| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
Jihad Watch Director Robert Spencer (right) with Bat Ye'or, the pioneering scholar of Eurabia, at the Pim Fortuyn Memorial Conference in The Hague, February 19, 2006
I have been meaning ever since I returned from The Pim Fortuyn Memorial Conference in The Hague last week to write about many things that happened there, but have been overtaken by ever onrushing events and haven't had a chance. Nonetheless, I still plan, in dribs and drabs, to set down some sort of a record, however incomplete, of what took place there. You can read about a trip I took to a museum, along with Bat Ye'or, Ibn Warraq, and David Littman, here, and Douglas Murray's incisive account of the Conference here.
Anyway, the first night we were in The Hague there was a reception for us at the American Embassy. The new Ambassador, Roland E. Arnall, hadn't arrived yet, but I had a pleasant conversation with our host, Deputy Chief of Mission Chat Blakeman. Blakeman introduced me to an official of the Dutch Ministry of Integration, who spends her days in dialogue with Dutch imams and other Muslim leaders. We began a wide-ranging discussion about the nature of the jihad threat and the proper response to it. In the course of this I asked her how many Muslim leaders she encountered who were ready to lay aside attachment to the Sharia, accept the Dutch governmental and societal structure and the parameters of Dutch pluralism, and be willing to live in Dutch society as equals to, not superiors of, non-Muslims indefinitely. She told me that there were only very few, but insisted that we had to work with those few, and indeed had to place our faith and hope in them, for otherwise the future was impossibly bleak. I asked her if she had read the Qur’an. She told me no, she hadn’t, and wouldn’t, because she didn’t want to lose all hope -- and because whatever was in it, she still had to work to find some accord with the Muslim leaders, no matter what.
I urged her to ask the imams with whom she spoke questions that made their loyalties clear, insofar as they would answer them honestly. I urged her to ask them whether they would like to see Sharia implemented in the Netherlands at any time in the future, and whether they were working toward that end in any way, peaceful as well as violent. I asked her to ask them whether they would be content to live as equals with non-Muslims indefinitely in a Dutch pluralistic society, or whether they would ultimately hope to institute Islamic supremacy and the subjugation of non-Muslims.
She couldn’t ask them those questions, she told me. Such questions would immediately put their relationship on a confrontational plane, when cooperation was what they wanted, not confrontation. But, I sputtered, you’re not getting cooperation as it is. The confrontation is already upon us. What is to be gained by pretending that it isn’t happening?
I don’t envy this articulate and intelligent young lady her job. But her remarks reminded me of a message I received not long ago, after I had criticized former Indonesian President Abdurrahman Wahid’s bit of Wall Street Journal puffery about how Islam is really a religion of peace. A reader took me to task for “suggesting that Islam is irredeemable in some sense.” He asked: “if we assume this to be true, what is to be done. What would Mr. Spencer suggest that this or any American president do to deal with this reality. Wahid was thought to be a step in the right direction when he was president of the extremely large population of Indonesia, but if he is not much more than a ‘trumped-up counterfeit,’ where do we go from here.”
Where do we go from here? We go to reality. We stop deceiving ourselves and allowing ourselves to be deceived by others. If Wahid was being disingenuous about the teachings of Islam, then he doesn’t offer Westerners hope. He offers them a weak reed that will collapse when they need it the most. Why? Because Muslims who are attracted by the siren song of jihad will see through his pleasing platitudes and recognize how slim a case he really has with reference to the Islamic texts. Westerners can be fooled by him, and Muslims can’t. The young lady in the Dutch Ministry of Integration, despite her best efforts to ignore or deny this reality, kept coming up against it: she found that only a small minority of Muslim leaders in Holland were at all interested in working toward integration.
Eventually the Dutch Ministry of Integration and other administrative bodies in the Western world are going to have to come to grips with the implications of that fact, and with the implications of other facts about Islamic jihad that so far they have preferred to pretend did not exist. What would I suggest that the President do about this reality? I would suggest that he acknowledge it as a reality. That he address the nation and the world, and tell them that the United States is going to lead the resistance to jihad and Sharia supremacism in the name of equality of rights and dignity of all peoples. That any state that oppresses non-Muslims or denies them equality of rights in any way will receive no American aid whatsoever. That any state that allows the idea that Muslims must make war against non-Muslims until they either convert to Islam or submit to the Islamic social order will be no friend of the United States. That the idea that the U.S. Constitution should one day be replaced by Islamic Sharia, whether by violent or peaceful means, will be understood within the United States as seditious.
The Pim Fortuyn Memorial Conference was one small effort to bring Dutch officials, and ultimately the West at large, to confront the realities of our world that the world is doing all it can to deny. Bat Ye’or spoke about how European officials themselves had brought Eurabia into being by encouraging immigration while eschewing assimilation at the insistence of the Arab League. Only now are Europeans realizing that their culture, their soul, has been sold by their leaders for oil, and the jihad is upon them.
It is a reality so bleak that it is no wonder that most officials prefer fantasy. But they won’t be able to maintain their comfortable illusions much longer.
Posted by Robert at March 2, 2006 6:27 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Like a 'pilot' who doesn't know what the words on the controls in the cockpit mean, so this "Dutch Ministry of Integration" lady strikes me for never having read the Qu'ran.
I would have just laughed in her face and said:
"Schandalig!" (Scandalous)
And then walked away, shaking my head and muttering:
"En, ook, belachelijk!" (And also laughable/ridiculous.)
Bat Ye'or looks sharp and ready for the work ahead.
Mazeltov to her!
Posted by: profitsbeard![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at March 2, 2006 6:54 PM
I just read an article that said citizens in Venezuela and the US have the most pride in their countries, followed by Australia, Austria, and Chile.
Europe was at the bottom of the list. This has to be impacting their ability to deal with the issue of Islam.
Posted by: treehugger at March 2, 2006 6:59 PM
Ah...Bat Ye'or looks exactly as I imagined. A gracefully aging woman, small in physical stature, but gigantic in moral and intellectual stature and courage.
Posted by: Infidel33 at March 2, 2006 7:06 PM
Robert:
Remarkable anecdote. I am the son of a retired diplomat, and I couldn't resist forwarding this entry to my dad.
Your message is beginning to resonate everywhere, which is long overdue. Bless you for your tireless work in perhaps the most important cause of our time. The Neville Chamberlains of our generation are beginning to look like exactly what they are.
Kudos. God keep you safe. I look forward to your next book, which I hope will be a critical, no-holds-barrred biography of Muhammad, to update those engaging, but not-too-well known 19th century versions.
