From Timesonline: Gallup says that because terrorists often hijack Islamic precepts for their own ends, pundits and politicians in the West sometimes portray Islam as a religion of terrorism.

Here's that word again - hijack. When will people like Gallup ever get it right?

Posted by: Pelayo at February 21, 2007 10:27 AM

"Most women in the predominantly Muslim countries believed that Sharia should be the source of a nation’s laws, but they strongly believed in equal rights for women."

COGNITIVE DISSONANCE ALERT!

That statement right there would make a rational person's head explode.

Alas, perhaps...just perhaps, 'most [muslim] women are totally irraitonal.

Jaw-dropping...

Posted by: Alex at February 21, 2007 10:30 AM

"One finding was that the wealthier and better-educated the Muslim was, the more likely he was to be radicalised."

And at the british parliament this very morning the prime minister explained, more than once that 'poverty' was the cause of radicalisation in palestine and across the world.

Posted by: BlowHammed at February 21, 2007 10:43 AM

the muslims have no idea of the true feelings of Americans across America concerning the cult of islam and its followers...............and their silence supporting terrorism in America and across the world.

what will you do if a muslim murders one of your family, neighbors or friends?????

The Texican.
God Family America Freedom the only choice at any cost.

Posted by: The Texican at February 21, 2007 10:44 AM

So the muslim world is becoming radicalized against America? Well, unfortunately for those of the Religion of the Anti-Christ, America is becoming radicalized against the muslim! We'll see who is really hurt by this war that muslims have declared on America when islam finds itself in the sight-picture of America's wrath, a rich and deserving target.

Posted by: angryeagle at February 21, 2007 10:44 AM

if the choice is your freedom or dominance by the cult of islam............what is your choice????

The Texican.
God Family America Freedom the only choice at any cost.

Posted by: The Texican at February 21, 2007 10:45 AM

"Read the rest of it, especially if you want to know what John Esposito thinks" (above)

Is this the same John L Esposito, the intellectual property of Saudi Funding Inc, and whose 1999 "The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality?" got it so completely wrong, the same John L Esposito who, along with Karen Armstrong, is now advising the UN-backed "Alliance of Civilizations" project?

http://www.unaoc.org

Posted by: MBR at February 21, 2007 10:53 AM

I've been trying to get into the Muslim mindset just recently and I've come up with:

"All murderers should be executed by the state, but I don't believe in the death penalty"
"Men and women should have equal rights, but if a woman gets raped she was asking for it"
"All people are created equal but some are more equal than others"(attrib Orwell :))
"1 + 1 = 23"

Right, I'm off to catch the plane to Riyadh.

Posted by: Alex at February 21, 2007 11:05 AM

Since 9-11 I have gone from not giving a darn what they did in their own lands to not wanting anything to do with them at all. It’s only been five years, give me some time and I will grow to despise them even more. I have no intention of making friends with moderates any more than I would make friends with moderate nazis, moderate pedophiles or moderate rapists and murderers. What do they think I am stupid, I cannot read? I know what they say in the koran about everyone who is not muslim. It is well known that you either become a muslim or you will be killed or enslaved. To be hated by their kind is a badge of honor. Islamist update, many Americans have the same opinion of you, we don’t want you walking near us living near us, working, shopping or anything else near us, we find most of your behavior criminal at best.

The muslim lands are in constant strife, they outlaw all other beliefs, so what have some done in western gubment? Why brought them over here so we can share in the misery as well, what else. We spend 200+ years progressing forward and in the last 30 some here have decided we should go retro, return to the past. Slavery, women’s rights, religious freedom, among other things will have to go if we want to make friends with them. Who’s up for that? Pak woman politician shot dead for unislamic activities; look out women in congress/politics I see a new trend developing here. They don’t follow God, they are mini gods unto themselves. They are all judge jury and executioner, they have removed God from the process except in name only.

Posted by: tgusa at February 21, 2007 11:12 AM

How in the world can anyone put anhy credence to the answers any Muslim gives in a poll.

Two days after 9/11 i went to the library to get some answers. One of the books I found was called the "The two faces of Islam" (don't know the author, and not sure of correct title)

I didn't read it cover to cover, but got the gist of idea then about this tell them what you think they want to hear method of doing things in Islamic societies.

