What makes Stephen Coughlin a "Christian zealot"? Does Hesham Islam have any evidence of Coughlin's holy-rolling in the corridors of power, buttonholing Gordon England or others in the Pentagon to insist on the Literal Word of God and how God's Plan is, and must be, absolutely the Guide To Everything In the Universe? Of course not. By all accounts Coughlin exhibits not a single one of those features.
The most extreme "Christian zealot," that easily-available figure of fun for so many Hollywood productions, that Bible-thumping Complete Literalist, for whom the Good Book explains everything, is -- in the fanaticism and literalism departments -- far less fanatical, far less literal in his application of his holy book to all situations, than are some of the most ordinary and mildest of Muslim Believers.
Coughlin's mode of presentation may not endear him to his supposed superiors. But his real crime is quite other: it is his refusal to pretend that the behavior and attitudes and beliefs of Muslims should not be studied in the light of the texts and tenets of Islam. For, you see, we are all supposed to engage in an endless game of Let's Pretend. It's all so much easier that way. Let's Pretend that for Muslims in those states and societies and families, who are suffused with Islam in a way that very few non-Muslims are capable of grasping, Islam does not matter.
But we can learn about Islam from two sources.
The first are the "defectors" from Islam, the apostates. Has Gordon England, has anyone in the Pentagon, invited in Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina et al. to deliver lectures or simply to talk about Islam, its real nature, and what goes on in Muslim societies, and what kind of policies will work to weaken the Camp of Islamic Jihad, and what will not? Why haven't they been invited? Why hasn't Bush invited them to the White House? Why have not members of Congress held meetings with these defectors, and spread the word among their colleagues? Why?
The second source of solid information comes from the great scholars of Islam -- Snouck Hurgronje, Henri Lammens, Joseph Schacht, Arthur Jeffery come to mind, and there are a hundred others. These people wrote before the days of the Great Inhibition, and were quite different, in their linguistic gifts, in their levels of learning, from the espositos and other MESA-Nostrans. Some of the latter group owes their funding, directly or indirectly, to Arab sources. Others, to get along, of course have to be sure not to offend their easily-offended Muslim colleagues, on whom they depend for hiring, promotion, and all those little things -- courses to be taught, summers off, the whole back-scratching business of mutual book-blurbing and fellowship-references. For all that, one needs the "respect" of one's colleagues.
A few decades ago 7% of MESA Nostra's members were Muslims. Now they constitute close to 70% of the membership. Non-Muslims often depend, therefore, on that goodwill, on the ability not to offend those Muslim colleagues. Furthermore, those who enter the field of Islamic and Middle Eastern studies may exhibit, under the surface, certain pre-existing mental conditions. For example, take those who are smitten with "Arab culture" (the sociologist Judith Kipper became a pretend-expert on Islam after a life-changing trip to Cairo, so J. B. Kelly laughingly, scornfully relates). There are those who find that post-colonial discourse is just the ticket to tenure, a ticket to ride.
And then, according to Ibn Warraq, who has long experience in such matters, and who, because of his outward aspect, used to be taken for a true-blue Muslim and thus became the recipient of all kinds of confidences even of non-Muslim academics specializing in Islamic or Middle Eastern studies, there is a much higher proportion of people who exhibit all the symptoms of the mental pathology known as antisemitism, than in the general population. It would hardly be surprising that someone with such a mental makeup would be more likely to choose Middle Eastern or Islamic studies, and to find them and the atmosphere that now prevails in such academic circles accepting, and welcoming. And there is the bonus of not having to hide, but rather to proudly make use of, what might otherwise need to be kept quietly under wraps.
Mr. Islam appears to be a bigotted Christianophobe.
OT But a great example of what happens when the educational system warps its presentation of history to suit a particular way of thinking.
It's is probably true that this man didn't think putting a yellow star on a T-shirt to protest the smoking ban was a bad thing.
After all, he was probably taught in school that making those Jews wear a yellow star wasn't that big of a deal.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,321986,00.html
Back on topic: Mr. Islam's statement about talking and not fighting makes me think he has the Pentagon confused with the State Department.