Peace,
Matt
Posted by: Matt at March 2, 2006 8:22 PM
Robert,
Another great essay. The capacity for self
deception runs deep, but it seems clear to me that
the Dutch lady to whom you spoke *knows* how things
are, but just hasn't been able to get past the
awful cognitive dissonance resulting from her
politically correct upbringing. I feel a bit sad
for her, but the truth is better.
The problem is that we know what has to be done,
mohammadans need to be expelled from the West. It
will be done nicely (paying them to leave), not so
nicely (forced evacuation) or even tit for tat or
worse, but it will be done.
at March 2, 2006 8:43 PM
Those 19th century book written by non-moslim are very bias and inaccurate book on Islam. Two England men in the 15th century wrote a version of the Koran
that did insult Jew and Christian, considering who wrote it it isnot than offical Koran at all. They wrote it to cause touble and hated like this site does. I read on CIAR site about some of the hated fill comment the owner of this site allow to be posted by some people who post then. About how happy they where that moslim die in Mecca and they wish that more would die. How sich some people on this site are.
at March 2, 2006 8:44 PM
If John Howard of Australia can come out and say "no sharia - if you don't like it, leave", then European governments can do it. If they're worried about death threats, they could make general government policy statements and plans that come from no specific minister.
Posted by: Lilith at March 2, 2006 8:44 PM
You read on cair? NEXT!!!!!
Posted by: fireangel at March 2, 2006 9:18 PM
DefenderofIslam I would have to admit some of the things I have posted could at first glance appear to be hateful. In reality it is only because English is your second language and you didn’t properly translate what I was trying to say. To be truthful sometimes my posts have been erased, I’m sure you are not the only person misreading my posts. As of now, I hereby promise not to say hateful things on line, keep that in mind as you translate what you mistakenly believe to be hateful. I only wish for tolerance and brotherhood. Let’s do coffee.
Posted by: Ronin at March 2, 2006 9:25 PM
DefenderofIslam,
We've heard the "offical Koran" canard before. Perhaps you can educate us and compare in parallel the versions which offend you and the innocent version you prefer.
I've found Robert to be more than conscientious in removing posts and posters who are gratuitously offensive or advocate violence, when he is made aware of them.
Also, he specifically decried the radio personality you mention regarding the losses in Mecca.
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at March 2, 2006 9:28 PM
It seems that this generation is to weak to confront its problems, My distant ancestors were brave enough to defend europe from muslim armies centuries ago, my immediate ancestors were brave enough to defend the free world from nazi germany and the empire of japan, Now it is time for us to defend the free world but it seems this generation can not shoulder the responsibility.
Posted by: MCMXCAD at March 2, 2006 10:27 PM
American -
Right. It's time for permanent separation.
No muslims; No mosques; No ports.
Posted by: 00Buck at March 2, 2006 10:43 PM
muslims Are like distant, hillbilly relatives who came for a visit - and won't leave. It's time to throw them out.
Posted by: 00Buck at March 2, 2006 10:45 PM
Your conversation with the Dutch lady may not be all for naught, Robert. At least a seed of curiosity may have been planted in that exchange, whereby, perhaps sooner than later, her frustration with the dangerous, backward community she deals with will reach a point where she'll take your advice, read the Quran and hadiths for herself (or at least one or two of your books), and ask the tough questions.
Now that it's been brought up, it's something she'll have to think about.
Posted by: Shinoliite at March 2, 2006 10:55 PM
Posted by: Concerned Citizen
I've found Robert to be more than conscientious in removing posts and posters who are gratuitously offensive or advocate violence, when he is made aware of them.
This is very true as I have had many posts deleted in the past.
http://illustratedpig.blogspot.com/2006/02/politically-incorrect-guide-to-where-i_27.html
Robert
I am glad to see You are not blind to WAHID,he is from a family of treacherous snakes.One only has to look at the involvement of NU,(the organization his family founded)and the role they played in the massacre in 1965,where 1,000,000 people where murdered in Indonesia
at March 2, 2006 11:18 PM
Bat Ye'or appears almost saintly, I truly admire and respect her work, I have several worn out copies that I have lent out to coworkers. Those who have read her work are eager to get their own copies.
Bat, I want to extend a special thanks for all your work, if we win this struggle against Eurasia it will be thanks to your work, scholarly an meticulous in it's detail of the source of the growing menace to the world.
Bravo!
One small note, even the Economist that vile Dihimmi publication is using the term Eurasia. They were trying to deny it but, at the same time by it's use gave it legitimacy.
What does Bat Ye'or mean? It's a pseudoname but what is it's meaning?
Posted by: El Cid at March 2, 2006 11:53 PM
El Cid-
(Love your Music by Miklos Rosza!)
"Bat Ye'Or" means "Daughter of the Nile" in Hebrew.
See:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/relrpt/stories/s1250346.htm
Posted by: profitsbeard at March 3, 2006 1:11 AM
Thank you, profitsneard
Posted by: El Cid at March 3, 2006 1:54 AM
Profitsbeard
Is there any language you don't know? ;->
Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 3, 2006 2:15 AM
Robert
Glad to see you will be on KSFO radio here next Wednesday. Look forward to it during my drive to work.
http://www.ksfo.com/guests.asp
Please cover both the Ports story and the Cartoon story, and also explain to them Hugh's theory of why our work in Iraq is done, how Shia-Sunni strife is a good thing, and it's time to leave in victory.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 3, 2006 2:34 AM
THE MUSLIM FACTOR: Wahid's Army of Loyal Believers
By ZAMIRA LOEBIS
Mess with the Nahdlatul Ulama, and chances are the banser, the muslim organization's most vocal subgroup, will come knocking on your door. And
it probably won't be a pleasant visit.
Journalists at Jawa Pos, a Surabaya newspaper, found out the hard way last month after publishing a report suggesting that Hasyim Muzadi, the NU's chairman, had received a
payoff of more than $4 million from a government agency.
No sooner had the paper hit the newsstands than the Banser (short for Barisan Ansor Serbaguna, literally translated as Multipurpose Front) descended by the hundreds on the paper's offices. They surrounded the building, shouted
slogans, prevented staff from entering and blocked publication for a day.
In the end, they left the offices after Jawa Pos agreed to publish an apology.
It's hard to argue with the Banser. For one thing, there are around 400,000 of them (and the NU has 30 million members). For another, they
have friends in high places:Ex President Wahid himself was head of the NU for 15 years until taking political office last October. While most
political parties condemned the Jawa Pos episode as an attack on press freedom,
Wahid instead accused the paper of bias. "The press is one-sided in many ways," he told Time. "Part of it is controlled by people who are against the government," he says, citing the Pos case.
