Jihad Watch: Ralph Peters flailing in a fog of confusion

September 8, 2006

Ralph Peters flailing in a fog of confusion

Ralph Peters, retired military officer and author of several books on this present conflict, has published an op-ed in the New York Post entitled "Islam-Haters: An Enemy Within," which is one of the most confused and irresponsible pieces I have ever seen in an American newspaper -- and with the likes of S. I. Rosenbaum and Jim Ritter working the news beats, that's saying a lot.

Peters is exercised about "a rotten core of American extremists" -- right-wingers, of course, who are worse than Leftist appeasers because they insist that "Islam can never reform." If you "read between the lines, that all Muslims are evil and subhuman."

Zowie! Who are these awful, Hitlerian bigots? Peters never tells us. Nor does he give us even a shred of an example of how they imply (nudge nudge wink wink) in ways that are clear to discerning fellows like Ralph Peters, that "all Muslims are evil and subhuman."

Of course, not naming his opponents gives Peters a free pass to flail away, throwing everything but Der Stuermer and the kitchen sink at his shadowy opponents, and allowing himself the coward's retreat of being able to deny, if challenged by anyone, that he had him in mind. Well, I'm going to ask anyway. You talkin' to me, Ralph? You talkin' to me? I guess you must not be talking to me, since the people who have you so wrought up have sent you emails, and I have never sent you anything. But I nevertheless think it necessary to try to clear some of the fog of confusion you have billowed out here, since some -- only some -- of the points your villains make sound like some things I have said. Sort of. And more importantly, since some people will be taken in by your piece, as nutso as it is, and be thereby diverted from some important truths.

September 7, 2006 -- ISLAMIST fanatics attacked us and yearn to destroy us. The Muslim civilization of the Middle East has failed comprehensively and will continue to generate violence. The only way to deal with faith-poisoned terrorists is to kill them. And the world's only hope for long-term peace is for moderate Muslims - by far the majority around the globe - to recapture their own faith.

Peters' Assumption #1: the Islam of moderate Muslims is the genuine Islam, and all they need to do is "recapture" their faith. In fact it is not for Peters or any other non-Muslim to say what genuine Islam consists of, and there is no Pope of Islam to rule on what is Islamic orthodoxy and what isn't. What we can do is look at the teachings of the various sects and schools of law -- which I have done, and have found that all mainstream Sunni and Shi'ite sects and madhahib (schools of jurisprudence) teach that it is the responsibility of the umma to subjugate unbelievers under the rule of Sharia. Can Peters point to a sect or school that ever existed in any period of Islamic history that represents the Islam that moderates must "recapture"? Perhaps the Mutazilites? If so, can he explain how a modern revival of such a movement would escape the charges of Islamic heterodoxy that scuttled it in the first place?

But a rotten core of American extremists is out to make it harder for them.
The most repugnant trend in the American shouting match that passes for a debate on the struggle with Islamist terrorism isn't the irresponsible nonsense on the left - destructive though that is. The really ugly "domestic insurgency" is among right-wing extremists bent on discrediting honorable conservatism.

How? By insisting that Islam can never reform, that the violent conquest and subjugation of unbelievers is the faith's primary agenda - and, when you read between the lines, that all Muslims are evil and subhuman.

Here is Peters is setting up straw men, blurring distinctions and drawing unnecessary conclusions. I have never said that "Islam can never reform or that violent conquest and subjugation of unbelievers is the faith's primary agenda," and I certainly have never stated or implied in any way that "all Muslims are evil and subhuman." I have said, of course, that Islamic reform will be extraordinarily difficult, because of the closing of the gates of ijtihad, the understanding of the nature of the Qur'an, and other issues. I have also pointed out, as I said above, that violent conquest and subjugation of unbelievers is an element of the teaching of all Islamic sects (except the Ahmadiyya, who are persecuted as heretics as a result). This is simply a question of fact. Its truth or falsehood can be established by anyone who examines the teachings of the sects and madhahib. I invite all to do so -- and if you do, you will see that I am stating this accurately. Does this constitute the "primary agenda" of Islam? No. At some times and among some groups it has been central, but at other times and among others it has been for certain periods of time deemphasized almost to non-existence.

Above all, does the existence of this doctrine mean that "all Muslims are evil and subhuman"? That's just ridiculous. The existence of any religious doctrine, even if someone thinks it is false and wicked, doesn't make all those who hold it evil and subhuman. Those who are killing the innocent, or helping those who are killing the innocent, are certainly evil, if not subhuman. But within Islam, as within every belief tradition, there is a spectrum of knowledge and fervor.

I have never said or implied that all Muslims are evil or subhuman because of the doctrines of Islam, and neither has anyone else with even the smallest amount of awareness of human nature. If Peters is referring to me or anyone else who has published on Islam and terror -- Trifkovic, Bostom, Ibn Warraq, Bat Ye'or, or anyone else -- he would be hard-pressed to substantiate this outlandish charge from anything any of us has actually said or written.

I've received no end of e-mails and letters seeking to "enlighten" me about the insidious nature of Islam. Convinced that I'm naive because I defend American Muslims and refuse to "see" that Islam is 100 percent evil, the writers warn that I'm a foolish "dhimmi," blind to the conspiratorial nature of Islam.

Here again, he is just setting up a straw man. Let him document from any of the writers I named above any of these statements, or name these evil people he's talking about.

Web sites list no end of extracts from historical documents and Islamic jurisprudence "proving" that holy war against Christians and Jews is the alpha and omega of the Muslim faith. The message between the lines: Muslims are Untermenschen.

Web sites, eh? Yes, I have here at Jihad Watch on many occasions provided extracts from "historical documents" like the Qur'an and the approved hadith collections, as well as from Islamic jurisprudence, "proving" that holy war against Christians and Jews is part of (not the "alpha and omega of") the Islamic faith. You talkin' to me, Ralph? If so, come out from that hiding place and show me where I ever implied that "Muslims are Untermenschen." Or show me that I have misused these texts, since you appear to believe that Islam doesn't really teach these things. I'll be right here, at director@jihadwatch.org.

We've been here before, folks. Bigotry is bigotry - even when disguised as patriotism. And, invariably, the haters fantasizing about a merciless Crusade never bothered to serve in our military (Hey, guys, there's still time to join. Lay your backsides on the line - and send your kids!).
It's time for our own fanatics to look in the mirror. Hard. (And stop sending me your trash. I'll never sign up for your "Protocols of the Elders of Mecca." You're just the Ku Klux Klan with higher-thread-count sheets.)

As for the books and Web sites listing all those passages encouraging violence against the infidel, well, we could fill entire libraries with bloody-minded texts from the Christian past. And as a believing Christian, I must acknowledge that there's nothing in the Koran as merciless as God's behavior in the Book of Joshua.

Sure, Ralph. That's why there's a global terrorist movement of Christians committing violent acts and justifying them by quoting the Book of Joshua.

Peters' Assumption #2: Christianity and Islam are equally violent in their core texts (or maybe Christianity is more violent) and equally capable of inspiring violent fanaticism. This, of course, is a deeply held belief among many, many people. And like Peters, many of those people apparently believe that it would be a species of bigotry to suggest that Islam is more likely to inspire violence than Christianity. But here again, this is simply a question of fact. The Bible contains no open-ended, universal command to make war against and subjugate unbelievers, a la Qur'an 9:29. Muhammad commanded his followers to wage war against unbelievers who refused to convert to Islam, and to subjugate them as dhimmis (Sahih Muslim 4294). When did Jesus ever say anything like that?

Another trait common among those warning us that Islam is innately evil is that few have spent any time in the Muslim world. Well, I have. While the Middle East leaves me ever more despairing of its future, elsewhere, from Senegal to Sulawesi, from Delhi to Dearborn, I've seen no end of vibrant, humane, hopeful currents in the Muslim faith.

Well, Ralph, I've spent time in the Muslim world too. And everywhere I see cultural Islam in retreat and jihad advancing -- even in Dearborn, which I didn't realize until you just told me was part of the Muslim world. But anyway, there are reasons for the resurgence of the jihad ideology -- notably, the ability of jihadists to point to the Qur'an and Sunnah to justify their positions. But I expect you would just call them "bigotry."

As I have said many times, I am all for encouraging and working with moderate Muslims. But for their moderation to be effective, they have to confront, repudiate, and help other Muslims to repudiate the elements of Islam that are giving rise to violent fanaticism. Most self-proclaimed moderates instead simply deny those elements exist, while the mujahedin continue to use those same elements to recruit new members. And now Ralph Peters, in his fog of confusion, has just contributed to that destructive denial.

Posted by Robert at September 8, 2006 9:55 AM
Print this entry | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us

Comments
(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.)

Robert,

Yesterday's article by Ralph Peters took me aback. I have always have respect for this writer and for what he wrote has gotten me very outraged, days before the 5th anniversary of 9/11. I hope that the Saudi prince whom I have heard owns a percentage of stocks in the company that owns the NY Post has not been ill-treated him to the point that he is now a dhimmi.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106

at September 8, 2006 10:09 AM

Clearly, Ralph Peters shows no understanding of the nature of Islam. Were he to do so, then he would understand that it cannot be reformed.

Islam is what it is, what it always has been, and what it always will be. How can a 'religion' be reformed when the adherents of that religion believe that the Qur'an comprises the literal words of Allah? For if they are considered to be His literal words, then who would have the courage to try and change them? To do so would be considered heresy and a sign of disbelief.

This man's article is, to say the least, irresponsible. It also shows how ignorant he is.

The pity is that he has been allowed to disseminate his ignorance in the 'New York Post'. Doesn't this man realize that there's a war on?

