| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald's brilliant and absolutely must-be-read exploration of the very concept of moderate Islam and the existence of moderate Muslims:
1. Not only Muslims, but "islamochristians" objectively promote and push the propagandistic line that disguises the Jihad (evidence of which can be found worldwide), and mislead as to both what prompts that Jihad (not "poverty" or "foreign policy" but the precepts of the belief-system of Islam) and what will sate it (not Kashmir, not Chechnya, not the absurd "two-state solution," not continued appeasement in France and Holland -- there is nothing that will sate or satisfy it, as long as part of the globe is as yet resistent to the rule of Islam). "Christians" such as Fawaz Gerges or Rami Khoury, or someone who was born a Christian, such as Edward Said, are Arabs whose views are colored by that self-perception. Their loyalty to the community and history of Arabs causes them to be as loyal to the Islamic view of things as if they had been born Muslim. They stoutly defend Islam against all of Western scholarship (in Orientalism), or divert attention away from Islam and constantly assert, in defiance of all the evidence, from Bali to Beslan to Madrid, that the "problem of Israel/Palestine" -- the latest, and most sinister formulation of the Jihad against Israel -- is the fons et origo of Muslim hostility and murderous aggression throughout the world. Save for the Copts and Maronites, who regard themselves not as Arabs but as "users" of the "Arabic language" (and reject the idea that such "users" therefore become "Arabs"), many Arab Christians have crazily embraced the Islamic agenda; the agenda, that is, of those who have made the lives of Christians in the Middle East so uncertain, difficult, and at times, imperilled. The attempt to be "plus islamiste que les islamistes" -- the approach of Rami Khoury and Hanan Ashrawi -- simply will not do, for it has not worked. It is Habib Malik and other Maronites in Lebanon who have analysed the problem of Islam in a clear-eyed fashion. Indeed, the best book on the legal status of non-Muslims under Islam is that of the Lebanese (Maronite) scholar Antoine Fattal.Any "islamochristian" Arab who promotes the Islamic agenda, by participating in a campaign that can only mislead Infidels and put off their understanding of Jihad and its various instruments, is objectively as much part of the problem as the Muslim who knowingly practices taqiyya in order to turn aside the suspicions of non-Muslims. Whoever acts so as to keep the unwary Infidel unwary is helping the enemy.
Think, for a minute, of Oskar Schindler. A member of the Nazi Party, but hardly someone who followed the Nazi line. But what if Schindler had at some point met with Westerners -- and had continued, himself, to deny that the Nazis were engaged in genocide, even if he himself deplored it and would later act against it? Would we think of him as a "moderate"? As someone who had helped the anti-Nazi coalition to understand what it was up against?
Or for another example, think of Ilya Ehrenburg, who in 1951 or so was sent abroad by Stalin to lie about the condition of Yiddish-speaking intellectuals whom Stalin had recently massacred. Ehrenburg went to France, went to Italy. He did as he was told. "Peretz? Markish? Oh, yes, saw Peretz at his dacha last month with his grandson. Such a jovial fellow. Markish -- he was great last year in Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District -- you should see how it comes across in zhargon, Yiddish..." And so it went. Eherenburg lied, and lied. He was not a Stalinist. He hated Stalin. He of course hated the destruction of Peretz, Markish, and many others who had been killed many months before -- as Ehrenburg knew perfectly well. When he went abroad and lied to the editors of Nouvelle Revue Francaise, what was he? Objectively, he was promoting the interests of Joseph Stalin, and the Red Army, and the Politburo. We need not inquire into motives. We need only see what the results of such lying were. And the same is true of those Christian Arabs who lie on behalf of Islam -- some out of fear, some out of an ethnocentric identification so strong that they end up defending Islam, the religion of those who persecuted the Christian Arabs of the Middle East, and some out of venality (if Western diplomats and journalists can be on the Arab take, why not Arabs themselves?), some out of careerism. If you want to rise in the academic ranks, and your field is the Middle East, unless you are a real scholar -- Cook or Crone or Lewis -- better to parrot the party line, which costs you nothing and gains you friends in tenure-awarding, grant-giving, reference-writing circles. There is at least one example, too, among those mentioned, in a situation where an Arabic-speaking Christian, attempting to find refuge from Muslim persecution, needed the testimony of an "expert" -- which "expert," instead of offering a pro-bono samaritan act, demanded so much money to be involved (in a fantastic display of greed) that the very idea of solidarity among Arab Christians was called by this act permanently into question.
2. The word "moderate" cannot be reasonably applied to any Muslim who continues to deny the contents -- the real contents, not the sanitized or gussied-up contents -- of Qur'an, hadith, and sira. Whether that denial is based on ignorance, or based on embarrassment, or based on filial piety (and an unwillingness to wash dirty ideological laundry before the Infidels) is irrelevant. Any Muslim who, while seeming to deplore every aspect of Muslim aggression, based on clear textual sources in Qur'an and hadith, or on the example of Muhammad as depicted in the accepted sira -- Muhammad that "model" of behavior -- is again, objectively, acting in a way that simply misleads the Infidels. And any Muslim who helps to mislead Infidels about the true nature of Islam cannot be called a "moderate." That epithet is simply handed out a bit too quickly for sensible tastes.
