"What do you know of Muslim teachings regarding non-Muslims?

Have you ever read the Qur'an and at least a few hundred of the hadith, possibly directed by a scholar of Islam?"

You will do well to ask these same quetions to someone called "the Pope" - seeing that he has found peace in islam where others, admittedly less learned than he, have detected nothing but violence and hate.

Posted by: Hermit at November 29, 2006 5:10 PM

'They' know better, relax.

But, suddenly there is no more 'they'.

There is you and me and something far worse, more evil than Nazism, than Hitler even that is staring us in the face.

Posted by: poetcomic1 at November 29, 2006 5:20 PM

I'm still trying to figure out how Bush manages to appear in both Washington and Tel Aviv at the same time.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at November 29, 2006 5:24 PM

One has a few questions for [insert name here:

And some suggestions for that name are:

President Bush
Condi Rice
Karen Hughes
Nancy Pelosi
[insert additional names here]

Posted by: PRCS at November 29, 2006 5:31 PM

I don't agree that something "worse than Nazism, than Hitler even" is "staring us in the face." The problem is that Islam is far more resilient, and with much greater, possibly even a universalist appeal even if it is a vehicle for Arab supremacism. And its own folowers exhibit a kind of sliding-scale of adherence that makes it more difficult to combat, or rather, to persuade others to combat, because those others among the non-Muslims keep mistaking this or that personable or outwardly friendly and sweet-seeming Muslim for the doctrine of Islam, and possibly even, very likely even, the real feelings of that smyler with the knyf under his cloke.

But there is no need to make such pronouncements as "Islam is worse than Nazism." Few will be convinced, and many will be repelled, by such hyperbole. Islam, as a doctrine, is dangerous, very dangerous. It is more effective and potent in its appeal than Nazism, but not worse in its ideology.

After all, one could not save oneself from the Nazis by becoming a Nazi if one was not an Aryan (and had the Germans succeeded, it would not have been the Jews, Gypsies, and Slavs alone who would have been declared, step by step, to be untermenschen). One always has the option of submitting to Islam in order to save one's life or to get out from under the condition of the dhimmi. That's where Pakistanis come from. That's where Bosnian Muslims come from. Not a good fate. But not what the Nazis had in store for those they decided were permanently inferior, who were not permitted to live.

Posted by: Hugh at November 29, 2006 5:32 PM

@Hermit

The Pope did not find Peace in the cult of violence called Izlam. He's stepping around the issue. The Pope knows fully well (and has stated it) that the Fiend Mohammad (asshole of allah) is the Anti-Christ.

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at November 29, 2006 5:36 PM

Hugh, you should ask these questions of Avigdor Lieberman, too. I don't know if he is any more islamo-cognizant than Olmert, but he certainly has given some indication that he is. In any case, he seems to have a better developed innate will to survive. I hope he will gather a larger following in Israel, if he manages to elude the arabs who undoubtedly want to assassinate him.

Posted by: Infidel33 at November 29, 2006 5:48 PM

He's a secular humanist and does not even know (and believe) what the Torah teaches.

Posted by: bondservant at November 29, 2006 5:56 PM

Omlet means well, he's just confused. What do you expect from a guy who appoints a Joe Stalin look-alike as defense minister?
Seriously, one thing this whole Islam business has taught me is just how negligent so many people are about doing their homework. One doesn't need to plow through the entire Koran to get the main idea of this glorified extortion racket? I mean, 9:29 could have been written by Al Capone, urging people to fight against the uncooperative until they cough up the money. The whole dhimmi thing is nothing but a shakedown.
Maybe Omlet needs to heed one thing Capone said when it comes to the Muslims: "Never trust nobody".

Posted by: jewdog at November 29, 2006 6:18 PM

"one thing this whole Islam business has taught me is just how negligent so many people are about doing their homework."
-- from a posting above

And not just about their "homework" about Islam, though certainly the training of those who enter the government and the so-called think-tanks, those who pullulate in Washington at Centers for ThisandThat, or if they can't get a job at this or that Center for ThisandThat, find a few sugar daddies to set them up in their own individual centers, where they are set, and never have to really set to school. (Say, anyone want to endow a nice little one-man Center for someone who loves doing homework, has done it all his life, and has the evidence to prove it?)