"It wasn't the Banser who told them to stop publishing, they did it
themselves, to gain sympathy from the rest of the press."
It was not the first time the Banser has shown its clout. In April, after Speaker of the House Amien Rais said he would "tweak Wahid's ears"
when the President presents his progress report to parliament in August, more than 100,000 Banser gathered at a Surabaya rally as NU leaders gave speeches condemning Rais. "Banser's duty is to defend the NU," says Abdullah Faqih, a respected Muslim cleric in East Java. If the
organization or its priests are offended, the Banser will rise, he adds,
"like bees run amok when their hive is disturbed."
Established in the early 1960s by Gus Dur's paternal uncle to protect the NU from attacks by the communist youth wing, the Banser is made up
exclusively of NU members.
Though they are given martial arts training,Banser members are best known for the rallies and demonstrations they
conduct in support of the NU. Banser is known as the "multipurpose front" for Ansor, the youth wing of the NU.
To understand what makes Banser tick, travel to Jombang, the sleepy town 80 km south of Surabaya
where Wahid was born.
Jombang is home to the country's four largest Islamic schools, or pesantren (with as many as 6,500 students each), all controlled by relatives of the Ex President.
In a pesantren, the world revolves around the kyai, or clerics. A kyai is regarded as a combination of king and holy man: his word is law and he is accorded absolute loyalty.
For the Banser faithful, Wahid is the greatest kyai of all. "I serve him as a kyai, not as a President," says Masnuh, an East Java businessman
and a big NU supporter.
"A President can be replaced tomorrow, but a
kyai will forever be a kyai."
Such solidarity helped Wahid become President. But it could also spark unrest if he runs into political difficulty.
So Mr Spencer you are quite right about the warnings concerning Wahid and his Dark-Side
A little more on Captain Snake
http://illustratedpig.blogspot.com/2006/03/politically-incorrect-guid_114137010257314449.html
at March 3, 2006 2:44 AM
Shiva
I visited your blog above, and you mentioned that 200k of Bali's 2m inhabitants were massacred. We hear about Christians being on the receiving end of this bloody jihadi campaign, but is the same true of Hindus in Bali, Lombok, Buddhists in Sulawesi, and other infidels?
P.S. From your handle, would one be right in guessing that you are a Shaivite Hindu?
Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 3, 2006 3:00 AM
Shiva:
I am in Hong Kong now and I will be in Bangkok from the 6th this month. Any chance to meet up? Please let Robert have your e-mail contact, or if you prefer I'll forward mine and you can contact me. Would be nice to get together!
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at March 3, 2006 3:17 AM
If these hopeless pacifist attitude is the way for the dutch people they are doomed.
By the time they wake up the Muslims will be such a force the only way will be a civil war which will require a lot of blood spilled by the Dutch people before they are free of the Islamic cancer.
Posted by: stevenz at March 3, 2006 3:31 AM
What does Bat Ye'or mean? It's a pseudoname but what is it's meaning?
Daughter of the Nile.
Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at March 3, 2006 3:56 AM
It definitely sounds like it was an interesting meeting - held in Holland.
I am sure that more people than can be known - were interested in the conclusions drawn. And I am sure that many of these interested parties, who were looking to gauge the opinions of this meeting, did so to better analyze how to deal with the problems of Islam in their own countries.
The problem with Islam is not local, it is a global, and everyone from Australia to Canada is trying to deal with it toady.
Unfortunately it was held on the 4th anniversary of the Dutch politician, who was killed by an Islamic assailant. But at the same time fitting as it was a man’s life, we really need to remember, what dangers are posed and how we can protect ourselves against these in the future.
Look at the strength of feeling against the UAE port deal; it is apparent that people are saying more privately than publicly, against Islam, because of the threat of violence. Today a meeting in Holland, on the threat of Islam, tomorrow a consensus of many nations, that Islam represents a threat to normal and free societies.
Perhaps the only people who are really dreaming are the Islamic peoples themselves. They have no technology base of their own, so this makes them parasitic in nature. It is because they don’t have work in their own countries, or because there is so much unrest, that they have been invited in, to live and work in western nations and it is from here that they launch their take over, on the goodness and generosity of others. Perhaps the Dutch girl understands, something of the hidden card - that these people could just be asked to leave.
It is only European laws, rights and generosities keeping Muslim communities in their place. And so I think that we are only at the beginning of analyzing it.
Posted by: Pass It On at March 3, 2006 7:47 AM
"Unfortunately it was held on the 4th anniversary of the Dutch politician, who was killed by an Islamic assailant."
Actually, Pim Fortuyn, the gay leftist yet anti-Islam politician was murdered by a deranged animal-rights Leftist who publicly stated that he shot him dead in order to "defend Muslims".
at March 3, 2006 10:07 AM
MOSLEMS ARE MOST ASSUREDLY SEDITIOUS BUT I SMELL CHRISTIANIST SHARIA IN THE US (AND CHRISTIAN SEDITION)
"That the idea that the U.S. Constitution should one day be replaced by Islamic Sharia, whether by violent or peaceful means, will be understood within the United States as seditious."
-Robert
Great Robert, I'm with you my friend. However, your scholarly, and reasoned criticisms are greatly muted because you appear to be a theist that seeks only to supplant Islam with your own religion: Catholicism. Do you utterly repudiate Samuel Alito’s appointment and his statements since appointment?
Please read:
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000039&refer=columnist_woolner&sid=aXiW5qOpcdxM
Do you reject the Christianists' political movement to take away privacy rights, and with them a women's right to an abortion, gay rights and the re-introduction of prayer in schools? Will you not condemn these as Christian Sharia? Was the President’s appointment of Alito, designed specifically to overturn Supreme Court precedent and install Christianist law, not also seditious?
Would you likewise call for the public chastisement of Bush for giving public funds to religious groups? Do you entirely reject the Christianist movement inside of the US which seeks to bring prayer in public schools, install the "ten commandments" as the law of the land (these are not commandments to many Americans who are non-believers, Hindus, Buddhists etc) and take away gay (and other behind closed door) privacy rights. If you do these things, that is, condemn the Christianists with only one-quarter the ferocity with which you condemn the Moslems, you will have gained by loyalty and my voluntary service to you. I mean that. I will devote my free time to you and this site, simply contact me, and it is yours. However, I have yet to trust your secular credentials.
