Where can I find The Call to Jihad by Humaid?

Posted by: silent_rage at March 25, 2007 9:51 AM

One thing that strikes me about Muslims is how little they know of other belief-systems and the history of other cultures. For example, they often have no idea that Christ condemned all deception and warned that all deception-hypocrisy "comes from the evil one". Islam and Christianity are as different as Jesus and bloodthirsty Muhammad.

Islam strikes me as a Supremacist Rationalization System, reinforced by rituals and costumes, that condones exploitation, deception and the killing of Kuffirs, along with a willful blindness to any other cultures. History is full of such rationalizations that are used for the subduing of some lately "indigenous people", but Islam (the engine of Arab and Ottoman Imperialism) is particularly effective at dehumanizing "the other" (much like Nazi ideology).

Usually after a Supremacist ideology/"religion" is successful in conquest, subduing, exploiting (and often exterminating) a lately "indigenous people", it settles down to a business format. It is in such periods that the predatory nature of the ideology (Islam, e.g.) is sanitized and myths are created that make "good" the exploitations, cultural supremacism, and mass murders (Islam in India, e.g.) by the true believers.

(Many Muslims pretend that Zionism is such a supremacist ideology. But Zionism is really a defensive ideology (btw, I'm not Jewish) that exists because supremacist ideologies (Islam, Nazism, e.g.) threaten the existence of the Jewish people. The Jews, especiqally those who fled Muslim countries, do not want to suffer the fate of the Negro Africans in Darfur. Who can blame the Jews for not wanting to live under Muslim rule?)

Posted by: Frank at March 25, 2007 9:53 AM

Above you have pointed out that Bush and Hughes (how is it that two people, of that level, are dealing with these matters -- at that level) fail to understand that "Abraham" of the Qur'an and Islam is not the "Abraham" of the Old Testament and Judaism or Christianity.]

And exactly the same could be said for the Muslim versions of all of the important figures that Islam has taken over, appropriated, in distorted fashion, from the two prior-in-time monotheisms: Moses, and Jesus. The Muslim Jesus, in particular, is so very different from the Christian Jesus. He is not the Son of God, not even close, for God is alone, and anyone who attributes divinity to Jesus is guilty of that worst of belief-crimes: Polytheism, or Shirk.

So many stories, so many details, were taken over by Islam, just as Islam appropriated Jerusalem in that act of geopolitical seizure, when the "farthest mosque" (al-masjid al-aksa)not further identified in the Qur'an, became fixed -- and there was some controversy over where to fix it-- by the Umayyad ruler of Damascus, who placed the site right on top of the Temple Mount, which was akin to planting the Flag of Islam over the holiest site of the Jews, in the city holy to Jews and Christians. And as Muslims know, all of those they call "the prophets," were Muslims. Moses and Jesus were both Muslims. For that matter, you and I are born as Muslims, and through the bad upbringing and misconceptions we receive (but when all obstacles to Islam are torn down and destroyed, it will be another matter, for have no fear, "Islam is to dominate and is not to be dominated") we fall away from Islam.

Not quite Wordsworthian babes, trailing clouds of glory, but we emerge from the womb with a deep belief and understanding of the default faith -- Islam, and something causes us, the non-Muslims, or our parents, to then push the wrong button, and get the wrong operating system. But Muslims are here to fix that.

So don't worry.

Posted by: Hugh at March 25, 2007 9:53 AM

People like President Bush or Hughes project Judeo-Christian beliefs on Islam. They don't see it for what it is in itself. This "multicultural" view ignores the real nature of culture and results in ignorance that is blind to what "the other" (as Waffa S. puts it) is all about.

Posted by: Frank at March 25, 2007 9:58 AM

Education in American was deconstructed in the 1960s, and from kindergarten on up to our high schools and universities all the way up to our prestigious finishing schools put there to teach our elites (Yale, Harvard, Stanford, Princeton, etc.) all levels have sagged and drooped and excused themselves and sunk and stunk up the learning landscape.

We shouldn't be surprised in the least at such a spectacle as getting the Koran exactly wrong.

Think of the advisors who adivsed George and Karen. Better yet, think of what was going on in the heads of those housewives who lustily applauded Rosie when she denounced Christianity as "more harmful than Islam."

This is our new meat. Duh.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at March 25, 2007 10:03 AM

Hugh-

You nailed it. We have to stop projecting our beliefs, or at least what we were taught. For example, the Jesus we learned about in grade school (who forbid all deception) is not the same Jesus in Islam. This multicultural crap of recent years not only degrades the understanding of other cultures, it's also dangerous. The whole venture in Iraq is partly the result of ignorance re Islam. That's OK for ordinary folks, but it's bad when the president doesn't understand this culture. It's dangerous.

Posted by: Frank at March 25, 2007 10:08 AM

Jesus in Islam is a prophet (all human), not the son of God. In addition, He is portrayed as a SLAVE to Allah! They've even got him saying something like "Verily, I am a slave to Allah." !! LOL! Uh huh, our Jesus is a "slave" to a pre-Islamic Arabian pagan moon deity!

I have to laugh, in combination with incredulity, that so many "billions" worship a pre-Islamic pagan moon deity! The phrase "mindless sheep" is esp. pertinent here!

Muhammed is the biggest con man in theological history!

Posted by: darcy at March 25, 2007 10:17 AM

But for lack of this, not only are statements issued that could have and should have been much more carefully worded, but policy errors keep multiplying -- not least of which is the democracy project in Iraq, which I said would never work in early 2003, before it even started (at the link are two articles headed "Does President Bush Have a Realistic Plan for Bringing Democracy to the Middle East?" I wrote the "No" section). Was it a lucky guess? Was I endowed with prophetic powers? Neither. I just knew a bit about Islam and Sharia. It is unfortunate that there is so little evidence that anyone in the White House or the State Department is similarly informed.

__________________

I have, from the start of this war, never doubted our military might, but I had, and continue to be, most concerned about the ignorance of Islam within all branches of government. We won in WWII and the Cold War because we, mostly, recognized and publicly spoke the truth about the true nature of the enemy. Amazingly enough, if you can even imagine this (I'm post-Vietnam in age), the media ACTUALLY supported the war-effort, the propaganda effort (On OUR side), and the public-at-large sacrificed what little they could for the war effort. All of us our are mostly removed from the war (No Food rationing right now), the media is not only not supporting the USA, they are ACTIVELY supporting the enemy, and our own government STILL cannot call a "spade" a "spade."

I'm afraid for our future as a country. (At least given my understanding of history, and comparing how we acted in WWII to Vietnam - We won WWII, and we lost/drawed in Vietnam. - Why the heck are we following the same pattern that allowed us to loose Vietnam? - Why can't we follow the pattern that allowed us to win WWII??)

Posted by: Monkeywho at March 25, 2007 10:23 AM

Every time Bush opens his mouth we should be worried. First of all, he never seems to string together a complete or lucid sentence. Second of all, he's deluded if he thinks he's going to turn the tide in Iraq with this mamby-pamby, limp-wristed goodwill towards a people who would gladly behead him if they had the chance. Our leaders think everyone they deal with has been educated at Yale or Brown, been to Sunday school or finishing school, and appreciate the original ideals behind the founding of the U.N. The Muslims see the world in distinct areas at war with one another, so we must respond in the same way to them.

Posted by: FallaciFan at March 25, 2007 10:28 AM

In Abraham, we all have an example to follow. A man of God who refused to associate partners with God (like the christians-Jesus son of god and Jews-zeyru son of god)...We should all reject paganistic beliefs because we are from different backgrounds, races etc and in God's unity, we can all unite as ONE mankind worshipping ONE God

Posted by: Abdullah at March 25, 2007 10:31 AM

People "should" mind their own business about what other people believe and stop assuming that their belief-systems are scientific fact, and stop imposing their beliefs on others. All people are swine to one degree or other in this regard, but Muslims are particularly repulsive in telling others what they "should" do. Mind your own business and stop telling other people what they "should" do. That's the problem in history. It's a pattern that has to end.

Posted by: Frank at March 25, 2007 10:49 AM

Robert mentions that someone with a reasonable knowledge of the worldview of Islam, of what Islam inculcates, would not have been a booster of the Iraq the Model (or Iraq the Light Unto the Muslim Nations) Project. For one would have known that "democracy" in the Western sense is not possible, a democracy that would enshrine the rights of the individual (as expressed in the American Bill of Rights, or in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), insist upon legal equality for non-Muslims and for women, and, above all, be based on a system that would require the people in Iraq (not the "Iraqi people" in whom Bush so devoutly appears to believe) and locate political legitimacy in the expressed will of the people (see the social-contract theories, see Hobbes, see Locke, see Rouseau, and go right up to Rawls, by which governments are legitimated by appeal to that will) to believe that it is the expressed will of the people that matters, and not the will expressed by Allah in Qur'an (and glossed by the Sunnah). But how did Bush, who scarcely knew or knows a thing about Islam, and whose chief advisors on the subject have been, inter alios, a professor of law in Ohio, and how did Karen Hughes, our great expert in "reaching out" (something that in any case is completely contrary to what should be done) to the world of Islam, decide that this was just one more little topic, easily mastered, and that in no time at all, by meeting with Saudi ambassadors and suchlike, they'd get the hang of it.