3. What of a Muslim who says -- there are terrible things in the sira and hadith, and we must find a way out, so that this belief-system can focus on the rituals of individual worship, and offer some sustenance as a simple faith for simple people? This would require admitting that a great many of Muhammad's reported acts must either be denied, or given some kind of figurative interpretation, or otherwise removed as part of his "model" life. As for the hadith, somehow one would have to say that Bukhari, and Muslim, and the other respected muhaddithin had not examined those isnad-chains with quite the right meticulousness, and that many of the hadith regarded as "authentic" must be reduced to the status of "inauthentic." And, following Goldziher, doubt would have to be cast on all of the hadith, as imaginative elaborations from the Qur'an, without any necessarily independent existence.
4. This leaves the Qur'an. Any "moderate" who wishes to prevent inquiry into the origins of the Qur'an -- whether it may be the product of a Christian sect, or a Jewish sect, or of pagan Arabs who decided to construct a book, made up partly of Christian and Jewish material mixed with bits and pieces of pagan Arab lore from the time of the Jahiliya -- or to prevent philological study (of, for example, Aramaic and other loan-words) -- anyone who impedes the enterprise of subjecting the Qur'an to the kind of historical inquiry that the Christian and Jewish Bibles have undergone in the past 200 years of inquiry, is not a "moderate" but a fervent Defender of the Faith. One unwilling to encourage such study -- which can only lead to a move away from literalness for at least some of the Believers -- again is not "moderate."
5. The conclusion one must reach is that there are, in truth, very few moderates. For if one sees the full meaning of Qur'an, hadith, and sira, and sees how they have affected the behavior of Muslims both over 1400 years of conquest and subjugation of non-Muslims, and in stunting the development -- political, economic, moral, and intellectual -- of Muslims everywhere, it is impossible not to conclude that this imposing edifice is not in any sense moderate or susceptible to moderation.
What must an intelligent Muslim, living through the hell of the Islamic Republic of Iran, start to think of Islam? Or that Kuwaiti billionaire, with houses in St. James Place and Avenue Foch and Vevey, as well as the family/company headquarters in Kuwait City, who sends his children to the American School in Kuwait, and boasts that they know English better than they know Arabic, helps host Fouad Ajami when he visits Kuwait, is truly heartsick to see Kuwait's increasing islamization? Would he allow himself to say what he knows in public, or in front of half-brothers, or to friends -- knowing that at any moment, they may be scandalized by his free-thinking views, and that he may run the risk of losing his place in the family's pecking order and, what's more, in the family business?
The mere fact that Muslim numbers may grow in the Western world represents a permanent threat to Infidels. This is true even if some, or many, of those Muslims are "moderates" -- i.e. do not believe that Islam has some kind of divine right, and need, to expand until it covers the globe and swallows up dar al-harb. For if they are still to be counted in the Army of Islam, not as Deserters (Apostates) from that Army, their very existence in the Bilad al-kufr helps to swell Muslim ranks, and therefore perceived Muslim power. And even the "moderate" father may sire immoderate children or grandchildren -- that was the theme of the Hanif Kureishi film, quasi-comic but politically acute, "My Son the Fanatic." Whether through Da'wa or large families, any growth in the Muslim population will inhibit free expression (see the fates of Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh, and the threats made to Geert Wilders, Carl Hagen, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and many others), for politicans eager to court the Muslim vote will poohpooh Muslim outrages and strive to have the state yield to Muslim demands -- for the sake of short-term individual gain. And Muslim numbers, even with "moderates," increases the number of Muslim missionaries -- for every Muslim is a missionary -- whether conducting "Sharing Ramadan" Outreach in the schools (where a soft-voiced Pakistani woman is usually the soothing propagandist of choice), or Da'wa in a prison. The more Muslims there are, the more there will be -- and no one knows which "moderate" will end up distinctly non-moderate in his views, and then in his acts.
And this brings up the most important problem: the impermanance of "moderate" attitudes. What makes anyone think that someone who this week or month has definitely turned his back on Jihad, who will have nothing to do with those he calls the "fanatics," if he does not make a clean break with Islam, does not become a "renegade" or apostate, will at some point "revert" not to Islam, which he never left, but to a more devout form, in which he now subscribes to all of its tenets, and not merely to a few having to do with rites of individual worship?
6. The examples to the contrary are both those of individuals, and of whole societies. As for individual Muslims, some started out as mild-mannered and largely indifferent to Islam, and then underwent some kind of crisis and reverted to a much more fanatical brand of Islam. That was the case with urban planner Mohammad Atta, following his disorienting encounter with modern Western ways in Hamburg, Germany -- Reeperbahn and all. That was also the case with "Mike" Hawash, the Internet engineer earning $360,000 a year, who seemed completely integrated (American wife, Little League for the children, friends among fellow executives at Intel who would swear up and down that he was innocent) -- until one fine day, after the World Trade Center attacks, he made out his will, signed the house over to his wife, and set off to fight alongside the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan (he got as far as China) against his fellow Americans. In other words, if fanatical Muslims exist, it does not mean that they all start out as fanatics. Islam is the necessary starting place, and what sets off a "moderate" may have little to do with anything the Infidels do, any question of foreign policy -- it may simply be a crisis in an individual Muslim's life, to which he seeks an answer, not surprisingly, in ... more Islam.