The persons with whom you met in Holland, did they wish to defend Western civilization themselves? Do you really support Pim Fortuyn, that filthy “heathen” gay Dutchman who in the minds of many Christianists, deserved the same fate as a fabled man named Lot? Last, would you take a stand and remind people that Pim Fortuyn was gay, and that he was great man; that gay people should not lose the rights afforded to them in Holland or any country, Moslem or otherwise? Your staffer, Rebecca, has said that gays ought not even get civil partnerships in the US because of the “failings” of moral relativism and the ”critical time” we are in now (rapture?). Yet you go over to Holland in the name of Pim Fortuyn and do not fully denounce Rebecca’s statements. One can easily infer that what your staffer indicates is a desire to make biblical texts the source of law, not civil ones. Are these your views as well Robert?
Rebecca’s comments (a staffer at JD/DW regarding gays can be seen here: http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/009788.php#comments
I have many friends in Holland. They increasingly hate Islam, but don’t trust you and the others in your group. Will you make it clear you have real Western credentials? By Western, I think you understand I don’t mean rural Western US credentials. I am referring to Western tradition as the one mainly from the French revolution forward. You know, that bad secular modern “relativist” time. Does that little group you visited with want to replace the modern secular societies with Christian Sharia in the Western world? I suspect they do.
I await your answer with great anticipation.
at March 3, 2006 11:16 AM
Kafir Nonbeliever:
Thanks for your questions. With respect, they are arrant nonsense. That "little group" in Holland included Ibn Warraq, Bat Ye'or, and Daniel Pipes. You think they want to institute "Christian Sharia"? They aren't even Christians. You think Lijst Pim Fortuyn wants to institute "Christian Sharia"? Have you gone quite mad?
Yes, I am a Christian theist. I make no apology for that, nor will I ever. I reject the attempt to silence Christian voices and influence in the public sphere, of which your message is a species. Your charge that Christians want to institute "Christian Sharia" in the Western world is baseless, founded only upon Leftist paranoia and propaganda.
Your charges and insinuations about Pim Fortuyn, Rebecca Bynum, gays and me are likewise baseless. Rebecca can speak for herself. But I was honored to be invited to speak at the Pim Fortuyn Conference. I was very happy to meet Bruce Bawer there, a writer who is gay and whose new book "While Europe Slept" is magnificent -- and harrowingly descriptive of the difficulties gays face in an Islamizing Europe. Before you make so many offensive insinuations about my own views, why don't you search for "gay" at Dhimmi Watch and see what I have put up there over the years? Then get back to me. You might also care to read this, from the FAQ here (http://jihadwatch.org/spencer/ ), before you start swallowing the hysterical false claims of the likes of anonymous Wikipedia gremlins:
Q: I've read that you are secretly a Catholic and have a religious agenda.RS: Yes, I have been so intent on keeping this a secret that I co-wrote a book called Inside Islam: A Guide for Catholics. Here again, people like to imagine that a Christian cannot write accurately about Islam, but they cannot point to any inaccuracy in my work. Nor is there any religious agenda here. I envision Jihad Watch as an opportunity for all the actual and potential victims of jihad violence and oppression -- Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, secular Muslims, atheists, whatever -- to join together to defend universal human rights. There are many things about which we all disagree, but at this point we need to unite simply in order to survive. We can sort out our disagreements later.
At this point the people most active, in various ways, in the work of Jihad Watch are a Catholic, a Jew, and an atheist. If we weren't so busy trying to awaken the Western world to the threat of violent jihad, we could walk into a bar and...(fill in your own punchline).
I have no trouble making common cause with atheists and secularists against a threat that menaces all of us. Nor do I believe that I have to agree with my colleagues on every particular in order to do this. But do you, sir, have trouble making common cause with a Christian against that threat? Do you want to force your views on me before you will agree to make common cause with me? I believe you do.
Read my book "Islam Unveiled." I do not support a theocratic society. I support pluralism, which is predicated upon the idea of people of differing beliefs living together peacefully. You, however -- I don't think you believe in such a thing at all.
Cordially,
Robert Spencer
at March 3, 2006 11:37 AM
This site is akin to what the Establishment Clause stands for. No favoring of one religion over another, unless one really wishes to call Islam only, or mainly, a "religion" and not a comprehensive worldview with clear and geopolitical, consequences. No favoring (or as MESA Nostrans and other denizens of the campus might say, "privileging") of religion over non-religion. Every signer of that Letter (the Daring Dozen) posted the other day was a free-thinker, a non-believer.
The site cannot be identified with, or considered responsible for, the unmmoderated postings. Those who in their postings get off the topic of Islam, and instead repeatedly offer the Way, or the One True Way, can not be stopped, though one wishes that they would stick to discussing aspects of Jihad and dhimmitude. But at this point in history the most sensible thing is to welcome aid from everyone who has begun, dimly or piercingly, to recognize the common menace that a belief-system whose adherents are taught that that belief-system, Islam, is "to dominate and not to be dominated," and that the world is divided between Believers and Infidels, with the former having to wage an unceasing campaign against the latter, until all barriers to the spread of Islam. Those barriers include many of the laws, customs, manners, and understandings that constitute Western civilization -- and those as well of the many non-Western but non-Muslim peoples, who face the same permanently disturbing threat. It is not, of course, the West against Islam. Nor is it Islam against the West. It is Islam against All the Rest.
Posted by: Hugh at March 3, 2006 12:16 PM
Robert,
There is no need to get upset or take my accusations personally. Nonetheless, I think I am fully justified in asking the questions I have asked. I do not mean you ill will in the least. I appreciate the work you have done. Let me also make clear that I greatly appreciate this web site - most of all Hugh’s discussions (by far) - very much. Your work inspired me to read the Koran (twice) and the Ahadith (Sunna in March). I have become reasonably knowledgeable about Islam myself, and I owe you a great deal insofar as sparking the interest in me. Please also know that my vehement disagreement with the views expressed by Rebecca do not lessen my appreciation for this site. Your tireless work in this effort is a truly commendable service to humanity. I imagine that running this site can be very bothersome and requires considerable time and resources.
However, you refer to my questions and observations as non-sense. They are certainly not that. They are both timely (visiting secular Holland in the name of Pim Fortuyn) and deserving of being discussed openly. Indeed, if they were nonsensical, you would not have taken the time to respond to them. With respect to your questioning my sanity, I can assure you that my lucidity is intact.
You stated that you are able to embrace atheists as your allies. As an atheist, I can indeed be your ally insofar as the political battle against Islam is concerned. Indeed I call several Christians friends. To the extent that we both see the danger is Islam/Islamism and its growing demographic threat, including immigration policies, I am your steadfast ally in combating it. In fact, embracing non-believers, while sometimes uncomfortable for all involved, would provide Christians and other theists a virtual atomic bomb against Islam. This is where we must be headed in the battle against Islam. Sadly, it is not where we are at the moment. Christians and others have taken the tact that they must attack the very fabric of secularism itself, as if that very secularism were the cause of resurgence of Islam. They continue to attack the very thing that distinguishes us from Islamic countries: modern secularism.