But, you will say, didn't Kanan Makiya and Ahmed Chalabi explain that everything would be alright, and didn't Bernard Lewis think it would all work out fine? And what about all those predictions -- Paul Wolfowitz claiming the entire war and brief occupation -- so very brief -- would cost some tens of billions of dollars, or that other fellow, the one who said it would be "walk in the park," or Richard Perle, so sound when he was Henry Jackson's deputy but apparently not eager to study Islam himself, willing to rely on those nice unrepresentative Shi'a-in-exile who were all over Washington (it is they who deserve the most credit for the war in Iraq; it is they who held out the promise of so much, in their desire to convince or inveigle the Americans into removing Saddam Hussein). And Lewis himself, who has Arab visitors to his house to see his rarities in Princeton, and who always seems so impressed with those Arabs and Muslims who share one important characteristic: they all appear to be so impressed with Bernard Lewis. And so Ahmed Chalabi is seen as an Iraqi attuned to Iraqi reality, when Ahmed Chalabi in fact had been out of Iraq for 45 years. And the fact that he was a serious mathematician, with a doctorate from the University of Chicago to prove it (and what has become of Waring's Problem, since it gave Chalabi, or he gave it, the slip?), and Kanan Makiya, author of "The Republic of Fear" and stout oppononent of both Saddam Hussein and that other bully, this one in so-called intellectual matters, Edward Said, and then there was that charming Arab lady interested in rescuing the Arab world who was, and perhaps still is, a great and good friend of Paul Wolfowitz, who may have learned from her, rather than from quiet days and nights among the books, not only studying but taking in, assimilating, the material -- which requires the quiet that the hectic vacancy of Washington so seldom permits.

And then there was not only Islam, but history itself. Where was the study of the divide between Sunni and Shi'a? It was seen as something temporary, something that could and would be bridged. After all, were there not Sunni-Shi'a marriages? Were there not good Sunnis and good Shi'a -- precisely the kind one would find among the secularized and outwardly westernized elites in exile, the very people who knew each other, and who presented themselves as "representative" Iraqis, so that Lewis might have been dreaming, for all we know, of an Iraq that would be run by his friends and acquaintances, such as Ahmed Chalabi and Kanan Makiya and Mithal al-Alusi and all the other unrepresentative representative men. How many votes did the slate of Ahmed Chalabi receive, and compare that result with the slate of Moqtada al-Sadr, or the parties controlled by people only a tad less unpleasant than Moqtada al-Sadr. And if the Sunnis were really to participate wholeheartedly in one of those purple-thumbed supposedly majestic exercises in voting, for whom would they vote? Mithal al-Alusi? Well, no, because when he ran, on his own, he received 4,500 votes in a country of 27 million.

The clash between Sunnis and Shi'a goes back to earliest Islam. The depth and duration of that hostility, which in history-haunted Islam can be so easily evoked, so easily brought up and made more real for those living in the present than the present itself, was simply ignored by these Iraqis-in-exile. Party, it was a function of their own ignorance. They really thought that the "problem" of Iraq was Saddam Hussein, and the last thirty years. They didn't know Iraq's history, and had they spent time reading, say, Elie Kedourie (oh, but he doesn't count because he was Jewish and as an adult lived in England? So his meticulous and dry studies count for nothing? Is that it?), they would have seen the history of suppression of enemies, of endemic violence, of palace coups (remember "strongman" Nuri es-Said?), and of course, of that early revolt of the Shi'a tribes, unwilling to be ruled, as the British wanted them to be ruled, by a Sunni king and a Sunni elite (see "The Letters of Gertrude Bell").

Islam was not understood. Iraq was wilfully misunderstood.

Otherwise, the American government, the Bush Administration, knew -- and knows -- exactly what it is doing.

History, history.

Posted by: Hugh at March 25, 2007 11:12 AM

Being stubborn is a virtue when you are right. President Bush believes his own lies and is dangerous.

5:72 They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. The Messiah (himself) said: O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Lo! Who so ascribeth partners unto Allah, for him Allah hath forbidden paradise. His abode is the Fire. For evil-doers there will be no helpers.

Mohammed says Christians will burn. The Qu’ran is non-negotiable.

A glitch in the northeast electrical grid caused a blackout. Those who cannot build a shack can still take down a Cathedral. We are very fortunate, these are interesting times. People ‘should’ be ready for a new normal.

Posted by: pez at March 25, 2007 11:15 AM

A Florilegium of Quotes (email to friends, print out and magnetically affix to your refrigerator door, so that the contents become impregnated in your brain):

#1. The Commander of the British Forces that wrested Mesopotamia [Iraq] from the Turks, 1917:

"To the People of the Baghdad Vilayet... our armies have not come into your Cities and Lands as conquerors or enemies but as liberators. Since the days of Hulaku your citizens have been subject to the tyranny of Strangers, your palaces have fallen into ruins, your gardens have sunken into desolation and you yourselves have groaned in bondage. ...It is the wish not only of my King and his peoples, but it is also the wish of the great nations with whom he is in alliance that you should prosper ...But you, the people of Baghdad, ... are not to understand that it is the wish of the British Government to impose upon you alien institutions. It is the hope of the British Government that the aspirations of your philosophers and writers shall be realised again. O! People of Baghdad. ... I am commanded to invite you, through your Nobles and Elders and Representatives to participate in the management of your civil affairs in collaboration with the Political representatives of Great Britain who accompany the British Army so that you may unite with your kinsmen in the North, East, South and West in realising the aspirations of your race."

[Source: Atiyyah, Ghassan: Iraq : 1908 - 1921 : A Socio - Political Study. - Beirut : The Arab Institute for Research and Publishing, 1973 p. 151.]
___________________________________________

#2. Gertrude Bell, 1920:

“In the light of the events of the last two months there's no getting out of the conclusion that we have made an immense failure here. The system must have been far more at fault than anything that I or anyone else suspected. It will have to be fundamentally changed and what that may mean exactly I don't know. I suppose we have underestimated the fact that this country is really an inchoate mass of tribes which can't as yet be reduced to any system. The Turks didn't govern and we have tried to govern - and failed. I personally thought we tried to govern too much, but I hoped that things would hold out till Sir Percy came back and that the transition from British to native rule might be made peacefully, in which case much of what we have done might have been made use of. Now I fear that that will be impossible.”

[Source: Lady Gertrude Bell, 1920, The Letters of Gertrude Bell.]
_______________________________________

#3. Gertrude Bell, 1920:

“We as outsiders can't differentiate between Sunni and Shi'ah, but leave it to them and they'll get over the difficulty by some kind of hanky panky, just as the Turks did, and for the present it's the only way of getting over it. I don't for a moment doubt that the final authority must be in the hands of the Sunnis, in spite of their numerical inferiority; otherwise you will have a mujtahid-run, theocratic state, which is the very devil.”

[Source: Lady Gertrude Bell, 1920, The Letters of Gertrude Bell.]
__________________________________________

#4. King Faisal of Iraq, 1933:

"Regrettably, I can say there is no Iraqi people yet, but only deluded human groups void of any national idea. Iraqis are not only disunited but evil-motivated, anarchy prone and always ready to prey on their government." – King Faisal I, writing in his memoirs shortly before he died in 1933.
________________________________________

#5. “There are only two political parties in Iraq: the Sunni party and the Shia party.” – Tawfiq Al-Suwaidi, Iraqi Prime Minister, 1929, 1930, 1946, 1950.
________________________________________

#6. In "The Chatham House Version" the scholar Elie Kedourie comments dryly on the description by the far-less-great scholar Majid Kadduri (in his own book, "Independent Iraq") of “the wise leadership of Faisal, who inspired public spirit in every department of government”:

“If this [Khadduri's description of Faisal] were in any way true, there would be no accounting for the degraded and murderous politics of Iraq from the end of the mandate to the end of the monarchy.” [i.e., from 1932 to 1958, when first Qassem, and then the Ba'athists, took over, and things became even more degraded and much, much more murderous].].

“The fact is, of course, that this kind of language is most inappropriate to Iraq under the monarchy or afterwards.”
.........
“Lack of scruple greater or lesser, cupidity more or less unrestrained, ability to plot more or less consummate, bloodlust more or less obsessive: these rather are the terms which the historian must use who surveys this unfortunate polity [modern Iraq] and those into whose power it was deliverered.
______________________________________________

Do you think such material, had it been thoroughly read, in its full context, and digested, might have helped make American policymakers a bit more realistic and less messianic about Iraq? Do you think Richard Perle would not have so excitedly declared in 2003 that he wouldn't be surprised if a boulevard were named after George Bush in Baghdad? Or that Wolfowitz would estimate that the "cost" of the Iraq War might be "$20 billion," and therefore so much more of a bargain, than the cost of the sanctions program --when the cost now, at a minimum, has been estimated at between $1 and $2 trillion dollars, if the costs incurred for the treatment of the wounded, and the macroeconomic costs (see the paper of Stiglitz and Bilmes, and if you wish, forget the macroeconomic costs and take the lower figure, and if you like, reduce even that to something we can all agree on as an absolute base -- say, $750 billion)? Or that Bernard Lewis would confidently predict that when the Americans overturned the regime the spectacle of rapture and gratitude in Baghdad "would make the liberation of Kabul seem like a funeral procession"?