All the talking is supposed to go on over there.
Homer Simpson gets it. On a recent ad for the movie
"Being the President is not that hard, you just point the military and shoot it" LOL
(ps not a Simpson watcher)
Aunt Bea
More evidence the infiltration is working. Values are shifting:
Good is evil; Evil is good; disgust is hate; truth resulting in disgust is a crime; free speech is hate; writing about terrorism and what jihadists say is a violation of (their) human rights; the war on terror is a bumper sticker slogan; Islamophobia is a Christian trait; Christians are the biggest bunch of terrorists; Islam is peace, but please ignore today's piles of dead bodies because of the Crusades 900 years ago; Jihad is caused by the west; stop using the words islamic extremism (the words Christian extremism are OK though); accelerated accommodation is therapy for bigots; preserving western culture is racism; send all the money and arms you can muster to terrorist states; even better, clean out the terrorist states and bring 'em all here.
Our fathers and grandfathers must be rolling over in their graves.
OT;
I wanted to post this
How Modern Liberals Think
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c
I think it's worth a bit of time.
All that matters is that Coughlin is a Christian who won't roll over and play the dhimmi. That alone will probably clinch Coughlin's demise in the US government as a useful employee as Muslims have already established a toehold in it first.
Errata Sheet:
For "All that matters is that Coughlin is a Christian who won't roll over"
Read "All that matters is that Coughlin won't roll over"
Don't forget the financial rewards. The Saudis can be lavish in that regard. Ask James Baker. Gordon England might find a nice consulting job awaiting him after Bush leaves office.
How many of those who "discovered" Islam's virtues and lost history ended up working for the Islamists after their "vacations" or "years of public service" came to an end?
Has "Christian zealot" Stephen Coughlin said anything about Islam that hasn't been said by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, or Hugh Fitzgerald, or other atheists (in the interest of disclosure, I too am an atheist)?
The "Christian zealot" label is a non-starter. They're going to have to come up with something better than that. This isn't Islam extremists against Christian extremists within the U.S.; it's Islam attacking everyone and everything non-Muslim, everywhere in the world.
What would a "Christian extremist" be, anyways? Would they really, really love their neighbor? Would they turn the other cheek five times?
Add Oriana Fallaci to the list of atheist critics of Islamic violence. "Atheist extremists"?
Hugh wrote:
On the odd chance that anyone would mistake one who believes that the Bible is the perfect word of (the true) God for what Hugh has described above, I would like to point out that a person who takes the Bible at face value, in the way in which It was intended to be understood, would not be "holy-rolling" nor insisting that all parts of the Bible should be taken literally, for that would be misreading some of the texts.
Only those parts intended to be taken literally should be taken literally, those intended as poetry should be understood as poetry, those intended as symbolic or figurative should be taken symbolically or figuratively.
To hold steadfastly the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God is not to "Bible-thump;" the Scriptures do not command believers to irritate or annoy unnecessarily, for the truth is troubling enough on its own. Nor is it to claim that the "Good Book explains everything," though it does explain everything we need to know to have saving faith in Christ.
The Scriptures were provided to us so that we might know and believe in the Christ, and by believing have eternal life.
The reason for the stark difference in attitude and behavior between one who obeys Christ and one who imitates Mohammed is due to the nature of the commands and examples they follow.
One whose prophet demanded and practiced, "kill the unbelievers wherever you find them," will contrast violently with one whose God taught and lived, "Love your neighbor as yourself," and "Love your enemies."
If you want a real Christian zealot, try Elmer Gantry, wonderfully played by Burt Lancaster in the 1960 movie:
"Sin. Sin, Sin. You're all sinners. You're all doomed to perdition. You're all goin' to the painful, stinkin', scaldin', everlastin' tortures of a fiery hell, created by God for sinners, unless, unless, unless you repent."
Somehow I doubt that Major Coughlin was spouting that stuff in the corridors of the Pentagon!
Gantry was not zealous for Christ, he was a hypocrite.
