MOSQUES, DEPORT ALL MUSLIMS, EXECUTE ALL TERRORISTS THEN THE WORLD WILL BE A BETTER PLACE.
Bedrock Guy,"We can't win this war by lumping all Muslims in the same boat as the extremists and suicide bombers. We can win it by realizing the need to buttress moderate Islam and by ensuring we do not enflame the situation more than required."
On what basis do you use the term "moderate Islam"? moderate as to the vast majority of commands expressed in the Qur’an and the Hadith?
Moderate, as "in to dilute or waterdown", what their "holy books state"
Moderate as to the application of sharia, let's see which part of the hundreds of restrictions in Islamic jurisprudence do you want to MODERATE so that it stops discriminating against non-Muslims.
If we want them to MODERATE their beliefs then how Muslim are they?
If we want them to go against the literal word of Allah, then how much of Islam is left in them so they can be called Muslims.
Most so called "moderate Muslims" I have met will tell you they are different from the Jihadists. How so I ask?
They will not "moderate" one bit of the Qur'an. They believe every word but choose not to live it out.
They believe every word, but say they would never carry out act of violence or do the deeds their faith calls for.
Peter's and yourself confuse, those Muslims who do not act out their faith as Moderates. I would suggest that they have ignored the basis of their faith or chosen not to follow it for practical reasons.
We should not fear alienating these lapsed Muslims, but fear the day they will go back to their faith and take down another plane.
Their is no moderate faith within Islam, just those who ignore it's tennets and call themselves "moderate"
I have in the past read Peter's columns, if he believes in Moderate Muslim's who do not repudiate (not just ignore the violent aspects of their faith) they he is a fool.
Bedrock Guy wrote: "We can't win this war by fighting all of Islam."
No, we can fight just part of it, and, as a consquence, lose all our freedoms.
Islam will not quit the war unless it is forced to confront its own failings. We should not embolden it by publicly pretending it is "noble" and "peaceful" and "religious" (by any western understanding of the last term) which demonstrably it is not.
Peters used the terms "rotten core of American extremists" (this site is international, not American) and "bigotry disguised as patriotism." Them's figtin' words, pardner. What kind of reaction should one expect?
Wow, multiple moving targets. My favorite kind of M1A1 engagement.
Until proven otherwise by some events more catastrophic than we have seen thus far, we must assume that the overwhelming majority of American Muslims are just that, moderate Americans who believe in the main American themes (liberty, justice, freedom of religion, etc, etc, etc).
To do otherwise begins the dark slide to an America which no longer resembles the one which I believe most of the readers of this website cherish.
So, El Cid, my friend, yes I do believe there are moderate Muslims. I do, however, think that right now they are scared to death as the extremists have the upper hand, and have shown little reluctance to enforcing their hatred and terror within their communities. I think the same is going on in American communities as well. This situation resembles the same type of situation we see in American cities overrun by the drug culture. The “ganstas” have the guns and are willing to use them against the people who “snitch” or attempt to stand up to the gangstas. Should we just abandon all those people in the cities?
I think Islam in America has a great opportunity to “moderate” as have all religions which have come to America. Name one major religion which has not been “Americanized” to a certain extent by our people? I think the same can happen with Islam in America, if we can keep the Islamic extremists and their agenda groups from taking over the debate.
Stendec – given our resources and the fact that no politician or military leader has thus far had the guts to mobilize this nation for a long war, we’d be nuts to take on a billion people right now. Don’t you think that maybe, in the short term, we should at least try to attempt a bit of coalition building with the non-extremist factions of Islam? I’m not suggesting we roll over, but, we have not exactly done well mobilizing all the different aspects of American power to fight this war. Why not start with that?
Thanks for making me think thru this. I haven’t blogged for a while. r/ Bedrock Guy
Bedrock Guy, thank you for reply.
I know a little bit about fighting gangs in an urban environment, and your analogy does not apply.