They forgot, or didn't know, with their narrow certainties and dependence on Bernard Lewis. A false choice was offered: on the one hand there was the usual crew of appeasers and hirelings and simply ignoramuses (and they were and are appeasers, and hirelings, and ignoramuses), people who cannot conceive of Islam being the problem. These were the espositos and william-polks and scowcrofts and the djerijians, who wanted nothing done to upset anyone. idiots (and appeasers and idiots they are): So, enough about Iraq or Islam. There was the belief that Harold Rhode, so uncritically worshipful of Bernard Lewis, see Douglas Feith -- so dependent on Harold Rhode, see Cheney, who was so certain about so many things, and similarly thought Lewis the last word on everything to do with Islam, and Iraq -- not a hint of any consulting with the live J. B. Kelly, or the writings of the dead Kedourie. or for that matter with others, including Bat Ye'or -- it was apparently a false polarity: either Lewis, or the likes of such apologists as Esposito, or just as bad, that fake "old Iraq" hand William Polk, with his predictable appeasements. No other conceivable alternatives. There is a good deal that Bernard Lewis is able to forget, or didn't know -- (look at his enthusiasm for the Oslo Accords, and his grotesque minimizing of the menace of Islam and the mistreatment of the dhimmis, quite unlike his two coevals S. D. Goitein and Gustave von Grunebaum on the mistreatment of non-Muslims under Islam) and what would almost certainly happen once the despotism of the Sunni Saddam Hussein was removed? And wouldn't a knowledge of Islam told them something about the prospects for real "democracy" as opposed to the vote-counting (that the Shi'a were happy to participate in, and voted for whomever their leaders told them to vote lemming-like for?). In other words, isn't a knowledge both of Islam and of the history of Iraq essential, so as not to engage in the kind of folly that is being engaged in.

The Americans, had they informed themselves, would then most likely either have

1) left Saddam Hussein in place, if indeed there was no real reason to suspect his possession, or his being able to acquire, weapons of mass destruction or,

2) if there was indeed sufficient reason to believe [we still do not know that, do but those of us who were long willing to believe that the government was reasonable in fearing the existence of WMDs or of the ability of the regime to acquire them -- I was one of them -- are looking more abashed every day] that he either had or was attempting to acquire, or could soon start acquiring or making, such weapons.

What are the most important things to study to figure out what makes sense, for the wellbeing of Infidels, at this moment, in Iraq, given the instruments of Jihad as we can now identify them, and the behavior, ignorant and often pusillanimous, of much of the Western world?

It is history. The history of Islam, both doctrine and practice. The history of Iraq, especially of Iraq since 1920.

Not "psychoanalysis." Not the "generally applicable rules of counter-insurgency" such as "insurgencies tend, on average, to last 10 years." Islam. Iraq. History.

Posted by: Hugh at March 25, 2007 11:20 AM

"Our leaders think everyone they deal with has been educated at Yale or Brown...."

That's not always a good thing. Practical experience is vital in the decision making process.

It reminds me of the joke about "Mike". His three buddies went to Ivy league schools, but Mike just finished high school. His pals were particularly concerned that he never got Math terminology right. 20 years after graduation Mike is fabulously wealthy and owns Dept. stores all over the US. His friends ask him how did that. He tells them that he would look carefully to what people really like, go search for and buy large quantities of what people really like and need and then mark them up 4x. He told them, "You would be surprised how those four percents add up".

Posted by: Frank at March 25, 2007 11:25 AM

As a first time poster but long time lurker, I have learned much on this site. Thank you to all who take the time to research and learn and comment on these most urgent matters, especially Robert and Hugh. I do not pretend to the intellect and wit of some of the posters here, but, as Karen Hughes is discussed at some length in this article, I thought you all might be interested in this link of a speech she gave this month titled "Launch of the Organization of Islamic Conference in Washington". http://www.state.gov/r/us/2007/81785.htm You should also click on this link which shows who and what this organization is...chilling. http://www.oic-oci.org

Posted by: mepeteart at March 25, 2007 11:41 AM

Posted by: Hugh at March 25, 2007 11:12 AM-

President Bush had this idea that he was going to get the Walton family, but it's the Manson Family. The president is stubborn to the point of stupidity on this matter. It's very hard for people to accept that things didn't work out as planned, that they are wrong.

Posted by: Frank at March 25, 2007 11:44 AM

In order to save some the trouble of clicking on the useful link given above, here are the words of Karen Hughes, Under Secretary of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, at a ceremony ten days ago, marking, or perhaps better honoring, the "Ambassadorial Washington group of the Organization of Isamic Conference."

Her speech should be introduced into the Congressional Record as an example of all that is wrong with the Bush Administration's understanding of Islam and of what that Administration still insists on calling "the war on terror."

There are dumb people running things. Dumb people no doubt have their place. But not, at this time, high up in the American government.

Her remarks:

"Thank you - Ambassador Rajmah, Your Excellencies, distinguished guests and friends here today. I am honored to join you. Congratulations as you launch this new Ambassadorial Washington group of the Organization of Islamic Conference. We at the State Department have worked hard over the last year to strengthen our relations and interaction with the OIC. We share an agenda to support the positive contributions and values of Muslim countries and citizens; we too have many Muslim citizens who make an incredibly positive contribution here in our own country. We have a shared interest in making sure that the mainstream voice - which is the dominant voice - is heard from Muslim communities. And I believe you and I share a common mission -- creating a more constructive dialogue between your countries and mine-- a friendly, frank and honest dialogue that is vital if we hope to achieve a better and more peaceful world. I know His Excellency Secretary General Ihsanoglu and the OIC have made promoting East-West dialogue a top priority - and I hope this Washington working group will be an important step in furthering that goal."

She mentions "Secretary General Ihsanoglu."
Do google "Ihsanoglu" and "Jihad Watch" and "Posted by Hugh" for a little more on this supposedly "moderate" and "sensible" (because Turkish, and an "historian of Islamic science) man -- see what you think.

The world is hungry for progress toward peace - and that is, after all, a core message of all the world's great religions -- "Salaam." The vast majority of people in our world, Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist or those of no faith at all -- want to live secure lives of opportunity - this is not a goal owned by any country, but a shared human goal -- despite differences of language or culture or skin color, so much more unites us as human beings than divides us. Yet we live in a world where misunderstanding and mistrust are spreading, often being fanned by extremists, their murderous acts and their rhetoric of hate. One of our great shared challenges is to isolate and marginalize these extremists, and nurture our common interests and values by finding ways to bridge differences and doing a better job of truly listening and seeking to understand each other. Together we must address the misperception fostered by extremists that there is a "clash of the civilizations," that the West is somehow in conflict with Islam, because I know -- and you know -- that simply isn't true. Islam, as a major world religion, is part of the West and an important part of America. As a government official, I represent an estimated six-to-seven million America Muslims who live and work and worship freely in this great country. One of the things I've worked to do is to empower their voices and demonstrate respect for Muslim culture and contributions both here and abroad. In today's diverse, global and multi-cultural world, people need to be more respectful of each others and of all faiths. Many important Muslim voices have made that argument for many years - even centuries -- as I was reminded last night at a celebration sponsored by the Embassy of Turkey honoring the 800th anniversary of the birthday of the great Sufi poet, Rumi, whose message was one of love, acceptance and tolerance.

During the 18 months that I have served as Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy, we have dramatically increased the number of our exchange programs so we can bring more people from other countries to the United States -- and send more Americans overseas. We have increased the number of participants in our State Department educational and cultural programs to nearly 39,000 this year. We are putting a greater emphasis on those people-to-people programs because more Americans need to learn more about your different cultures and countries and learn to speak your languages. We want and welcome more people from your countries to come here so they can see for themselves that we share many of the same values - that like you, we care about our families, many of us care deeply about our faith, we want our children to be educated and have opportunities, we want to live in a secure and a just world. There's no better way to discover those common values than to meet one another and visit each other's homes and countries. Almost every participant in these exchange programs says the same thing afterward: "It changed my life."

One of my favorite new programs is called "Citizen Dialogue," which sends delegations of Muslim Americans as citizen envoys to other countries. It grew out of a conversation I had with a Turkish woman when I was in Germany. She told me how isolated the Muslim community in Germany often feels. I asked her if I could visit her community and meet with people there. She told me, quite bluntly, "no." "We're not interested in meeting with our own government," she said, "Why would we want to meet with yours?" I asked, "Could I send some Muslim American citizens?" She replied, "That would be wonderful." Based on that, we launched a "citizen dialogue" program, sending Muslim Americans from all walks of life to places as diverse as Jordan, Pakistan, India, Denmark - the group that recently went to Malaysia, including an Imam, appeared on Malaysia's top-rated morning television program - the station was so interested that it is sending a camera crew to America this spring to film American Muslims in their homes for an 8-part prime time series on Islam in America. It will air during the month of Ramadan this fall.

This is progress. These kinds of people-to-people programs are invaluable in challenging stereotypes and countering the misinformation that radical extremists put out to drive a wedge between our countries.

Last week I was pleased to see that Secretary General Ihsanoglu condemned the recent violence by terrorists who targeted innocent civilians in Algeria. He restated the clear position of Islam again killing innocent people. And he expressed solidarity with the Algerian authorities for all measures taken "to contain the violence and isolate the terrorists." He is exactly right and I applaud him and the OIC for taking that strong stand. The time has come for more people of every country to speak out and make clear that violent extremists only pervert religion when they bomb hospitals, universities, wedding parties, mosques, employment centers, even groups of children. And tragically, the vast majority of those being killed are Muslims.