But if what you say is true about your embracing non-believers is true, the question becomes, what values do we agree on? Will it be exclusively our mutual revulsion to Islam? Will the values that we presumably share include modern accepted norms of human conduct, or biblical ones? Women’s rights: ok or not? Divorce: ok (to allow) or not (to disallow)? Abortion rights/family planning: ok or not? Adultery: ok (to allow)or not(to disallow)? Pornography: ok or not. Gay rights: ok or not? Freedom to practice religion (or not at all): ok or not? Slavery: ok (to prohibit) or not (to prohibit)? Laws preventing the disparate treatment of different races/ethnic groups: ok or not? If you answered ‘not ok’ to any of the (non-exhaustive list of freedoms) uncomfortable questions, I do not see how we can be on the same page. To me, these (and other rights not mentioned) are mostly unpleasant things, which you have every right to object to you in your own personal life, but are nonetheless fundamental rights which you do not have the right to take away from others, irrespective of the nation, whether it’s Saudi Arabia or the United States. It must be pointed out that Moslems would probably agree with the answers many Christians would provide to the answers to the questions asked above. With respect to “Hindu” India, increasingly our greatest ally besides Europe. Will Christians now, and for all time, repudiate the notions of “heathen” and “pagan” to followers of the Vedic religions? One can only hope so.
Do we also agree that there are fundamental rights that supercede any religious text? We can agree to disagree about some things, but we must first agree to separate religious doctrine from affairs of the state. If we fail to do this, we will begin to resemble the theocratic Islamic republics we all so loathe. In such a case, I cannot be an ally to any religious group that seeks to make its religious code the law of the land. Additionally, when there is clear evidence of Christians acting in manners similar to Islamists', we must repudiate their actions as well. To fail to do so, gives Islam a counter weapon against us (the argument that we are crusaders), and furthers weakens our modern Western traditions.
In the “war” against Islam, Christianity will not be as good a weapon as you might think it to be. Whether you like it or not, secularism is still the sharpest weapon worldwide against Islam, especially in Europe. We can never get Islam “reformed” without secularism in every corner of the world that Islam is found. Western secularism is what the Moslems fear/hate more than anything, not the attempt at converting Moslems to Christianity.
That aside, my offer still stands if we are on the same page.
Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at March 3, 2006 2:28 PM
Kafir Nonbeliever writes:
"Women’s rights: ok or not? Divorce: ok (to allow) or not (to disallow)? Abortion rights/family planning: ok or not? Adultery: ok (to allow)or not(to disallow)? Pornography: ok or not. Gay rights: ok or not? Freedom to practice religion (or not at all): ok or not? Slavery: ok (to prohibit) or not (to prohibit)? Laws preventing the disparate treatment of different races/ethnic groups: ok or not?"
That's funny, I have a friend who is an avowed atheist, and he's quite anti abortion, believing
it equivalent to infanticide.
The rest of your "must have's" are not well defined, so I don't know what you mean (child pornography OK, forced affirmative action OK, what?) but if I had to guess, I'd say we are NOT on the same page, and I'm hardly extreme about religion at all. I don't care much about other people's worship habits or lack thereof, but I
think people should be able to associate with
whoever they want, and that only some government funded activities should have race/gender blind
legal rules.
at March 3, 2006 2:47 PM
Kafir Nonbeliever,
We do indeed have a fundamental disagreement. You believe Secularism can hold out against Islam on its own, I do not.
Here is my exposition on the matter:
http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=1642&sec_id=1642
Our earlier disagreement was about marriage. I thought we had agreed to disagree. You had said at one point something to the effect, that if I thought marriage was special, i.e. that it shouldn't be subject to the great leveler now known as the 'doctrine of human rights,' then that was fine with you. Now you say it's not. No matter. I'm not changing my mind on this. Marriage is exceptional and fundamental to civilization and should remain so.
That is my position.
Posted by: Rebecca JW at March 3, 2006 2:50 PM
"embracing non-believers, while sometimes uncomfortable for all involved, would provide Christians and other theists a virtual atomic bomb against Islam."
Actually, it's the non-believers who have to reach out to the Christians & Jews. And it's the Leftists who have to "embrace" the Right.
Most agnostics and atheists in the West are deeply infected with the PC disease, which has as one of its Five Pillars of PC, "thou shalt not critically condemn Islam, and if you do so, you are a crypto-right-wing Fascist Islamophobe bent on controlling the world through some form of crypto-theocratic globalistic Capitalism."
(Of course, too many Christians and even Jews have been infected by PC as well; but the proportion is less.)
Disabuse the majority of your fellow non-believers of PC regarding Islam, then get back to us. (I say this as a secular agnostic, by the by.)
Posted by: Dr. Pepper at March 3, 2006 2:51 PM
I deeply admire your work, but how can 'peacefully' (which surely must equate with 'democratically') attempting to introduce Sharia be 'seditious'? I accept that subversive means can be used that are not violent and can be seditious, but that is different from 'peaceful' means. I would be grateful if you can provide some clarity on this.
Posted by: hippiepooter at March 3, 2006 3:03 PM
Hippiepooter,
I am not sure if the question was being directed to me, or to JD/DW. In any event, I will offer my opinion.
CAIR finances terrorist groups and has ties to them. Many of those groups advocate the violent overthrow of the US government. As such, many Moslems are clearly guilty of sedition through conspiracy/aiding and abetting/racketeering laws.
at March 3, 2006 3:16 PM
Kaffir Nonbeliever: I won't answer those questions until after we win this war. That is not a matter of evasion, but of priority. If you want to work together, great. If not, I will fight on regardless, along with all the atheists and Hindus and Buddhists and Jews and Christians and everyone else who is willing to join this struggle along with me.
Hippiepooter: "how can 'peacefully' (which surely must equate with 'democratically') attempting to introduce Sharia be 'seditious'?"
Why must "peacefully" equal "democratically"? I was referring to campaigns of deception and propaganda, "charities" that funnel money to violent jihad groups, alliances with foreign governments that don't truly have our best interests at heart, and the like -- things we see in the US now.
Cordially,
Robert Spencer
at March 3, 2006 3:16 PM
kafir non-believer wrote:
>>As an atheist, I can indeed be your ally insofar as the political battle against Islam is concerned. Indeed I call several Christians friends.
I noted that in this post you laid off the term 'Christianist'. Any particular reason? Couldn't be that after Mr Spencer's exposure of your rank humbug repetition of such a pejorative term might only serve to underline the points he was making about you?
