| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Tanveer Ahmed in The Australian (thanks to all who sent this in) discusses the uncomfortable truths that Gordon Brown doesn't dare face, and that John Derbyshire is too bored to consider.
THE latest attack in Britain shows how the Islamist threat is being driven by something much grander than mere foreign policy or feelings of grievance. The perpetrators believe they are soldiers in the perceived historical battle between good and evil.[...]
As a commentator on Muslim affairs and home-grown terrorism, I am often asked whether there is something in Islam itself that is contributing to terrorist acts. As someone who is not a theological expert, I shy away from strong pronouncements on the issue, preferring to discuss the sociological roots of alienation and the modern symbol of protest that Islam has become.
But the question is impossible to avoid and I believe that theology is central and not peripheral to the problem. It is grounded in history, but the sparks have been generated by the information age.
While the images of poverty and war in countries such as Sudan, Palestine or Iraq combined with the relative disadvantage of some Muslim communities in countries such as France or Britain may contribute to radicalisation, the foundation for their acts lies very much in the set of ideas called Islam. I have lost count of the number of occasions disgruntled Muslims have responded to my writings with comments like "Islam is peace" or "You are not a Muslim any more".
[...]
But with hindsight, I can see that what we now call extremism was virtually the norm in the community I grew up in. It was completely normal to view Jews as evil and responsible for the ills of the world. It was normal to see the liberal society around us as morally corrupt, its stains to be avoided at all costs. It was normal to see white girls as cheap and easy and to see the ideal of femininity as its antithesis. These views have been pushed to more private, personal spheres amid the present scrutiny of Muslim communities.
But they remain widespread, as research in Britain showed earlier this year: up to 50 per cent of British Muslims aged between 15 and 29 want to see sharia law taken up in Britain. This needs to be seen in the light of American data collated by the Pew Research Centre that showed close to 80 per cent of American Muslims believed they could move up the social ladder in the US and had no interest in Islamic laws on a public level. Like most things Australian, it is likely we sit somewhere between our British and American cousins.
But the threat is very real. It was reported yesterday that up to 3000 young Muslims are at risk of becoming radicalised in Sydney alone, according to research by a member of the now-disbanded Muslim Community Reference Group, Mustapha Kara-Ali. But when these views morph into the violent political act that is terrorism, it is very much based in theology.
At its core, Islam is deeply sceptical of the idea of a secular state. There is no rendering unto Caesar because state and religion are believed to be inseparable. This idea then interacts with centuries-old edicts of Islamic jurists about how the land of Islam should interact with the world of unbelievers, known as dar ul-kufr. The modern radicals then take it further, declaring that since, with the exception perhaps of Pakistan and Iran, there are no Islamic states, the whole world is effectively the land of the unbelievers. As a result, some radicals believe waging war on the whole world is justified to re-create it as an Islamic state.
They go as far as reclassifying the globe as dar ul-harb, "land of war", apparently allowing Muslims to destroy the sanctity of the five rights that every human is granted under Islam: life, wealth, land, mind and belief. In dar ul-harb, anything goes, including the killing of civilians....
Muslim communities must openly argue precisely what it is they fear and loathe about the West. Much of it centres on sexuality. This is the first step in rooting out any Muslim ambivalence about living in the West. But thereafter, the argument must proceed rapidly to Islamic theology and all its uncomfortable truths - from its repeated glowing references to violence, its obsession with and revulsion at sex and its historical antipathy to the very possibility that reason can exist as separate from God.
Posted by Robert at July 3, 2007 12:10 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
In advance of American Independence Day, I just want to post this special posting, so much needed in this present time which is so filled with dangers and opportunities.
Have a wonderful and safe July 4th holiday.
"They Risked Everything"
The URL.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/folder/american_who_risked_everything_1.guest.html
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at July 3, 2007 12:37 PM
Islam Must Dump Its Homicidal Dogmas should be the follow-up article.
Face it, then expunge it.
Posted by: profitsbeard at July 3, 2007 12:42 PM
There are many quotes and uncomfortable truths about islam but this is my favorite and very worthy of repeating.
John Wesley (1703-91)
" Ever since the religion of Islam appeared in the world, the espousers of it..have been as wolves and tigers to all other nations, rending and tearing all that fell into their merciless paws and grinding them with their iron teeth; that numberless cities are raised from their foundations and only their name remaining; that many countries, which were once the garden of G-d, are now a desolate wilderness and that so many once powerful nations are vanished from the earth! Such was, and is at this day, the rage, the fury, the revenge, of these destroyers of human kind".