Just yesterday The New York Times had a story about the recent killing of 35 people in six suicide bombings in Pakistan. The story said: "The indiscriminate terror, sown by lone bombers, with explosives strapped to their chests wandering into a crowd, is a new experience for Pakistan, and it has shocked and angered many here."

In Afghanistan, President Karzai has condemned the recent killings of teachers, clerics, scholars, elders, widows and children and made clear these murders have nothing to do with religion. As he said, "There is no link between the actions of these people and Muslims. In Islam, if you kill an innocent person it is equal to having killed humanity. That is how strong it is, the verdict is that strong. …..why would they go and burn the vineyard of a poor Afghan widow why would they kill her, burn her orchard or spear her baby? …there is no link to any argument that they offer, they are simply merchants of death."
And these merchants of death threaten all of us. Their acts of terror rip apart the ties that bind us together - respect for the breath of God in each of us, respect for our common dignity and human decency.

The time has come when good people of all faiths must join together to make these acts of terror unacceptable, just as grassroots citizens united against slavery in Great Britain in the 1800s. The movie "Amazing Grace," which has been showing in Washington theaters, tells the story of how William Wilberforce helped lead a grassroots citizens campaign against slavery. It is a very timely reminder that individuals of conscience can make a difference. It took time, but ultimately, slavery went from being an international norm to an international pariah.

Time and again, we have seen concerned citizens in all parts of the world step forward and take a principled stand that changed the tide of history -

Like one of my personal heroes, Rosa Parks, a black woman from the rural south who refused to give up her seat on the bus to a white man -- and took a stand at a time when my country was failing to live up to its founding conviction that all of us are created equal…

Like Nelson Mandela who campaigned against the injustice of apartheid from a jail cell in South Africa…

Like the housewives in Ireland who marched in the streets to protest the violence of neighbor against neighbor…

We must do the same for terrorism and make the notion of killing oneself in order to kill others a matter of shame - never honor. Decent people throughout the world must be of one voice in clearly stating that no grievance, no matter how legitimate --- and there are many legitimate grievances in the world - but none of them can ever justify the targeting and killing of innocents.

We all are part of a greater struggle that calls on each of us - no matter what our faith community - to work together for peace, life, and hope.

And that is why we are focusing more of our public diplomacy efforts around the world on what I call "The diplomacy of deeds" - the concrete ways in which America is working to provide more education programs of all kinds, teaching women to read and young people to speak English…America is providing food and better health care across the world, from the Palestinian territories to Africa…and more job opportunities so young people and all people can aspire to better lives. Together, we must work to provide our young people with reasons to live rather than reasons to die.

It is my great hope that the proposals from this new working group will be constructive, focused not on criticizing or castigating one country or another, but on working cooperatively to bring about the greater peace and justice that we all want. As you pursue important efforts at the UN Human Rights Council to promote resolutions against the defamation of Islam, I hope you might consider broadening those resolutions to include respect for all faiths and people's freedom to worship and express themselves as they choose. If we can work together to defuse disagreements, create more economic ties as the OIC Sec. General has proposed, expand education programs, expand health initiatives and meet on a regular basis in the spirit of peace, I know our countries and our world will be better for it. We may not resolve all our differences, but I believe we can prepare the way for a safer, more prosperous, more respectful world for the next generation. I like to say I view my new job as waging peace, and I use the word "waging" deliberately because I believe we have to be very intentional about it. There is honor in peace - and as men and women of honor, I hope you will join me in this vital work.

Thank you for having me. Congratulations, and I very much look forward to working with you in the future."

Posted by: Hugh at March 25, 2007 11:50 AM

Here is a previous posting on Ekmeledin Ihsanoglu. Note not only the exaggerated claims made by Ihsanogul for what he calls "Islamic science" but in the excerpt from "Islam For Infidels" his grotesque definition of what he calls "dhimmiship" as "the privilege of becoming a protected minority."

Tiens. The "privilege of becoming a protected minority." That should satisfy all but the most impossible non-Muslims out there, shouldn't it?

Read on:

"On Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the Turkish historian who was carefully chosen, as the most moderate and presentable (to the Infidels) person, after the bad impression left by Mohamad Mahathir's celebrated rant, to assume the position of head of the Organization of Islamic Countries, one can find a number of things in the JW archives.

Here are two:

1. From a posting on exaggerated claims made by Muslims for "Islamic science":

"One might also be amused by the large claims made by a bizarre figure, Ziauddin Sarkar. Sarkar, in turn, was somehow permitted to review, in the pages of the British journal "Nature," the large claims made on behalf of "Ottoman" -- i.e., "Islamic" science - by Dr. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, a historian of Ottoman science, some of whose attempts to explain why such things as the clock did not develop in the East but only in the West (you see, since the early clocks were not sufficiently accurate for Muslims to rely on them for knowing when it was time for prayers, they did not think it worth using them, or trying to improve them) raise far more disturbing questions about the Muslim mind-set than Dr. Ihsanoglu apparently realizes.

Why did an editor at Nature give the job of reviewing Ekheleddin Ihsanoglu's book to the apologist Ziauddin Sarkar? And who at Science allowed the puff-piece about "Islamic science," with every cliche that no historian of mathematics, or science, or technology -- not Giorgio di Santillana, not Crombie, not Charles Singer, not a hundred others -- would have permitted.

What is happening when standards, supposedly so rigorous at "Science" or at "Nature" are so obviously non-existent, and both journals become, rightly, the object of ridicule? This kind of thing cannot be allowed to go on. Who, in the world of science, will demand some kind of investigation into how, if not Sarkar's absurd review, then at least Wasim Masiak's bit of propaganda for some Self-Esteem Studies Department at Al-Azhar University, or the King Abdul Aziz Institute of Advanced Islamic Sciences, is discussed, both its contents, and how it ever was allowed to grace the pages of what is supposed to be a serious and "peer-reviewed" journal.

Who were Masiak's peers who reviewed him? George Saliba?

Posted by: Hugh at July 30, 2005 01:36 PM

2. And this excerpt from "Islam for Infidels, Part III":

And many more words and phrases will need to be carefully redefined to protect Islam from prying eyes and minds. Certain words that could prove too hot to mishandle may have to be eliminated altogether. One word that seems to be getting much disturbing attention lately, is “dhimmi.” If Infidels were to visit the website www.dhimmitude.org, or even read the books of Bat Ye’or, they might develop a negative view of Islam. And that would never do. Muslims are keenly aware of the problem – hence all the talk of “protected peoples” and the Compact of Omar.. No less a personage than Dr. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, a Turkish historian of Ottoman science, who is now the Secretary-General of the Organization of Islamic Countries, helpfully explained in a recent address to an audience of American Infidels, that the “privilege of becoming a protected minority via an act of dhimmiship was given only to the followers of a prophet to whom a sacred book was revealed.”

In defining “dhimmiship” as the “privilege of becoming a protected minority” Dr. Ihsanoglu did his best. But those who are so solicitious of the public image of Islam and of Muslims in mind realize that it should not be left up just to NPR, or the BBC, or Le Monde; we all have to pitch in, and do our bit. It might be better if “dhimmi” were to be jettisoned altogether. The word upsets Infidels, and it does nothing for Muslims, either.

Instead of “dhimmis” why not call them “Friends With Benefits”?

[Posted by Hugh on February 14, 2005 10:33 AM] |

Posted by: Hugh at March 25, 2007 11:56 AM

Call it crap when it looks, smells & tastes like crap. This Abraham test fable wins the award for the most despicable myth in the entire OT (and the completion was fierce). Yet it is celebrated constantly by all Abrahamic religions & cults as if the Creator would command such a horrible & inexcusable deed. The proper response to any voice telling you to slaughter your beloved son like a pig is something like “get lost Satan”. The fable fails the crap smell test on all levels: if it were right for A to slaughter Isaac under such a command then why was he stopped? Suppose the story had Abraham going through with it, would it be still praised as a great deed? It would smell even worse.

The real point of this despicable story concocted by some rabbis/imam is to praise and indoctrinate into non-thinking heads the idea of Blind Faith. Imbue them with blind faith and you can get your faithful zombies to slaughter people right & left, even their own loved ones, for what you tell them is God’s or Allah’s will. Hence the suicide bombers, and all the religious based atrocities of history. So bad is the smell of this myth that many Jews must regurgitate the crap every morning at prayers and make major celebrations about it to stay indoctrinated. Of course, the religious celebrations all add various pleasantries to cloak the putrid smell, but the core of it is still rotten. Reject this crap!

Posted by: FM at March 25, 2007 12:08 PM

Ah, the voice of the fanatically faithless, or faith-lessly fanatic, is heard in the land. Hard to distinguish, in its hysteria, from the faith-full fanatic whom it purports to denounce. As for the symmetrical denunciation -- we are supposed to believe that Christians and Jews, or at least Jews, are just as crazed as Muslims: "[s]o bad is the smell of this myth that many Jews must regurgitate the crap every morning at prayers and make major celebrations about it to stay indoctrinated." How true. How fearful we all become, don't we, when those mobs of Hasidim plot their murderous plots, inspired by their "blind faith."

One begins to understand that it doesn't take "faith" in God to make one into a fanatic. There are the fanatically faith-less, who appear to believe that religiion, or a belief-system called a religion, is the big problem, and for the poster above, possibly the only problem. I suspect he's a fallen-off or lapsed something or other, don't you?