7. Much the same lesson can be drawn from the experience of whole societies. In passing, one can note that the position of Infidels under the Pahlevi regime was better than it had been for centuries -- and under the regime that followed, that of the Islamic Republic of Iran, that position of Infidels became worse than it had been for centuries. "Secularism" in Islamic countries is never permanent; the weight and the threat of Islam is ever-present.
The best example of this is Turkey since 1924, when Ataturk began his reforms. He tried in every way he could -- through the Hat Act (banishing the salat-friendly fez); commissioning a Turkish translation of the Qur'an and an accompanying tafsir (commentary) in Turkish; ending the use of Arabic script for Turkish; establishing government control of the mosques (even attacking recalcitrant imams and destroying their mosques); giving women the right to vote; establishing a system that discouraged the wearing of the hijab; encouraging Western dress; and discouraging, in the army, preferment of any soldier who showed too great an interest in religion. This attempt to constrain Islam was successful, and was reinforced by the national cult of Ataturk.
But the past few decades have shown that Islam does not die; it keeps coming back. In Turkey, it never went away, despite the creation of a secular stratum of society that amounts perhaps to 25% of the population, with another 25% wavering, and 50% still definitely traditional Muslims. Meanwhile, Turks in Germany become not less, but more fervent in their faith. And Turks in Turkey, of the kind who follow Erdogan, show that they may at any moment emerge and take power -- and slowly (very slowly, as long as that EU application has not been acted on, one way or another) they can undo Ataturk. He was temporary; Islam is forever.
8. That is why even the designation of some Muslims as "moderates" in the end means almost nothing. They swell Muslim numbers and the perceived Muslim power; "moderates" may help to mislead, to be in fact even more effective practitioners of taqiyya/kitman, for their motive may simply be loyalty to ancestors or embarrassment, not a malign desire to fool Infidels in order to disarm and then ultimately to destroy them.
9. For this reason, one has to keep one's eye always on the objective situation. What will make Infidels safer from a belief-system that is inimical to art, science, and all free inquiry, that stunts the mental growth, and that is based on a cruel Manichaean division of the world between Infidel and Believer? And the answer is: limiting the power –- military, political, diplomatic, economic power -- of all Muslim polities, and Muslim peoples, and diminishing, as much as possible, the Muslim presence, however amiable and plausible and seemingly untroubling a part of that presence may appear to be, in all the Lands of the Infidels. This is done not out of any spirit of enmity, but simply as an act of minimal self-protection -- and out of loyalty and gratitude to those who produced the civilization which, however it has been recently debased by its own inheritors, would disappear altogether were Muslims to succeed in islamizing Europe -- and then, possibly, other parts of the world as well.
10. "There are Muslim moderates. Islam itself is not moderate" is Ibn Warraq's lapidary formulation. To this one must add: we Infidels have no sure way to distinguish the real from the feigning "moderate" Muslim. We cannot spend our time trying to perfect methods to make such distinctions. Furthermore, in the end such distinctions may be meaningless if even the "real" moderates hide from us what Islam is all about, not out of any deeply-felt sinister motive, but out of a humanly-understandable ignorance (especially among some second or third-generation Muslims in the West), or embarrassment, or filial piety. And finally, yesterday's "moderate" can overnight be transformed into today's fanatic -- or tomorrow's.
Shall we entrust our own safety to the dreamy consolations of the phrase "moderate Muslim" and the shapeshifting concept behind it that can be transformed into something else in a minute?
Posted by Robert at November 25, 2004 6:53 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Islamic Riddle
We all know that the Star in the Jewish religion is the Star of David.
And we know that the Cross in Christianity is there because Jesus was crucified on the cross.
But do you know where the Crescent or the Moon comes from in Islam?
a) The Turkish flag
b) Pre-Islamic Allah was a Moon God
c) The Arabs were deeply impressed with the shape of the Moon
If you chose b) then you are correct.
Scrutinizing Islam
Prophet Mohammed worshiped a God named Allah before Islam was founded. Pre-Islamic Allah had three daughters - all mentioned in the Koran and were known as the Trinity Dessert Goddesses, Al-lat(u), Menat and Al-Uzza. [1 God + 3 Gods = 4 Gods.]
All of these Goddesses would have been important to Mohammed’s family or the Quraish. Allatu was Allah’s main daughter; a Mother Goddess, known simply as ‘The Goddess’. Allatu was so popular that she was borrowed by the Greeks and became Leto – Mother of Apollo. Al-Uzza was represented as the morning star - Venus.
But more significantly Menat had a cult which was between Mecca and Medina and was worshiped in the form of a ‘Black Stone’ or the Kaaba at Mecca; the very same black stone that every devout Muslim is required to encircle during his (her) pilgrimage or Hajj to Mecca at Ramadan.
This explains how it could be that Mohammed’s own father was named Allah or Abdullah - which translates into a servant of Allah – even before Islam was created. Mohammed was born into a family known as the Quraish {Webster's Third Dictionary}, who for more than 200 years were the caretakers of the ‘Black Stone’ or Kaaba at Mecca. Before Islam, Mohammed’s religion was known as Kaaba with Allah as God.