Posted by: Mark Alexander

at September 8, 2006 10:09 AM

And so the noble Unicorn will rise up, repudiate Islam, and an a apostate horse have its head sawed off with a steak knife by an intense boy named Ahmed wearing one of those funny little doily hats like The Hoop wears when he apprears on Tim Russert.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer

at September 8, 2006 10:14 AM

Isn't it odd with all the Islamophobic hate mongers in this country that there are about
33% more hate crimes against
Asian/Pacific Islander 217
than against Muslims Islamic 156

So I don't really think Americans have become violently
Islamphobic since 2001

More wary of the dangers maybe?

How many Asian/Pacific Islanders have every hijacked an airline

Posted by: Dan Kauffman

at September 8, 2006 10:16 AM

In the New York Post ???!!!

It looks like the Saudi investment in Fox is paying higher and higher dividends.

/And BTW, yesterday evening at 7.31 PM I turned from FOXNews to Glenn Beck and WOW AND WONDER ! he was ACTUALLY talking about...the reality !!!
FoxNews has largely abandoned that kind of sport since the Saudi money got in.

Posted by: POITIERS-LEPANTO

at September 8, 2006 10:18 AM

I've always been one to search for what motivates people because it has saved my skin many times, I can only conclude this man has a vested interest and is more than likely making a good quid from a muslim acquaintance...

Posted by: eloivsdiablo

at September 8, 2006 10:27 AM

What a total disappointment. I used to respect that guy. I am so tired of these Vietnam era warriors telling Americans that “If you didn’t serve shut up. Well I have a question for you Ralph. Did anyone in you family tree serve during the American Revolution? No? Then you cant possibly understand anything about fighting for American freedom. I have already called my local recruiter, in response to the light unto the muslim world bologna and told him in no uncertain terms “Get your **** together or you aren’t getting my son. They agreed. I guess I need to make another call. Shut up and go sit on your porch, we need to win this thing and you aren’t helping.

Posted by: tgusa

at September 8, 2006 10:27 AM

As usual with critics of the "Jihad Awareness Movement", Peters fails to point out where those of us concerned about Islam's ingrained intolerance of Infidels and it's expansionist agenda have misinterpreted Islamic scripture, history and the statements Islamists themselves make. He falls into that old, false line about all religions being intolerant and calling Islam's critics bigots without engaging in a scholarly debate or at least backing up his points. He doesn't see anything in the Koran that matches God's intolerance in the Book of Joshua? He must be reading a sanitized copy provided by some Muslim apologist organization.

However, reality will not be denied. The Jihad will continue, more acts of barbarism lie ahead from the Religion of Peace. "Moderate" Muslims will continue to moan and groan about how they hope these acts won't increase Islamophobia instead of uniting with Infidels to combat "extremism." And hopefully more and more Infidels will continue to see the truth about Islam, regardless of what fools like Peters have to say.

Posted by: Proud Infidel

at September 8, 2006 10:29 AM

I know that this is not cricket on these sacred grounds, but would it be ok to mention at this juncture the nexus between Islam and Marxism?

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer

at September 8, 2006 10:43 AM

I read Peters' entire article. I think the disconnect is that Peters has deliberately (and perhaps disingenously) limited the nature of the threat to those radical Muslims who are violent; i.e., the ones committing terrorism as part of armed jihad. And as Peters says, that's a "minority of a minority"--why stigmatize the vast majority of Muslims who are non-violent?

Here's why: Many of us are also concerned about Muslims who want to overturn the basic pillars of Western society, even through peaceful means like the ballot box. Specifically, I'm referring to the 40% of Muslims in Britain who, in a recent poll, said they would prefer to live under sharia than under British law. There are similar percentages in other Western countries. Most are non-violent. But they will, if they can, bring lawsuits in court, elect representatives, and vote on plebiscites, in such a way as to advance their goals.

When nearly half the Muslims in a Western country want it to be run like Iran, you've got a problem even if no violence has taken place. If Ralph Peters wants to consider such concerns "right-wing extremism," that's his choice. I consider it patriotism.

Posted by: Steven L.

at September 8, 2006 10:47 AM

Who is this idiot? I've read his crap before, telling us how wonderful things are going in Iraq; is that the Peters in question?

So, Jihad Watch is 'the problem,' otherwise moderate Islam would somehow wake up and play nice? If only Little Green Footballs would cease and desist, Atlas Shruggs fall of the next, the Gates of Vienna would go offline, and if Hugh Fitzgerald would move to Napa Valley and lose his internet access: if these things would happen, Islam would breath deeply and 'moderate?' Yea, thats the ticket.

Yea, we need to stop mocking the prophet as well, right Ralph. Many of these people laughed about the 'aweful' Prophet cartoons. Maybe stop the bikinis and other Western vice to stop infuriating 'them.' He, Peters, is an idiot and should go back to focusing on Iraq the light onto the Universe project.

Posted by: biorabbi

at September 8, 2006 10:53 AM

biorabbi,

I will continue to laugh at those Danish cartoons because they are simply inocent satire, when in the Muslim world their newspapers post real ugly cartoons demeaning Jews and Christians.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106

at September 8, 2006 10:58 AM

Oh come now.

Islam was founded by the sword. Muhammad was a violent and repugnant person.

Islam teaches an extreme dichotomy between the Believers and the Infidel and that the Infidel is to be barely tolerated.

Yeah, yeah the Meccan surahs are full of me-too mis-quoted Old and New Testament stories, but the Meccan surahs abrogate all of the nice stuff.

The point is that a TRULY-BELIEVING-I-WANT-TO-LIVE-LIKE-MUHAMMAD
IN-THE-WAY-OF-ALLAH Muslim has zero compassion for non-Believers and thus has lost his humanity.

The excuse of the rest of the umma that they do not know what is in the Koran, just does not wash in the West, where any idiot can read Shakir in English at least to surah 9.

Islam cuts people off from the rest of humanity, it kills the soul and the intellect and is evil from the word go.

Why should we be under the obligation to accept it, just because?

Posted by: Ethelred

at September 8, 2006 10:58 AM

What part of "DEATH TO AMERICA" did he miss? Just keep on paying your jiyza Peters! And in case you forgot, there are 130,000 troops in Iraq fighting for YOUR right to print YOUR garbage.

Posted by: BIRDDDOG

at September 8, 2006 11:31 AM

Oh..and as for Islam....I hate it!

Posted by: BIRDDDOG

at September 8, 2006 11:32 AM

Thank you, Robert, for posting this thread and the information about the Peters' op ed piece. Generally, I have liked a lot of what Peters has written in the past, but this one has me floored. True, I have seen hints of this in the past from not just Mr. Peters' writing. For example, I have a lot of respect for Mr. Daniel Pipes, but I no longer agree with his central theme and thesis, which he enunciates quite often. Plus, now he has the President's ear. After I read a couple of your books, Robert, I picked up a Qur'an and started reading it, cover to cover, to see for myself what was in it. And I read it with a more discerning eye than the average layman, since I am theologically trained (an ex-Jesuit)and was looking not only what the text actually said but the overall image and idea of Allah, to juxtapose their god with the Father of Jesus and the Yahweh of the Jewish people. No comparison. The experience of Muhammed, in my opinion, was about as far away from our experience of God as you can get, and seemed to me to be a sacralizing of bedhouin culture, in all its savagery. In theological jargon, Muhammed "anthropomorphizes" his own experience and creates his own divinity. The Qur'an is also disjointed and is a literary mess, even accounting for the fact that I do not know classical Arabic. It reads like a litany of utterances, without nuance, story, rhyme, or reason. It is perhaps the most difficult piece of "literature" I have ever challenged myself with.

The vast majority of people in this country, like Col. Peters, simply are not aware of what is actually in traditional Islam's hermeneutics of its own texts. Plus, they need to read the texts themselves. Until this happens, this very clever disinformation and "damage control" being done by certain interests will have more cache than they should have. And it does indeed seem to be assiduously orchestrated these days...

I am also copying your posted thread to post to another weblog site, properly attributed, of course.

Please keep up the good work on this site and in your writing and research. This weblog is a place I log into daily for insight and analysis.

Posted by: Fred

at September 8, 2006 11:33 AM

Ralph Peters, another armchair retired military blowheart, should just sit and think before he puts ink to paper. Ralph Peters there is no more waiting for the "moderate muslim" to regain what ever you deem is regainable. The more you learn about islam the more you understand it has to go. the moderate muslim is like the "mythical unicorn", you cannot find it, you were told it exists somewhere. if Islam began today as a religion it would be regarded as a dangerous cult by even the far leftist of the liberal side of the Democrats, and EU.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess

at September 8, 2006 11:44 AM

Why doesn't this yahoo get as worked up over his fellow "christians'" treatment by muslims all over the world? I am sick to death of idiots like him taking the enemy's part.
There is a video on FNC site now telling us that muslims are really helping law enforcement to stop terrorism in the US. Maybe some are, but the videos' purpose is to soothe the dhimmis fears and cause us to forget what is happening to our society.

"I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future...But I'm not going to do anything violent to promote that. I'm going to do it through education." - Ibrahim Hooper CAIR Spokesman.

"Those who stay in America should be open to society without melting, keeping Mosques open so anyone can come and learn about Islam. If you choose to live here, you have a responsibility to deliver the message of Islam ... Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth." - Omar Ahmad Co-founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations

Posted by: Carolyn2

at September 8, 2006 11:45 AM

BTW, I watched Flight 93 last night....and I am p#**ed. Any "christian" that defends them is a dumbass.

Posted by: Carolyn2

at September 8, 2006 11:50 AM

"While the Middle East leaves me ever more despairing of its future, elsewhere, from Senegal to Sulawesi, from Delhi to Dearborn, I've seen no end of vibrant, humane, hopeful currents in the Muslim faith."

Speaking of bigotry, I remember somebody not too long ago stumping with the phrase 'the soft bigotry of low expectations.'

I can't wait for the humane and hopeful currents in the Muslim faith to take hold of its followers. The 'American extremists' are watching; and I think they place more stock in actions than hopeful currents.

Enjoy the cocktail circuit Ralph.