My, my. Don't fanatics of all stripes, the fauth-full and the faith-less, judging by the posting above, tend to deserve each other?

Why, if I weren't a lifelong, and devout, but relaxed and non-fanatical atheist, I'd be tempted to call it...a marriage made in Heaven.

Posted by: Hugh at March 25, 2007 12:18 PM

It's really not the place of the government to address the content of religious belief in any depth. Among other problems, as we see here, there is a serious question of competency in this matter.
But now, where we have to deal with the global jihad, which has religious underpinnings, at some level our government has to figure it out. That would leave, say, the CIA and the State Department as guides. But those institutions are staffed by graduates of our elite universities where they were probably thoroughly indoctrinated by leftist professors who secretly admire jihad as a cummuppance to the imperial West.
It's the blind leading the blind.

Posted by: jewdog at March 25, 2007 12:22 PM

Hugh-

Eric Hoffer pointed out that religious or ideological"movements"-religious start out as idealistic causes, over time become businesses and finally end up as rackets of exploitation and abuse. Communism was like that, Islam is like that, all belief-systems/ideology tend to follow that pattern. But Islam's permissions to deception and violence are unique. The "black hats" are not given a mandate to kill unbelievers.

Posted by: Frank at March 25, 2007 12:36 PM

"Frames of Reference"?

Wasn't that a movie? No, I'm thinking of "Terms of Endearment."

Posted by: Hugh at March 25, 2007 12:46 PM

I just re-read Karen Hughes' speech. God is she dumb.

Posted by: Hugh at March 25, 2007 12:53 PM

I am ever so thankful every day I come to this site there are more and more people who have escaped Liberal (capital "L")indoctrination which hopes to eliminate the process of discriminatory thought.

I've bookmarked this article and will likely use it in a frame of reference frequently. Thank you.

There is another frame of reference that is off topic but worth the time to explore.

Evan Sayet, Writer, Lecturer and Pundit Host delivers his lecture to the Heritage Foundation earlier this month:

Regurgitating the Apple: How Modern Liberals "Think"

Note: At about the 7:56 marker, Evan notes his kinship with Robert Spencer.

Posted by: justamomof4 at March 25, 2007 1:02 PM

I wish Bush, et al, would read "The Islamic Invasion", (1992) by Robert Morey, on Abraham and Islam.

Especially his piece called "The Ishmael Myth" (in which he quotes an encyclopedia on religion by McClintock and Strong)- VIZ:

"...the idea of the southern Arabs being of the posterity of Ishmael is entirely without foundation, and seems to have originated in the tradition invented by Arab vanity that they, as well as the Jews, are of the seed of Abraham- a vanity which, besides disfiguring the whole history of the patriarch and his son Ishmael, has transformed the scene from Palestine to Mecca..."

And then proceed to Mr. Spencer's entire list of works.

It's never too late to wake the f*** up.

But it's getting damned close...

Posted by: profitsbeard at March 25, 2007 1:09 PM

Hugh,

Thank you for posting the entire speech - I couldn't agree more with your 'dumb' comment. However, I think it bears repeating the link to the organization that she was welcoming in our name... http://www.oic-oci.org Everyone should click on the link and read their origins, aims, goals and members and consider protesting (loudly) to their government representatives that our state department is wishing these people great success. Just my $0.02 worth.

Melissa

Posted by: mepeteart at March 25, 2007 1:13 PM

I have to laugh...A number of years ago, I recall discovering what Islam teaches about Joseph. I could not believe it. It was as if the story (very beautiful and full of significance in its unadulterated, original form) was suddenly being re-told, appropriated by a moral imbecile. The story was stripped of every worthy note, devoid of any lasting import, other than the most moronic, superficial aspects. It's akin to reading a bizarro parody, a ludicrous farce. Needless to say, they "don't get" the Joseph story...(as with the bulk of scriptural writings...the moral significance of these stories eludes them.)

Posted by: J.S. at March 25, 2007 1:20 PM

Jesus (along with Abraham) are in the Islamic paradise f-cking their brains out with an endless supply of virgins and little boys and stuffing their faces for all eternity on delicious tidbits. I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP. They really really believe this. This is 'their' Jesus and Abraham.

Posted by: poetcomic1 at March 25, 2007 1:42 PM

Mr. Spencer, thank you for the above as it has related a problem written of in President Bush is based in Christian ideals and has implemented a "love thy Muslim" policy in not understanding he speaks a western dialect and Muslims hear in an Islamic dialect.

I believe though President Bush had a good plan to bring people rule to the Middle East. It was humane, because every allied Muslim state there knew that 30 million angry Muslim males bent on jihad were either going to have to be slaughtered in a major war or the most radical elements were to bled off in Iraq and killed there.
President Bush also implemented the Saudi Peace Plan to settle the Philistine neo Syrian problem in good faith.

All of that though changed when Olmert abandoned the peace plan and went for a central European cartel plan to seize control over the West Bank in war which is backed by the Vatican and Jordan in gaining control over key areas in east Jerusalem.
The Russians along with the Chicoms instigated a proxy war against America by the Islamocommunists which has caused the turmoil being tamped down now.
So in understanding this, yes President Bush did have a self rule plan for the Middle East which was sound. He though was betrayed by the minority Olmert cabal, made a mistake in thinking his information on Putin's taking out WMD's out of Iraq would keep Russia in check and did not equate that Poles were Christians as much of Eastern Europe is....and when they were given self rule they did so in Christian virtues, but when the Philistine neo Syrians attempted it.......the largest guns of the Islamocommunists won the vote, because Abbas and company stole as much money as Arafat did....just as Hamas is doing now.

It is come psychology for anyone to equate another people's reaction based upon how you will react. Mistakes were made, but the plan was sound and is still sound with understanding the situation and players who have betrayed America right and left.

Too many people as in all never equate nor give answer to the reality that if President Bush had not done what he implemented nor if America withdraws or what is moving forward by other powers now to instigate, are 30 million dead Muslims a good thing in an all out war which will employ Syrian biological and Iranian nuclear weapons?
The response from the Israeli state, America and Europe is going to be all out when this war is set loose. It is not coincidence that the nuclear aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle steamed up the Persian Gulf this past week. That carrier is there to nuke Iran if the Patriot batteries in the Czech nation and Poland miss and a Shahab gets through.

No one has even contemplated what is going to happen if one of Iran's nukes falls short or detonates on Russian territory. That kind of situation is going to make Chechnya look like a Passover solitude if Putin sees a chance to blow up the Middle Eastern oil supply leaving Russian the lone blackmailer.

It is easy to pick on President Bush in seeing what is wrong as there are some glaring mistakes, but in contact with certain people I know they understand and are refining. My concern now is as this spirals is there are not going to be actions taken which are sound, but nations forced to react with massive force.
People just do not understand that President Bush has been the greatest protector of Islamic peoples in he has gambled his entire presidency in trying to keep the Muslims alive and not dealing with a radioactive land with tumor filled children like Chernobyl.

That message never gets out and please Mr. Spencer this is not meant as any challenge to you in any way as I have the greatest respect for you and all of your associates in all you do. People though need to assess the situation with complete facts, because President Bush was between a Jimmy Carter Iranian rock and a Rockefeller Clinton, Powell hard place.
If he did nothing, 30 million people would die. If he did something, a hundred thousand people would die.

The forces for destruction though have checked President Bush, and right now as policy papers written mandate, American concern is to keep Japan and England as our advance bases to fall back on, keep Mexico solvent and pray our FBI keeps doing it's fabulous work so a Shahab or Russian sub missile set does not rain down on several American cities.
The President did the best he could in an Alamo situation, he needs all of our help though that this does not turn into that and is salvaged so we exist to fight another day.

Thank you and God bless you work.

Posted by: Lame Cherry at March 25, 2007 2:18 PM

"Ah, the voice of the fanatically faithless, or faith-lessly fanatic,.." from Hugh's post above. Indeed. I suspect that the "fanatically faithless" one is/was raised as a Christian. Using another "frame of reference" -- 1) it's not called "the sacrifice of Isaac" 2) it's not about "blind faith" (there's an interesting philosophical exploration of the differences between Jewish and Christian frames of reference to this event -- found in a text written by R. Birkowitz (discusses Kierkegaard's understanding of the story as "blind faith" or "a leap of faith") 3) for some traditions, there were a number of trials of Abraham, and the Isaac test was not, necessarily, the toughest test Abraham faced (there was another -- or others -- and much debate/dispute and argumentation as to which surpasses which)...

Posted by: J.S. at March 25, 2007 2:49 PM

Lame Cherry states above...

"All of that though changed when Olmert abandoned the peace plan and went for a central European cartel plan to seize control over the West Bank in war which is backed by the Vatican and Jordan in gaining control over key areas in east Jerusalem."

????

Are you kidding me? This sounds like something jihadist would come up with. Bush failed becuase he failed History and does not read. He failed because he is reallllllllly stupid. All of the presidents men are also reallllllllly stupid. I am not going to get into every failure becuase others such as Hugh and Robert have pointed them out over and over again and you could right a book on the subject.

When you get down to it however Bush does not know who the enemy is and never will.

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at March 25, 2007 2:53 PM

My Title would be....

The Bush Doctrine: The American Banzai Charge

But I am sure women and men smarter then me could come up with something better...