No, the crew on the S. S. Narrenschiff consists of those who go to the Kennedy School or the Woodrow Wilson School or the Johns Hopkins School, or somehow happen to be the figlio di papa of a well-known "conservative" who helps set things up, or following another tenure track, go to a good law school (Harvard and Yale will do nicely) and then, "not wanting to make money" (i.e., having a trust fund or some such safely in the background) decide they want to go into "public policy" so its the government or an NGO that is, by its very nature, incapable of making moral distinctions because that would be ultra-vires, that would be unacceptable if one is in the busy business of Helping Humanity (and the apotheosis of these Hamburger-Helping-Humanity types is the unctuously and piously sinister and morally intolerable Jimmy Carter).

Now, about that One-Man Center I'm proposing...

Posted by: Hugh at November 29, 2006 6:31 PM

Olmert like others all believe that each religion contains violent passages, you get the same claptrap from muslims wanting to show not just their cult is violent.. so you have to try harder and point out the finer differences such as Robet does eloquently with muslim appologsist, and even with Conservative Radio talk show hosts.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at November 29, 2006 6:34 PM

Excellent Analysis Hugh, it's past time this idiot were thrown out on his derrier.

Olmert reminds me of Jehoiachin, the last King of Judah, who thought he could buy security by making similar deals with Nebuchadnezzar. For his foolishness, his people were taken into slavery.

Posted by: Provoslavni at November 29, 2006 6:40 PM

Hugh says:

"But there is no need to make such pronouncements as "Islam is worse than Nazism." Few will be convinced, and many will be repelled, by such hyperbole. Islam, as a doctrine, is dangerous, very dangerous. It is more effective and potent in its appeal than Nazism, but not worse in its ideology."

I am not out to convince anyone but I politely disagree with you. For one thing, it is NOT an ideology it is a religion - a religion incorporating extreme cruelty and infinite capacity for hate. Because its a religion this is more evil than Nazism. But I see your point about creating effective arguments and won't say it anymore.

Posted by: poetcomic1 at November 29, 2006 7:02 PM

Previewing your Comment
It is some time since I last made any comments on JihadWatch. To be perfectly honest after the recent war between Hezbollah and Israel I didn't feel like being depressed even further via JihadWatch's/DhimmiWatch's daily list of Islamic advances/crimes/whines/demands. I kept comparing Olmert's feeble performance with the Israeli giants of 1948 and 1967. Maybe that wasn't entirely fair - Britain doesn't have Churchill anymore and the USA doesn't have some of its giants from the past either - but what stuns me is the feeling that even the Israeli prime minister is in denial about the nature of Islam. What's more him being in denial makes it more likely Israel will be substantially weakened as a result. I'm writing this in the US, but I'm an Englishman and a few weeks ago I was at my main home in England talking to a plasterer I had hired to do a job. I was watching an item about Iran on noon TV news which I'd invited him to watch while he had a cup of tea. He brought the conversation round to what I thought about the Iranians trying to get nuclear weaponry and I told him I thought they'd get it and they'd use it. No, he said very confidently, you can bet your life the Israelis will nuke Iran off the surface of the earth long before it threatens them. Once upon a time that would have been my feeling too, but right now I don't quite feel it in my bones - not just at this moment anyway. Israel is in the front line of the West's war against Islamic expansion and Shiite expansion in particular. Without a strong Israel Islam will be almost unstoppable. It used to be that the Israelis looked at everything and anything that might help defend Israel but lately I suspect that those (welcome, but I fear will be historically brief) peace-treaties Israel made with Egypt and Jordan deflected her watchfulness away from the true driving force of the Islamic expansionist resurgence. The idea seems still to be that Olmert can nurture peace with individual Arab leaders. Condoleeza Rice seems to believe this too. Does Olmert really think he can sit down with Hamas and with the Shiite Lebanese and make of their leaders a Sadat or a King Hussein? I don't know whether or not Begin or Rabin could have answered your questions, Hugh, but whether they could have done or not, you are absolutely right to ask these questions. Western leaders cannot rely just on personal relationships with Islamic leaders to find that mythical 'peace' anymore. They need to be able to clearly and fully understand Islam and when they do they will have a priceless defensive weapon to guide their decisions, plans and strategies.