Posted by: limes

at September 8, 2006 12:00 PM

Murdoch always goes with the winners to protect his financial options for the future. He moved the Sun wot won it for Maggie Thatcher to Blair, now he's throwin' soirees for Hillary, and his NY Post is spitting in the eyes of its loyal Judeo-Christian conservative readership. Now there's no paper left to read in NYC!

Posted by: FallaciFan

at September 8, 2006 12:06 PM

Robert, You more than handled the strange rantings of Ralph Peters. He is an unhinged person. Keep in mind that this writer saw a parrallel between a U.S. soldier falling on a grenade to save his men and suicide bombers blowing themselves up on busses. I wanted to address his (often repeated) "chickenhawk" point about the necessity of having served to have a opionion. Basically this would have disqualified FDR from wartime leadership, who like Ralph Peters, never saw combat.

Posted by: JedWest

at September 8, 2006 12:06 PM

Ralph Peters solution to the Middle East was to redraw the map giving every group a piece of the pie.

Maybe no one ever explained what a effort in futility this would be.

He should go to Tehran, walk around without armed guards and see how long it takes to be kidnapped or killed. Or walk in Bagdad, or Mogadishu, or Jammuu, or any number of similiar places.

If he survives, he could then walk the streets of Miami, Atlanta, St Louis, Denver, San Francisco.

On which streets would he feel "safer".

WHO LOVES YA BABY.

Posted by: exsgtbrown

at September 8, 2006 12:11 PM

As for the books and Web sites listing all those passages encouraging violence against the infidel, well, we could fill entire libraries with bloody-minded texts from the Christian past. And as a believing Christian, I must acknowledge that there's nothing in the Koran as merciless as God's behavior in the Book of Joshua.

Ralph believing Christians dont judge GOD...get a clue.

Posted by: storagemanager

at September 8, 2006 12:12 PM

I have to wonder if this isn't one of the opening salvos for the fall campaign... was there not something about Democrats NOT talking about the terror problem this fall, as a means of getting the Public's attention off the issue? Which of course is another reason they are so upset about 'The Path to 9-11.'

I'm probably wrong... but it sure looks like Roberts went out of his way to sound exactly like the Kos-piracy nuts.

Ok. So he's not quite so virulent...

Posted by: Gary

at September 8, 2006 12:17 PM

The entire world is dividing up into camps. We're finding out which side of the moral divide they stand. It's a good thing that people like Peters reveal they are dhimmi collaboraters. We can keep an eye on him and now we know where he stands. He's not to be trusted.

Posted by: Kemaste

at September 8, 2006 12:26 PM

Murdoch is a joke. He has no conscience. He plays to the audience... PERIOD.

He owns Fox News and Sky News - Fox News is right and Sky News is left. They couldn't be more different.

He's like Clinton....change your position constantly to whatever will get you what you want.

Phoney

Posted by: The Goobs

at September 8, 2006 12:34 PM

Carolyn2~ expect nariz along at some point to explain to you why it is practically the Duty of a Christian to support such people. After all, he was the one who lumped us in with the muslim when he said 'three billion muslims' the other day.... or at least, I have seen him quoted as having said that here...

Posted by: Gary

at September 8, 2006 12:34 PM

P.S. I notified Fox News about the Chicago train station bomb and guess what? They didn't report it.

So, even Fox is going left?

Posted by: The Goobs

at September 8, 2006 12:35 PM

Ralph is one more of many leftist-infiltraitors who joined the US Armed Forces in order to undermine from within, (e.g. Rep.s J.F. Kerry, J. Murtha, C. Hagel, who infiltrated particularly in the late 1960's, the 1970's and beyond).
He represents a very small, yet growing minority fringe opinion, inside the US military ranks.
That he receives any MsM attention is proof of this, as a majority of US Armed Forces personnel have a 180 degree view as compared with that of Ralph Peters', in fact 90% or more do not hold such views. But this majority -or any representative of it - will never be given a public voice to express so.
Do not believe for one second, as the left and its propaganda wing -MsM- demands you do, that this infiltraitor is a majority representative of any past or present US Armed Force.

Posted by: TINBH

at September 8, 2006 12:39 PM

This guy (Peters) is a model useful idiot. He needs a copy of your books.

Posted by: squire

at September 8, 2006 12:42 PM

I have not commented here before, however, I regularly visit the site. I am not a scholar of Islam. I consider myself an average, thinking American. I am puzzled by Mr. Peters’ article.

Is Islamofascism a perversion of Islamic doctrine or an integral part of the doctrine itself?

Robert Spencer and other scholars have clearly demonstrated that Islamofascism is not a perversion, but an integral part of Muslim doctrine.

It should be obvious that this fact does not imply that all Muslims are Islamofascists. Just as each individual Christian and each individual Christian sect interpret and practice Christian doctrine differently, so individual Muslims and individual Muslim sects interpret and practice Islamic doctrine differently. Mr. Peters’ clearly recognizes this truth.

The truth Mr. Peters avoids is the truth that a clear difference between Islam and Christianity is the principle of theocratic rule. Christ was unambiguous in his teaching that Christians should render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and to God that which is God’s. Yes, Mr. Peters may find historic examples of “Christian” states, but clearly these states were early perversions of Christ’s teachings.

Mohammed was equally unambiguous in his advocacy of the theocratic state. Clearly, the Islamic state is not a perversion of his teaching, but the essential consequence of it. Because of this theocratic principle embodied in Islam, the philosophy becomes not a voluntary religion but a mandatory belief system as it subsumes all the coersive characteristics and mechanisms of state government. It is in this most important respect that Islam resembles a social philosophy rather than a religious philosophy.

When the social philosophers of fascism, Nazism and communism officially and totally seized the power structure in the governments of Italy, Germany and Russia in the past century, the question of whether or not these social philosophies were inherently dictatorial became moot. After their respective revolutions, Italian, German and Russian citizens no longer had the luxury of deciding such esoteric questions for themselves. In effect, these citizens ALL became fascists, Nazis or communists, or lost their lives. Whether these citizens actually believed in these destructive philosophies or whether they just went along to get along is moot. The reality was they had no choice but to follow, no means to peacefully change the minds of their keepers, and no effective power to resist the brutes in charge.

So, the question is: How do “moderate” Muslims or “ordinary” Muslims who believe theirs is a religion of peace, “recapture” their faith from the theocratic, doctrinaire and fundamentalist thugs who wield absolute power in a theocratic state over all Muslim citizens? Even “moderate” Muslims living in the relative safety of Dearborn, Michigan cannot avoid being cowed by their more fundamental Muslim colleagues, for they are ALL well aware that should they oppose the principle of a Muslim theocracy they would no longer be Muslim. And should they oppose the fundamentalist Muslim extremist colleagues in their midst they would be the first to pay the ultimate price should these thuggish colleagues ever succeed in seizing the power structure of the state.

Posted by: Sherman

at September 8, 2006 1:05 PM

I’m glad you had time to deal with Peters’ article in more detail than I was. I am reminded of ibn Warraq’s quote: “there are moderate Muslims but there is no moderate Islam.” If I remember correctly, the quote is from his forward to this book.

Posted by: JasonP

at September 8, 2006 1:14 PM

Think about Hooper's statement:
"I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future...But I'm not going to do anything violent to promote that. I'm going to do it through education." - Ibrahim Hooper CAIR Spokesman.

How is he going to"educate" us?
Bukhari:V4B54N482 “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘The Hell Fire complained to its Lord saying, “O my Lord! My different parts are eating each other up.” So, He allowed it to take two breaths, one in winter, the other in summer. This is the reason for the severe heat and bitter cold you find in weather.’”

Tabari I:232 “Gabriel brings to the sun a garment of luminosity from the light of Allah’s Throne according to the measure of the hours of the day. The garment is longer in the summer and shorter in the winter, and of intermediate length in autumn and spring. The sun puts on that garment as one of you here puts on his clothes.”

Tabari I:233 “When the Messenger was asked about that, he replied, ‘When Allah was done with His creation He created two suns from the light of His Throne. His foreknowledge told Him that He would efface one and change it to a moon; so the moon is smaller in size.”
Tabari I:234 “Allah thus sent Gabriel to drag his wing three times over the face of the moon, which at the time was a sun. He effaced its luminosity and left the light in it. This is what Allah means: [in Qur’an 17:12] ‘We have blotted out the sign of the night, and We have made the sign of the day something to see by.’ The blackness you can see as lines on the moon is a trace of the blotting.”

Tabari I:234 “Then the Prophet said: ‘For the sun and the moon, Allah created easts and wests on the two sides of the earth and the two rims of heaven. There are 180 springs in the west of black clay-this is why Allah’s word says: “He found the sun setting in a muddy spring.” [18:86] The black clay bubbles and boils like a pot when it boils furiously.’”

Tabari I:244 “Allah then created for the sun a chariot with 360 handholds from the luminosity of the light of the Throne and entrusted 360 of the angels inhabiting the lower heaven with the sun and its chariot, each of them gripping one of those handholds. Allah also entrusted 360 angels with the moon.”

THAT EDUCATION, Hooper?

Posted by: Carolyn2

at September 8, 2006 1:16 PM

If I remember correctly, the quote is from his forward to this book. (corrected link)

Posted by: JasonP

at September 8, 2006 1:18 PM

Can not forget these...

Tabari I:267 “And Allah taught Adam all the names as follows: He taught him the name of everything, down to fart and little fart.”

Bukhari:V9B87N115 “If you spit on the left side of your bed the bad dream will not harm you.”

hari:V7B71N590 “The climate of Medina did not suit some people so the Prophet ordered them to drink camel urine as a medicine.”

i:V2B21N245 “A person slept in and missed the morning prayer. So the Prophet said, ‘Satan urinated in his ears.’”

Bukhari:V4B54N516 “The Prophet said, ‘If anyone rouses from sleep and performs ablution, he should wash his nose by putting water in it and then blow it out thrice because Satan has stayed in the upper part of his nose all the night.’”