Kafir, your anti-Christian fundamentalism shows why there is an alliance between the totalitarian left and Islam. Despite your diametrically opposed ideology on homosexuality, the evil that unites you is greater than the ideology divides you.
Sincere democrats have no trouble in making common cause against the totalitarian threat of Islam. Issues that divide democrats are resolved through the ballot box. Please go and practice your new age fascist taqiyah with people dumb enough to swallow it.
Posted by: hippiepooter at March 3, 2006 3:24 PM
Thanks for the reply Mr Spencer. It is surely a rule of thumb that acheiving things 'peacefully' is not generally associated with the seditious activities you outline, which are ancillaries to violent Jihad. I trust you can understand how you could be easily misunderstood by the layman in stating that "peaceful" attempts to establish Sharia should be treated as "sedition".
Posted by: hippiepooter at March 3, 2006 3:27 PM
"We do indeed have a fundamental disagreement. You believe Secularism can hold out against Islam on its own, I do not."
-Rebecca
When increasing numbers of nations in Europe begin changing immigration laws (some secretly, some not so), I'm afraid you begin to lose that argument. Thankfully, that very thing I describe is starting to happen. This is all about demographics.
"Our earlier disagreement was about marriage. I thought we had agreed to disagree. You had said at one point something to the effect, that if I thought marriage was special, i.e. that it shouldn't be subject to the great leveler now known as the 'doctrine of human rights,' then that was fine with you. Now you say it's not. No matter. I'm not changing my mind on this. Marriage is exceptional and fundamental to civilization and should remain so."
-Rebecca
You are entitled to your position, but don't be surprised that you are called to task to explain it. Moreover, I remind you that I told you the argument was not about gay marriage, something that I said then, and say again now: we have every right to disagree about that. Our disagreement was about gay rights in general, i.e. civil partnerships; a means of correcting current wrongs against gay people in the US. You wish to bring the argument back to gay marriage and obfuscate the issues. You wish to pretend that gays are treated fairly in the US. I suggest you go back and read the thread I posted above.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/009788.php#comments
To you, Biblical law should reign supreme, not the laws of reason. Fine, live your life accordingly. But remember, your arguments are the same as those of Moslems. You would deny me equal protection simply because of your irrational religious beliefs – beliefs I do not share. We do not live in a theocracy like the Islamic Republic of Iran. Do you wish to emulate that nation?
Moreover, this is not a non-related/tangential issue when the person being venerated at the meeting in secular Holland was a homosexual and at least one member of this site, while pretending to be supportive to persons like Bruce Bawer, is on the record as opposing any justice for such persons. Read your own statements in the above-posted thread. That sounds like a sham to me.
at March 3, 2006 3:46 PM
"Sincere democrats have no trouble in making common cause against the totalitarian threat of Islam."
Democrat? Who is a democrat? You assume I'm a Democrat since I am gay? I'm afraid you do not understand my political views or my revulsion towards Islam.
Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at March 3, 2006 3:49 PM
I'm sorry, but to see RS write "hippiepooter" is hilarious. ;)
Posted by: Carolyn2 at March 3, 2006 3:53 PM
I note Kafir your selective use of the capital 'D'. I'm afraid your stale evasion strategies are putting me to sleep. Goodnight.
Posted by: hippiepooter at March 3, 2006 4:06 PM
Kafir Nonbeliever,
I believe gay people should be able to make
contracts amongst themselves granting power of attorney, and all of those other things that you said you want. I also believe that the monogamous
heterosexual marriage is an important institution in our culture, and should remain the preferred one. The open issue for gays is adoption/child
rearing, probably less important for gay males
than for lesbians.
As I stated above, your position on abortion is not the only valid atheistic/secular one. It's just YOUR POSITION.
I think insisting on equal rights for men and
women is ridiculous. Women can have babies, men
can't. Therefore equality is impossible. If we
provide free gynecological care for women, should
we provide it for men too? If by equal rights, you
mean, roughly, voting, same pay for same work, etc., sure we're on the same page.
I believe that there should be no racial
discrimination with regards to rights, but
making sure every field has a racial distribution
reflecting the whole society is ridiculous. Look
at the percentage of black math PhDs. You can't
have a math department with 12% black professors.
Whether that's nature or nurture is irrelevant.
I oppose "affirmative action", which attempts to
fix the legacy of racism with more racism.
I have no problem with you being gay, and
what it entails, but rereading the thread you
pointed to, you are quite wrong in asserting that
polygamists won't take advantage of a change in
marriage laws to push their agenda as well. That's
how legal battles work. Once the precedent is
their for recognizing homosexual marriage, the
polygamists can assert that they are being
unfairly discriminated against. And, for a while,
you may keep them down, but the challenge would
continue.
If you can't accept that people with different views on these topics can work together, then
maybe you should go form the gay-atheist-pro
abortion anti jihad league. Good luck with that!
at March 3, 2006 4:28 PM
KafirNonbeliever said, "In the “war” against Islam, Christianity will not be as good a weapon as you might think it to be. Whether you like it or not, secularism is still the sharpest weapon worldwide against Islam, especially in Europe. We can never get Islam “reformed” without secularism in every corner of the world that Islam is found. Western secularism is what the Moslems fear/hate more than anything, not the attempt at converting Moslems to Christianity."
You are 100% right on this one!!!!!! Don't back down. I'm sick and tired of seeing the attitude that "If you're not a right-wing gun-toting Christian fundamentalist, you can't be skeptical of Islam."
Let's never forget that the only group of Americans ever admired by any Muslim fanatic was the cranky, intolerant (go ask Anne Hutchinson) non-Christmas celebrating Puritans.
This is NOT just Islam vs. Christian America, or Islam vs. the West. It's Islam vs. the REST, i.e., the rest of the world. Thankfully it's still 80/20, in our favor.
at March 3, 2006 4:55 PM
Kafir N,
The issue on the table with regard to Islam was marriage and polygamy. I think I've made my position clear on that and it is you who are seeking to make generalizations about gay rights.
You're making a huge jump from my defense of marriage as it stands and has stood for many, many thousands of years, to assuming I seek to impose "Biblical law" on people (whatever that means).
Let's see now, what about those "laws of reason?"
Posted by: Rebecca JW at March 3, 2006 4:58 PM
Kaffir,
I am just reading this thread, and working from the bottom up. "at least one member of this site, while pretending to be supportive to persons like Bruce Bawer, is on the record as opposing any justice for such persons. Read your own statements in the above-posted thread. That sounds like a sham to me."