Posted by at November 29

Posted by: moris2 at November 29, 2006 7:14 PM

Great questions, Hugh.

It would be great if Mr. Olmert would answer them. Why don't you and JW keep this quiz as a regular banner link which daily begs for an answer.

I also think it should be done similarly for various public and government officials who are putting our free societies in peril because of liberal PCism--these PCers won't EVEN ALLOW THESE QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED. We should require this quiz of elected Senators, and Congressional reps and those in the departments--CIA, FBI, CES, INS and so forth. If they were all asked by a steady demand of an ever increasing number of demanders, they would have to face the music.

How do ostriches breath with their head in the sand anyhow? Don't the have to come up for air sometime?

As each incident occurs--whether it may be in Iraq where so much carnage happens between factious muslims who are ungovernable into a single western style democracy--or in Palestine or Israel or even the US--the DEMAND TO ANSWER these (what should be obvious)questions will heighten.

Don't make this quiz only a one time post.

Posted by: BB at November 29, 2006 7:19 PM

"Hugh says:

'But there is no need to make such pronouncements as 'Islam is worse than Nazism.' Few will be convinced, and many will be repelled, by such hyperbole. Islam, as a doctrine, is dangerous, very dangerous. It is more effective and potent in its appeal than Nazism, but not worse in its ideology."

"I am not out to convince anyone but I politely disagree with you. For one thing, it is NOT an ideology it is a religion - a religion incorporating extreme cruelty and infinite capacity for hate. Because its a religion this is more evil than Nazism."
-- from a posting above

Why should whether or not some belief-system is called a "religion" make any difference in our judgement of it? For you, the fact that Islam is called a "religion" makes it more evil than Nazism, even if the victims of the Nazis could do nothing to escape their fate, of being murdered, whereas non-Muslims can do something to avoid the same fate -- accept permanent status as dhimmis (in the case of the Ahl al-kitab, People of the Book, but not Hindus or Buddhists or others) or "revert" to Islam. Horrible, but not death.

For Bush and company, the fact that Islam is a "religion" is a point in its favor, because they are of the mind that a "religion" is necessarily a Good Thing. One should neither attribute Good nor Evil to this or that belief system depending on whether it is, or is not called, a religion. Stick to its actual contents, as demonstrated by what is in the texts, by what can be interpreted away or not, why how the adherents of that particular religion, invoking its tenets, have behaved over time and through space.

That's what matters. Why anyone should find Islam "worse than Nazism" because it is called, by some (not me) a "religion" is beyond me (but apparently not some).

Posted by: Hugh at November 29, 2006 7:50 PM

Not only Olmert

Far too many Jews--especially American Jews--are unfamiliar with Islam, the koran, and what Mohammed did.

There are the rabbis who reach across to the mosque for common celebrations. Such love-feasts--Moslems invited to Passover seders and to the lighting of the Hannukah menorah are nauseatingly common.

In L.A. there is a planned menorah lighting that calls itself "The Festival of Rights," and is more interested in "Social Justice" than in the meaning of the Festival of Lights and although the light burning without oil is celebrated more than anything else, what happened prior to that is what Jews should study.

The organizers of the "Festival of Rights" have invited, among other doubtful Judeophiles, a luminary from the Muslim Public Affairs Council.

The idiotic Hollywood Jews likewise see not as much danger in the Palestinians, Ahmadinejad, the nice Moslem couple in the next estate, as they do in the one-tune G. W. Bush, now "Bakerized" by his papa.