That is only a tiny bit of islamic science.

Posted by: Carolyn2

at September 8, 2006 1:31 PM

"Even “moderate” Muslims living in the relative safety of Dearborn, Michigan cannot avoid being cowed by their more fundamental Muslim colleagues, for they are ALL well aware that should they oppose the principle of a Muslim theocracy they would no longer be Muslim."

Exactly. Well said, Sherman.

Posted by: Infidel33

at September 8, 2006 1:45 PM

Random lemming: "Group hug!"

Peters: "Um..Ali, have you gained some weight recently?"

Ali Gotzagunja: "Allahu Akbar!!"

Peters: "Oh, crap."

----

These last minutes of the First Annual Ralph Peters 'Love Thy Muslim Neighbors' convention in Dearborn, Michigan brought to you by a concerned American citizen.

Posted by: Foehammer

at September 8, 2006 1:55 PM

Retired US Army officer? Go figure. Officers were usually the last to find out the truth about anything when I was in the navy, but besides that, he should come to realize that truth isn't bigotry, sit down, cozy up and read the Quran. Willing to bet that this clown at one time worked for the State Department over at Foggy Bottom; the name sounds vaguely familar to me.

Posted by: uskafir

at September 8, 2006 2:09 PM

Assalamau Laikum all,

Please excuse me for being off topic for a moment. On a different thread peoples like 1069 and IP expressed alarm and concern when they heard that the Pak government is banning certian sites and could include JW..and hence lose contact with me, Naseem.

Let me put you all at ease and say that I will be right here...you need not fear me disappearing.

You see due to our business connections, my son has set up something called a VPN across the internet to an ISP in another country. By all accounts he says it is like a private tunnel. The ban would not affect me unless there was a ban at the far end.

Further he says it is protected by DES (I don't know what that is, but he said it was some sort of electronic key, which could take several days to decode, provided you stay on line). He said that he asked for 3des but this was allowed by the infedel/Kafur 3rd country to Pak.

So, by all accounts this ban will not affect you know who.

With my knowledge of Islam, I will be right here to guide you through conversion and beyond.

1069, IP never fear, Naseem is here. With that good news ...over to you.

Posted by: Naseem

at September 8, 2006 2:17 PM

Ralph Peters' article exposes his ignorance of the nature of the Mohammedan belief system in Western society, and the fact that he is a retired military officer should have no bearing on his journalistic abilities. He should aim his pen in the direction of the effeminate purveyors of moral equivalence and political correctness, the true "enemy within", and not toward men who are speaking the truth and trying to preserve a nation.

Clearly, from an historical perspective, Mohammedanism fosters and perpetuates all of the characteristics detrimental to the future of freedom and liberty in the Western world, and indeed, to the continued enlightened advancement of human civilization. Encountered singly, the majority of Mohammedans exhibit the qualities of kindness and courtesy one would expect of any citizen, but it is at the doorway of the mosque and beneath the cover of the Quran where the paths of peaceful Christian and Mohammedan coexistence diverge.

Christian faith and cultivated Western society work on the principles of freedom of thought and expression, good will toward one's fellow man, and the individual rights afforded ALL its members, and is progressive by its very nature. Directly opposed is Mohammedism, an improvident system, that represses its female adherents, demands the submission of nonbelievers, and worships the teachings of its brutal founder.

By 21st century standards, Mohammedanism must be seen as subhuman.

Posted by: Kreuzueber Halbmond

at September 8, 2006 2:26 PM

I, as always, am glad to have you back Naseem and would have hated for you to be gone.

I continually pray that you and your Islamic brothers and sisters will learn the truth by reading these pages, before it is too late for you my friend.

Again, glad to have you around.

Jam47

Posted by: Jam47

at September 8, 2006 2:36 PM

Hi, everyone. This is my first post -- I've been lurking on JW/DW for over 2 years now. Mr. Spencer, I want to express my gratitude for this site and the work that you are doing. I have referred many people to your website and your books to educate themselves about the current geopolitical situation.

I work in a facility run by the Mennonites, who are conscientious objectors. Being Catholic myself, I am intrigued by their "peaceful" worldview. What I've observed is the same "fog of confusion" that Mr. Spencer observes in Ralph Peters. Of course, peaceful conflict resolution should always be the best course of action, but what do we do about people wish to destroy us and refuse to negotiate? Some of the responses that I've observed at my place of work are: (1) deny the truth, (2) ignore the truth, (3)blame the situation on someone who won't retaliate (eg. the Jews, the Bush Administration), (4) come up with some alternative explanation of what the truth really is, (eg. conspiracy theories), (5) distort the truth that is being presented in order to "shoot it down", or (5) shoot the messenger. When I suggested to a co-worker that she should read the Koran before jumping to the conclusion that terrorists are "misinterpreting" Islam, she said "I don't think I should read the Koran, because there are probably things in it that will upset me."

I find it difficult to wrap my mind around a world view that can't stand up to the truth. Truth seems to create tremendous cognitive dissonance with these "peaceful" types, and I fear that this worldview will ultimately cost a lot more lives than it will save.

Posted by: HoosierGal

at September 8, 2006 2:41 PM

With my knowledge of Islam, I will be right here to guide you through conversion and beyond.

1069, IP never fear, Naseem is here. With that good news ...over to you.

Naseem if you have any brain cells left over for reason you would leave islam faster than you can say pakistan. lol..
how in one's mind can you follow a child rapist molester, slayer of innoncent people called mohammud? with your knowledge read Robert Spencer's upcoming book on the real mohammud. if you have the nerve to follow truth, you will humbly ask for forgiveness for allowing yourself to be manunipulated by such an evil ideology. if you want look towards Budda or Jesus, these men followed the path that one author said once, less travelled.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess

at September 8, 2006 2:46 PM

Mr. Peters,

This immigration is ahistorical, and our grandchildren will wish it had not happened.

Have you glanced at Andrew Bostom's book, The Legacy of Jihad? Islam is a social order, far more than a religion. It won't change; it is what it is, Muhammed's self-serving "dictation" fantasy.

If we need to be wise as to when and where to mention the danger... does that mean that it is wise to speak falsely, as you have?

The phrase "fifth column" is unpleasant but exactly true.

Posted by: StillBreathing

at September 8, 2006 2:52 PM

A comment on Peters's seeming inability to sit down with the texts, and his willingness to substitute his own anecdotal evidence (a visit to Senegal, his impressions of the marabouts, that sort of thing -- no different from what Madeleine Albright or Tom Friedman do when they collect their impressions, or what Paul Wolfowitz did when he learned all about Islam as the dynamic, take-charge, get-out-in-the-field ambassador in Jakarta):

Here is one comment from a 2004 appearance:

"Ralph Peters is a retired officer who is often sensible about the uses of military force, and he takes a dim view of the Arabs. He is also said to be a scholarly sort, with books in Russian and German in his library (at least, this is what the articles about him unfailingly convey). So why doesn't he exercise the same caution, and engage in the same kind of mental preparation, in proceeding to make assumptions, and utter pronouncements, about Islam -- especially since, what with the dreamy idea that Occupied Iraq is not a whit different in its prospects from Occupied Germany or Occupied Japan after World War II (and all those who claim differently must either be appeasers, or Nay-Sayers, when in fact some of those Nay-Sayers want the "Light Unto the Muslim Nations" Project stopped not because they do not worry about Islam, but because they really worry about it, and worry most not about the "war on terror" but about the likely islmaization, through Da'wa and demography, of Western Europe, and having studied the history of Islam, agree with Reza Afshari and Ibn Warraq and Ali Sina that the sharia and human rights, are flatly incompatible (free conscience, free speech, equal treatment of women and minorities are all impossible under the Sharia, or under a legal system, that "takes its inspiration" from the sharia, as the Egyptian legal code does, or as the "new" Iraqi Constitution, which gave in so much to the Islamists, infuriating Allawi (he could not have been pleased with the naivete of Noah Feldman et al).

This unwillingness to study Islam -- study first the Qur'an and a few hundred of the hadith, and then the sira, or to immerse oneself in the classic scholarship about Islam ("classic" meaning not the shallow apologetics of the past 40 years, which includes Esposito, Sells, Ernst, et al)--means that no one, and that includes those whose instincts and heart may be in the right place, but who have not permitted their minds to follow -- has a right to utter an opinion about Islam without such study, or at least paying attention to those who have engaged in such study.

One hopes, in the case of Peters, that he will allow himself the leisure to read -- beginning, perhaps, with Bat Ye'or's "The Decline of Eastern Christiantiy Under Islam" and then, perhaps, looking at Muir's biography of Muhammad (not outdated), at Ibn Warraq's "Why I Am Not a Muslim," and at a number of the articles to be found on-line at www.secularislam.org and www.faithfreedom.org. Ibn Warraq's essay on the similarities between "Islam and Fascism" should also be studied.

If Ralph Peters is reading too much Schwartz et al in the pages of The Weekly Standard, that might explain the problem. Amir Taheri is the best of their writers on Islam, but even he has to, at time, pull his punches.

[Posted by: Hugh at November 17, 2004 12:58 PM]

I was too hopeful that he would start to study, too trusting that he would not substitute his own anecdotal evidence for study of Islamic tenets, immersion in Qur'an and Hadith and Sira, and further immersion in the history of Isalmic conquest and subsequent subjugation of non-Muslims. Instead, this "author of 21 books" substituted his own travels, his own brief encounters, in countries where he did not know the languages (but he is careful to demonstrate, on every conceivable and some not-so-conceivable occasions, his knowledge of Russian and, especially, German), and the Muslims he saw were not in the Arab lands, but on the periphery, in countries where specific local conditions had diluted the effect of Islam, had blended it with local easygoing ways and easygoing customs (those marabouts of which he speaks, for example -- and of which V. S. Naipaul also writes with far greater keenness in his "Among the Believers" and "Beyond Belief").