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at March 25, 2007 2:58 PM

SPCK: right = write

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at March 25, 2007 3:00 PM

justamomof4-

I really enjoyed this guy's talk. As he was speaking I thought of Alan Bloom and then he mentioned Professor Bloom. In the Closing of the American Mind Bloom makes the point that we are being indoctrinated with the belief (via "education") that truth is relative, as if 1 + 1 = 2 is only a "value", and that "tolerance" requires no discrimination at all, or the belief that one can know truth via reason.

The modern "Liberal" wants a Disneyland Wiemar Republic, but they will not get what they think they will get. They will open the door to fascism. Though I doubt we will see fascism come to America, it will come to Europe because of the abandonment of reason.

"Movements" get a cold reception in America. We still discriminate and make judgements based on reason. We still have a regime (as Prof. Bloom pointed out) that is founded in reason and experience, the rule of law, and not the rule of men using ideologies or "religions" as rationalizations for power and dominance.

Posted by: Frank at March 25, 2007 3:10 PM

Can some more knowledgeable person explain this to me?
How do Muslims re-brand Moses as a prophet of Islam?
I don’t know the Muslim scriptures well enough.
Do they claim he drowned the Israelites in the Red Sea, not the Egyptians?

Posted by: Odyessus at March 25, 2007 4:16 PM

The link. http://www.oic-oci.org
Posted by: mepeteart at March 25, 2007 01:13 PM

Intersting indeed. Checkout the vacancies list and the pre-reqs to be able to apply for any. How the f..k Muslims get away with glaring racism?

Muslims out !

Posted by: MusHuntCowboy at March 25, 2007 4:26 PM

There is a significant difference between the Wiemar Republic and the today's Liberals. The backbone of the left wing back then were peasants and people looking for work. Today, the backbone of the left is an alliance of the entitlement class, civil servants, and immigrants who feel oppressed.

Yesterday’s left wing would have fought to keep immigrants out. Today’s left wing races to welcome immigration to boost their voter base. The presence of immigrant Muslims is a negative externality on an already strained social welfare system. Today’s system is very unstable, especially because of the mobility of the tax base. Productive Frenchmen are leaving as their tax rates can already exceed 90%. Belize is peaceful, tax free, and has a literacy rate of 94%.

The Weimar government relied on foreign loans, promised to publicly-finance unemployment insurance (1927), reneged on its promises for financial reasons (1932), and fell (1933). Sound familiar?

Plato wrote, ‘Probably, then, tyranny develops out of no other constitution than democracy’. It will be far easier to scapegoat the Muslims than previous groups because Muslims are new arrivals, look different, embrace a hostile ideology, and really are a drain on the economy. Any clear-headed Muslim father would be moving his family out of Europe.

Unfortunately, America is probably only lagging by fifteen years. The Founding Fathers were brilliant when they put voting power in lien-free landowners hands. The system spread power widely, but kept it among stakeholders.

Posted by: pez at March 25, 2007 4:55 PM

So many Muslims I talk to on the internet, in person have access to a well thought out point-for-point attack on the bible, to deny Christianity's NT view of Jesus and Jew's lineage to Abraham. At every turn they seek to discredit the bible as "corrupted" in order to hijack the prophets of old and Jesus...vehemently denying the claims of the New Testament makes about the divinity of Jesus, Him dying on the cross...to even making totally absurd claims that Ishmael was offered, not Issac on the alter by Abraham. And the rebuttal mutates with what scripture is presented to point out their contradiction to this.

It reminds me of nothing more than the typical cult-like approach by claiming biblical figures as their own, yet blatantly ignoring the established testimony of them, diverting people into a murky wild goose chase of unfounded claims of corruption. By removing context Muslims try to establish contradictions within the bible that most committed believers in Jesus [and knowledgeable Jews concerning the Torah] will quickly recognize as a purposeful scheme...to begin to insert Allah & Muhammad into where there is absolutely no reference...to ultimately tearing down Christianity & Judaism altogether.

Posted by: SoteriA at March 25, 2007 5:07 PM

Just an update on this:

http://sheikyermami.com/2007/03/25/king-wanker-strikes-back-a-tribute-to-a-traitor-by-shiva/

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at March 25, 2007 5:56 PM

Karen Hughs speech was....nothing more..maybe even less than..only one word comes to mind..platitudes and they were not even cleverly arranged. Certainly,she did not write the speech..or maybe she did..anyway she read the thing beforehand..maybe.

Posted by: pismopal at March 25, 2007 7:05 PM

When you get down to it however Bush does not know who the enemy is and never will.
Posted by: greatcometof157
and how much better did Carter and Clinton do? and even Bush sr? Bush is not perfect, but he is geniune in thinking about bringing democracy would free these muslims. it is too bad Bush did not read RS 's books on islam. but leaving that asside, anyone with common sense, something the elites have lost, can see something rotten with islam. when you have doubts and questions, logically you should do more research, but its seems that common sense is lost to the liberal and elites.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at March 25, 2007 7:54 PM

"he [Bush] is geniune in thinking about bringing democracy would free these muslims..."
-- from a posting above

That's okay then, just as long as he's "genuine." Just as long as he is, you see, "sincere." Thousands of dead, tens of thousands of wounded, a trillion dollars spent on a quixotic campaign for goals that could not possibly be attained, and if attained, could not possibly have furthered the goals, properly conceived, of the United States or of Infidels anywhere.

But he's been sincere. He's been "genuine."

Posted by: Hugh at March 25, 2007 8:18 PM

Hugh,

Point well taken...however, leaving aside all the finger-pointing, who would YOU suggest we vote for in 2008; who, in your opinion might have a fighting chance of leading us out of this quagmire?? I honestly would like to know your take on this because I think it's time we stop the hand wringing and mud slinging and figure out with whom our (positive) future lies.

Respectfully,
Melissa

Posted by: mepeteart at March 25, 2007 9:11 PM

I'm waiting to hear more. Aren't you?

Posted by: Hugh at March 25, 2007 9:33 PM

Ah the insipid smugness of some people who cannot wear their faith humbly but when confronted with a position that opposes their blind faith they can resort only to name calling. One should remind Hugh that a fanatic is one who firmly holds irrational beliefs. One who maintains that obedient throat slitting of one's own beloved son is never justified is hardly a fanatic, but one who believes that it can not only be justified but counted as a noble and praiseworthy act only because it is recounted as such in an ancient text presumed to be infallible, well that is irrational and that is fanaticism. And it is precisely this righteous fanaticism of Hugh's ilk that has been the source of so much bloody human sacrifice throughout history and which rational men should strive to put an end to.

Posted by: FM at March 25, 2007 10:24 PM

I'm afraid I agree with Hugh, Zena re Bush. He's fond of saying that he's comfortable with the verdict history will render of his presidency in 30 or 40 years. He's too vain or stupid to realize that the verdict has largely been written for the cornerstone of his presidency, the democratization of the Middle East. At least Chamberlain recognized that history would judge him most harshly. I'm not sure Bush is capable of understanding that he will take a seat right next to Chamberlain in the rogue's gallery of Western leaders who really screwed up. My only question is: Where's our Churchill? For I do believe we will need his like again to find our way back to broad, sunlit uplands.

Posted by: sheik yer booty at March 25, 2007 10:24 PM

poetcomic1 said

Jesus (along with Abraham) are in the Islamic paradise f-cking their brains out [according to Islamic doctrine]

I wonder about the virgins in paradise theory. What is the point of having sex if you're already dead? Do these dead virgins that Jesus and Abraham and suicide bombers galore are boinking have ghost babies up in heaven? Why is non-procreative sex so evil on Earth, but so morally acceptable in heaven? Why is sex the best thing that Allah has to offer his murderous disciples?

Posted by: special_guest at March 25, 2007 11:04 PM

Mellisa:
I think Mitt Romney knows the score on Islamism. That is why he is being crucified by the press. He refused to supply Massachusetts police to escort the ex thug in chief from Iran when he came to the state portraying him as a terrorist. However, I have a very dim view of the American political system. I've even had the hallucination that Obama would defend his position as an apostate and that Reason led him from the Islamic spider web. I just eat a lot of popcorn and occasionally glance down at the circus.

Posted by: Briars at March 25, 2007 11:06 PM

Touche - we'll revisit the subject at a later date.

Posted by: mepeteart at March 25, 2007 11:48 PM

FM

"And it is precisely this righteous fanaticism of Hugh's ilk that has been the source of so much bloody human sacrifice throughout history and which rational men should strive to put an end to."

????

That is what "Hugh's ilk" are trying to do. You know win the war and put a end to this nonsense. Not one silly battle like Iraq but the global Islamo-Western War or Islamo-Modern War. At least Hugh's plan makes sound military sense. The Bush plan however goes against every major military strategy from the dawn of time.

Hey and if Hugh sounds "righteous" it is becuase he knows he is right. He read their book! Maybe our glourious leader can take time out cutting trees down on his ranch to do a little reading of the enemies books.

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at March 25, 2007 11:58 PM

Melissa

"I think it's time we stop the hand wringing and mud slinging and figure out with whom our (positive) future lies."

None of them are running for president...

The best I have found is Newt (maybe). He is a historian and does understand that there are some muslims we will never be friends with and must fight to the death. He however like all keep using the misunderstood religion line.