First, they may fear the Jihadists, but they do not all disagree with the desired final outcome. They don't want the American or Western freedoms and liberty, they want the freedom to impose sharia freely.
It's only a matter of degree and method. They will not moderate the teachings of the Islam to fit in with our free society, they want the freedom to live under sharia and quietly wish to impose sharia on us. Which they have slowly been doing through creeping sharia, segregated swimming pools at public expense or demands for face covering in public documents, such as drivers licenses.
My friend, they want to change us, not the other way around.
The so called "moderates" just want to do it not using violence. It's all the same.
I wish that a changed Islam could evolve in the West, but this is pipe dream. A dangerous one as we prepare for war. Wars are won with clear thinking based on objective facts. Not wishful thinking.
We may wish a moderate Islam, but their is no proof of it and a desire does not make it real.
Wake up to the truth my friend help us in this struggle for the future of our civilization do not let wishful thinking cloud you and stop you form your duty.
I've just finished reading Ralph Peters most recent book, "Never Quit the Fight." And if there is one weakness in this otherwise good book, its Peters' insistence that violence and terror are not part of Islam, that the terrorists who act in the name of Islam are disobeying or distorting the tenets of this supposedly noble religion. The problem is that Peters does not document his claims that Islam is a peaceful religion. He doesn't cite the Koran, the hadiths, any Islamic scholars, or any secondary sources. His book, which is a collection of his columns, has no footnotes or bibliography. Therefore, what he says about Islam in this book and in his most recent column must be accepted for what it is: opinion, not fact.
Aside from his apparent ignorance of the teachings of Islam and of the bloody history of Islam, Peters certainly recognizes the grave danger that Islamo-fascism poses to the West and he advocates killing these enemies before they kill us. He even admits that Islamic civilization is politically, morally, and culturally bankrupt. However, if he is truly interested in prevailing against these barbarians, he should spend more time attacking them and less time criticizing those of us who see Islam for the dangerous cult that it is.
Bedrock Guy,
So you advocate finding common ground with moderates that regularly stand by as little girls are beheaded and do nothing. If people stand by and do nothing they deserve what they get. It is not my job as a 12th generation veteran to stand up for them. We did it for ourselves and so can they. During the American Revolution my people were of the 10% minority fighting against the Loyalists and the British. They knew what they risked for their freedom. They stood tall and fought hard and in the end were victorious. They did not talk about forming coalitions they went after the Loyalists with everything they had. That is the way you win wars not by allowing potential enemies into your camp. Of course, if you want to be our point man and show us how this is done, have at it. However, if we end up watching you on video from a moderate muslim country we will know for sure that we are right.
TG USA: Hello from Bedrock Guy.
Thanks for the note. So, you seem to advocate going after American Muslims.
How will you do that? Will you terrorize them in the night the way patriots did to Loyalists? Has martial law been declared in the U.S?
C'mon, this is the U.S. in 2006.
Spare me the 12th Generation veteran stuff. I've no doubt you are a warrior of strong will and fortitude. You should be proud, as you are, of your family's continued service to the nation. I think I've only about 4 generations worth, but, hey, I've no idea when we arrived from Scotland.
My point: Until American Muslims prove themselves to be the Fifth Column you seem to believe they are, we should not act as if they are.
And incidentally, any outfit that advocates beheading little girls deserves to face the full wrath of the American people, just so you know.
r/ Bedrock Guy
Bedrock Guy,
If we focus on just the violent ones, we are in for a long war anyway. It does not matter how many of these thugs we find and neutralize, the endless pipeline of "gangstas" continues to be fed, as it has for 14 centuries, by the Islamic indoctrination machine, which poisons the minds of youth with an uncompromising intolerance for anything and anyone not Muslim.
As I see it, to concentrate only on the "relatively few" violent ones, and ignoring the ideology, means our troops will see continuous Iraq-style fighting abroad for centuries to come. It is trying to destroy an anthill of fire ants by stomping on them one at a time.