Ralph Peters fails to see that where he finds Islam acceptable, or unmenacing, it may be for reasons having to do with the fact that the Muslims he sees are not the full-blooded thing. It would be as if he took the Ahmadi sect -- treated as non-Muslims by the orthodox -- as representative of Islam, or took Andrey Sakharov as a representative product of Soviet Communism, or Oskar Schindler as a typical member of the Nazi Party. He sees, but uncomprehendingly.

Of course, on those lightning-tours, to places where neither English nor German nor Russian (his apparent languages) are spoken, where he is an Important Personage, where those to whom he is introduced are those who would not mind meeting this Important American Personage, and whose Islam, modified by syncretism and local custom, is not the real thing but Islam Diluted, Islam Minus -- diluted by easygoing ways, diluted by the lack of knowledge, or lack of fervor, of the locals.

He comments on Senegal. But why not ask black Africans from Niger, students in France, who return to Niger from time to time, what they have to say about the effect of Saudi money and Saudi mosques and Saudi-funded madrasas on the practice of Islam in Niger -- where that syncretism, and those marabouts, are on the run, and everywhere,now, the once-unknown burqa can be seen.

I was too kind to Peters. I believed him capable, though a product and participant, apparently, in the Cold War, of being able to learn new and sometimes difficult things. The difficulty comes first in learning the doctrine, and then in seeing how the phrase "moderate" Muslim is distinctly unhelpful, because there is no bright line separating the "moderate" from the "immoderate" Muslim, and the "moderate" in mnay ways furthers the Jihad -- which Peters apparently conceives of only as one involving violence as its instrument, rather than recognizing that jihad fi sabil Allah is the struggle to spread Islam, by whatever means are most effective, including the use of the money weapon, campaigns of Da'wa, and demographic conquest. He leaves all this out. In this respect, he is a True Believer in the Administration and in the policy, based on the smug assumption that there is no problem with Islam, but only with those "terrorists" who "hate freedom" -- and which has led to tarbaby Iraq, and the squandering of men, money, and materiel, now too obvious to hide.

And while Peters, that ex-military man who is careful to bring journalists to his home to see his library of German and Russian books, which never fail to be mentioned, as if that were a guarantee of something, he appears not, after all, to be such a great reader, such a dutiful student. It was permissible on 9/10/2001 to know nothing about Islam. In the five years since, it has become impermissible for any one to comment on Islam without having studied it first.

And he has not.

In that comment, from 2004, I was too hopeful, too kind.

Posted by: Hugh

at September 8, 2006 3:10 PM

"And, invariably, the haters fantasizing about a merciless Crusade never bothered to serve in our military..."

Really Ralph? That's funny. The DD214 with my name on it says otherwise.

Posted by: Eisenhund

at September 8, 2006 3:16 PM

Ralph Peters also had a piece, one of those Grand Schemes that people like to throw out, whereby all the borders all over the Middle East would somehow be withdrawn. This is the kind of silly thing that some like to play with, as if it is a substitute for, and superior to, sensible measures, such as that, for example, of identifying, and then doing nothing to remedy but everything to exploit, the natural pre-existing fissures within the Camp of Islam. That would be too boring for Ralph Peters. Besides, in his view Islam is not the problem, but rather such things as borders that can be rectified, and those who think otherwise are islamophobes and hysterical peddlers of hate. I leave it to readers of his full article above to discern whether it is he, or the principals at this website, who are hysterical in both their manner and their proposals.

My comment on the Grand Scheme of Border Changes Hither and Yon was as follows:

"Not possible, but an independent Kurdistan is morally, and more importantly, geopolitically, to our, Infidel, advantage. It would be a disturbing threat to both Iran and Syria, and Kurdistan's claims on the Kurdish-populated areas of both Iran and Syria should and could be backed.

But what, some say, of Turkey, that they chose to describe, quite backdatedly (it's not the 1950s or the 1960s anymore) as "our NATO ally Turkey." Turkey is a member of NATO. But the main reason for NATO's existence in the past was the military threat posed by the Soviet Union, and Turkey, which was happy to collaborate in efforts to contain its ancient enemy Russia, was a good ally. But how good an ally can Turkey, with Islam in the ascendant and Kemalism under constant siege (only now are the Turkish secularists becoming aroused and fighting back against sly Erdogan and his troops), be if the main purpose of NATO is now to protect Western Europe, and preserve the Western alliance, from those who, within Europe, either Muslims or collaborators with Muslims (stupidity, cupidity, and timidity together providing the Esdrujula Explanation which I put forth at this site some time ago -- Copyright Office please take notice). Turkey is part of the damn problem, the problem of Islam, not part of the solution. Kurdistan, for complicated reasons, including a long history of enduring persecution and even mass murder at the hands of the "purest" Muslims -- that is, the Arabs whose ethnicity does not detract from, but merely reinforces, identification with Islam. Kurdistan could, if the Americans back it, a power with its own oil, and would always have to rely on the Americans for support.

What could Kurdistan do for us? It could concentrate on emphasizing "Kurdishness" and slowly, but surely, de-emphasizing the role of Islam, that "gift of the Arabs" that keeps on giving. It could provide a haven for Iraq's Christians, and prove its goodwill by punishing any Kurds who have behaved or intend to behave islamically (we know what that means) toward those Christians.

What about other map redrawings? We should not care whether or not Qatar or Kuwait or Abu Dhabi or any of the other sheikdoms any other place is bullied by a larger neighbor, but of course being indifferent, we could also charge a very large fee to protect Qatar, Kuwait, and other statelets from Saudi Arabia, or Iran, or even a conceivably intact Iraq. At the moment we appear to be so grateful for the use of bases. We are selling ourselves, and our implied protection, cheap -- far too cheap for what the Al-Sabah and Al-Thani and Al-Maktoum and the other ruling families could and should be paying. They not only need our protection, but they need the assurance that their assets abroad will remain intact, and not turned over to successor regimes. They need all kinds of things, and it is the Americans who appear not to realize this, nor to charge nearly enough for their services. Tens of billions annually should be the figures bruited about -- has no one ever neogiatied in an Arab souk? Does no one know how to deal with these people?

Christians in the Middle East should also be encouraged, on a one-for-one basis, to replace Muslim Arabs who should be forced out of the West Bank. It should be made clear to them that the farce of the "one-state solution" is over, that the farce of the invented "Palestinian people" will soon be over, and that the Israelis will not surrender, will not be allowed to surrender. If Olmert proceeds with his crazed plan as formerly announced, it is up to the American government to discourage or prevent him -- neither Judge Reinhardt's Ninth Circuit, nor the Supreme Court, nor the World Court, nor any court of the mind one can imagine, would ever sanction Ally-Assisted Suicide. The Western world would become unhinged, in more ways than one, if Israel were forced to surrender still more territory, including control of the aquifers, and forced to live in a condition of maximum peril until such time as the Muslim Arabs could, at long last, go in for the kill. [It would do the kind of secret moral damage, create the kind of wounds, that were caused the Western world, in ways scarcely recognized, by the genocide of the Jews during World War II.] Christians or those who are no longer Christians because they cannot believe, but recognize the great and civilizing value of Christianity if practiced correctly, should stake a physical claim to the Holy Land, and not leave the Jews of Israel alone to stave off the Muslims. Middle Eastern Arabic-speaking Christians, such as those now in Iraq, may wish to consider moving to eastern Judea and Samaria (the "West Bank" as it was ridiculously renamed by the Jordanians in 1948, and even more ridiculously, that name became standard in the Western world, reather than the toponyms that had been in use for several millennia, and were good enough for, inter alia, Jesus of Nazareth). Christians in the West could agree to spend a year or two, as living witnesses, living in Israel, and possibly deliberately choose to live in that area now called "the West Bank."

But the Muslim Arabs should be encouraged in every possible way to leave that area, for if they realize that the Israelis are not going to leave, not now and not ever, and that Christian refugees from Islam will be moving in, they will not stay for ever. They are not "bearing witness" to anything. They are simply there as the shock troops of the Jihad, and if their lives are made sufficiently difficult, some of them, perhaps many of them, will see the reasonableness of leaving. Why should they sacrifice themselves on the altar of Jihad, if the Saudis and the Kuwaitis and all the others do nothing or so very little to support them?

[Posted by: Hugh at July 8, 2006 01:40 PM]

Posted by: Hugh

at September 8, 2006 3:18 PM

confused?!

Check this eeedjut out:-

slam is not the enemy By Charles C. Haynes

Posted by: Eighteen 21

at September 8, 2006 3:19 PM

Re "Reform" and JihadWatch:

One of the consistent points Robert and Hugh make is that Islam is the only major religion with a developed theology that mandates violence against unbelievers, that there may be Muslims that ignore that mandate(probably the great majority), but that until the Jihad obligation of violence in Islam is confronted by all, Jihad will continue to be a danger to "Infidels" and Muslims alike.

The site makes the point that until that fact is confronted, debated, openly discussed, until the problem is named, Jihad will have power over peace loving Muslims. If there is to be reform in Islam this fact must be confronted by Muslims and non-Muslims: Islam is the only major religion with a developed theology that mandates violence against unbelievers. The other major religions are not = to Islam in that.

There are other aspects of Islam that need to be addressed (dhimmitude, etc.), but it is critical that the issue of mandated violence against unbelievers be discussed, without any hypocritical charges of "Islamophobia", or any other manipulative appeals to emotion, that get in the way of the truth.

Posted by: Frank

at September 8, 2006 3:37 PM

No one, not even the self righteous and all knowing Ralph Peters can stop the American people and the peoples of the West from discovering the truth about Islam.

I have been to the Middle East, am quickly learning to read and write Arabic and have read the Qur'an from cover to cover in English and Arabic (what a schizophrenic experience) and it is one of the most violent religious texts, at time it dominates the Muslims life with mind boggling minutia, the Bible even the Old testament is child's play by comparison.