Israel led by Olmert and his bunch are as ignorant of Islam as he is. Yes, there are Jews in Israel that see the danger of Islam, but far too few.

Lest Jews everywhere make it their business to learn "What Islam Means to Me, a Jew," they are in danger of sheepishly walking to oblivion, once again.

Posted by: unicorns62000 at November 29, 2006 8:07 PM

i assume that some of what the Israeli leadership does is in preparation for a possible military confrontation with Iran. get the peoples of the world, if not behind you, at least more neutral.

doesn't sound too good, i agree. but that is probably a subtext not mentioned in this thread.

Posted by: StillBreathing at November 29, 2006 8:24 PM

Far too many in the Jewish establishment seem to be still fighting WWII (it's as if they haven't quite got the message that the nazis were defeated in 1945, and that there is now a NEW enemy -- namely, radical Islam). Here we have meetings between rabbis and imams and round-table conferences -- they all clasp hands and proclaim "Islam means Peace!" and that the greatest threat to world peace is, of course, that radical right-winger, George W Bush! Ja!

No matter what they hear about the intentions of radical Islam -- it does NOT matter -- "Bush is worse! end of debate!" Tragic, but it does provide some insight into how the Holocaust occurred -- it's all about denial, denial, denial...and "Arabs are our friends!!"

Posted by: J.S. at November 29, 2006 8:27 PM

Bravo! Anyone applying for any national leadership position of any country in Dar-el-Harb should be required to take this test.

I do, however, have a small nit to pick. Hugh, you ask:

"Do you have any reason to think that the way Muslims are suffused with the teachings of Islam, a system of Total Regulation and Complete Explanation of the Universe, is different from the way that either Judaism or Christianity impinges on, or organizes the life of, Jews and Christians?"

In this respect, Orthodox (and particularly ultra-Orthodox) Judaism has far more in common with Islam than with Christianity. There is, in fact, no element of the universe, from the date and manner of its creation to how we put on our shoes in the morning, that isn't discussed, explained or regulated by the Torah, the Talmud and the Commentaries. There's no situation life can offer for which the proper response can't be found there.

Fortunately, though, most of those discussions, explanations, regulations and responses offered by Judaism are very different indeed from those of Islam, particularly when it comes to dealings with those of other faiths.

Posted by: Lynn B. at November 29, 2006 9:01 PM

"most of those ... regulations ... are very different indeed from those of Islam, particularly when it comes to dealings with those of other faiths."

which is precisely the point. nothing is quite like islam. christianity teaches that The Way is the way, but doesn't mandate conversions.

Posted by: StillBreathing at November 29, 2006 9:09 PM

Hugh of all people (that just happened - sorry!) should remember the sort of people who used to whine 'better red than dead'.

That people can be coerced to betray their souls and beliefs to the Cult of Mohammed in exchange for their lives makes it worse in my eyes.

A moot point anyway - the crazies will pile the bodies higher than Nazis ever could if they get the WMDs.

Posted by: poetcomic1 at November 29, 2006 9:43 PM

It's really a shame Rabin in his "Break their bones" phase isn't around to lead Israel in these dreary times. He'd get some things done.

Olmert is terrible. I think he's in a worse coma than Sharon!

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at November 29, 2006 9:43 PM

I know I must fight the Jihad of Christianity. I must take down every Muslim, fight them to all means, Kill them when I see them, Kill them like Muhammed says kill all non believers. Suicide Martydom is not only a Muslim concept. They kill us, we will kill them and heartedly! Burn all Mosuques of the Satan religion of hate! They offend Jesus! Fatwah all that insult my prophet! Islam is an insult! Respect my prophet, and you may get respect for yours.

Posted by: zooboomafoo at November 29, 2006 9:49 PM

I would like to ask Olmert " When will Nasralla be killed? ". It is as big a scandal as Osama Bin Laden still at large.