Rebecca and Robert are two different people. They agree about some things. They disagree about others. Where is the sham? This is a question, not an argument. Do you think that JW is disingenuous or that Rebecca is. I do not know which you mean.
However, you do seem to have fastened on the idea that this is some sort of bait and switch, that once you have signed on to defeat jihad someone will reach through the computer screen to drag you off like Shylock to be baptized.
Do you really think Christians who say, "Homosexual acts are wrong" no different from Muslim regimes who execute gays for sodomy?
at March 3, 2006 4:58 PM
Do we also agree that there are fundamental rights that supercede any religious text? We can agree to disagree about some things, but we must first agree to separate religious doctrine from affairs of the state. If we fail to do this, we will begin to resemble the theocratic Islamic republics we all so loathe.
Kafir unbeliever, I would recommend that u read some history about the evolution of the human rights u claim to cherish. (In particular I would recommend James Woods “How the Catholic Church Created Western Civilization” and Rodney Starks “How Christianity created the West”).
Constitutional democracy, free markets and human rights are the product of what u and other fundamentalist secularists disparage has superstition. I am assuming u are probably, like most of us, a great admirer of science. Guess who the first natural scientists were? Catholic monks from the 11th century. In fact if it was not for developments within the church the enlightenment that u worship would not even have happened.
One of the reasons the jihad is such a threat is because of the philosophy of multiculturalism, which is predicated on the same intellectually incoherent and moral bankrupt moral relativism that fundamentalist secularists like u espouse. Moreover, your sanctimonious moral relativism is contributing greatly to the decline of the family and the plummeting birthrates—a situation which, when placed in the broader context of the jihadist threat, is precipitating our decline.
You claim a women has a “right” to an abortion. Roe v. Wade did not establish a human right to kill babies. In fact, there is no such thing as a human right to kill the unborn. Calling abortion a “right” is a highly tendentious Orwellian use of language that u and other fundamentalist secularists use to promote your destructive agenda.
As far as I am concerned, u and your sanctimonious moral relativist philosophy are just as much a threat to the West as Islam. Next time you want to morally equate Christianity with Islam, perhaps u might read some history so your opinions could be a little more informed.
at March 3, 2006 5:36 PM
Now, this is truly amusing:
"How the Catholic Church Created Western Civilization"
You mean how it led to the dark ages?
"Guess who the first natural scientists were? Catholic monks from the 11th century."
Pardon me, but during that time period, Islamic scientists actually exceeded "our" own in prowess. We had lost our ancient Greek treatises (all those pagan pre-Christian Greeks could not possibly have had anything of value for us modern 11th century Christians) from our pre-Christian days due to the dark ages caused by Christianity, and only Moslems gave them back to us! I shall remain silent about the chilling affect Christianity had on the sciences.
"How Christianity created the West"
Christianity is not Western, it is Asian and foreign just like the Jewish faith and Islam. However, it has been with for a long time, and as such, we begin to think of it as our own. Christianity is only Western on its edges; secularism is the true Western legacy that so many of you seek to destroy. Christianity may have unnaturally prolonged the Holy Roman Empire, but it sickened it and destroyed it - so came the dark ages. Ancient Rome and Greece are truly Western, not Christianity. Modern Christianity can be Western today, but only to the extent that it is flexible. Where it is not, it resembles the ascetic traditions/religions of the East. We Westerners tend to dislike true asceticism.
Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at March 3, 2006 7:10 PM
--You mean how it led to the dark ages?
The idea that Europe fell into the dark ages is a hoax originated by anti religious, anti Catholic eighteenth century intellectuals who were determined to assert their own cultural superiority and who boosted their claim by denigrating previous centuries as, in the words of Voltaire—a time when “barbarism and superstition covered the earth”.
After the fall of Rome, the so called dark ages saw an extraordinary burst of innovation in both technology and culture. In particular, during the this period new technologies were widely adapted and recognized, and these developments inspired new organizational and administrative structures that eventually culminated in the birth of capitalism within the great monastic estates. This in turn, prompted a complete theological reappraisal of the moral implications of commerce and its requirement, freedom. This, Kafir unbeliever, is the reason the West as a civilization has surpassed all others in technology, including the technology that allows u to write your ridiculous postings.
--Moslems gave them back to us! I shall remain silent about the chilling affect Christianity had on the sciences.
You are correct that when Europe knew little of Greek learning, it was deeply alive within Islam, and it was brought back to Europe with the help of Islamic scholars. However, the recovery of Greek learning did not put Europe back on track to science, just as Greek learning did nothing to advance Islam into modernity. It was Christian metaphysical postulations—such as the Universe being governed by immutable and consistent laws that were amenable to human discovery—that provided the theoretical framework for the advancement of the natural sciences. (Robert discuses this better than me in “The politically incorrect guide to Islam”). In fact, medieval Christian scholars, when exposed to Aristotle and the like, were able to dispute them with a rational analysis that derived from Christian philosophy.
The rise of science was not an extension of classical learning; it was the natural outgrowth of Christian metaphysics. This is why science and all its wonders grew in Christendom and not Islam. But u wouldn’t know this, being a fundamentalist secularist, which is a philosophy that requires more superstition to believe than Islam
Posted by: Filippo_28 at March 3, 2006 8:27 PM
Highly entertaining reading! Too bad it is a fictional account of Western civilization.
Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at March 3, 2006 9:23 PM
Lets have a little heresy party, shall we?
Galileo to those enlightened Christian scientists of the then "re-enlightened Christians" (400-500 years after receiving the treatises of old from the Moslem invaders): "e pur se muove".
Englightened indeed!
Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at March 3, 2006 9:30 PM
"Ancient Rome and Greece are truly Western, not Christianity. Modern Christianity can be Western today, but only to the extent that it is flexible."
You mean flexible like when they killed Socrates?His student was suspected of pulling down statues of the gods? You mean like when Augustus declared himself a god?
I think you might want to investigate religion's role in the classical world just a tiny bit further. Seriously.
at March 3, 2006 9:52 PM
The errors in Filippo_28's post are nearly boundless... A drink to help the headache, Kafir Nonbeliever, may be in order...
These 5 words are a trove...
"After the fall of Rome..." is also an invention.
When exactly was that, Filippo_28? When do you date the fall of the Roman Empire? And which Roman Empire? The Eastern Empire? The Western? Did you even know there were two? Constantinople, which only fell in 1453 violent destructive Muslims -- preserved the entire legacy of the Romans and Greeks. A palimpsest was recently auctioned in NY containing the oldest known documentation of Archimedes, I believe it may have dated to the 8th or 9th Century -- a point at which Roman Christendom was still a sparkling and vibrant gem. You're correct that the so-called dark ages are also an invention, but beyond that, I think your "analysis" bears little resemblance to reality...