Worshiping Moon and Sun Gods and Goddesses were common in ancient times, from the Queen of Sheba in Ethiopia to the Ancient Greeks. Historical facts seem to show that Islam has its foundation in this Mythology, with any Biblical connection being added later – perhaps to give the religion legitimacy in the face of the other powerful regional ‘One God’ religions. (Most things Islamic were developed under the Syrians, who took over Islam after killing Mohammed’s cousin.)
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at November 25, 2004 7:23 AM
OT:
I've posted about this before,but since we are getting a steady influx of new "regulars" it seemed like a good time to repeat it.
SusanB and I have compiled a list of JW/DWers who wish to make their e-mail addresses available for contact with other JW/Dwers. This is how it works: if someone wishes to have interpersonal contact with another member (exchange personal e-mails), they contact SusanB who will then request authorization from the other party for his/her e-mail address to be shared on a one-time basis, only with the individual requesting contact. No e-mail addresses will be given out without authorization of the parties involved. Sometimes individuals prefer to network offsite and this provides an opportunity to correspond privately and perhaps in greater depth than would be appropriate posted at JW/DW.
If you would like to be included in our database, please e-mail SusanB at susan_b356@yahoo.com. Please don't forget to include your JW/DW screenname so that we know who you are.
CGW
Posted by: CGW at November 25, 2004 7:34 AM
Another stinging piece by Hugh.
Hugh, could we have you construct a Dhimmi index of western societies on a scale of 1 (non-dhimmi) to 10 (quasi-islamic) so that we can better place into a common framework the extent of the advance of the enenmy.
I know, at least initially, this index wuill be purely subjective, but with time and with the web-enabled distributed intelligence of jihadwatchers ion those countries, wwe can include the extent of legal protections/sanctions towards secularism/islam that exist in these countries, the public opinion in these countries, the govt.s in these countries etc.
What do you say??
Posted by: voletti at November 25, 2004 7:58 AM
I wish Hugh was wrong because I know some really nice Muslims, but I think he's right.
Family loyalty is a huge factor in making 'moderate' Muslims present a whitewashed version of Islam. I believe it also stops Muslims facing up to unpleasant facts about their religion, its bloody tenets and history. It's ignorance but it's wilful ignorance. To face the truth about one unpleasant aspect of Islam, for example Mohammed's 'marriage' to 9 year old Aisha, means facing other truths, and the whole house of cards collapses. Loss of faith would mean, even in Western countries, estrangement from the family, and this amongst cultures where the family and tribe has priority over the individual.
Posted by: Interestd at November 25, 2004 8:05 AM
People,
Things are mellowing slightly. I have seen Pakistan society over some years now and it is mellowing.
I guess you are only really worried about muslim people in the West, and I really think the hand of friendship is important here.
Thuis coupled to mutual projects of interest would smooth things along. My favourite two would be:
1) Jointly build a replica model of the Mecca/Medina holy sites on the moon.
2) Have the most respected Imam of Islam recite the Koran. Digitally encode it and (solar panel) transmit this message of peace for all time into the heavens either from a geo-stationary satellite around the moon or from the moon itself.
A one-time message of peace jointly crafted could precede the reading, which would continue 24*7,for all time.
Both these would be significant challenges (finacially and scientifically) that could be undertaken jointly.
I'm sure that the average public in the ME would "cough up" and the money could be collected. The US admin could provide some as would all the ME administrations.
The challenges would be jointly met and the musluim would see that the Kafir is his friend, given the commitments undertaken.
Posted by: Naseem
at November 25, 2004 8:31 AM
Upon reading Naseem's post, I suddenly saw her as the ME Rush Limbaugh.
This is not meant to offend, Naseem. That's just what popped into my head. Think about it, guys. I still believe she is the current level of Moderate, even tho this most recent post is RL controversial...
Posted by: Gary at November 25, 2004 9:16 AM
Naseem:
You are joking, right?
If you are not, please seek medical attention now. Or, alternatively, do not spend too much time alone. If you spend a lot of time by yourself, you can start to believe in all sorts of outlandish ideas. Only by communicating with other people on a regular basis can you ensure that your thought processes remain constantly challenged so that you will not start spouting nonsense. Honestly, Naseem, I obviously have no proof for the following view but I think you probably spend far too much time at home sitting in front of a computer.
Take care of yourself.
Posted by: Admiral Don Juan at November 25, 2004 10:01 AM
Thanks Naseem for bringing a smile to the face of many an infidel who mistakenly believed that muslims had no sense of humour.
Of course as muslim scientists have been at the forefront of global technology for the last 1400 years there is no reason why Pakistan or Sudan cannot send their own spacecraft to the moon to build a replica of Mecca. Who needs joint scientific expertise when all truth is in the Koran anyway. Allah the moon god, no doubt will find this a great honour. The Lunar Mecca should be lit up like Las Vegas so that us humble earthlings can gaze in awe at the marvels of Islamic science. Your wise Imams can ponder the fact that as a lunar day is equivalent to about 29 of our earth days, perhaps prayer be reduced to 5 times a month?
The Koranic messages of peace which will include such charming phrases such as 'kill all non muslim aliens where ever they may be found'. This of course is bound to show the rest of the universe the great glories of earthly islamic civilization.