Benjimen Netenyahoo said on the Larry King Show the other night to the effect that most Muslims are peacefull people blah, blah , blah and we only have to worry about an " extremist minority " in his words yada, yada, yada.

Then he made a good point. He pointed out that most of these so-called peaceful Muslims are " sitting on the sidelines, in the Mid-East, Europe, even here in the United States. Watching and waiting to see how the conflict is playing out between the extremist and the West. " It the extremist appear to be " winning " they will draw in more of the ' peaceful Muslim pool ' into their ranks and grow stronger. But if the extremist are crushed, the so-called peaceful Muslims will stay on the side lines.

That logic underscores the importance of killing an Osama Bin Laden and his side kick Dr. Z of Egypt. Not to mention a Nasrralla now.

So my follow up question is to President Bush " When will Osama Bin Laden and Dr. Z be killed?"

It is such simple questions that will play a big impact on the dismatlment of the Islamic political/cultural movement empire.

-----Nossy

Posted by: Nostrodamus at November 29, 2006 10:16 PM

The poster above appears to think, by quoting that unhelpful and idiotic line "better red than dead" that those who over the past 1300 years were forcibly converted to Islam should all have cheerfully or stoically accepted death. That is that poster's way of fending off my pointing out that the Nazis wished to kill, and did kill, whole categories of people, and those categories would only have inexorably expanded had the Nazis been victorious, and not, as he (or she) may think, have generously been expanded to include all of those peoples who were conquered.

I summarize, and repeat: Islam is harder to fight than the Nazis for several reasons.

First, there is Islam's false universalist claim, a claim that hides Arab supremacism sufficiently, it seems, to allow 80% of the world's Muslims, so far (but not if I had my druthers) to avoid noticing this, which should be obvious.

Second, Islam is harder to fight because its instruments of Jihad include things that are not recognized as instruments. This includes relentless, well-financed, carefully-targetted campaigns of Da'wa, with the economically and psychically marginal the first but not the only victims.

Third, Islam includes among its adherents people of varying levels of belief, from those who were simply born into it, remain ignorant or a little fuzzy (sometimes deliberately so) about some of its textual commandments, and continue to exhibit a filial piety but not much more, to those who exhibit the fanaticism of members of Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Gemaa Islamiyya, Lashker-e-Toiba, Jaish-e-Mohammad, Ansar al-Sunna, and all the mix-n'-match variants on these, with "hezb" and "jaish" and "laskar" and "jemaa" and "ikhwan" and "jihad" and "sunna" and "ansar" the lexical building blocks for these groups of black-balaclavaed bezonians, clutching their kalashnikovs, goosestepping down the streets of camps and cities wherever they can, intent on impressing their followers and terrorizing their enemies.

But Islam qua Islam is not more hideous or viciious as a doctrine than was Nazism. It still allows for the life-saving forced "reversion" that one can still choose. It is horrible, and the status of "tolerated" non-Muslim is one of permanent degradation, humiliation, and physical insecurity. But anyone hunted down by the Nazis would certainly have been glad to accept such a status rather than go to Treblinka, Belzec, or Auschwitz. Let's not muddy the moral or mental waters in our understandable passion and fury over the menace of Jihad. Let's keep things straight.

Posted by: Hugh at November 29, 2006 10:21 PM

These questions should be asked of not just current and future leaders, but of all people in all western nations. Our so called leaders are too out of touch to "get it".

Maybe, it is time we take a cue from The Founders and make our "leaders" listen to the people.

Posted by: WillPower at November 29, 2006 10:28 PM

To Lynn B. - Another very important distinction between Orthodox Judaism & Islam is that the former does not go around imposing Talmudic law on "unbelievers", while Islam is based entirely on enforcement of Sharia on dar al Harb to purify the world. Orthodox Jews simply do not seek to enforce their world view on others.

Back to Bush, Iraq & Israel. Seems that all is looking rather bleak. The (dhimmi) Baker Commission is going to recommend Israeli concessions for the sake of Iraq. This is totally insane, and while Olmert will surely play Bush & Condi's poodle once again, the blame in this case goes straight to Bush and his Circle of Capitulating Dhimmi Dimwits.