Ralph Peters, has lost all credibility with me.

Ditto for O'Reilly. Glen Beck becomes more interesting everyday.

As storm clouds gather on the horizon and the world takes a step everyday towards a cataclysmic confrontation with Islam, the comments of Peter's become more and more irrelevant if not dangerous.

This is a war we did not choose to fight, but one we must win.

Posted by: El Cid

at September 8, 2006 3:46 PM

A belief system with a well developed theology of mandated violence against unbelievers is not a religion of peace. That is the truth.

Posted by: Frank

at September 8, 2006 3:50 PM

I read the article at the NYP page.

Never heard of the man before, but he sounds just like any "mainstream" conservative, the Grover Norquist type, who (according to Paul Sperry in his book inflitration, not only cofounded the Islamic Institute with a terrorist, but runs around calling people who criticize Islam..bigots, also sounds like Bill Oreilly who called people who rebuked Bush's plan (which finally succeeded) to give the ports to Dubai Ports world.."Islamophobes".

Who can disagree with this statement of Peters

Does Islam foster practices that inhibit progress or integration into the modern (and postmodern) world? Yes, as practiced in the greater Middle East, from the Nile to the Indus. Our "allies," the Saudi ruling family, are the embodiment of evil - but they've done far more damage to the Muslim world than to us.

Peters didn't have anything savory to say about "leftists", but let his own words speak

The most repugnant trend in the American shouting match that passes for a debate on the struggle with Islamist terrorism isn't the irresponsible nonsense on the left - destructive though that is. The really ugly "domestic insurgency" is among right-wing extremists bent on discrediting honorable conservatism.

"Irresponsible nonsense on the left and right wing extremists..(note he doesn't call the right wing extremists, just mentions extremists on the right, much like Bush et al talks of Islamic fascists as opposed to those "regular good guy, moderate, peace loving Muslims". LOL.

So we have Bush's and Peters and Oreilly's and Norquists average, ordinary, everyday, peaceful good guy muslims and the "extremists", the Islamo fascists. And we have the average, ordinary, everyday, peaceful good guy right winger and the "extremists" the right wing fascists.

An interesting article: Reclaiming The Issues: Islamic Or Republican Fascism?

Excerpt:

On the right,The John Birch Society's website editor recently opined of the Bush Administration's warrantless wiretap program: "This is to say that from the administration's perspective, the president is, in effect, our living constitution. This is, in a specific and unmistakable sense, fascist."

On the left, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. specifically indicts the Bush administration for fascistic behavior in his book "Crimes Against Nature: How George W. Bush and his Corporate Pals Are Plundering the Country and Hijacking Our Democracy."

Genuine American fascists are on the run, and part of their survival strategy is to redefine the term "fascism" so it can't be applied to them any more. Most recently, George W. Bush said: "This nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation."

In fact, the Islamic fundamentalists who apparently perpetrated 9/11 and other crimes in Spain and the United Kingdom are advocating a fundamentalist theocracy, not fascism.

But theocracy - the merging of religion and government - is also on the plate for the new American fascists (just as it was for Hitler, who based the Nazi death cult on a "new Christianity" that would bring "a thousand years of peace"), so they don't want to use that term, either.

While I agree with Peters and Thom Hartmann about the new fascism, the Republican Fascism, I disagree with them about Islam and their ignorant attempt to seperate a theocracy from fascism.

Islam is indeed fascist, but it is not the only fascism that plaques our world and society.

Ah, The 14 Defining Characteristics of Fascism which applies not only to much of those who now consider themselves the Christian right, but also to Islam.

Posted by: Nariz

at September 8, 2006 3:55 PM

Ralph was on the Laura Ingram show this morning. I didn't know it was Peters when I tuned in but she asked him "who are these right wing haters". He was very vague and never said anyone or ny group specifically.

Last week Laura had some muslim republican representative (I forget his name) who was blathering a lot of nonsense. The usual mantra of "Islam literally means peace". I always thought islam meant submit.

Posted by: TooBad

at September 8, 2006 3:58 PM

"How? By insisting that Islam can never reform, that the violent conquest and subjugation of unbelievers is the faith's primary agenda - and, when you read between the lines, that all non-Muslims are evil and subhuman."

With only the change of of Muslims to "non-Muslims", this is the truth re those (BinLaden, etc.) who claim to represent "true Islam". Peters has correctly identified the problem, but not the enemy.

Posted by: Frank

at September 8, 2006 4:13 PM

Eightteen 21...He is also paying a jiyza. I wonder how many mosques he has visited? I wonder if he even speaks arabic? He can go visit whenever he wants to and let us know what he thinks...but i'll pass.

Posted by: BIRDDDOG

at September 8, 2006 4:13 PM

First of all, I would like to ask Mr. Peters PERSONALLY where the following quote appears: "and when the forbidden months have ended, slaughter the non-believers everyhere they are found; besiege them, capture them, torture them, prepare every stratagem of warfare against them; levy the tax upon them if they convert to the ways of al-lah..." and EXACTLY WHO HE THINKS THE NON-BELIEVERS ARE AND WHO HE THINKS THIS PASSAGE IS BEING DIECTED TOWARDS AND WHY. Although answering these questions is a 'nobrainer' for anyone reading Jihad Watch for others such as Peters it is a stretch that lies outside their ken at present.

Obviously Peters hasn't a clue and is swimming up Sh*t Creek. If he had any clue at all, he would IMMEDIATELY REALIZE THAT Islam categorically assigns those who do not follow its doctrines the status of enemy--with possibly fatal consequences for the 'non-believing' enemy of Islam. And THAT understanding would lead him to the logical conclusion that America's mortal enemies (and his won too) are MUSLIMS and Islamic doctrine--and not "Islam-haters."

Anyway, is loathing persons who blindly believe that targeting people for first-degree murder on the basis of a belief really so terrible? or is it an intelligent and natural response? Would categorizing such beliefs as inherently 'evil'b e off the mark, really?? Peters can not answer that because he has no real grasp of Islamic doctrine. SO he offers us red herrings instead.

Islam makes no bones about eliminating human freedom--that is why this creed calls itself 'submission' since the individual has no choice but to consign his total being and conscience over to 'al-lah' and it is the Muslims' duty to spread al-lah's agenda everywhere--including America. Any imam will tell you this much. So, doesn't this guy Peters believe in freedom anymore? If not, HE IS NO FRIEND OF AMERICA HIMSELF. Islam does not permit liberty for individuals anywhere and thus has destroying America on its list of "things to do." According to Islamic doctrine, the US Constitution is illegitimate and America must be destroyed. And Islamic groups are working on this day and night, night and day across the world and around the clock. Peters might want to redefine the 'enemy'--especially if he values liberty and democracy as Islam does not, as we have mentioned.

I dare say that this man painted himself into an intellectual corner through his usage of the concept of "left wing" vs. "right wing" political philosophy--which I think most of us can now see is an outmoded concept. What matters politically to our society is UNDERSTANDING OF REALITY and using our knowledge to obtain the optimal political good. Placing "left" and "right" parameters may be useful at times in gauging the political character of some individuals but it is putting people and ideas into boxes which is COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE since what matters most to our society is THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX."

Somebody needs to tell this guy to start thinking "outside the box" and develop ideas of intrinsic value instead of rehashing outdated political pigeon-holing which is taking America and its people NOWHERE in a big hurry at a time when an infusion of fresh, intelligently-conceived approaches to the problems we face on the homefront and abroad is urgently needed.

I will also mention that the only way anyone will ever be able to make sense of the global jihad crisis is to educate themselves. That means reading parts of the Kuran and at least making an attempt to see what Islam's 14 centuries on earth has done to the world (it ain't pretty, to put it nicely). Peters hasn't done his homework which compounds his problems. Peters clearly doesn't know what the hell he is talking about! And oddly, he exploits that and substitutes sentiment for knowledge of the subject that he conspicuously lacks. He wouldn't even know if he was being a dhimmi, so bereft of knowledge on this matter is he.

Maybe this guy and his obsolete ideas should be mummified--that is, if he doesn't get us all killed first.

Posted by: pythagoras

at September 8, 2006 4:36 PM

'But theocracy - the merging of religion and government - is also on the plate for the new American fascists (just as it was for Hitler, who based the Nazi death cult on a "new Christianity" that would bring "a thousand years of peace"), so they don't want to use that term, either'~ nariz

Yep, nose: a 'new' Christianity.

One Devoid of the TRUTH of the Bible.

One devoid of the REAL Jesus.

One in which the Catholic Church in Europe would have been wiped from the face of the Earth.

But of course, you have NO desire to mention any of that.

Maybe the person who quoted you as saying there are '3 billion muslims' is correct: you ARE one of them.

Posted by: Gary

at September 8, 2006 5:02 PM

"I think the disconnect is that Peters has deliberately (and perhaps disingenously) limited the nature of the threat to those radical Muslims who are violent; i.e., the ones committing terrorism"

Peters is only dutifully following the PC Multiculturalist template, according to which Islam itself must always be detached from any bad things any Muslims do, and if any dares to hint that one source (even just one source, let alone the main source) of the problem might lie within Islam itself, he must be ostracized as a bigot.

If only Peters were not a voice of the majority, and Spencer not a voice of a small minority. We're still in the upsidedown world of Alice's Wonderland, folks.

Posted by: remote_control

at September 8, 2006 5:13 PM

HoosierGal and Sherman, well done, and well said.

About Peters. Peters is simply using websites such as this one, and authors such as those Spencer mentioned, to cast himself in a new light. A couple months back, Peters was interviewed about his new book on C-Span. And his interviewer slammed HIM as effectively calling for a new crusade, and for quasi imperialist, WWII measures to win the present war. Well, Peters had a very comfortable tap dance trying to explain that his calls for sterner actions and a more ferocious war effort shouldn't be understood as a call for hammering the muslim powers, {i.e. states, i.e. cities, ports, and other military targets...}. In short, his interviewer asked him to SPECIFY those actions he desires to see taken that will procure victory. AND HE DIDN'T ANSWER, he dodged, he weaved, it was rather sick.