We have to face the fact that Islam is making total war on us. The direct fighting is only one important, but relatively small dimension. Understandably, Peters does not want that particluar dimension to grow. But the only sure way to make it not grow is to neutralize the underlying ideology in every way we can.
Bedrock Guy, Glad to have you on board, I also have some scotch in me.
Zowie! Who are these awful, Hitlerian bigots? Posted by Robert.
Why John Quincy Adams for starters of course!
“Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he [Mohammed] connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST; TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE ...While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men.”
“As the essential principle of his [Mohammed's] faith is the subjugation of others by the sword; it is only by force, that his false doctrines can be dispelled, and his power annihilated.”
Hat Tip, Kreuzueber Halbmond
"...In our own country, we should respect our fellow citizens who happen to be Muslims - instead of implying that they're all members of a devious fifth column. More than 3 million Americans profess Islam. How many have strapped on bombs and walked into Wal-Mart?"
Well let's see...how many have driven by to kill handfulls of Americans the last couple yrs, to join al-queda to kill americans, joined al-queda to blow up air liners, bunches, how many have marched to threaten to holocaust jews, and destroy america, many hundreds on quite a few occasions.
Now... how many marches have been held to reject the notions of Sharia, of it's primacy, and the dictates of Jihad, against infidels.... hmmmm?
Let's see. None.
So... there is great accuracy to the notion that there are many fine moderate muslims, but NO moderate Islam. 40% of Britains muslims voted that they supported the goals of those who blew up the subways..... what does that tell you about the moderates.
And the violence of the Book of Joshua is an excellent example that Peters got totally incorrect in his assessment. The violence was against a people who no longer exist, in a specific time, and specific place, as opposed to Islam's call for violence for all time, in all places against..... humanity.
So Peters should be called on all these and then maybe, he will have served a useful purpose.
That is- What does that tell you about the psychophants who pat themselves on the back like Peters??
Bedrock Guy,
In this case, you're too reactive for my taste. Imagine a scenario of a dozen simultaneous WMD attacks within the US, with American Muslims as accomplices. Sure, the remaining Americans would be all to go down that 'dark slide', but who would there be left to organize it? DC would surely be one of the cities hit, as would NYC, Chicago, San Fran, etc. Get the picture? In a world of WMDs (not just nukes, although they of course factor in the picture), taking these chances on a group of people who are probably worse than Communists in terms of their implacability, is simply bad policy. I, for one, know I'd sleep much better at night knowing there were no Muslims in the US and I wouldn't lose sleep over the fact that we had to be bigoted against this one group, just as when the Communists were powerful, I wouldn't have minded kicking them out of the country. Focused, limited exclusion of a given ideology from our country is sometimes the best policy.
If I may be permitted a little 'argument from authority', I have a Master's degree in history and of all the religions I've ever studied and all the political movements I've ever studied, Islam is the worst. Communism is probably the only one that comes close. Just from common sense, one religion/politica movement had to be the worst. It just so happens it's Islam. Big deal, degrade it's capabilities to do damage and move on. It's the only logical thing to do at this point.
My point: Until American Muslims prove themselves to be the Fifth Column you seem to believe they are, we should not act as if they are.
Posted by: Bedrock Guy at September 9, 2006 12:36 PM
There are many here that already think that American muslims have proved themselves to be a fifth column.
El Cid said this about moderate Muslims
It's only a matter of degree and method. They will not moderate the teachings of the Islam to fit in with our free society, they want the freedom to live under sharia and quietly wish to impose sharia on us. Which they have slowly been doing through creeping sharia, segregated swimming pools at public expense or demands for face covering in public documents, such as drivers licenses.
Having witnessed creeping Islamification first hand in the UK and Europe I can second El Cid's observation. When you understand that Dawa is a centuries old tactic of Islamic warfare, it would be foolish to continue operating under the assumption that they can practice Islam freely. To do so is to invite the fifth column.