Just for good measure the islamic satellite could also broadcast Hezbollah TV as well as a few head hacking video clips. This will give the aliens a real good laugh.
In order to redress the balance I have another idea for world peace. A hologramic apparation of the Virgin Mary above the pilgrims during the Hajj. As she tends mainly to appear in Catholic countries this would be a new beginning for her and a rather delightful surprise to the ambulating Muslims suffering from tired arms, after the Kaaba stoning.
As with every apparition there will be three revelations. The first will be to lighten up a little, being 'outraged' all the time is very stressful, the second will be learn the Tango as dancing is very good for the soul and the third will be to stage a Rolling Stones concert on the Kaaba.
Then and only then will peace rule over our humble planet.
at November 25, 2004 10:43 AM
Christianity and science (not darwin) for the most part get along. Islam and science on the contrary are like the mix of magnesium and water. This causes a great many further troubles for Islam because it cannot openly examine, study, verify, test, document and reproduce reliable results elsewhere, all of which are scientific and successful principles.
Naseem, you (and Islam) are lacking the most basic truth of God's word and God's creation: "Consider others as better than yourselves." Think about it Naseem, your own immune system considers "you" to be better than itself. Your immune system watches out for you, fights for you, and waits for you, until you decide to rest at the end of each day, when it can then go ahead and do the work of restoration. Do you think then that God would create all people this humble way and not desire them or you to have the same nature of self-denial?
Naseem, you know in your heart that you are stuck in something that is rigid, programmed, and deceptive, and you know in your heart that you would like to be out of it. Look for how to get out of it, and you find how to get out of it, then someday you will have a great experience to tell of.
at November 25, 2004 11:34 AM
I started to look at my own system of enumeration above (I don't dare read the text, for fear of typos and coiled anacolutha lying in wait), and discovered that the "Ten Points" are actually eleven.
Let me pretend to justify yet another error in simple arithmetic. Obviously, I was attempting by offering some "base 11" mathematics to split the difference between Past and Present. The "ten" represents the hard-faced decimal system, of laboratories and Europeans everywhere. The "twelve" represents the old world of tolfraedic coinage, and Angles and Saxons and Jutes and Norsemen, and holmgangs as sung in the Battle of Maldon, and the Exeter Book. So not wanting to choose between the two (each has its points, but I'm glad we resisted, outside the purposes of science, decimalization, though it was so confidently and even smugly pushed down American throats by those who said "you [the Americans] simply had to get in step with the world" -- akin, in its way, to all that talk about the "international community" which "you, the Americans" have to get in step with -- meaning, succumb to the Islamintern International, just the way the E.U. is doing. Come to think of it, the E.U. is simply a vulgar Big Market; its reason for being is entirely that of homo economicus. And that was the same reason that was used to push Americans around and force them to give up their old delightful systems of measure -- but the U.S. did not give an inch. It was in for a penny, and in for a pound. Vive la difference!
Anyway, the currency of ye olde Englande, of skimmington-ride fame, was based on the tolfraedic system that descended from the Norsemen, and the Angles, and the Saxons, and the Jutes, and it was as old, and stable, and should have stood as steady as the Standing Stones of Callanish.
But England is no longer quite so willing for a shilling as it once was, and decimalization is simply one more nail in the coffin of delightful differences -- national identities, languages, histories, cultures, legal systems, all that the E.U. is trampling on, as it also helps, as the handmaiden and promoter of Eurabia, to destroy the civilisation that made, and makes, Europe what it is. Eheu fugaces, etc.
Well, I did not of course miscount. One would have to be a blooming idiot -- make that a bloomin' idiot -- to title a posting as "Ten Things" and then blandly list 11 of them.
So, here, on the world stage, for the first time, a historic compromise -- compromesso storico -- between two systems of calculation, decimal and tolfraedic, Europe and America -- is presented.
Happy Thanksgiving.
Posted by: Hugh at November 25, 2004 11:48 AM
Thanks Hugh, for both your initial post and the lightfully off topic follow up which makes me want to delve into tolfraedic calculations. I had never understood the origins of pounds, shillings and pence. It is, like the assyrian measures of time, a connection to the past which forever remains in our subconscious. Similarly with the names of days of the week or the months of the year we are reminded of pagan gods or Roman emperors. (Despite the best efforts of the rational French Revolution to modernise these)
In the USA it's wonderful to see the same green dollar bills decade after decade. Over here we modernise the look of our currencies every few years and yet we accuse the Americans of having no sense of history.
Posted by: LeftBank at November 25, 2004 12:15 PM
Naseem's proposed "solution" to Western relations with Muslim countries is absurdly facile at the least, and possibly so disingenuous at worst, as to not warrant a direct response. Instead, I offer this observation, courtesy of MEMRI, offered by someone who can truly be described as a forward-thinking Muslim. If there is any cause that should be supported that is likely to work in the interests of human kind, it is addressing the sad state of education in most Muslim countries. Please note, as the author does at the end, the university ratings were produce by an institute in China, not the US or Israel.
And, if Naseem, you end up reading this, please remember one thing, in response to your complaint that Muslims are as vulnerable, if not more vulnerable, to attack by western forces, Amos Oz, the Israeli peace activist observed in March of 2003, that out of 28 conflicts raging around the globe, 25 involved Muslims on at least one side of the equation if not both. More than a little out of proportion given that Muslims constitute about 20 to 25% of the world's populations, depending on whose numbers you want to rely upon. This is why so many JWers, myself included, believe you are, assuming your heart is in the right place, still in a state of denial.