So how hard would it be to figure out what the sponsors of thia or any poll want?

And get a great giggle out of giving it to them?

Aunt Bea

Posted by: auntbea at February 21, 2007 11:14 AM

America, The World's Champion Villain is responsible for all the world's ills . . .NOT

If you think "they hate us" because of our foreign policy, how do you explain Islamic violence in Thailand, The Philippines, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, Sudan, etc.? Funny how the existence of Israel causes Muslims to kill Hindus, Buddhists, pagans and Christians across the planet.

Posted by: justamomof4 at February 21, 2007 11:14 AM

Does anyone here read the fiction of Orson Scott Card? His grim visions of the future are almost prophetic in my estimation. Let's hope he's wrong.

I bring this up because in his Ender's series, specifically his latest "Shadow of the Giant" that I'm reading, a Caliph reigns over a new Middle Eastern Superpower, and the United States has gotten so tired of wars and the undeserved hatred from the rest of the world that she finally shut her doors to all immigration and has adopted a vice-grip "Fortress America" policy.

The next book of his on my shelf deals with a future American Civil War.

I think sometimes that Scott Card is the H.G. Wells of our time, but he predicts political futures instead of nuclear submarines.

Scary stuff.

Posted by: Foehammer at February 21, 2007 11:51 AM

"While there was widespread support for Sharia, or Islamic law, only a minority wanted religious leaders to be making laws. Most women in the predominantly Muslim countries believed that Sharia should be the source of a nation’s laws, but they strongly believed in equal rights for women."

They think they can have it both ways. Women who support Sharia law will be profoundly disappointed by the results. Non-Muslim women who think Sharia law won't affect them are living in a dream world.

A woman in Pakistan who was a government minister was murdered because she was not wearing a full hair cover. The shooter said he was only following Allah's commands and that Islam doesn't allow equality of women in society or in government.

Oh, but Muhammad was good to puppies!!!!
A review of Tariq Ramadan's new book about Muhammad lists this as an example of his "mercy":
in the midst of a battle march, Muhammad advised his troops to be careful not to hurt a litter of puppies on the roadside. That should endear him to women everywhere.

Posted by: PMK at February 21, 2007 12:02 PM

"Most women in the predominantly Muslim countries believed that Sharia should be the source of a nation’s laws, but they strongly believed in equal rights for women."

COGNITIVE DISSONANCE ALERT!

That statement right there would make a rational person's head explode.

Alas, perhaps...just perhaps, 'most [muslim] women are totally irraitonal.

Posted by: Alex at February 21, 2007 10:30 AM

All Muslim males think so! I think they may have this right, at least!

Posted by: fedupinamerica at February 21, 2007 12:18 PM

ohhhhh its the War on Terror thats radicalizing them...i always thought it was the Koran, silly me

Posted by: kelisw at February 21, 2007 12:18 PM

Ah, yes, The Liars Online..or Times Online Liars.

Note the multiple contradictions. Let's see. I shall enumerate the obvious ones:

1) The pro-jihadist pollsters claim that it's 9/11 that's the cause of the radicalization of Muslims around the world. This is not "news." Benjamin Netanyahu has frequently noted that the purveyors of Islamism engage in "backwards causality." Claiming that the "cause" of Muslim hatred of the U.S. is 9/11 is just one such example. Thus, the Muslim terrorists murder 3,000 Americans and then Muslims explain that they hate Americans because of 9/11. A most interesting thesis, but hardly supportable through a rational analysis.

2) The pro-jihadist pollsters in furtherance of fictitious claim 1 above, then turn about and accuse Americans of being "prejudiced" against Muslims -- as if the Islamists are wholly innocent and are being unfairly chastised by "racist" Americans. This (as with the backwards causality) serves the pollsters need to blame the victims (that's Americans who suffered on 9/11) while exonerating (excusing) the guilty.

3) Then, to keep up a pretense of "honesty" the pollsters allege that the "More wealthy and better educated, more likely radical." Again, this is not "news." Most people grasped this basic, primary understanding (considering for example that bin Laden was a billionaire; ditto for countless other attacks conducted by wealthy, well-educated Muslims). This is about the only "honest" aspect of this poll -- the recognition that "poverty" is not the motivator of the violence. but, of course, what the pro-jihadist pollsters will give, they will immediately take away. Thus, on to number 4.