Islam should be recognized as an enemy to the constitution of the United States and accorded the same status as Nazism and Communism. As uncomfortable as it might make people feel a precedent has already been set in how we deal with the issue of a possible fifth column. During WWII Japanese and German Americans and Fascist sympathizers were ordered into federally controlled internment camps.
While the current conflict persists a similar plan should be put into place, to protect the peoples of the United States.
Bedrock Guy,
Welcome to JW/DW. I do hope you enjoy the articles and discussions.
I did read your response but also must take issue in response. It should be as no suprise that there are those persons who are simply are getting fed-up with the general Muslim community be it in America or in other non-Muslim countries, not stepping up to the plate and working to weed out the radicals and to speak out to condemm the radicalism.
A case in point : What we had seen with the famous Danish cartoons of Muhammed was simply a non-Muslim world's growing impatience with the violent behavior of again the radical Muslim believers and the lack of action coming from the moderates. Also it served as a long delayed angry backlash against the very demeaning anti-Jewish/Christian cartoons in the newspapers of a number of Muslim countries which has been done for years.
While Mr. Peters speaks of what needs to be done in other words in the short run, in the long run, the problems with the violent aspects of Islam, the Koran, Hadiths, ete., must be addressed.
Oh, one other thing, Bedrock Guy. You should check out this new essay. It's ironic that it came out on the same day as the editorial that is the subject of this thread.
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2006/09/why-we-cannot-rely-on-moderate-muslims.html
It sucks that Muhammed couldn't just be another nameless, faceless nobody in the annals of history. There's an interesting aphorism of Nietzsche (Gay Science #353) that talks about how founders of religions are geniuses at finding a certain 'psychological type' and convincing that 'type' that it is suffused with divine purpose. Think about the 'psychological type' that Muhammed recognized and how that carries through to today.
Interestingly, Nietzsche wanted to ally Europe with Islam precisely because of all the things Islam does that Christianity doesn't. Even he understood they were polar opposites. He said at one point that he preferred Islam to Christianity because "Islam presupposes men". Anyway, I'm glad to see you've gotten a respectful hearing here, but I hope you take away some of the excellent points made against you (not necessarily saying I made any, but others definitely have!).
Bedrock
Fjordman who posts here regularly has just written an essay on the very same problem of Moderate Muslims at Gates of Vienna, it is well worth reading.
http://xrl.us/Fjordman
I am surprised he hasnt contributed to this discussion so far.
km and El Cid,
You're both right. It's my belief that the supposedly peaceful "majority" of moderate muslims who would not engage directly and personally in acts of terrorism expect and actually do benefit from those.
While most of the jihadis/mujahedeen die during the terrorist acts or are caught and processed thru the justice system, it's the "moderate" majority who stand to win the most by claiming racism, islamophobia, discrimination as the cause of terrorism, which leads to blackmail by asking for more concessions and "rights" from Infidel governments, including more Muslim inflow into the country, more liberal family reunification immigration laws, more welfare money, more Islam in the mainstream society, such as religious holidays, sumptuary customs, etc.
I'm absolutely convinced that, were it not for the hopeful many that stand to profit from the Jihadists, Islam would not be the problem that is today in the West. That "moderate" mass is the direct beneficiary of Islamic violence. That's why they are mum. The Jihadis are the "pioneers." The trailblazers. The masses will follow, and they already are, in the ideological, academic, "civil rights" communities. They are the folks who pay dues to CAIR and other Muslim associations, who organize "seminars" and conferences about inter-faith issues, who host open-house meetings at mosques and barbecues for a better understanding among different faiths.
The "moderate" Muslims are the opportunists of Jihad. That's why they don't talk against the Jihadi avant-garde. Thy'd have everything to lose from their defeat.
Hi. Continuing engagements with multiple moving targets. M1A1 tankers live for this, because the M1A1 is the BEST tank in the entire world. Have the Islamics ever developed one like the M1A1? Heck no. But, I digress.