Arab Progressive: 'Tell Me One Arab University that can Stand Side by Side with Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard...'
The Saudi daily Al-Jazirah recently published an article by Eissa Al-Halyan criticizing Arabs who complained that no Arab universities were included in a recent ranking of the world's top 500 universities. The author argued that no Arab universities deserved to be on the list, and criticized Arab schools' teaching methods, dedication to scholarship, and academic priorities. The following are excerpts from the article: [1]
"It came as no surprise for me to learn that the latest annual ranking of the world's top 500 universities contained not a single Arab university. Israel, on the other hand, got seven listings out of the total of 500.
"The real surprise, however, has been the ongoing din and palaver from Arab writers in the media as well as academics and intellectuals who wanted to know why our universities were not on the list.
"To them, I say tell me the name of one Arab university that qualifies to be on the list. Tell me one Arab university that can stand side by side with Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Stanford, the Sorbonne, or a number of other justly famous world-renowned universities.
"Universities are rated by various indicators related to both academic and research performance. This includes university alumni and staff who win international prizes and awards, internationally significant research, published articles, and academic performance…
"Although there are hundreds of educational institutions in our region, they still follow old methods and techniques which were first used several hundred years ago. We continue to use them even though the world beyond our borders is living in - and reacting to - the era of discovery and the age of electronic information.
"Under the pressure of sheer numbers of students and other considerations, including the financial one, our universities have become little more than large buildings full of students. The only thing about them that would indicate they are universities is the banner bearing the magic word 'university' which is displayed everywhere.
"While universities in other parts of the world compete with each other to produce distinguished academic research, ours busy themselves with elementary academic matters, spending their time discussing admissions, ceremonies, and conferences, while ignoring and distancing themselves from the genuine concerns and problems of their societies.
"It is no wonder that seven Israeli universities appear on the list or that Israel rates 12 out of the 35 countries with the world's top 500 universities.
"Incidentally, the list was not produced by any European or American agency; it has nothing to do with either the CIA or Mossad. It came from the Institute of Higher Education, Shanghai Jiao Tong University in China."
Posted by: waterdragon52 at November 25, 2004 12:36 PM
Pass It On:
Jews have, indeed,adopted a six-pointed star as the emblem of King David, but I understand the six-pointed star is a pre-Judaic Egyption symbol. I do not know the signficance of the six points, however. Perhaps a more learned JW blogger can advise.
Posted by: waterdragon52 at November 25, 2004 1:22 PM
Hello people.
It appears the United Nations is many times more corrupt and in league with international terrorists than even suspected.
I direct you to this article:
Posted by: JJ21 at November 25, 2004 2:36 PM
An EU rocket shoots into space with the digital Qu'ran, and seven centuries from now, a startling event; alien space craft, warships, from the planet Peehad encircle earth and humans suffer an ironic demise.
It seems a psychopath space travler from Peehad, who later named himself, Peehammad, discovered the EU capsule in the depths of space. He translated the Qu'ran into Peehedese and called it the Pee'ran. Peehad at the time was in social, political decline, despite high levels of technology; Peehammad claimed to have personally received a revelation from God on a space flight. Key military and political people saw an oppportunity to take over the planet and exploit Peehamad; they claimed that the revelation was genuine and took over the planet in the name of the new religion. Millions of Peehads, who were in a desperate social plight at the time, were forced to convert, and the planet was in such desperate shape, many followed in an act of self preservation and accepted these strange relevations from space.
But the psychopath Peehammad could not be contained. He took over the planet and ruled as the true prophet of God.
Peehad came together under a totalitarian government that ruled the planet brutally, killing all who opposed the Prophet and the revelations in the Pee'ran.
Peehad had, already by the time of Peehammad, technology sufficient for space travel. Art, literature, and all disciplines known to us as 'humanities' died, but Peehad remained technologically advanced. After the conquest of all peoples on Peehad, and the extinction of the 'arts', the Peehads could only take pride in their existing technology and the superiority of their religion; they set out into space, to conquer as many Infidel planets as they could to justify their reason for being, the planet of Peehammad; only by expanding the domain of Peehad, the true faith, could the descendants of Peehammad continue to justify their rule: 'the revelations of the Pe'ran must be brought to the ends of the universe', said the Peemams.
And hence it came to pass, that is 2800 CE, Peehadese space craft circle earth, demanding that all humans accept the revelations of 'Peelah' to Peehammad, and the 'Book of Heaven', the Pee'ran; humanity has a choice, believe or be subjugated or killed.
Posted by: JTF at November 25, 2004 2:41 PM
LeftBank --
No cause to plain, and no one needs to 'scape whipping, after that fantastic adverbial invention -- "lightfully" -- in your kind words above. Aphaeresis was never put to better use. That lexicogenic masterpiece (and even if a typo, it was a typo of genius) deserves to be forwarded to the OED's harmless drudges at once, and fixed in their amber. You have made my day.