He says one thing, and then when asked to elaborate, he goes into some vast song and dance.

What I suspect has happened is that PETERS HIMSELF HAS FALLEN AFOUL OF THE DEVOTEES OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS. And thus in a mad scramble to maintain his little corner in the vast national conversation, to make sure that his voice is heard, he goes off on some incoherent rant against those further to his political right, ALL IN AN EFFORT TO BURNISH his own multicultural, non-prejudiced bona fides.

It's all posturing.

Thing is, IT COMES AT OTHER'S expense, AND IT COMES AT THE EXPENSE OF THE TRUTH, or at least at the expense of those who, like Cardinal Pell in Australia, want a GENUINE thrashing out of what islam exactly is, and what jihad exactly is.

Peters just spent some time trying to repair the badly repaired wall of political correctness, which is falling down all around us, especially with each subsequent atrocity.

Everybody make a note of this column by Peters, because rest assured, he'll be singing a different tune five years hence, and most assuredly a decade hence.

Posted by: Dan

at September 8, 2006 5:31 PM

"We've been here before, folks. Bigotry is bigotry - even when disguised as patriotism. And, invariably, the haters fantasizing about a merciless Crusade never bothered to serve in our military (Hey, guys, there's still time to join. Lay your backsides on the line - and send your kids!)."

Here are some short profiles of some ex-military men I have known:

Navy aviation electrician, served four years in Florida and Texas

Navy machinist's mate, four years in the French Riveria (home port) when France was in NATO.

Army intellegence - two years in Germany with an 8 to 5 job and most weekends off

Marine infantry man, the only survivor out of six when a bouncing Betty was tripped

Navy machinist's mate serverd on the USS Bunker Hill from 1944 to 1946, escaped burning to death by mere inches when the second Kamikaze struck.

What do these five men have in common? Two of these are real veterans and three are ex-service men. The gentleman who served on the Bunker Hill always said, "If you ain't been shot at, you ain't a veteran."

I am sick and tired of these ex-servicemen throwing their military service in my face as if I am less patriotic.

Four years in Florida is not a free ticket for anything.

Posted by: Pelayo

at September 8, 2006 5:36 PM

Muslim activist gets congressional award
Honoree's organization publicly called for 'invading evil Western heartland'

Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water!

WASHINGTON – The Black Congressional Caucus tomorrow night plans to honor a Muslim activist whose organization once publicly admitted it sought to impose on America an Islamic Sharia state.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51900

I thought there was something about treason in the American Constitution; but since no one running the country actually believes in America or the Constitution that they ceremoniously "swear to uphold," then I suppose there is not; and we should join in the crescendo of applause!

However, I'm going to pass, thank you very much!

Posted by: witness

at September 8, 2006 5:36 PM

Please take it from me, that not all military types are as obnoxious or as grandiose as Ralph Peters.

Unfortunately, like some ex-military types, he has been spoon fed the official line
regarding Islamic History and it shows in his spiteful comments. I
have come across this from him in his articles and a handful other military
writers as well. Those of us who have family in the military just shake
our heads. His latest diatribe only underscores the fact. Needless to
say, my friends and family will not be purchasing any of his books.
His column comes across as very hateful, intolerant and hypocritical in pointing out how
hateful, intolerant and hypocritical others are.

It is a shame, because his articles offer a unique perspective on
military situations, but his resolute adherence to his own pet theories
on Islam or anyone who is critical are cause for concern. Apparently
for him anyone who disagrees with him is to thrown into the camp of the
Fehlerhafter. (Notice I am also using the same kind of trendy trick of
attaching either a German prefix or word to my argument to put the right
kind of insinuation to Nazi Germany?)

We certainly are not going to reach a dialogue with "moderate" Muslims by having critics of Islam
lumped together with weakly veiled references to National Socialism.

Ralph Peters, look in the mirror for a very, very long time.

Posted by: amana39

at September 8, 2006 5:55 PM

Peters, military service notwithstanding, is one of these self-deluded leftists. As a leftist, he is ideologically in cohorts with whomever happens to be the enemy of the state, in this case, it is islam. He defends this enemy because his real enemy is anything conservative. And we all know how the Left loves to use the world fascist. Remember when cops were fascist pigs in the late '60s?

Ya, that thinking. Well, it is no longer the 60s, so it is no longer the cops that are the fascists. It is the people who are the fascists now. And patriotism is the new fascism.

However, lately, a REAL fascist ideology has come to the west, islam. And it has recently been described as such.

This pisses off the Left and its agents like Peters. So they want to turn it around AGAIN, and go back to the old standard of calling everything to the Right, fascist. Bush is a fascist. The GOP is fascist. The Christians are fascists. And the islam-haters, well, they are fascists, too.

Don't you love this line:

"We've been here before, folks. Bigotry is bigotry - even when disguised as patriotism."

Of course. "We've been here before folks". The muslims are the old Jews of Europe, right? And those, like us here, who are appalled at the brutality of islam, are the real Nazis. Us. The fascists. While the people on the Left, who support islam in the west, and support the destruction of freedom and liberty, they are ... the good guys. Okay.

George Orwell was right. In the future, right will be wrong, wrong will be right; good will be evil, evil will be good, war will be peace, and peace will be war, freedom is fascism, and fascism will be the new freedom.

It is always the Left vs. the fascists in their minds, even when it is really the Left vs. the anti-fascists.

Believe in women's equality? You are a fascist. Believe in upholding the constitution and protecting it from subversion? You are a fascist. Believe in rooting out those that seek to kill the innocent? You are a fascist. Believe in shutting down centers for hate and violence? You are a fascist. Are you fanatically opposed to forced marriages, stonings, cruelty, honor killings and all those nice things? Then YOU are a fascist.

Oh, how the Left loves to use that term. I call it the F-word. You can't talk to a leftist about these issue for more than 1 minute before they get angry and use the F-word.

This is why I have said before, and will continue to say, until I die, that the real fight in the west is with the Left. For they are the defenders and enablers of the ideologies that seek to destroy us.

In the cold war, they championed the marxists and the socialists. Now that those ideologies are dying, they have a new dog in the fight - islam. And so islam it is for them.

Never forget the immortal words of Abraham Lincoln, the man who was wise beyond his time. He talks about how America can only be destroyed from within, not from without. He warns about how America will only be defeated by subterfuge. This was a warning about the dangers of what we know today as the Left and how such in our ranks will align themselves with America's enemies to bring it down from within:

“At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant to step the ocean and crush us at a blow?

“Never.

“All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, could not, by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer that if it ever reach us, it must spring from amongst us; it cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we ourselves must be the authors and finishers.

Indeed.

Islam threatens our constitution, and our very way of life. But only through alliances with fellow Americans, can it be successful. Today, that alliance is seen with the Left and with the authors and finishers like Peters.

Posted by: August22

at September 8, 2006 5:59 PM

"Four years in Florida is not a free ticket for anything."

In a effort to get this posted before I jammed my fist in the monitor I meant to say that military service does not mean that one has any special credibility. "No Free Ticket" means that I will not atuomatically assume that military service means that one knows what they are talking about. A career spent in the Pentagon does not give a retired officer a blank check to criticize anybody.

Posted by: Pelayo

at September 8, 2006 6:04 PM

Moderate muslims??? Below is an example of why there is no such thing. I like to post this item by Bukhari every once in a while just for drill:

Book of Jihad, on page 580 of Maktba Dar-us-Salam’s publication of Sahih Al-Bukhari: “Jihad is holy fighting in Allah’s Cause with full force of weaponry. It is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its Pillars. By Jihad Islam is established, Allah is made superior and He becomes the only God who may be worshiped. By Jihad Islam is propagated and made superior. By abandoning Jihad Islam is destroyed and Muslims fall into an inferior position. Their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, and Muslim rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim. He who tries to escape this duty dies as a hypocrite.

Pay attention to the last two sentences and the words 'OBLIGATORY' and EVERY'. Where is the moderation in that?

Is there any muslim or apologist like Peters, who would claim to know more on this subject than Imam Bukhari? Probably,

Posted by: duh_swami

at September 8, 2006 6:09 PM

Caroyln2, I enjoyed reading your posts of Qur'anic "Islamic Science"

Do the Imams, and devout Muslims who insist the Qur'an is the "perfect, unquestionable, complete, pure, word of God for all peoples and for all time" truly believe;

The sun travels across the sky in a chariot, pulled by 360 angels (350 are not enough?) and sets in a muddy spring.

The moon was originally a sun but Angel Gabriel's wings dimmed it; you can still see Gabriel's wing marks on the moon's surface.

Unlike the spiritual content of the Qur'an that can unfortunately, never be proved nor disproved, (ie: descriptions of Paradise) these scientific facts CAN be unequivocally proven false. But how does that reconcile with the idea that the Qur'an is divine, ergo flawless? How do faithful Muslims sidestep this dilemma or is there a technique to explain away these falsities? I can't imagine a Muslim would admit the Qur'an got anything wrong, therefore opening up the possibility that other parts of the Qur'an may also be incorrect?

Posted by: Xero G

at September 8, 2006 6:16 PM

*************************************************

Which is OLD Testament and therefore percursor to Christianity, Modern Judaism AND
Islam.

So your point is?

NOW find some passages in the NEW Testament equal to the intolerance and bloodthristy nature of the Quran?

Posted by: Dan Kauffman

at September 8, 2006 6:20 PM

OT, but does anyone want to serve this one up? Persoanlly, as a leftist, I want to encourage any of the behavior listed that D'Souza states causes Muslims to be uncomfortable in America, and hopefully, make them want to emigrate elsewhere.

