Just one question could probably solve all this,

Why does everyone hate jews? They don't do shit to us but everyone seems to hate them.

Posted by: Purple Haze at September 9, 2006 7:56 PM

I'm not so sure that Peters is trying to scare people away from examining Islam. I suspect he just doesn't know. That's why we need sites like Jihad Watch.

Posted by: Paul at September 9, 2006 8:04 PM

Peters means to scare people away from looking at how Islamic teachings are used to recruit and motivate jihad terrorists. The result will be that those texts will continue to be used in this way, without challenge or even scrutiny......
You are right Robert...These people and I know of at least one blog where they all post this trash..Are the real enemies of the Anti-Jihad...Many have never read a Koran...or if asked if they have read Robert Spencer or Andrew Bostom say no.....Ask if they know of Walid Shoebat will also answer no....But...They have met a Muslim who was nice...It doesnt matter that we are against Jihad not Muslims per say...And that Islam is not a Person...Not a Race or a Country...They are fighting the Truth...the Koran calls for Jihad...and many Muslims answer.

Posted by: storagemanager at September 9, 2006 8:09 PM

In defense of Ralph Peters, James Taranto -- who I have a great deal of respect for -- writes,

ˆIslam is not our enemy, but our enemies are Muslimˆ

The irony of all the handwringing by those who should know better is that truth and justice are much better served (and Muslims much more likely to be protected as this war unfolds) if we attack Islam for the vile political ideology that it is, rather than attack Muslims for being servile or ignorant or innately dangerous in their zeal for that ideology.

While it is true that we killed millions of adherents to Nazism and later prosecuted individual Nazis for their crimes against humanity, it was the ideology itself that ultimately had to be smashed and completely discredited, with the citizenry subsequently reprogrammed.

It is clear to me at least, that following the long shooting war with "Islamic terrorists", either the West or some empowered neo-Islamic movement will have to embark on completely reforming and re-educating the hundreds of millions of surviving Muslim faithful.

It is intellectually dishonest for informed writers like Peters and Taranto to mitigate and apologize for Islam, the ideology.

Posted by: Charles Martel at September 9, 2006 8:36 PM

Ralph doesn't distinguish between the ideology and the people. You did make that distinction, and he does you a disservice by failing to point it out.

However, this immediately leads to people saying: Well, Christianity was once intolerant, fought religious wars, converted pagans and colonized natives by force, etc. Does that show that Christianity is inherently a bad ideology? In a nutshell, my answer is that Jesus was never a warrior, so there is no question of any devout Christians wanting to emulate him on the battlefield. They may want to fight some kind of holy war, but not because Jesus did. Nor did he lecture people to convert anybody by force. That is the huge difference with Mohammed.

However, as many Hindus and others (e.g. Bertrand Russell) rightly point out, Christianity does have the same implication of intolerance that goes with any religion claiming itself the sole truth. This no longer leads to violence, but it does cause some Christians to be bigoted regarding other religions. It is best to abandon the pernicious idea of a single true religion.

Another point is that you have argued that the Crusades were really not so evil, defensive rather than offensive. I have some of your books, and your argument is not bad, indeed is worthy of respect. Still, it seems just a little too convenient to say, 'Oh, and by the way, the Crusades really weren't so bad.'

Posted by: Benjamin at September 9, 2006 8:39 PM

What I tried and failed to say last night was this. From Wouk’s The Caine Mutiny:

Riding on the subway that morning to the Brooklyn Navy Yard in his blue apprentice seaman raincoat, he felt conspicuously military. The fact that he was going for a check on his pulse rate and lordosis did not spoil his enjoyment of the glances of stenographers and high-school girls. Willie was collecting the homage earned by men otherwise occupied in the Solomons.

And from Ralph Peters:

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.

Mr. Peters is wearing his service on his sleeve in order to gain credibility. I’d like to know what he did. If you believe Wikipedia, his military days were as a staff officer in German and Washington jobs. Shame on him if he is using the political capital generated by the selfless sacrifice of soldiers guarding convoys to increase his speaking fees, unless he has been there too, or differentiates between their service and his.