Posted by: Hugh at November 25, 2004 2:49 PM
Thanks for a concise article. Put in a sentence: how can there be a 'moderate' follower of an immoderate document (the Q'uran/Koran and the Hadiths)? But, since concern for logic requires an Age of Reason, the adherents of Islam are not require to make sense, only follow the orders of a desert warlord who 'married' a 6 year old, but generously waited until she was 9 before he raped her. May the Western and secular world wake up to this same threat that the croissant memorializes (to the mortification of the French, no doubt, who I am surprised have not banned this culinary confection as 'racist'). Freedom of thought demands that we who love the secular rule of law oppose those who would turn the globe into a theocratic tyranny more seamless than the Soviet gulags, and with the technology stolen from the gullible West to empower the despotism.
Posted by: profitsbeard at November 25, 2004 4:04 PM
JTF, Hugh, Leftbank~ That was some neat writing from all of you. Glad I finally woke up enough today to appreciate it :)
Posted by: Gary at November 25, 2004 6:27 PM
The 6 pointed star.
You are right, this is Egyptian. It is composed of 2 pyramids, one up-side down, and the other right-side up.
The right-side up one (a normal triangle or pyramid) represents the king, who gets his power from the people of the earth. He is "elected" by a party of high-up officials of the court.
The up-side down one represents the priest, who gets his power directly from God and has authority over the king in religious matters (sometimes in all matters).
After the temple was destroyed and after the Greeks came, the king part was no more. The priest remained, although it wasn't sure if he had legit. lineage going back to Aharón. This is why from the time of the Maccabees to the destruction of the 2nd temple, they were awaiting a kingly messiah, to fill that other role.
You can also see this in Persia, with the priests/magi and king working together to run the kingdom. But when the kings converted (or were "disposed of") to Islam, half the power was gone, and Zoroastrianismo couldn't cope with this. It was the major difference btw it and Judaism.
Yihyeh melekh 'al-yisrael (there will be a king over israel).
Posted by: Ibn Rushd at November 25, 2004 6:38 PM
JTF and Naseem,
You've both got it wrong. Yesterday, a NASA satellite recorded a spaceship launched from Saudi Arabia which they compute is on a course for Mars!
The Saudi Minister for Space Defensive Campaigns, Dr. Mohammad Jihad Mohammad, issued this statement:
"We have launched our ship to counter American and Israeli aggression on Mars! For far too many months have the rovers 'Spirit' and 'Opportunity' desecrated the holy soil of Mars' deserts. Islamic jurists in our Space Theology division have determined that the Prophet's (PBUH) Night Journey to 'the farthest mosque' actually refers to Mars, not Jerusalem, as they assure me Mars is the furthest planet from Earth."
He went on to explain that the ship burns 100% pure crude oil and can achieve a maximum thrust of 500 billion trillion horsepower. Transit time for 'The Blue Flame of Allah' (excluding prayer breaks) will be 2-25 months. The crew consists of three men, plus wives and concubines (they are not needed for the mission, and there are no provisions to return them, they are martyrs).
Mission plan is to land and disembark two Islamic rovers dubbed 'Peace' and 'Mercy' to counter the American 'oppression robots' (these are actually the winner and runner-up machines from the 2003 "Robot Wars" program that were repaired and painted with Quranic verses.)
Dr. M.J. Mohammad claims to be "very confidant' of the mission's success, a success that he warns is only threatened by Jewish/American sabotage and conspiracy. But that goes without saying.
Posted by: CornHolio at November 25, 2004 7:45 PM
YES YES YES TO THE MOON all you mussies and would the last one out of iran please turn off the Nukes
AM YISRAEL CHAI
Posted by: Chuck at November 25, 2004 9:12 PM
CornHolio,
That some pretty funny stuff! I laughed the whole way through (rare for me, most people aren't gifted in the humor dep't). The moon is the appropiate place for these nitwits. HAPPY THANKSGIVING AMERICA FROM THE GREAT WHITE NORTH!
at November 25, 2004 9:19 PM
I'm a first time poster and wanted to thank you for a very thought provoking article. I've spent a lot of time lately reading various translations of the Qur’an and interpretations of the hadith and have been coming to the conclusion you air here. No matter how much I try to find a way to cast the Muslim religion in a peaceful light I'm still stuck with the reality of what those books say.
I do believe there are more moderate Muslims then extremists but the problem I have is that in terms of interpreting their religion the extremists are probably closer to the truth then the moderates. As much people may try to interpret it in a different light Islam was born through blood and war.
Mohammed was more a warrior then a peacemaker. My own theory is that much of what he said and did was based on the loss of status suffered by his family after the death of his grandfather. I think he spent his life trying to regain control of Mecca and turned to violence to accomplish that when his other methods failed. Once Mecca was conquered he realized the power of what he had created and set out to conquer the world and that goal hasn't changed.
In other words moderate Muslims aren't really practicing the Islamic faith in the way that it was meant to be and I'm not sure it can be long-term without changes that would transform it into a totally different religion.
at November 25, 2004 11:00 PM
Thank you Hugh.
I understand the reality as you do.
Your 'remedy', is the minimum possible.
The response of muslims will be adversarial,
and they will have considerable non non-muslim
support.
Some muslims with citizenship in western countries will have to given the option of life in prison camp or finding some moslem country that will take them.