"In THE ENEMY AT HOME, bestselling author Dinesh D’Souza makes the startling claim that the 9/11 attacks and other terrorist acts around the world can be directly traced to the ideas and attitudes perpetrated by America’s cultural left.

D’Souza shows that liberals—people like Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, Bill Moyers, and Michael Moore—are responsible for fostering a culture that angers and repulses not just Muslim countries but also traditional and religious societies around the world. Their outspoken opposition to American foreign policy—including the way the Bush administration is conducting the war on terror—contributes to the growing hostility, encouraging people both at home and abroad to blame America for the problems of the world. He argues that it is not our exercise of freedom that enrages our enemies, but our abuse of that freedom—from the sexual liberty of women to the support of gay marriage, birth control, and no-fault divorce, to the aggressive exportation of our vulgar, licentious popular culture.

The cultural wars at home and the global war on terror are usually viewed as separate problems. In this groundbreaking book, D’Souza shows that they are one and the same. It is only by curtailing the left’s attacks on religion, family, and traditional values that we can persuade moderate Muslims and others around the world to cooperate with us and begin to shun the extremists in their own countries."

Posted by: ryoga

at September 8, 2006 6:54 PM

Aye lads tis a dim day for people of the world to be so "repulsed" by a woman's right to her reproductive system. Aye, lasses tis a dim day for people of the world to disrespect our laws and our culture but demand that we respect theirs.

Real repulsion is in beholding murder, torture and rape. If you are repulsed by a naked body of a woman, even one moist from a good screw, then I would suggest that you look at yourselves.

My what high standards these cultures must have to stand in moral indignity over Gay Rights.

Let them live in the 17th century if they wish, castrating women, stoning women and beheading people.

Oh it is not our freedom eh?

The discussion of gay rights is freedom.

The true abuse of freedom is chaos. That is the measuring stick. Not someone's or some society's expectations of moral integrity.

If we excuse their judgements they will kill us. I see no recourse than to protect America's right to be self governing. If you don't like it, well then...... tough luck and kiss me arse...

Grin...
Father O'Malley

Posted by: FatherOMalley

at September 8, 2006 7:40 PM

A comment on the exchange between two posters, which read:

"As for the books and Web sites listing all those passages encouraging violence against the infidel, well, we could fill entire libraries with bloody-minded texts from the Christian past. And as a believing Christian, I must acknowledge that there's nothing in the Koran as merciless as God's behavior in the Book of Joshua."

To which the other replied: "NOW find some passages in the NEW Testament equal to the intolerance and bloodthristy nature of the Quran?" Posted by: Dan Kauffman

I think that what the first person was pointing out is that an inordinate number of so-called Christians today pay far too little attention to the New Testament and far too much to the Old, which is indeed brimming with passages in which God exhorts his children to attack, pillage, smash, destroy and kill, not to mention take women and children in slavery. See how many times the command "destroy them utterly" is repeated in Deuteronomy and Joshua. The God of some parts of the the Old Testament (but by no means all of it), if one is to believe that every word of it is literally the command of God, is a genocidal monster. Does this make all Christians ipso facto genocidal? Of course not. It doesn't make Jews genocidal either, as they have, to their great credit, generally resisted approaching their holy scriptures with the unquestioning prosaic literalism of some Christians and some Muslims.

Believe me, if a mass movement took hold of Christians who took every word in the New Testament as a direct command of God, I'd be scared. People would be lining up to watch homosexuals being executed and adulterers stoned to death. And don't even get me started on the prospect of of forcing women to go into isolation seven days each month because their menstruation makes them "unclean." The whole world economy would collapse in a millisecond.

Finally, ryogo wrote of Dinesh d'Souza's pious vomit: "Personally, as a leftist, I want to encourage any of the behavior listed that D'Souza states causes Muslims to be uncomfortable in America, and hopefully, make them want to emigrate elsewhere." Alleluia to that! I hardly consider myself a leftist (although no doubt some of the far-right loonies who post on this site feel differently, but fuck 'em). d'Souza is a complete moron.

"He [d'Souza] argues that it is not our exercise of freedom that enrages our enemies, but our abuse of that freedom—from the sexual liberty of women to the support of gay marriage, birth control, and no-fault divorce, to the aggressive exportation of our vulgar, licentious popular culture."

I detest most of that "vulgar, licentious popular culture" too. But there can never be real freedom WITHOUT some abuse of freedom. That's what makes it so difficult. Still, I'd rather live with the vulgar stuff than in a state where the government decided what I, an intelligent adult, could and couldn't see.

And as for the rest of the so-called "evils" d'Souza gripes about...birth control? How exactly is limiting the size of one's family an "abuse of freedom?" Could it be somehow related to the next great evil...

"Sexual liberty of women!!!"

Yes, shocking. Not sexual liberty of men, mind, just women. Can't have those women actually deciding who to have sex with.

"No-fault divorce" - yes, we know it's far better to force people who hate each other's guts to stay married.

"Gay marriage" - when are people going to grow up about this? Why shouldn't gay people be allowed to choose to be just as bored, frustrated, and disappointed as married heterosexuals? Oh, you say that gay marriage "threatens the sanctity of marriage." How so? Nobody's ever yet managed to explain that one. And "sanctity of marriage?" What about marriages that were not performed in a church? Are those also abominations and travesties? If so, why hasn't there been a mass movement opposing these kinds of unions? Or all of Elizabeth Taylor's 87 marriages?

But seriously, folks - what exactly are we fighting for? As much as I respect and support what Robert Spencer is doing in bringing the truth to light about the threat we are facing, even he has to admit that SOME extreme rightwingers, end-of-days Christian evangelicals and Biblical literalists, and other assorted wingnuts of every ideology have leeched on to this cause, and, like the angry little bloodsuckers they are, refusing to let go. I'm not saying he should shut them up. Let them spew their venom by all means. Better to bring it all up to the surface so we can address it.

Posted by: angloirishslav

at September 8, 2006 7:51 PM

A slight erratum to a typo my previous post - of course I meant, if there was a mass movement of Christians taking everything in the OLD Testament as the literal command of God, I'd be scared. The New Testament is what Christianity is all about, although some would seem to deny it.

Posted by: angloirishslav

at September 8, 2006 7:55 PM

Peters wants to help himself to terms and phrases like “Islamist fanatics,” but of course when anyone else uses variations on those terms* they are supposedly “bigots.”

*(Terms to which most Muslims would object, BTW, including to the word “Islamist” or any mention of a word with “Islam-” in any negative connotation whatsoever). Perhaps Peters could explain why, when he says it, it’s okay, but when others say it, it’s bigotry.

What is the purpose of this article, except for Peters to do the “but I’m not a bigot” routine, which involves a wild, flailing assault? It appears to be an indirect attack on people who often, in fact, are qualified to criticize Islam or are basing their opinions on those of experts. But notice how the cowardly Peters does not name his targets. This allows him to do his “I’m not a bigot” preening and posturing while attempting to duck any responsibility for his wild claims.

Supposedly, in Peters’ mind, anyone who criticizes Islam also demands genocide of a billion people, etc. Isn’t it curious how the knee-jerk “You are a bigot” folks like Peters so often neglect to state what they think would be an acceptable form of criticizing Islam. This suggests that, in their view, there is no acceptable form of criticizing Islam.

“And the world's only hope for long-term peace is for moderate Muslims - by far the majority around the globe - to recapture their own faith.”

Of course we should support any effort of the moderates to gain control and replace the hard-liners. But we should not be naive and should not over-rely on moderate Muslims. If Peters had actually studied the history of Islam, he would realize that the moderates have never “recaptured their own faith” from the hard-liners for any significant stretch of time. Why is the death penalty still used for simple public apostasy, or for merely criticizing Islam or Mohammad? Why are apostates and critics of Islam, all over the world, today, in danger of being killed? Part of the answer is that in 1400 years, moderate Muslims have been unable to dislodge those penalties from mainstream Islamic jurisprudence. If moderate Muslims alone have not been able to fix Islam after 1400 years, why should we expect them to be able to do so within the next years and decades?

“Web sites list no end of extracts from historical documents and Islamic jurisprudence "proving" that holy war against Christians and Jews is the alpha and omega of the Muslim faith.”

In other words, Peters refuses to look at the evidence for himself. Yet he makes a sweeping judgement against anyone who dares criticize his wondrous, Disney-like vision of Islam. His argument against critics of Islam is sheer ad hominem. He does not cite any facts or Islamic texts to support his case. To support his case, he would have to show that the critics are wrong about Islam. Apparently unable or unwilling to do that, he resorts to the “they are bigots (and I am not)” routine.

“We are in a knife-fight to the death with fanatics who've perverted a great religion.”

Oh, they’ve perverted the religion? Yet Peters refuses to read the “evidence” pertaining to the religion. So how can he pass a judgement that it’s been perverted? Passing judgement on something about which he knows nothing makes him a bigot, by definition.

Peters might want to check the PEW polls on Muslim opinions re issues such as terrorism, approval of bin Laden, etc., before shooting his mouth off about moderate majorities. Terrorists cannot succeed without the social and political support they receive from those Muslims who are not themselves engaged directly in terrorist acts.

Here’s some stats for Peters: 58-68% of British Muslims demand that the Danish Mohammad cartoonists be prosecuted and criminally punished. What form of criminal punishment is anyone’s guess. But note that about 30-40% of British Muslims want sharia to be implemented in Britain, and the sharia penalty for blasphemy (involving insulting the prophet) is, as it has always been since Mohammad himself ordered it, death.

“We've got our hands full in the Middle East. Why alienate the Muslims of Indonesia or West Africa (or California)?”

Peters is out-of-touch with the present state of world affairs, and is dangerously naive.

Posted by: Archimedes

at September 8, 2006 8:02 PM

HoosierGal and Sherman - welcome, and well said. The original article has a spot for comments, so I think a little cut & paste is in order!

Posted by: Mo

at September 8, 2006 8:06 PM