4) What the pro-jihadist pollsters must strenuously guard against is anything which would serve as an indictment of Islam's religion or Islamic culture or alert the public that there might be problems with Islam (the religion) or Islam (the culture). Thus the two factors (which I suspect are THE two FACTORS most at play when attempting to understand CAUSATION) will be over and over again thrown out. I've heard this at the CBC -- an "academic" (another pro-jihadi) would state, categorically (as if his life depended upon it) that absolutely NO WAY were "culture" or "religion" responsible for "the violence." I have various theories as to why they (that's the pro-jihadis) must rule out culture and religion.

5) In conjunction with ruling out culture and religion -- the pro-jihadist pollsters then attempt to claim that Islam shares soooo much with the West (as I do a belly laugh). yeah, that's particularly true with female genital mutilation, stoning to death of adulterous women, killing homosexuals, and oh, did I forget the honour killings? yes, indeed, we share just soooo much in common. (I read a book on "values" -- these were the religious values of Judaism -- and, what I noted was that the values were antithetical to how Islam is currently practiced. Just to take one value -- that's the value placed on scholarship -- education -- literacy -- then, take a look at the Muslim world in terms of "publications," in terms of "patents, new inventions," etc. Like night and day. Then there's the value placed on human life (you do NOT pick on the hapless, the suffering, the weak -- note how Islamists choose targets such as hospitals, children's gatherings, funerals -- these are the places where they choose to bomb! Anyway, I could go on and on in the contrast in values...but, what's the point? Other than to say, it's night and day.)

6) Then, of course, the Liars as Pollsters assert that Americans have more in common with Muslims, then they do with Western Europeans. This is the usual lie -- it's done so that the Western world will be split -- it's divide and conquer. I believe that Americans share far, far more with their European friends then they EVER can with Muslim murderers and their death cult.

7) Now we get to the REAL lies -- stated in the same article -- the contradictions. Here's one contradiction -- the article early on states: "A large number of Muslims supported the Western ideal of democratic government. Fifty per cent of radicals supported democracy, compared with 35 per cent of moderates." Yeah, sure, tell me another one. Now this is funny. Guess ol' binny boy (OBL) would have no problem with "man-made" laws, eh? right. "Shuck the Sharia" will be OBL's new slogan, I guess.

But, of course, then the pro-jihadist pollsters (just after their earlier lies about how much Muslims just love liberty and democracy) note the following: "She said that the Gallup findings countered the argument that, for example, a vote for Hamas was a vote against the former Palestinian government of Arafat [that would be politics and corruption - j.s.] rather than a vote for the extreme religious position of the new government. She said: “We have to assume that these Islamic parties and movements that are coming to power are popular and have a large constituency. People are not just voting for a party, they are voting for a religion, a way of life.” OK...that's voting for a religion, eh? Not for "democracy and liberty, eh?" Little confused are we? These kinds of contradictions remind me of that fellow who's studying the political culture of Islam with its conflicting, and diametrically opposed statements (says they use a different kind of "logic" which is non-Western).

Posted by: J.S. at February 21, 2007 12:37 PM

Oh, they shouldn't worry about us. With Sec. Powell and now Sec. Rice, they have real friends in the gov.
http://focusonjerusalem.com/bringingislamtotheusa.html

Posted by: Carolyn2 at February 21, 2007 12:54 PM

A moderate muslim is only a lapsed or ignorant muslim.

A moderate religious muslim is an oxymoron.

No such animal.

The germ of evil is there in the koran and hadith.

islam must be defeated. Hate the sin or evil, not the sinner.

The fools of the umma need to wake up.

Posted by: dgene at February 21, 2007 1:08 PM

auntbea:

"Two days after 9/11 i went to the library to get some answers. One of the books I found was called the "The two faces of Islam" (don't know the author, and not sure of correct title)"

The book you are referring to (The two faces of Islam) was written by Stephen Schwartz and was first published in November of 2002 by Doubleday. It is a good book in many ways, however Mr, Schwartz tends to focus for the most part on the Waahabist Influence on Islamic terrorism as the main root of most of it. My recollections are that Robert Spencer does not agree with that premise as much as Schwartz does. Stephen Schwartz himself has become a practicing Sufi Muslim which leaves into question as to why so much focus on Waahabism.