My reason for Newt is simple because he is historian he might make attempt to read. It appears he gets the evils of Islamic law (has stated that he feels this is a war with Islamic law) so it appears he is evolving. Remember Lincoln took some time to reach the finial conclusion on slavery also.

Maybe Newt can do the same thing. It is going to take somebody who really wants to learn and get to the TRUTH.

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at March 26, 2007 12:07 AM

FM,

Perhaps you are mentally ill, or merely a poseur or a moby.

Nevertheless, if you had stopped your comment of 12:08 pm at the end of its first paragraph, I expect you would not have demonstrated the idiocy which well-earned Hugh's response.

If you had not written your second paragraph of 12:08 pm, I think, perhaps, you would not have received that written response from Hugh, and an unwritten response from myself (an anonymous nobody on the internet), and likely from many other readers of JW/DW: another flake to ignore (I'm feeling expansive for some reason right now, so am not ignoring you. Go figure). You're not the only flake on this thread.

Your second paragraph betrays a mind infected with judenhaas, in its conflation of Rabbis with Imams, its addition of suicide bombers (as if religious Jews have been promoting such activities) and its statement, "Jews must regurgitate the crap every morning ".

You are welcome to your own views of religions or faiths or belief-systems. Certainly, there are few entirely rational belief-systems, or religions.

But your words demonstrate a particular hatred of Jews. Get a clue. Judenhaas . Look it up. Look in a mirror as you do.

Posted by: del at March 26, 2007 12:15 AM

FM,

You might wanna consider (particularly if you happen to get the chance of re-reading your last post) just who's calling names here...

There are a number of other interpretations to the story of Abraham and Isaac...there is *not* just a single, all-inclusive interpretation. To suggest that that's the case (ie, that there's but one way) is in itself fanatical, isn't it? And you wouldn't want to be considered 'fanatical' now would you?

I would argue that the term "fanatical" suggests the adoption of an un-critical air...and, not necessarily someone holding irrational beliefs (psychotics are not necessarily fanatics, but they do hold irrational beliefs).

Also, you might wanna check out what the Holy One actually told Abraham. You will not find the term "sacrifice" or "slaughter" (nor was there any request to "slit throats" as you erroneously suggest) -- again, sacrifice and/or slaughter is not to be found in the actual text of the request. "Sacrifice" was not what was requested (this is in the event you might be dimly interested and/or do not wish to misquote)...and so, the true meaning is not the "sacrifice of Isaac" (Isaac, as you might note, was *not* sacrificed) but, "the binding of Isaac."

Anyway, Hugh (in the event you've bothered to read what he writes) is a skeptic on biblical matters. So I'm confused by the suggestion that a sceptic could be filled with "righteous fanaticism" -- you'd have to explain a bit on that one...(actually, I find this amusing -- you're using religious language, while all the while attempting to claim otherwise...and in a contradictory fashion...is this your example (you're providing us with an object lesson) of irrationality masquerading as rationality?

Posted by: J.S. at March 26, 2007 12:20 AM

FM,

I mis-spelled, above, the German word Judenhass as Judenhaas. Still, please look it up, with a mirror handy.

My apologies, to all, for the error.

Posted by: del at March 26, 2007 12:43 AM

Anyone know if Fred Thompson knows what we are facing? My decinding factor in '08 is if the candidate knows how to truly win this war.

Posted by: Elric66 at March 26, 2007 6:26 AM

Karen Hughes' "citizen dialogues"= US tax dollars paying for an American of Muslim heritage to go overseas to a madrassah and get radicalized.

Shut down the State Department before they give away the keys to the front door!

Posted by: FallaciFan at March 26, 2007 6:44 AM

"One should remind Hugh that a fanatic is one who firmly holds irrational beliefs. One who maintains that obedient throat slitting of one's own beloved son is never justified is hardly a fanatic, but one who believes that it can not only be justified but counted as a noble and praiseworthy act only because it is recounted as such in an ancient text presumed to be infallible, well that is irrational and that is fanaticism. And it is precisely this righteous fanaticism of Hugh's ilk that has been the source of so much bloody human sacrifice throughout history and which rational men should strive to put an end to."
-- from a poster above

What "righteous fanaticism" and "irrational beliefs" do you accuse me of? You have it all backwards. I was making fun -- gentle fun, by the way -- of a simian likeness between those who apparently are not only non-believers, as I am, but fanatically so, and in that fanaticism willing to attribute to others deep belief in things for which little evidence exists. I don't think all kinds of Jews and Christians really take the story of Abraham and Isaac quite in the way that Muslims, with their literalism, do. Yet you seem intent on making sure that we who do not believe necessarily oppose all "religions" (I put the word in quotes because it is unclear to me what constitutes a "religion" and whatever Islam is, it is far more than a "religion") equally, as guilty equally of the same things. But they aren't.

I plead guilty to lots of things. An o'erweening pride, at times. A relentless refusal to let things drop. I don't take out the garbage often enough. But I reject the charge of "righteous fanaticism" and invite readers to look at the post at 12:08 (by "FM"), especially the second paragraph's hysteria, and then my reply at 12:18, and choose the one that exhibits "righteous fanaticism." While you are at, kindly look at a few of my other posts on this thread (9:53, 11:12, 11:20, 11:50; 11:56) to see if they exhibit "righteous fanaticism."What's my creed? On behalf of what am I said to be "righteously fanatic"? What are my "irrational beliefs"?

And what shall I say about this remarkable charge:

"one who believes that it can not only be justified but counted as a noble and praiseworthy act only because it is recounted as such in an ancient text presumed to be infallible."

Where have I offered evidence that I believe "it can not only be justified but counted as a noble and praiseworthy act" (slitting the throat of one's son, as Abraham was supposed to do with Isaac), and where have I given any indication that I think this or that "ancient text" is "infallible"? The point I was making that the taking of ancient texts as infallible, and what's more immutable, describes the belief-system of Islam, and only a very small number of literalists, if any, in the other prior and much superior monotheisms would hold to such a view.

What does "FM" stand for? "Former Muslim"?

Posted by: Hugh at March 26, 2007 8:39 AM

Tancredo still holds the most interest for me.

-XRDC

Posted by: XRDC at March 26, 2007 9:04 AM

This is the first topic to which I attached a comment on a (particularly disgusting) biblical belief held also by Christians, as well as Moslems and Jews and which was clearly manufactured to encourage blind faith, an irrational source of much evil historically and today (Jihad). I was making no other point. Usually I criticize only Islamic evils. By Hugh’s ilk I just mean those OT believers who smugly call people names instead of addressing their point, but much worse are those who maliciously impute beliefs and hatreds to me or anyone with no basis.

BTW I believe in a caring Creator but not the unjust & cruel "Lord" of the mostly disgusting OT. I'm for hating only irrational beliefs & ideologies.

Try to remember kids, addressing the point is good, ad hominem attacks are bad.

Posted by: FM at March 26, 2007 9:21 AM

"...ad hominem attacks are bad"

Of which it seems yours are actually directed toward the OT authors. Interesting that you choose to post them here.

-XRDC

Posted by: XRDC at March 26, 2007 9:46 AM

More on "a (particularly disgusting) biblical belief" (as I laugh).

1) first of all, one needs to understand logical operators -- let's start off with the three most common and simple ones. They are "and," "or," and "not." I believe FM needs to concentrate on the "not" operator. Thus, being present is NOT the same as being absent. Being in existence is NOT the same as not being. (Am I going too fast here?)

2) Consider what constitutes "a joke." FM can you think of a joke for me? Typically, a joke proceeds as follows: it starts off leading the reader to believe X, but (usually near the end) there is a sudden veering off, an unexpected turn which leads to Y (this is called "the punch-line" which describes exactly the opposite of what was expected) hmmmm...only really lame jokes come to mind.

3) Do you understand what the difference is between a comedy and a tragedy? Typically a comedy will start off as "everything is horrible" but, in the end, things will be transformed, and suddenly it ends happily. The opposite occurs with a tragedy -- things start off wonderful, but then there's a tragic occurrence, and the end turns out to be horrific (sometimes with Shakespeare, you get a lot of dead bodies having to be dragged off the stage...)

Now, let's just put those 3 points together, shall we? No, wait. One more item. During the time of Abraham the surrounding peoples practiced human sacrifice...(and, if you look to the archaeological record of human civilizations, you'll also discover that that frequently, the unfortunate "norm" of most societies around the globe -- so the ancient Druids, pagan tree worshippers did human sacrifice; the Aztecs ripped the hearts out of living bodies for the benefit of their deity; the peoples of New Guinea, sacrificed people of neighboring tribes and consumed parts of the remains, etc, etc.

Back to the story of Abraham and Isaac. The punchline of the story is what? The punchline is that the G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob does NOT tolerate human sacrifice. One more time -- this G-d is different from all other surrounding deities -- Human Sacrifice is Forbidden. That's the message. There can be NO cutting of human throats in the worship of said Deity of Abraham, Isaac and Jocob. Remember what the term "NOT" means. Remember the difference between a tragedy and a comedy. The story of Abraham and Isaac is NOT a tragedy.

I trust this clarifies matters.

Posted by: J.S. at March 26, 2007 9:59 AM

J.S.

Is that the sound of someone saying, "LALALALALALALALA" while holding a finger in each ear?

Good stuff. Unfortunately pearls are not appreciated by all creatures.