From ynetnews.com: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3334339,00.html

Solution to Baghdad violence: pressure on J'lem

New York Sun newspaper reports that Iraq Study Group will recommend that Bush Administration applies pressure on Israel to make concessions to Palestinians which could sway moderate Arab countries to help stabilize Iraq

Yitzhak Benhorin Published: 11.30.06, 02:19

(WASHINGTON) An expert who's being consulted by the Baker-Hamilton committee, the special bipartisan committee for Iraq, says the committee will recommend that President George W. Bush exert pressure on Israel to make political concessions to soften Arab countries and assist in improving the situation in Iraq.

The committee, which is headed by former secretary of state James Baker and former Democratic representative Lee Hamilton, is expected to submit its final report on Wednesday.

The New York Sun newspaper reported Thursday that Raymond Close, an expert advising the committee, is in favor of engaging Iran and Syria .

Close, who retired from the CIA in 1977, and has been doing business in Saudi Arabia since his retirement, expects the report to recommend that Israel be pressured to make concessions.

A memorandum sent to expert advisors Close says that the commission is likely to advice the Bush administration holds a summit, which will include Israel, "to enlist the support of neighboring states in establishing stability in Iraq," the New York Sun reported.

Israel might have to give up Golan

Close said that Israel's participation in the summit is crucial as it will give the US the
only leverage to enlist the support of Iran and Syria in helping to curb violence in Iraq.

"To have any realistic chance of success, I believe that the process would have to start with the announcement of a major initiative, promoted and vigorously supported by the United States, to reach a comprehensive resolution to the Israel-Arab crisis through a process of reasonable compromise and accommodation between Israel and its Arab neighbors," Close wrote.

Close said Israel might try to sabotage attempts to hold such a summit.

Although he didn't specify which concessions Israel should make, he writes that the Jewish State and its North American ally should make "significant modifications" to their strategy.

Close writes that the United States should not allow Syria to regain its sway over Lebanon but "perhaps the US will have to put pressure on Israel to make territorial concessions in the Golan."

Posted by: Dum Dhimmi Dum Dum Dum at November 29, 2006 10:35 PM

Hugh-

I agree throughout. Especially on the absolute evil of Nazism. I just think the world is in more danger now and for the reasons you have stated.

Posted by: poetcomic1 at November 29, 2006 10:42 PM

Good.

If you are a girl, let us kiss and make up.
If you are a boy, a handshake (known to elderly immigrants from Italy as "una shakanza").

Posted by: Hugh at November 29, 2006 10:53 PM

Much as I hate to say it, evangelical Christians are now the Jew's best (and possibly only) friend in the world. They will stand up to the arab whore baker and others in his harem and force Bush to do the right thing.

Posted by: Infidel33 at November 29, 2006 10:56 PM

By that, I mean no disrespect to evangelical Christians. It's just that I wish Jews had a leader of their own with the fortitude to do what must be done.

Posted by: Infidel33 at November 29, 2006 10:59 PM

The New York Sun newspaper reported Thursday that Raymond Close, an expert advising the committee, is in favor of engaging Iran and Syria .

"Close, who retired from the CIA in 1977, and has been doing business in Saudi Arabia since his retirement, expects the report to recommend that Israel be pressured to make concessions.

A memorandum sent to expert advisors Close says that the commission is likely to advice the Bush administration holds a summit, which will include Israel, "to enlist the support of neighboring states in establishing stability in Iraq," the New York Sun reported.

Israel might have to give up Golan

Close said that Israel's participation in the summit is crucial as it will give the US the
only leverage to enlist the support of Iran and Syria in helping to curb violence in Iraq."
-- from a posting above

Ah yes.

Longtime no see.