OK, in order,,,,
Stendec:
Unless the America you and I know and love decides that Islam is an enemy that we need to fight like the Nazis and Japanese during the Big One, a Long War is all we have. Until a catastrophic event occurs in America, we do not currently have the political and military will to do what may need to be done. Do we have the resources? Damn right. This is the USA. We can do anything, IF we put our minds to it. But, we haven’t yet. In addition, I do not accept the total war scenario…yet.
Tgusa:
What type of scotch? Liquid or ethnic? Ok, too early in America for drinking scotch. JQA is not my idea of a warrior president, regardless of whether or not he recognized militant Islam in the early 1800’s. Now, if you had quoted Andrew Jackson, we’d be tracking!
Bigcatgirl:
You will find no one in the CONUS who thinks less about the need for our security. It’s been more than amusing for me to see the posts today asking if I have a clue about what needs to be done. Usually, I think the same way, but, in this America, in 2006, nothing will occur with the current group of policians and senior military leaders until we have a catastrophic event which serves as a catalyst. Long term, extremist Islamic thought and actions will be an issue internally in America, but only if we do not address it in the short term with logical, American solutions to problems. Demonizing American Islamics NOW does not address our security issues, nor the problem facing Europe right now.
Km and venividivici:
Great essay at the Gates of Vienna by Fjordman. Thanks for the link. I go there usually when someone links to it. In keeping with this thread, his information tracks with the concept that there is no room for compromise with Islam, that it’s all over but the location of the next mosque. However, while I agree with his intel on the dangers ahead based on his data points, such data does not necessarily mean that all is lost. It is of course, if we allow it and if no moderate Islamic school develops or matures in America. Have we arrived at that point?
Thanks. Regards to all, Bedrock Guy
Let me add to my previous post about what "moderate" Muslims gain from Jihad terrorism: honor and recognition thru fear. Andre Servier put instilling fear into the enemy one of the foremost values of Arabs' way of life, even before the advent of Islam.
Bedrock Guy,
Ethnic of course, funny I thought the same thing when I reread the post.
Old Hickory? Now there is an American that gave the enemy all they needed. Now that would make an interesting Book, the writings of great Americans as they pertain to islam.
Ordinarily I try to stay away from mentioning any 12th gen, any other gen, or any military service for that matter. The point I was so badly attempting to make was, all loyal American voices are equal no matter if they stormed the beaches at Normandy, built the Atomic Bomb in Nevada or milked the cow that helped feed the troops in Wisconsin. It is not important that a person is 1st, 4th,10th or 12th generation American, or if they served or not. Only the loyalty to the USA and the desire to be decent citizens matters. However the world is changing fast and new alliances will be born, we are heading for a show down between the enlightened modern world and the unenlightened 7th century enemy. Going forward, I hope to see more posts from you in the future. Your knowledge and experience will be a valuable contribution to this site.
"which so disturbed him that he immediately lapsed into the “all religions do it” argument that some find so soothing to believe..."
That's an example of what I call the "Leftist Two-Step". I call it that because I have never heard or read a right-wing person go through that motion, but I have heard and seen countless Leftists do it (perhaps it has something to do with favoring your left leg in tap-dancing off the stage).
What the perpetrator of the "all religions do it" argument doesn't seem to realize is that, the instant he expresses that, he has conceded the initial point he had been laboring to deny.
1) Critic: Islam is violent.
2) Peters: No it isn't.
3) [Critic supplies the mountain ranges of data to show how violent Islam was, and is.]
4) Peters: Well, all religions are violent.
Notice how Peters' second reflexive spasm (#4) contradicts his first reflexive spasm (#2).
I suppose this is the type of sentiment to which Ralph Peters was referring:
{letter from a friend}
[beginning of quote]
Can a good Muslim be a good American?
I sent that question to a friend who worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years.