Posted by: Mackie at February 21, 2007 1:22 PM

auntbea continue;

One cannot help being continually concerned about the influences of Saudi Money that supports radical Maddrasses all over the world including the United States, and Britain as well as many other western countries.

What becomes more and more of a concern is that we see the Saudi influence on radical Islam turning up at every turn and yet the US Government continues to identify them as an ally in the fight on terrorism. The same can be said about Pakistan who many experts have called Pakistan-- "terrorism central", and may in fact be harboring Osama Bin Laden on its Eastern Border.

Ever notice how many Pakistanis have been found to be involved in a terrorist attack or a diffused attempt?

Posted by: Mackie at February 21, 2007 1:34 PM

Gallup’s Centre for Muslim Studies

We’re so busy fretting over how Moslems might react that Gallup has actually set up a center just to study their emotional reactions. Sigh.

* 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 *

The key to saving ourselves is collectively coming to the conclusion that Moslems are inherently bad people, and that we should not and can not give a damn what they think or how they might react.

Doing that, of course, would first require disabusing ourselves of the dream notion that moderate Moslems exist, which in turn would first require educating ourselves about Islam.

And that’s where the MSM/academy/permanent government come in. But they ain’t coming in, at least not until after Moslem activists destroy a city with a nuke or trigger a pandemic with CBW.

We need to cross that bridge now, before a great Jihadi strike.

No more fantasies about Islam. No more apologetics.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at February 21, 2007 1:35 PM

The Muslims try real hard to ensure the Non Muslims hate them....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at February 21, 2007 1:38 PM

So can we find a Congressman willing to read this poll on the house floor during the foreign aid debate?

I didn't think so.

Posted by: walterc at February 21, 2007 1:56 PM

"The War on Terror has radicalised Muslims around the world to unprecedented levels of anti-American feeling'

Another excuse for Islam.

It's all in the koran. Infidels just happen to be standing nearby. That's all that is needed.

Posted by: sounder at February 21, 2007 2:08 PM

Now if we only can get 79% of our population to recognize that Islam is a danger to our survival as a free (relatively) society.

Posted by: unicorns62000 at February 21, 2007 2:11 PM

A wealthy and educated person becomes an angry radical when he decides that the importance the world assigns him does not match up with his own opinions about how IMPORTANT he is.

Look at bin Laden. Growing up he was wealthy, but just another one of his dad's many kids in Saudi Arabia. But level a couple of buildings and EVERYBODY now understands how IMPORTANT a person he is.

Impoverished peasants are generally not radical. They're too busy trying to survive to care what the world thinks of them

Posted by: PapaBear at February 21, 2007 2:59 PM

So Muslims now really hate Americans in wanting to murder us compared to only hating us and wanting to murder us.

Gee sure am glad Gallop invested all that effort in finding that out.

Posted by: Lame Cherry at February 21, 2007 3:06 PM

from John Quincy Adams - just as applicable today as it was in 1829.

“Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he [Mohammed] connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST; TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE ...While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men.”

“As the essential principle of his [Mohammed's] faith is the subjugation of others by the sword; it is only by force, that his false doctrines can be dispelled, and his power annihilated.”

Posted by: xqqme at February 21, 2007 3:27 PM

The main problem with the researchers' presentation of these results is in the ambiguity of the terminology. What do "radical," "moderate," "democratic," "religous" mean, and to whom? Results presented under such labels as "radicals" etc are not primary data but are instead highly processed, highly interpreted results, prepared and packaged a certain way. Consequently, several of the results, as presented, are practically uninterpretable, meaningless, because the terms are so subjective, nebulous, and ambiguous. In my opinion, good surveys avoid these types of ambiguous labels (and ambiguous questions) and instead focus on specific questions asking for opinions/responses re specific policies. E.g., 'Do you support the death penalty for apostasy?' 'Do you support any penalty for apostasy (if so, please specify which penalty from options a-g)?' These are specific questions that yield clearly interpretable results. Let the readers decide such subjective issues as to the assignment of loaded labels like "radical" vs "moderate." Just the facts, please.