I wondered about Raymond Close. He should be the subject of Congressional and journalistic investigation. His entire career should be carefully scrutinized by investigators -- for it is scandalous, from the very moment that he "retired" early in 1977 from being C.I.A. station chief in Riyadh in order to go into business with two Saudis, to his subsequent years in up to his neck in the B.C.C.I. scandal, and then as an "international business consultant" (and just who was in charge of the Stimson Fellows Program at Yale who allowed someone like Raymond Close to be named a Fellow?) has for decades been giving lectures and publishing Op/Ed articles as a supposed "expet" on the Middle East, and presenting his "American-national-interest-only" views, his ostentatiously "disinterested" views (anyone investigate whose checks, directly or indirectly, Mr. Raymmond Close has been cashing, as he cashed in so well on every aspect of his Saudi connection?).

Oh, Raymond Close deserves close scrutiny and should have gotten it from the 9-11 Commission whose co-head, Lee Hamilton, now serves with James Baker as co-head of the Iraq Study Group.

And where, you might ask, is Raymond Close, whom perhaps you think should be seen as a shill for the Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia, and hence a traitor to Infidels?

Well, he, Raymond Close, is now an "expert" for that very same Iraq Study Group.

Care to protest? Care to write letters? Care to howl with fury?

Posted by: Hugh at November 29, 2006 11:00 PM

Google, to learn more, "Jihad Watch" and "Posted by Hugh" and "Raymond Close." Be patient as you go through the many dozens of hits. At least one or two will be a real hit, a palpable hit.

Posted by: Hugh at November 29, 2006 11:02 PM

Hugh pretty much read my mind. I was thinking similiar things about Olmert. I don't remember the name of it, but the Islamic doctrine that states that all formerly Islamic territories must be reconquered and subject to Muslim rule came to my mind. Apprently Olmert does not realize this, or he is unware of the fact that Israel was once conquerered by the Islamic armies.

I thought Islamic History was taught in Israeli schools. Am I wrong about that or did Olmert fall asleep in class?

Posted by: non-redneck at November 30, 2006 12:25 AM

Dum Dhimmi Dum Dum Dum --

That's not "Another very important distinction between Orthodox Judaism & Islam." It's exactly the distinction I made at the end of my comment.

My point was that there's a lot of similarity between the role that Halacha plays in Judaism and the role that Sharia plays in Islam. The differences aren't in the pervasiveness of the influence but rather in a) the content, especially vis a vis the necessity of imposing our Law on "the other"; and b) the emergence in Judaism of progressive variations in which the strict rule is questioned and reformulated in the light of evolving knowledge, culture and experience. Those are HUGE differences, IMO. But due to the latter, a lot of people, both less observant Jews and non-Jews, are unaware of how all-encompassing Halacha is in the lives of Torah observant Jews.

Posted by: Lynn B. at November 30, 2006 12:26 AM

Thanks for the background, Hugh. This is truly scary. I am howling with fury as I write and sadly enough, the one thing that comes to mind, ironically, is "Farenheit 9/11" and images of Bush I and the Saudis holding court, kissing each others cheeks and, um, fighting a war in Iraq. Everything seems to be coming full circle in the most frightening way. What year is this? Where am I? And, geesh, write letters to whom????

Posted by: Dum Dhimmi Dum Dum Dum at November 30, 2006 12:26 AM

To Lynn B. -

Thanks for clarifying - I stand corrected vis a vis my reading of your post. I revisited that last sentence in your post and see that you do distinguish between how religious law is applied vis a vis other faiths.

BTW, I am a margianally "observant" Jew, but one who embraces completely & unequivocally Jewish identity. I am fully aware of the role of Halacha in the lives of Orthodox Jews.

Cheers,

Dum Dhimmi Dum Dum Dum

Posted by: Dum Dhimmi Dum Dum Dum at November 30, 2006 12:38 AM

Close writes that the United States should not allow Syria to regain its sway over Lebanon but "perhaps the US will have to put pressure on Israel to make territorial concessions in the Golan."
Posted by: Dum Dhimmi Dum Dum Dum

l wonder how the US would react if asked to give up say Texas back to Mexico? Israel is alway supposed to give up land, well lets see how it works with other countries.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at November 30, 2006 5:57 AM

"I thought Islamic History was taught in Israeli schools."
-- from a posting above

No. None.
And still worse, Israeli history -- the real history of the Land of Israel -- is not taught in Israeli schools either.