Posted by: limes at September 9, 2006 10:57 PM

I sent the following email to the Laura Ingraham Show via their contact link (http://www.lauraingraham.com/asklaura).

"Did you guys read Peters' latest column (ISLAM-HATERS: AN ENEMY WITHIN, http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/islam_haters__an_enemy_within_opedcolumnists_ralph_peters.htm) before you linked to it?

It's a badly thought-out smear job. Peters, without naming names, implies that well known anti-Jihad scholars and activists such as Robert Spencer, Bat Yeor, Andrew Bostom, Andrew McCarthy, etc. are bigots because they ask some pointed questions and make some logical and well researched observations concerning the link between Islam and terrorism.

Peters' critique is bogus and Spencer has replied in a two posts at his website (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/013046.php#comments)(http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/013032.php#comments). I hope that you'll have some of the above anti-Jihad scholars on the show to rebut Peters (I think Spencer was a guest before?) and also to answer an important question: May we, without being called bigots, analyze and question the history, doctrines, and current state of Islam to determine whether and how it threatens our civilization?

P.S. To be fair, I did not hear the show on Friday. So if Laura made a strong challenge to Peters I'd like to hear it or read a transcript."

Posted by: Andre_Szara at September 10, 2006 12:00 AM

"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."
-- from a posting above, quoting Ralph Peters

How does he know this? About whom is he speaking? What does he think of what J. B. Kelly or Anne Lambton have written about Muslim peoples? Did C. Snouck Hurgronoje, who actually visited Mecca, and spent decades in the Dutch East Indies, especilaly in Aceh, about which he wrote "The Acehinese," spend enough time "in the Muslim world" to meet Ralph Peters's standards? What about Joseph Schacht, who lectured, in Arabic, in Cairo, during part of his life-long immersion in the study of Islam -- would he be someone Ralph Peters would be willing to read? What about all those French scholars who spent their lives in Algeria, such as Fagnan, and knew the Muslim Arabs intimately? What about St. Clair Tisdall, and his knowledge of Islam in India? What of A. K. S. Lambton, of Durham, who was the foremost student of Iran and of the Persian language (and related closely to Harold Macmillan, which gave her the ability to keep the amount of nonsense in the Foreign Office limited)? Would she, who knew perfectly well what Islam is all about, meet the exacting standards of Ralph Peters?

And Ibn Warraq, who was raised as a Muslim, who attended a madrasa, who wherever he goes can enter a mosque, and what's more, be admitted into those conversations held about Infidels, behind the backs of Infidels, that never cease to amaze and depress him? What of Ali Sina, or all the others who have left Islam, who grew up in Muslim Iran? What of Walid Shoebat, who grew up as a Muslim among the Arabs ("Palestinians") of the "West Bank"?

How many of these people meet Ralph Peters, the man who knows German and Russian, but not Arabic, not Urdu, not Farsi, not the French of North Africa, not the languatges of Indonesia, who apparently does not believe there is a doctrine called "taqiyya," who cannot quite comprehend the full significance of Ibn Warraq's lapidary formulation -- "there are moderate Muslims. Islam itself is not moderate" -- nor can he comprehend, apparently, or has not given much thought to, what the word "moderate" may mean, and how slippery a term, and how full of false hope, it is (google "Ten Things to Think When Thinking of Moderate Muslims").

Let him first read the writers -- the scholars of Islam or those who, while students of parts of the Muslim world, remained immune to the supposed charms of the locals, immune that is to what Lawrence, or Gertrude Bell, or Freya Stark saw in the noble bedouin, or the vast sky of Arabia, or the hawk-nosed Hashemite king or kinglet whose soft voice and manners some found, and some find still, so entrancing (this is the longest-running show in the Middle East -- the assorted Hashemite monarchs who have managed to win over so many, right down to Anthony Lewis and Prince Charles with the late King Hussein, or, more recently, those who find his son Abdullah a swell guy, because he wrestled for Deerfield, and if he was good enough for Frank Boynton, then he ought to be good enough for the rest of America -- the usual substitute of an individual's personal charm, and even more importantly, one's acquiantance or friendship with that individual, so thrilling for some, that substitutes for intelligent analysis of Islam, as if Abdullah had much of anything to do either with Islam, or the beliefs of 98% of the people of Jordan.