For the first time tonight a mojor media outlet has covered this story ... FOX news Hannity and Colmes show. You know I think Colmes needs a good waterboarding for the way he keeps cutting people off ... and while we are at it maybe we could waterboard Keith Oberman too so that we can find out who all the rats are at MSNBC. Anyways the story has "broken out" if you will ... we will have to see where it goes ... hopefully this can become an election issue!
Coughlin is a young lawyer with little actual experience in the practice of law, no knowledge of the Arabic language, no formal training in Islamic Law, and, most likely, his bosses at J2 finally figured it out.
http://idolator.typepad.com/intelfusion/2008/01/steven-coughlin.html
Jeffrey Carr writes:
"Coughlin is a young lawyer with little actual experience in the practice of law, no knowledge of the Arabic language, no formal training in Islamic Law, and, most likely, his bosses at J2 finally figured it out.
http://idolator.typepad.com/intelfusion/2008/01/steven-coughlin.html"
What you wrote at the end of that URL from your unbiased "authentic Islamic scholars" in no way
contradicted your quote from Coughlin. So far, it
is all ad-hominem from you. In addition your
sources are not unbiased. If all of our advice is
going to come from Muslims, we're in big trouble.
As has been pointed out, it would have been like
asking Nazis for advice in WWII, or Communists
during the Cold War.
When I consider this in combination this with your
previous postings, where you said that Christian
extremists are just as bad as Muslim extremists
(oh really, Coughlin beheaded some Muslims?) and
subsequently stated that you had no desire to
compare Christianity and Islam, except of course
to say that Christian extremists are "just as bad"
as Islamic ones, I'm led to believe that you
really don't know what you're talking about, and
that you're dishonest.
Carr is talking about himself not Coughlin when it comes to lack of knowledge about Islam, military strategy, etc. Like he says its not important.
Typical pc liberal, hates Christians and does apologetics for Muslims. Really gives himself away with his biases.
At best he's amusing and is a showcase for the intellectual and moral bankruptcy that the Left represents.
Bill Gertz has written on this subject again.
The battle within the Pentagon for the right to study, and even criticise, Islam (the religion, not the person) is heating up. Coughlin has his supporters, and this is not over yet.
It is amazing to read Gertz's piece, or Diane West's, and never reach that "cringe" paragraph, the one that apologetically refers to "according to extreme right-wing Christian fanatics", or refers to "the Religion of Peace". They both got it amazingly right.
For example, from Gertz:
Superb. The effect that Robert and Hugh have had on the framing of the debate cannot be denied. I've waited years for this moment.
This story really has the makings of an election year coup de grah. The politician that can ferrit this out dress it up and talk candidly about it will be our next president.
Educate yourself Mr. Carr here is a start for you ... sorry it may be uncomfortable there will be a lot of Islamic text, and historical data.
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/08/14/video-robert-spencer-talks-about-religion-of-peace-on-fox-friends/
buy a book here ... little plug
http://www.amazon.com/Religion-Peace-Christianity-Islam-Isnt/dp/B000VRJA94/ref=dp_kinw_strp_1/104-2229935-8395148
This topic came up tonight on Hannity & Colmes. Alan Colmes touted the official explanation that it was a fiscal measure to not renew the contract, and when Steve Emerson pointed out that that was just a cover story, Colmes asked whether the government was lying. What a shocker!
If the joint chiefs treat an expert like Caughlin like this, I have grave concern about our joint chiefs ability to conduct the war we are in.
I cannot recall General Marshall, General Hap Arnold, or Admiral King (WWII equivalent of the joint chiefs)firing their top experts on the Axis Powers. What are the joint chiefs using for a model? The 1940 French General Staff?
What ever happened to know-your-enemy Sun Tzu?
Besides wondering why we are paying for pentagon bureaucrats and Esposito-trained generals and admirals, I wonder just what kind of information our cadets at West Point, Annapolis, the Air Force Academy, The Coast Guard Academy, VMI, etc., and OCS schools are being taught about the Islamic enemy and about Islamic history? God help us if we have crops of future Esposito-trained officers coming up as ignorant about Islam as the present joint chiefs appear to be from this decision.