The survival of democratic western-universal civilization is far from sure, and in my frustration at the lack of recognition of this by most, it is very encouraging to read your work.
Your approach is the first i've heard that is possible and should work.
And, work to delegitimize mo.
Posted by: dby
at November 26, 2004 12:25 AM
"1) Jointly build a replica model of the Mecca/Medina holy sites on the moon."
LOL!!!!
erm, sorry, not trying to be mean here... but what's the moon ever done to deserve such a fate???
If such a thing were ever to be done, I would surely feel sorry for it.
Posted by: paula at November 26, 2004 3:58 AM
People,
I read the comments here and truly some of them are funny. I had to bite my tongue at some. LOL.
I was a little dissaopinted that nobody shared with me the vision of firing the imaginition of every muslim on the planet. To focus his/her attention onto something like this.
What interesting times they would bring, how individual people in individual countries would react...it would provide drive/focus, energy, a need for muslims to get upto speed with their aspects of the projects. They would be forced to provide engineering skill, project management skills and surely this is a good thing.
Unless ofcourse you are quite happy with the situation. If they are de-skilled they are much less of a threat to us ....like Mr. Hugh would have us all believe and I quote "And the answer is: limiting the power –- military, political, diplomatic, economic power -- of all Muslim polities, and Muslim peoples, and to diminish, as much as possible, the Muslim presence".
Mr. Hugh forget to add scientific power....truly this is precisely why Islam will not change....because you want to diminish and vanquish it. Oh! well, things won't change much then. Lots of unfortunate hardship to come ...and that's such a shame.
Posted by: Naseem at November 26, 2004 7:10 AM
LeftBank:
Your idea is a NO GO, as the moon is sovereign U.S. Official Infidel territory. We were there first and planted our flag, without even any "native" populations to vanquish in our imperialistic push.
Besides, the moon was never included in "allah's" promise of a global caliphate. It's strictly off-limits to muslims. Too bad for them, since they worship it's "god" . . .
Posted by: CGW at November 26, 2004 8:21 AM
Naseem:
The very idea that building replicas of Muslim mosques etc., on the moon and chanting Islamic prayers as a gesture to move and motivate Muslims is, in itself, a joke. The fact that you cannot appreciate the sheer idiocy of the idea speaks volumes to the great divide.
When the US and the former Soviet Union wanted to bridge the gap, they undertook joint flights into space and projects of medical and technological significance -- projects of real benefit.
Posted by: waterdragon52 at November 26, 2004 8:54 AM
A "moderate" Muslim is nothing more that a Muslim who has no testimony. Real Muslims despise them and try to kill them. It is fruitless to try and inflate the possibilities of "negotiating" with this phantom group to avoid world-wide conflict with Islam. Real Muslims won't negociate. They will pretend to be "moderates" in order to achieve their real ends, namely to prevail against the non-Muslim.
The western world has largely forgotten what Christian Europe clearly knew in 711 when the Islamic Moorish hoards invaded and took over Spain and a large portion of France. That occupation lasted 700 years.
The modern invasion of France and The Netherlands has the same motivation: to conquer and take over. Unless the west wakes up, and rejects this take-over, we may very well face another 700 years of servitude to Muslims.
Posted by: Rob at November 26, 2004 10:30 AM
Naseem,
You have to be joking. On the off-chance you're not, are you really saying that the only way you believe muslim universities will shift focus to a more technological cirriculum as opposed to endless classroom discussions about how wonderful the Prophets 73 'defensive' caravan raids were, is to give them a 'technological Islamic' goal?
In that case you may be right. Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir Mohamad at the 10th Session of the Islamic Summit Conference on Oct 16, 2003 said as much trying in trying to get the faithful to start learning science:
"Those weapons and horses cannot help to defend us any more. We need guns and rockets, bombs and warplanes, tanks and warships for our defence. But because we discouraged the learning of science and mathematics etc as giving no merit for the akhirat, today we have no capacity to produce our own weapons for our defence. We have to buy our weapons from our detractors and enemies."
Maybe the only way to get muslims to put down the quran and pick up a book on engineering or astronomy is 'Moon Mecca'. And hey, if as an offshoot you pick up some military scientific know-how, all the better, eh? But we're not gonna help you.
Posted by: CornHolio at November 26, 2004 1:57 PM
When it comes to manufacturing weapons, biochemical, nuclear or otherwise, there is no shortage of Muslims willing to utilize science and technology. Witness Pakistan's own Dr. Khan, the father of the Islamic bomb. OBL is an engineer by training.
Where Muslims come up woefully short is advancing medical research and other beneficial sciences and technologies.
Posted by: waterdragon52 at November 26, 2004 2:37 PM
(rolling eyes here)
Let's just leave the moon alone. It is a barren hunk of rock that doesn't have anything to do with anyone or anyone's country. If someone has the initiative and desire to travel there, and is willing to spend the time, money and effort, then if they want to plant a flag - that can be removed easily - I don't have a problem with it. But to do something so silly as make a shrine on the moon?? Give me a break!
Posted by: paula at November 26, 2004 6:17 PM
Paula,
You have offended Islam (the lunar chapter)! I'd put a jihad out on you but Letterman's coming on in a minute.
Posted by: CornHolio at November 26, 2004 7:28 PM
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)