Having been harried, properly, from pillar to post, Peters is likely to refuse to take up the invitation to study Islam and not be quite so quick to dismiss those who are not "islamophobes" but simply disinclined to give a belief-system, because of the number of its adherents, or the fact that for want of a better term it has been called a "religion," some kind of pass. Cathy Young, who a few months ago was subjected to similar rebuttals here, appears to be keeping carefuly away from the subject of Islam, which means the major issue of our time, with all sorts of ramifications and connections, is now off-limits in her columns. She has taken this tack, one suspects, because she is too intelligent not to recognize the pith and force of the objections made, but her amour-propre has been so wounded, that she cannot bring herself to study Islam, and to return to the subject, even without making reference to that little contretemps at JW, and cannot -- like so many -- dare to admit to herself, much less to others, that just possibly the criticism to which she was subjected was justified, and remains both unanswered, and unanswerable.

Posted by: Hugh at September 10, 2006 12:18 AM

Why don't all you people cherry-pick passages from the Bible and come up with misogynistic half-truths as well? Such as when Paul says (regarding women): "if she is not covered, she should be shorn..." You take verses out of context simply to promote your jewish agenda. That's who you are really serving by this website. I would tell you to examine your own religion, but you don't have one. And oh yeah, I would behead you given half a chance MWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

Posted by: blue_eyed_terrorist at September 10, 2006 12:37 AM

blue_eyed_terrorist, are those real fangs or dime store novelties?

Posted by: butterfly at September 10, 2006 1:10 AM

Dear Blue Eyed Terrorist,

Context eh!?

Here's the problem, and the choice you have to make.

Either:
The Qur'an is the eternal, supra-historical, 'written on golden plates in heaven', not written by Mohammed, applicable in all times and circumstances, Word of God.

Or:
We have to take 'context' into account. In other words the Qur'an is the product of certain historical, cultural and (gasp!) personal circumstances.

So the Qur'an is either the most monstrous, yet inspired, call to genocide ever. Or the 'context' shows us that it is merely the record of the twisted desires of one man.

Take your pick.

Posted by: PJS1 at September 10, 2006 5:43 AM

There was nothing wrong in Laura Ingraham inviting Mr. Peters on her show to espouse/defend his views.

At the end of her interview with Mr. Peters Laura did ask him two questions I e-mailed her.

“Please have Mr. Peters name one Muslim cleric who has condemned publicly, unconditionally and in terms of Islamic theology, the forced conversion of the two FNC reporters. (I cannot find one damn rag-head cleric who has done so)”

“Please have Mr. Peters name one Muslim cleric who has condemned publicly, unconditionally and in terms of Islamic theology, the ever increasing evil done in the name of their god.” (see did not say done in the name of their god)

Mr. Peters audibly floundered in not answering the question.

-----
Now the question I’ve been asking myself since the 1993 attack on the Twin Tower is: If there are no Muslims clerics who will condemn publicly, unconditionally and in terms of Islamic theology, the ever increasing evil done in the name of their god are we correct in naming all GOOD Muslims as the enemy.

Posted by: Ralph127 at September 10, 2006 7:02 AM

There was nothing wrong in Laura Ingraham inviting Mr. Peters on her show to espouse/defend his views.

At the end of her interview with Mr. Peters Laura did ask him two questions I e-mailed her.