The following is his reply:
Theologically - no. Because his allegiance is to Allah, the moon god of Arabia .
Religiously - no. Because no other religion is accepted by his Allah except Islam (Koran, 2:256)
Scripturally - no. Because his allegiance is to the five pillars of Islam and the Quran (Koran).
Geographically - no. Because his allegiance is to Mecca , to which he turns in prayer five times a day.
Socially - no. Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.
Politically - no. Because he must submit to the mullah (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and Destruction of America, the great Satan.
Domestically - no. Because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34).
Intellectually - no. Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.
Philosophically - no. Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and _expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.
Spiritually - no. Because when we declare "one nation under God," the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran's 99 excellent names.
Therefore after much study and deliberation.... perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. They obviously cannot be both "good" Muslims and good Americans.
Call it what you wish.... it's still the truth.
If you find yourself intellectually in agreement with the above statements, perhaps you will share this with your friends. The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country and our future.
[end of quote]
For a good many reasons the foregoing makes sense, whilst Ralph Peters's rant makes him appear as just another "useful idiot"--a dawah bum.
Bedrock Guy,
Here's a letter, written by an American Muslim woman living in East Lansing, Michigan, and published this past July 5th in the Lansing State Journal.
Islam or death
I read Le Roy Barnett's letter ("Muslims, speak up," June 26) about Muslims' opinion on Abdul Rahman's conversion to Christianity.
Islam is not only a religion, it is a complete way of life. Islam guides Muslims from birth to grave. The Quran and prophet Muhammad's words and practical application of Quran in life cannot be changed.
Islam is a guide for humanity, for all times, until the day of judgment. It is forbidden in Islam to convert to any other religion. The penalty is death. There is no disagreement about it.
Islam is being embraced by people of other faiths all the time. They should know they can embrace Islam, but cannot get out. This rule is not made by Muslims; it is the supreme law of God.
Please do not ask us Muslims to pick some rules and disregard other rules. Muslims are supposed to embrace Islam in its totality.
Nazra Quraishi
East Lansing
There are, of course, moderate Muslims. Perhaps even the majority of the world's Muslims. But there are, here in America, the Nazra Quraishi's, too.
On this past Thursday's 'Cavuto on Business' segment, an American woman revert (she either chose to use the word 'convert', or does not know that revert is the appropriate term in the Muslim world) was asked by Mr. Cavuto about the 'fear factor' that, to some degree, prevents American Muslims from challenging their fundamentalist brethren. She stated that she had never heard that. My impression of her was one of intentional deceit.
That some Muslims do not know what Islam teaches, or that some chose to deny or ignore what it teaches, or that some simply lie about it, does not negate what it teaches.
At some point, I'd like to have an appropriate government agency hold hearings to determine what Islam really does teach. And if it's determined that some Islamic tenets, if taken literally, would violate our constitution and laws, the American public should, to end the deceit, be told so.
However, while I agree with his intel on the dangers ahead based on his data points, such data does not necessarily mean that all is lost. It is of course, if we allow it and if no moderate Islamic school develops or matures in America. Have we arrived at that point?
Posted by: Bedrock Guy at September 9, 2006 02:38 PM
A lot of the evidence points to the fact that Europe is already at this point, things may not be as serious yet State side but the rot has set in, I see a lot of parallels between the US today and Europe’s relationship with Islam 20-30 years ago.
The only way to save the original countries and peoples of Europe is to dismantle the federal European Union and its centralized control over the participating nations. This is another viewpoint that I share with Fjordman.
Nationalists and Royalists will be instrumental in this struggle.
Ralph Peters is a notoriously pious ass.
My point: Until American Muslims prove themselves to be the Fifth Column you seem to believe they are, we should not act as if they are. Bedrock Guy
If C.A.I.R. is not a Fifth Column, what would you call it? Its spokesmen have made public statements regarding their intentions, which are to abolish all religions but islam, to abolish the United States Constitution, and to implement Sharia as the law of the land.