Now look what Saudi-funded apologist for Islam, J. Esposito says (note that there is no disclaimer here alerting readers to the possible conflict arising from Esposito's Saudi funding, and his pro-Islamic personal beliefs--that's precisely the kind of information that must be disclosed in conscientious, high-quality scientific journals):

“They often charge that religious fervour triggers radical and violent views,” said John Esposito, a religion professor, and Dalia Mogahed, Gallup’s Muslim studies director, in one analysis. “But the data say otherwise. There is no significant difference in religiosity between moderates and radicals. In fact, radicals are no more likely to attend religious services regularly than are moderates.”--from the article.

Note how Esposito refers to his highly processed subjective interpretations ("religious" "radical" "moderate") as "data." There is no basis for his statement "the data say otherwise" to be taken as signifying anything other than 'Esposito [and co-author] say[s] otherwise'. One possibility, when there is "no difference" between two constructed categories where a difference is expected, is that the constructed categories are themselves not valid, i.e., do not measure what they are intended to measure. In addition, the categories may not be accurate. Moreover, the categories "moderate" and "radical" are so vague and wishy-washy (as presented and prepared by the researchers) that it is not clear why one should expect to find a difference between them anyway.

“large number of Muslims supported the Western ideal of democratic government. Fifty per cent of radicals supported democracy, compared with 35 per cent of moderates.”--from the article.

Seems surprising, but with uninterpretable variables such as "radical" and "moderate," and yet another loosey-goosey ambiguous variable "democracy," it is really just a confusing pool of mud. What is not surprising is that some significant percentage of Muslims might favour the chance to vote (if we assume that is one of the key defining attributes of "democracy" and that participants all have the same concept). Some might favour it because they are thinking that they can vote for candidates who will reduce or remove certain specific Islamic laws and policies. Still others might also favour it because they think they can vote to increase or add certain specific Islamic laws and policies (e.g., those who voted for the current governments in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Palestine; and those who vote for Brotherhood candidates in Egypt, Hizballah in Lebanon, etc.)

Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at February 21, 2007 3:28 PM

Those a-s-h-o-l-e- think they are being radicalised, they have'nt seen radical yet ,all the parameters are being set right now, been happening since 9/11, things will get uguly for them before it gets better , even taking into consideration the dem.party / rep. party feel good types!!!

Posted by: OLD SARGE at February 21, 2007 3:32 PM

RE: UGLY

Posted by: OLD SARGE at February 21, 2007 3:36 PM

If Islam has a uniform, unchanging essence, it will be the only major religion that does. Anyhow, the diversity of Muslim beliefs and practices is a matter of empirical fact. It won't go away just because it is ideologically useful to deny it.

You simply can't predict how actual human beings are going to act in the here and now by finding alarming passages in the Koran or any other scripture for that matter since people have always found it very easy to find anything they like in obscure old books or, if necessary, to simply ignore the more unambiguous passages. After all, if Christians followed the Gospels, they'd be socialists. And nobody would want to live around folks who took Leviticus seriously!

Since religions are all fictions, they have no bones in them and can assume almost any shape depending on the needs and desires of their living adherents. If some forms of Islam are dangerous today--and I'm not disputing that--it's not because there's anything in the Muslim tradition that obliges contemporary Muslims to become fire-breathing Jihadists. On the other hand, there's plenty in the American foreign policy of the last 60 years that has tended to make Middle Eastern people furiously angry and adapt elements of their tradition to express that anger.

What's going on here is a convergence of interests between some of the radical Islamic groups and the American right wing, both of the whom benefit from the creation of a Clash-of-Civilizations fantasy and need a definable enemy.

Posted by: Jim Harrison at February 21, 2007 5:13 PM

Dear me,this certainly contradicts recent BBC poll. Interestingly this 'fair & balanced' Poll taken around 27 countries had 38 pages of comments on BBC-most of 'em disagreeing with Beeb-by following day there was suddenly only 609
comments mostly PRO ISLAMIC WHITEWASH...
No matter how much spin & propaganda,ordinary Jo & Joan Bloggs know who the enemy is. I say -let the Muslim Moderates show themselves so we can believe their fabled existence. Otherwise there is going to be a helluva lot more Infidels RADICALISED AGAINST MUSLIMS!