“Please have Mr. Peters name one Muslim cleric who has condemned publicly, unconditionally and in terms of Islamic theology, the forced conversion of the two FNC reporters. (I cannot find one damn rag-head cleric who has done so)”

“Please have Mr. Peters name one Muslim cleric who has condemned publicly, unconditionally and in terms of Islamic theology, the ever increasing evil done in the name of their god.” (see did not say done in the name of their god)

Mr. Peters audibly floundered in not answering the question.

-----
Now the question I’ve been asking myself since the 1993 attack on the Twin Tower is: If there are no Muslims clerics who will condemn publicly, unconditionally and in terms of Islamic theology, the ever increasing evil done in the name of their god are we correct in naming all GOOD Muslims as the enemy.

Posted by: Ralph127 at September 10, 2006 7:08 AM

There was nothing wrong in Laura Ingraham inviting Mr. Peters on her show to espouse/defend his views.

At the end of her interview with Mr. Peters Laura did ask him two questions I e-mailed her.

“Please have Mr. Peters name one Muslim cleric who has condemned publicly, unconditionally and in terms of Islamic theology, the forced conversion of the two FNC reporters. (I cannot find one damn rag-head cleric who has done so)”

“Please have Mr. Peters name one Muslim cleric who has condemned publicly, unconditionally and in terms of Islamic theology, the ever increasing evil done in the name of their god.” (see did not say done in the name of their god)

Mr. Peters audibly floundered in not answering the question.

-----
Now the question I’ve been asking myself since the 1993 attack on the Twin Tower is: If there are no Muslims clerics who will condemn publicly, unconditionally and in terms of Islamic theology, the ever increasing evil done in the name of their god are we correct in naming all GOOD Muslims as the enemy.

Posted by: Ralph127 at September 10, 2006 7:13 AM

There was nothing wrong in Laura Ingraham inviting Mr. Peters on her show to espouse/defend his views.

At the end of her interview with Mr. Peters Laura did ask him two questions I e-mailed her.

“Please have Mr. Peters name one Muslim cleric who has condemned publicly, unconditionally and in terms of Islamic theology, the forced conversion of the two FNC reporters. (I cannot find one damn rag-head cleric who has done so)”

“Please have Mr. Peters name one Muslim cleric who has condemned publicly, unconditionally and in terms of Islamic theology, the ever increasing evil done in the name of their god.” (see did not say done in the name of their god)

Mr. Peters audibly floundered in not answering the question.

-----
Now the question I’ve been asking myself since the 1993 attack on the Twin Tower is: If there are no Muslims clerics who will condemn publicly, unconditionally and in terms of Islamic theology, the ever increasing evil done in the name of their god are we correct in naming all GOOD Muslims as the enemy.

Posted by: Ralph127 at September 10, 2006 7:18 AM

Like I said before, Peters might be obnoxious, grandiose and hateful, but please don't think he represents even a sizable minority of ex-military writers. The only other writer I can think who has a more naive understanding of Islam is H. John Poole. These folks know their stuff in military terms, but have totally swallowed the TC/PC version of Islamic History. To react in such a childish way to a few bonehead emails reveals quite a bit about the man's character.

Of course we are circulating his hate-filled article around, and will not be purchasing anything written with his name on it. To equate criticism of Islam with National Socialism is to truly turn the argument on it's head, and indicates a level of spite very difficult to understand.

Posted by: amana39 at September 10, 2006 12:07 PM

Ralph127 - It is wonderful to hear that Laura used your information to question Peters. Still, I hope that JWers will email her show to ask that she have a guest to give the other point of view.

Amana39 - I have enjoyed Peters' work in the past and expect that I will read him in the future. I think that he is frequently insightful. I would not class him as an enemy and boycott his books. I think that he is a patriot and honest but is sometimes orney and captured by tunnel vision (see his remarks on the U.S. Air Force). I trust that he will come around eventually. In the meantime it would be helpful if he gets strong push-back from JW and sites like it. He is a frequent guest on Laura Ingraham. I think emails to her show would be especially helpful.

Posted by: Andre_Szara at September 10, 2006 2:29 PM