But do you think Islamic History is taught in the schools of Western Europe? Do you think it is taught in the United States? I mean the real thing, not what Esposito and MESA Nostra members put out, or Muslim-financed "teacher workshops" are now pouring into the ears and down the throats of willing, naive teachers, happy to have a "Summer Institute on Teaching About Islam" to go to, proud that they will be "pioneers" in this new field, and utterly unaware of what they are being fed, and how they are being used.

And do you think the history of the United States is now properly studied in American schools? Those idiotic textbooks full of pictures and a thin rivulet of text, the prose such that cats and dogs can understand, and only cats and dogs would not be bored with such phrasing, carefully written and vetted not to offend (except to offend against the God of Truth, who doesn't much care for what he has been reading lately in the Ameriacan history textbook line).

Give my my Morison and Commager. Give me my Arrows of Desire.

And so on.

You too.

Posted by: Hugh at November 30, 2006 8:02 AM

I don't believe that anyone worldwide will bother to take up Hugh's challenge to really understand Islam.
Our American "leaders" are too busy playing politics, sucking up to CAIR and Co., or being gloriously politically correct in condemning Israel for the way they treat the "Palestinian" people.
Ignorance can be cured, but willful ignorance is stupidity.
We have too many of the,"Don't try to confuse me with facts, my mind is made up",crowd in positions of power.
Time and again, Bush and others have had ample opportunity to face up to the fact of not a war on terror but a war against radical Islamists who use terror as a weapon.

Posted by: cactus at November 30, 2006 8:43 AM

Hugh presents an excellent set of questions that are relevant for heads of state or everyday civilians. I will try to format this text of important questions to fit a bookmark. Perhaps the reverse side of the bookmark will accomodate an alternate reading list (not resembling that of General Vines). I'll print up a few and 'gift' each inside of books by Esposito, Armstrong etc. as I visit my library and book stores.

Posted by: justamomof4 at November 30, 2006 9:42 AM

Seems like Bush didn't need the Baker Iraq Study Group at all. From what I can tell, all Bush & Condi had to do was read the Walt & Mearsheimer "Israel Lobby" paper to figure out with whom to get into bed.

Posted by: Dum Dhimmi Dum Dum Dum at November 30, 2006 11:11 AM

"Orthodox (and particularly ultra-Orthodox) Judaism has far more in common with Islam than with Christianity."

While it's true that some aspects of Judaism does regulate as much as Islam, there is one essential difference. Judaism only imposes those restrictions on Jews... and only on those Jews who seek to be observant.

It is not in the Jewish nature to force non-Jews to live by Torah. In fact, a gentile is considered righteous if he obeys the Noachite covenant: i.e abstains from idolatry and worships the True God, refrains from sexual immorality, does not kill, steal or harm his neighbors, and refrains from other gross uncleanliness. The full observance of Torah is only expected of Jews.

Islam, by contrast, wants to impose Sharia on all of us.

Posted by: Provoslavni at November 30, 2006 11:32 AM

Many thanks Hugh.

Unfortunately, talking to Olmert is like talking to a wall.

He is a vile surrender monkey deficient in understanding and cajones.

Unless removed soon, a catastrophe.

Kinda lets one understand what Winnie musta felt like in the mid thirties.

Posted by: dgene at November 30, 2006 12:58 PM

Hugh: it is generous of you to believe this guy is redeemable. In this I would prefer that you were right, but reason indicates otherwise.

Posted by: dgene at November 30, 2006 1:02 PM

Provoslavni - please see previous comments by me and Dum Dhimmi Dum Dum Dum. I'm not going to repeat it again.

Posted by: Lynn B. at November 30, 2006 4:59 PM