Posted by: Morgane at February 21, 2007 5:35 PM

"If the West wants to reach the extremists, and empower the moderate majority, it must first recognise who it’s up against.”

Let them do "outreach". Anyone who cares what their enemies think of them is a fool. People must cease caring about what they think.

Posted by: Frank at February 21, 2007 5:45 PM

xqqme,

Thank you for the historical context. I will save the document for use in nudging those ingorant of Islam toward the truth.

I try to keep as many tools at hand as I can to reach Infidels lost in the dark - this should be helpful with some.

Posted by: Davegreybeard at February 21, 2007 5:49 PM

I really wonder if when the Brits had their Empire, the islamics had as much terrorism or another name, rebellion? Was the Sepoy Massacre continued and exaberbated by the islamics? (I know the beginning of the "rumor" about the bullet grease - but who knows whether it was true - the Brits always had contempt for the "browns").

How about when the Russians were in Afghanistan?

Was there as many outbreaks around the world when the French had their colonies- in Algeria and elsewhere?

The question being:

1- Are we aware now of all that is taking place worldwide because of the advance of high tech - across the board - you know, the airplanes, the space satellites, the film industry, the internet?

2- Is there a renewal of the 7th century jihad because SUDDENLY the entire world is becoming aware of the islamic intent for world conquest - and now the mujaheddin has nothing to lose, can't hide?

Because the world is waking up and resisting - and the islamics are going all out?

This is probably an analogical study by itself.

Posted by: allat at February 21, 2007 6:06 PM

"Anti-American feelings soar as Muslim society is radicalised by War on Terror"

What Muslims, and much of the rest of the world, fail to take into account, is that Hate begets Hate, and that a rapidly escalating number of US citizens are hating back.

I was pro-Palestinian in 2000. Since then, though, the worm has turned. The more I read from the Koran, the more radicalised I become, against all Muslims... even the 'innocent' ones.

When the time comes for nuclear war against Islam... and Muslims will most certainly guarantee that such a time comes... there will probably be enough Hate in the hearts of Radicalised Americans to decimate the global Muslim population, and render most of their homelands uninhabitable for centuries.

Islamic Hate is going to wind up biting all Muslims on their collective ass, bigtime... they are going to get what they preach... annihilation.

Convert, Submit, or Die.

Posted by: cheese_burger at February 21, 2007 6:14 PM

When are sociologists going to do a survey of how many people of the Christian world are anti-muslim? Enemy are enemy, it's equal all the way around !

Posted by: Jeff at February 21, 2007 8:46 PM

This argument is not in the least believable for the simple reason that anti-American propaganda propagated by jihadists has been in full swing for at least three decades now.

Notice, it is not the United States' war against terrorism that is taking most Muslims' lives worldwide. It isn't even close. It is the jihad wars themselves that are getting more Muslims killed than any other force. Islam is the Muslims's greatest enemy, yet Muslims are mostly too wretchedly ignorant to know that.

Islam has recently been ratcheting up its mudslinging and hate campaigns against America for the simple reason that it is the United States that provides the greatest obstacle to Islam's conquering of the world. And it is the United States that provides the world's greatest antidote to totalitarian ideologies like Islam.

Therefore totalitarianists everywhere wage war against America.

And they are waging a losing battle. No matter how much they hate America.

Posted by: pythagoras at February 21, 2007 9:22 PM

"Anti-American feelings soar as Muslim society is radicalised by War on Terror"

Big yawn.

We don't like them much either.

Posted by: treehugger at February 21, 2007 10:27 PM

North African Muslims have a far more favorable attitude about the U.S. than Muslims in the Middle East, presumably because we haven't bombed the Casbah yet. And American Muslims, in sharp contrast to Muslims in Great Britain and France, aren't much tempted by extremism to judge by their behavior since 9/11. What advantage is to be gained by demonizing all of Islam beats me. Of course Islam is absurd. All religions are. That doesn't mean that their adherents are dangerous or even unpleasant people. Heck, if you can get along with Jews and Christians, I don't see why you can't get along with Muslims while you're at it. The alternative, I suppose, is genocide, which seems to be the outcome you are working towards.