When they first arrive in America, many muslims say they came here for the "freedoms", but many have no qualms about admitting that they came for the "opportunities" that can be found only in America. American muslims aren't shy about marching around Dearborn with huge pictures of the demon Khomeini in support of Hezbollah, but I've never seen them march in protest of the heinous atrocities committed by Hezbollah or other treacherous, bloodthirsty muslims. As far as I'm concerned, the refusal of American muslims to condemn terrorists and terrorism is indicative of their tacit support.
Have you forgotten the ecstatic muslims in New Jersey, New York, Texas, California, and many other places who celebrated in the streets when they heard the news of 9-11? Those images will remain indelibly stamped in my mind for the rest of my life. I believe that the majority of American muslims were triumphant and delirious with joy at the news of the "great islamic victory" on 9-11, but they were smart enough to do their celebrating behind closed doors.
Susanp,
After seeing the special on Discovery Channel about what had happened inside the two WTC Towers on 9/11 before they colasped after being attacked, it would not suprise me if most of the Muslims in this country behind closed doors had celibrated the attack as a victory. I will never forget this "black day" for the rest of my life. It has taught me not to trust Muslims at all, period. What was chillng was that two people who survived said we will be attacked again. I do agree with them.
Sorry, Ralph, either there are no moderate Muslims or they have failed to step up to the plate bigtime.
bigcatgirl13106,
It’s a lot like a Football game, some are the “players” and some are the “fans”. Some fans are still young but will eventually become players and some players are sitting on the bench but may eventually get into the game.
tgusa,
Thanks for the comparision to football. The sad truth is that this football game that all non-Muslims and in a special way, the west MUST win.
"Remote, I also beleive the fear of criticizing Islam is a by-product of the 60s and 70s counter-culture. If one looks at the pop culture of the time, especially in the "new age" movement, one finds that alot of religious liberals took a more universalist view of religion and felt that rational examining of all religious or psuedo-religious belief was improper.
The 60s idea in a nutshell is that all religions contained some "truth" and were equally valid ways of "reaching god." "
Yes. The roots of our current inability to properly defend our culture intellectually comes from the moral and cultural relativism, that is rooted itself in the New Left and cultural Marxism.
The "New Age" view of religion, that they are all just 'the same', is a dumbed down version of this moral and cultural relativism. It certainly has pervaded the common American view. Most Americans know nothing of Mohammed and imagine he's jsut some Arab sage like Jesus.
We cannot say that Islam is a 'bad' cultural artifact or flawed religion or ideological system, if we cannot judge one cultural system against another. So moral and cultural relativism in effect *prevents out culture from defending itself!* And that is exactly how the new Left wants it; that's there way of making the western capitalist-freedom-democracy formula fall apart.
To judge at all runs up against "White Guilt" (see Shelby Steele), and the attempt of the West to deconstruct and understand the middle east was slammed as "Orientalism" by Edward Said, the leftist pro-paliestinian scholar, who used the "White Guilt" trick to get cultural assumptions turned upside down. In other words, if we think Arab culture is backwards, its our racism and not Arab to blame.
And so it goes. Peters has decades of shallow knee-jerk relativistic group-think in his corner.
The message for those who want to claw out of the moral relativism trap without getting arrested by the thought police: Be always fact-based and never generalize beyond what you know.
I was very sad to see James Taranto in his Wall Street Journal "Best of the Web Today" blog praising this Ralph Peters piece:
"(Ralph Peters eloquently answers anti-Muslim bigots in today's New York Post.)" http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110008918
And as a believing Christian, I must acknowledge that there's nothing in the Koran as merciless as God's behavior in the Book of Joshua.
--- storemanager
This is a fantastic statement, and I use the adjective in the literal sense of the word.
Breathtaking. This shows a lack of understanding of both the Bible and the Koran.
Define merciless. No biblical quotes, just your in-context definition, please.