By this timeline, Rome fell just before the Renaissance got into high gear -- and the awful canard that we owe much of anything to the vile pillaging heathen Muslim is ludicrous.
Posted by: jsla at March 3, 2006 10:13 PM
should read:
"Constantinople, which only fell in 1453 to the violent destructive Muslims -- preserved the entire legacy of the Romans and Greeks."
Posted by: jsla at March 3, 2006 10:20 PM
--When exactly was that, Filippo_28? When do you date the fall of the Roman Empire? And which Roman Empire?
My errors are boundless? If u would have read my posting closer, u would have seen that I never said the Roman Empire fell, I said Rome fell. Rome as a civilization of course did not fall, but Rome the city did in fact collapse, and along with the decline of the city of Rome, its empire fell into many pieces.
--I think your "analysis" bears little resemblance to reality...
My central argument, that u did nothing to refute or challenge, is that Western civilization—and that includes science, human rights, and constitutional democracy—are the product of Christian metaphysics and philosophy. Ivy league historians such as James Woods and sociologist Rodney Stark have meticulously researched and substantiated this fact. Does their analysis bear “little resemblance to reality?” I would recommend u take a trip to the bookstore or library before u make your vacuous statements
Posted by: Filippo_28 at March 3, 2006 10:30 PM
Please. You refute yourself repeatedly!
You're the one erroneously conflating the "Fall of Rome" with the role of Christianity in the development of the "Western World."
Then there's this unsubstantiated whopper:
"Moslems gave them back to us!" (By "them" I presume you mean the Hellenistic intellectual legacy which I reiterate NEVER WAS LOST in Christendom or the "West"... or are you referring to the vague "new technologies [which] were widely adapted and recognized"? It's very confusing... if they were "new technologies" how could the Muslims give them "back"??? On and on it goes... )
and immediately following that gem is this:
"I shall remain silent about the chilling affect Christianity had on the sciences." (oh thank god for tender mercies...!)
But the you say this:
"The rise of science was not an extension of classical learning; it was the natural outgrowth of Christian metaphysics. This is why science and all its wonders grew in Christendom and not Islam. "
Well -- which is it? My head spins... Did the Muslims give Western science "back to us!" as you said? And then did Christianity have a "chilling effect" on the sciences, or do we owe our understanding of sciences to Christian "metaphysics" as you also state. All of the above? None of the above? It's such a confusing miasma of pablum...
Posted by: jsla at March 3, 2006 11:03 PM
Jsla, u are misquoting me. Those statements that u are attributing to me were the words of Kafir unbeliever, the secular fundamentalist, and I put them in my posting to refute his arguments.
Sorry, next time I will make sure to cite the comments that I post in my posting
Posted by: Filippo_28 at March 3, 2006 11:17 PM
That would be great.
Posted by: jsla at March 3, 2006 11:22 PM
With few exceptions, no one on this site is qualified to be telling anyone else to read more, including me. However, one doesn't need to be a condescending f*ck to get one's point across. Directed to no one in particular, the Greeks and Romans were no more 'secular' than anyone else. Their gods and other assorted supernatural constructs were as important to them and as much, if not more, a part of their daily lives as the J-Man, Mad Mo, etc.
You want to argue something not having to do with Islamic imperialism? How about the color to paint the tanks when we finally get around to being serious to send them to their "prophet"?
Posted by: Eisenhund at March 3, 2006 11:41 PM
Kifar Nonbeliever said,"when there is clear evidence of Christians acting in manners similar to Islamists', we must repudiate their actions as well. To fail to do so, gives Islam a counter weapon against us"..."Western secularism is what the Moslems fear/hate more than anything, not the attempt at converting Muslims to Christianity". Valid points indeed may l add.
Posted by: stranger at March 4, 2006 2:44 AM
KafirUnbeliever and jsla-
I think you're really on the same page here although you may not realize it.
Yes, the Muslim known by the western name of Averroes was responsible for reintroducing Aristotilian (not the right spelling, I know)thought/writings into western Europe, the effects of which had a profound effect on Thomas Aquinas. But it wasn't as if huge numbers of Muslims were reading the stuff, and it was considered quite controversial by certain Islamic theologians.
So, Thomas Aquinas' melding of "faith and reason" was established in Christian thought/doctrine from the late 1200's, but.....
It took the Renaissance (and the wholesale questioning of how could a just and righteous God send down a terrible plague -- the Black Death of the 1300s)and the slow decline of Church authority to really jumpstart what we know as modern science, medicine, etc. The scientific/medical knowledge of the ancient Greeks just didn't cut it any more, although some of the mathmatics was still workable, i.e. geometry.
The Islamic world experienced nothing comparable to the Renaissance, and to make matters worse, Quranic economic interdictions forbade any possible chance at anything remotely resembling an Industrial Revolution, which sent Western medicine and science into hyperdrive.
Would the Western world be the same today without Averroes planting that bug in the ear of Thomas Aquinas? Hard to say.
As for me, I wish those Muslims had managed to save more Greek drama!! Give me Aristophanes over Aristotle any day!!
Posted by: kafira at March 4, 2006 9:08 AM
"You mean like when Augustus declared himself a god?"
-Above
Declaring oneself:
[An] actual god/possessing the (exclusive) ability to commune with [a] god; or
Being the (exclusive) son of [a] god; or
Being the (exclusive) conduit to [a] god; or
[A] god's (exclusive) representative on earth; or
The prophet/divining rod of [a] god; or
To be an exclusive witness to the "miracles" of [a] god.
seems to be recurring theme. Does anyone see a pattern with the ancients (and some recents)?
Those who made the ridiculous claim of divinity three thousand years ago are somehow to be condemned, whereas those who make the same absurd claim just one thousand years later are still venerated (and worshiped) after making the same/similar ridiculous statement! Is this progress? This is why the dreaded Chinese will bury our sciences: we Americans are still primitives. Look no further than genetics and stem cells. This is only the beginning.
at March 4, 2006 11:25 AM
infidel pride & Shinoliite-
My main language is Smatterings.
As in "Smatterings Of".
Old high school Latin helped for the root inter-connectivity of many tongues.
And international friends - and travel- mingled in the rest.
As the very old saying goes:
"Magnas inter opes inops."
(Poor amid great riches.)
Posted by: profitsbeard at March 4, 2006 12:43 PM
“What would I suggest that the President do about this reality? I would suggest that he acknowledge it as a reality.”
What follows in that paragraph sounds an awful lot like The Speech. You are my hero Sir.
at March 4, 2006 1:00 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.)