I recognize that reasoning with you lot is a loosing proposition. I'm not trying to rile you up. I'm just doing my due diligence so that you can't say you won't warned.

Posted by: Jim Harrison at February 21, 2007 11:46 PM

Unfortunately, the muslim world is quicker to understand the core issue while the West buries its head in the sand. That is, islam and terror are synonymous and the war on terror is a war against islam. The terrorists are islam's 'holy warriors' whose actions the qur'an justfies. So, attempts by us to eliminate them will be interpreted by muslims as an attack on islam.

At the same time, 'moderate' muslims use deception to keep the West thinking that islam is a 'religion of peace'. Too many in the West buy into this propaganda and refuse to see the big picture.

Posted by: WillPower at February 22, 2007 2:00 AM

Bringing up the Battle of Khyabar, which took place over 1300 years ago as I recall, is a pretty peculiar way of making generalizations about all Muslims. I certainly wouldn't claim that all Christians are brutal barbarians, for example; but it wouldn't be hard to assemble plenty of horrors perpetrated in the name of Jesus, especially if I could appeal to ancient and legendary events. And, of course, a serious attempt to evaluate the record would have to include the positive as well as negative facts. For most of the last milennia, for example, it sure looks like the Europeans were far more intolerant of the Jews than Muslims. At least that's the consensus among historians. The point isn't to bash Christianity, which I have nothing against, but to point out the limitations of arguing from highly selective evidence to fan cultural paranoia.

Far from representing some eternal essence, the worst features of the Muslim extremism of our time reflect tendencies that are quite contemporary. Qutb, Osama, Khadafi, and even the founder of Wahabism were innovators who rebeled as violently against genuinely traditional Islam as they did against Enlightenment ideas. In this respect,
Islamic fundamentalism has a lot in common with the other fundamentalism that have sprouted up all around the world over the last 100+ years, including Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, Shinto,and Hindu versions, all of which have sponsored violence and intolerance. Of course, most of these movements aren't taking place on land with oil under it so we aren't so worried about 'em!

Posted by: Jim Harrison at February 22, 2007 3:05 AM

I think it's dead, Jim.

Posted by: Foehammer at February 22, 2007 10:08 AM

"Bringing up the Battle of Khyabar, which took place over 1300 years ago as I recall, is a pretty peculiar way of making generalizations about all Muslims"

....the point generally brought up is that in all those 1300 years since, the only thing the Muslims have improved on is the quality of their weapons and the retention of hate for Non Muslims..the lies, violence, and the insane desire for complete domination of your life remains a staple of their grand plan....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at February 22, 2007 1:26 PM

While there was widespread support for Sharia, or Islamic law, only a minority wanted religious leaders to be making laws

C'mon, Muslims! I read this and I can't help but think WHO, pray tell, WHO is supposed to be making the sharia laws, if NOT your own religious leaders?!? Your princes, kings, and presidents? Layman? Students? Your neighbors? The market bagboys? Your Quran ain't gonna talk by itself! But you all interpret it in so many different ways. So c'mon, after 1400 years, WHO else are you going to call on to call the shots with sharia?!? Allah and his voice booming from the clouds? Muhammad reincarnated? Maybe the angel Gabriel re-visits for re-revelations? The Mahdi? 'Cause if you believe THAT, then sign me up when it happens, 'cause I'd LOVE a front row seat to see supernatural beings show the world how sharia is "really" supposed to work!

This pisses me off, because it TOTALLY sums up what I see as THE major problem with Islam....i.e. Muslims, both moderate and extreme, all bragging about the "superiority" of their sharia, while simultaneously showing total vagueness about how to implement it. They fall all over themselves trying to implement sharia, in the belief that they're re-capturing an exaggerated illusion of Islam's "glory days", yet ending up with failed, broken, disappointed societies. And as they're left stewing as to why no perfect Islamic society exists for them to live in, they either blame non-Muslims for getting in their way or blame their own learned religious leaders for trying to make the laws they don't want them making in the first place...all setting the table for fatal consequences. Sharia is nothing but a deadly, aggravating, arrogant, delusional vicious circle with no way out (short of abandoning the concept entirely), because no matter what anybody in the ummah does, few are satisfied, most are mad, and everyone is hurt.

Posted by: yadayada at February 24, 2007 2:32 AM