-XRDC

Posted by: XRDC at March 26, 2007 11:01 AM

I'm of the opinion that the key ingredient in the Abraham-Issac sacrifice story is Abraham's willingness to sacrifice what was most dear to him (dearer than his own life) to God.

It's really a precursor to the Book of Job.

And it's a foreshadowing of the Crucifixion.

Genesis 22:6
6 Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and placed it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife.

John 19:17
So the soldiers took charge of Jesus. Carrying his own cross, he went out to the place called Golgotha.

Genesis 22:7
Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, "Father?"
"Yes, my son?" Abraham replied.
"The fire and wood are here," Isaac said, "but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?"

The lamb, an unblemished male, would come later. God, the Heavenly Father, would reflect Abraham's sacrifice with his own:

Genesis 22:12
Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at March 26, 2007 11:39 AM

"citizen dialogue" program, sending Muslim Americans from all walks of life to places as diverse as Jordan, Pakistan, India, Denmark

Oh great, now my tax dollars which have to work so hard as it is are being spent to send American Muslims to other countries to learn about jihad and other seperatist activities.
How to have a State-within-a-State like they do in Europe.
My head hurts.

Posted by: auntbea at March 26, 2007 2:15 PM

Yet we live in a world where misunderstanding and mistrust are spreading, often being fanned by extremists, their murderous acts and their rhetoric of hate. One of our great shared challenges is to isolate and marginalize these extremists, from Karen Hughes' speech.

Why, if this is true why is so much effort and money spent trying to marginalize people like us?
We do nothing Extreme only question.

Posted by: auntbea at March 26, 2007 2:32 PM

JS –

“The punchline of the story is what? The punchline is that the G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob does NOT tolerate human sacrifice. One more time -- this G-d is different from all other surrounding deities -- Human Sacrifice is Forbidden. That's the message.”

Unfortunately this is wishful thinking. If you read the Genesis verse Yahweh praises Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son” “Because you have not refused me your son, your only son, I will shower blessings on you, …” He didn’t outlaw human sacrifice. You are supposed to think it was grand that Abraham was so willing. Blind obedience to the (alleged) will of God is big point. I’m saying the alleged test itself is completely reprehensible and hence it is irrational to believe the Creator made it (we assume the Creator does not ask horribly reprehensible things of us). True, human sacrifice was not out of the norms of the times but surely you don’t think God was struck in the cruel norms of that time. He would try to elevate. Do you believe God really demanded the stoning of adulterous women and homosexuals? Killing children who talk back (Exodous 21:15)? Endorsing slavery (25:44-46)? These and many more atrocities called for were the norm of the times, which is how we know these awful texts were written by men of the times, not God.

I find this slaughter-your-son nonsense particularly hideous and it has been appropriated or reinvented as it were by Muslims for their own purposes (hence the /imam in my original post) and dangerous for reason already given. It is so hideous that to make it seem respectable Jews have been asked to praise it in prayer every morning – a form of brain washing that helps reinforce blind faith (hence my 2ond paragraph in my orig.). I'm not particularly picking on religious Jews here since other faiths absurdly salute this nonsense too.

It seems to me only a fanatic can take the OT as "God's word".

Posted by: FM at March 26, 2007 4:13 PM

FM

Jesus said to love your enemies.

"Impossible," said the disciples.

"But," said Jesus, if you only love those who are good to you, then how are you any different than the scribes and the tax-collectors?"

Moral: Only unrequited love is love we can be sure of.
==================
Mother Teresa said: "How do you know its love til it hurts?
==================
FM, you would probably have a hard time explaining how God could sacrifice his only son.

Abraham, imperfect, mortal, was spared the sacrifice, yet God, perfect, immortal could not spare himself. Think of the cross as the tragic intersection of the human and divine will.

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at March 26, 2007 5:55 PM

FM,

you wrote: "but much worse are those who maliciously impute beliefs and hatreds to me or anyone with no basis"

The second paragraph of your 12:08 pm comment from 3/25/07 was more than enough basis to describe you as infected with Judenhass. Go back and read it again. You seem to be trying to wiggle out, but you just keep digging down, with what are basically tu quoque arguments deflecting attention from islamic jihad to, in particular, Judaism.

But don't mind me. Please continue.

Posted by: del at March 26, 2007 7:03 PM

Del,

Stop being a hate monger. I'm not wiggling out of anything. You don't like something written and you think you can brand someone with a vicious name for it. Disgusting.

Posted by: FM at March 26, 2007 7:22 PM

Ynkedoodl2 -

"FM, you would probably have a hard time explaining how God could sacrifice his only son."

Indeed, it makes no sense. First of all what kind of rotten god is it that would be appeased by the suffering & death of any innocent, and how could an innocent possibly be an atonement or reparation for the sins & guilt of others? Christianity, like the Islamic con and ancient Judaism, strike me as having managed to elevate, in many minds, much low nonsense to the greatest of heights. Yet Jesus is a guy you basically have to like, but beware he has been misquoted (see Misquoting Jesus, by B. D. Ehrman) which I’m glad to hear since a few of his quotes are not very inspiring (see 'Letter to a Christian Nation' by Sam Harris). Basically you can't trust the old sources for these "Holy Books".

I’m not trying to offend; I just want people to really reconsider.

I might add though that Christianity deserves much respect as a historic saving force. Fortunately for Western Civilization (which paradoxically owes much to Christian culture) the medieval Christians at least were people of great courage who held off the greedy Islamic hoards at the battle of Tours, & Venice. I regret that the basically noble Crusades failed.

Posted by: FM at March 26, 2007 7:30 PM

There is good reason for the poster “FM” to despise the OT as much as he does. Endless proverbs were in fact written about such a person.

Let’s see…

“FM” despises wisdom, hates knowledge, demonstrates complacency, loves to chatter, tries to conceal hatred, lacks judgment, feels his way is right, blurts out and exposes his folly (which is deception), finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinions, he’s quick to quarrel, repeats his folly like a dog returns to its vomit, and is certainly wise in his own eyes.

It is apparent that “FM” may be nothing more than an apt acronym for "Foolish Man".

An example to be sure. Worthy to debate, hardly.

-XRDC

Posted by: XRDC at March 27, 2007 9:56 AM

FM

Leave your "sense" out of this.

You can't "reasonably" or "sensibly" explain a passage in the Old Testament such as the following:

Proverbs 30:4
Who has gone up to heaven and come down? Who has gathered up the wind in the hollow of his hands? Who has wrapped up the waters in his cloak? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and the name of his son? Tell me if you know!
========
FM, bone up on The Shroud of Turin! More things that don't make sense and never will!

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at March 27, 2007 11:14 AM

What I don’t understand is that you rage so furiously against the god you don’t believe in. How can you be so obsessed with a person, you are convinced, is unreal? Something, definitely, doesn’t make sense here. To my ear you sound like an rejected, hurting and resentful ex-lover.

You are wasting so much time and energy to achieve what? You don’t really believe you can “convert” anyone here. Or do you?

Also, there are many websites dealing almost exclusively with the problems and questions regarding Christian faith and the sacrifice of Isaac is one of the most often discussed. May I suggest that you take your battle there?

Cheers,

Posted by: thomas. h at March 27, 2007 2:06 PM

FM,

I have a number of problems with what you assume...or take for granted (I suspect that you've been "tainted" or "prejudiced" (?) against Judaism as a consequence of what others have told you...and I suppose these individuals were probably, unfortunately, detractors or people who despise Judaism (and that could, of course, be any number of people -- from Muslims, etc.)

Anyway, Judaism is not Islam (there are superficial similarities, but, personally, I find that these two religions are more like mirror reversals, and the deeper one goes the more pronounced the differences -- at least, that's what I find).

Have you ever considered why it is that Orthodox Jews do not stone adulterous women or homosexuals?? Have you thought about that?

Allow me to repeat -- one more time -- the G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob does NOT permit human sacrifice. thus, when you write: "I find this slaughter-your-son nonsense particularly hideous" -- you are absolutely on the correct track -- you SHOULD feel horror...that's the whole point of the exercise. One more time -- G-d condemns Human Sacrifice. Totally forbids the practice. Unfortunately, many, many humans don't have a problem with human sacrifice (as one can see in videos posted by Islamic extremists who have no problem sacrificing their children if they blow up "Infidels"). One of the great banes (horrors) repeated throughout (what you term the) OT or the Hebrew scriptures was to keep away from the pagans. the Pagans worshipped, for example, a god called Baal. What was Baal's requirement for worship? One was required to sacrifice whatever was dearest to that person, so as to demonstrate his or her belief (faith) in Baal. As a consequence, pagans would burn their children alive...that was their "sacrifice" to Baal, a pagan deity. The Pagans were forever the bane of Israel (at times Israel would turn away to worship false gods). So, as a teacher, how would you demonstrate that this practice of human sacrifice is abominable?
(perhaps, now, in hindsight we can cluck our tongues at "primitive" ways of getting the point across -- couldn't Abraham been instructed by some other means, a less onerous test, a more PC correct test? -- but, isn't that, as the historians say, to engage in "historicism"? -- that is, you're using your current knowledge to cast judgement -- a disparaging judgement -- on past peoples...historicism is another kind of prejudice...thus, only after Moses does everyone become suddenly sensitive to perserving and valuing human life...then these same people turn about and condemn Moses.)
Well, I could continue and note the problem with the "blind faith" notion (have you never read a page from the Talmud?) but that would make for far too long a post.