This is the last round..our final chance to save civilization.
at July 3, 2007 12:45 PM
Looks like I have struck a nerve today. Someone dugg a post that I resurrected from June, 2006, just a simple, peaceful idea -- and presto --
How to peacefully remove Muslims from your own neighborhood
Here come the moonbats and Muslims..and they aren't happy with me.
20+ diggs this morning and I'm approaching 1000 hits...unprecedented numbers for the Anvil.
Careful. If I keep getting this sort of attention from the Left, the country may no longer be able to marginalize me for much longer. Isn't that ironic?
Posted by: Foehammer at July 3, 2007 12:46 PM
"But the question is impossible to avoid and I believe that theology is central and not peripheral to the problem. It is grounded in history, but the sparks have been generated by the information age".
Precisely. Many Muslims hate what they really fear. The cell-phones, Internet, the general juggernaut of the globalization of communications is invasive of their culture and undreamed of ideas are everyday fare in their once controlled patriarchal culture. That control is being lost and there is rage at that. They must destroy or at least control the sources of the communication revolution.
Bin Laden once said that he would rather be dead than live in a world of unbelief in Islam. That comment is very telling re the fears and rage of many Muslims.
Posted by: Frank at July 3, 2007 12:47 PM
In other words, they fear the 21st century and would love to go back to the 7th.
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at July 3, 2007 12:54 PM
I've got a simple yes or no challenge to any Muslim reading this:
If Allah is the lord of ALL worlds and the creator of ALL life, does Allah love ALL his created life without condition?
If yes, then re-read the Qur'an.
If no, then realize that Allah is unworthy of any form of worship.
If this isn't obvious, I don't know what is.
Posted by: Quantum Infidel at July 3, 2007 12:56 PM
Yes, obviously the virulent evil of Islam is spreading because we live in the Age of Communication on steroids. What could once be held in secret behind closed doors and hidden by veils is now online for the world to fear, examine, worship, or loathe. Islamic terrorists understand how to use communications all too well, whether it be to intimidate, propagandize or to trigger a cellphone bomb.
The genie is slipping out of the bottle and I am witnessing the results in real time today.
Posted by: Foehammer at July 3, 2007 12:56 PM
Foe-
The core problem is Islam itself, its patriarchal nature, its mandates to Sharia law, its dogmas, etc. But the communications and transport revolutions are making many Muslims feel they are under attack by ideas that emanate from other cultures. They are reacting like the Luddites did to the Industrial Revolution which upset the agricultural societies of 200 years ago. Islam is the problem.
Posted by: Frank at July 3, 2007 1:04 PM
Foe-
The core problem is Islam itself, its patriarchal nature, its mandates to Sharia law, its dogmas, etc. But the communications and transport revolutions are making many Muslims feel they are under attack by ideas that emanate from other cultures. They are reacting like the Luddites did to the Industrial Revolution which upset the agricultural societies of 200 years ago. Islam is the problem.
Posted by: Frank at July 3, 2007 1:10 PM
Frank: Absolutely.
But while this problem works itself out, we are all absolute fools to let it work from within our borders.
Posted by: Foehammer at July 3, 2007 1:32 PM
Foehammer,
Fabulous article. I am chagrined at the number of idiots who will defend something they don't even understand.
How many people do they think you will starve by boycotting Muslim businesses? Will Muslims stop buying from each other if non-Muslims stop? Will Muslims be forced to stay and starve or like any other citizens, if their businesses fold will they be able to move on to some other place? Does your boycott plan signal the death and destruction of all Muslims? No, it just follows the market and the law of supply and demand. The lack of rational deduction here is really getting old.
Keep up the good work. You must be doing something right if that many people come to your site just to hate your guts!
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at July 3, 2007 1:54 PM
Yes, they are all over me like a wool suit right now, but I'm deflecting them like flies. I hope people read the comments on that article of mine. I'm making every effort to show the truth hidden amid the hate -- the hate that is dripping off of my detractors like so much sweat off a racehorse. It is rather pathetic that they are incapable of seeing who the true fascists are, isn't it?
Posted by: Foehammer at July 3, 2007 2:26 PM
It was normal to see the liberal society around us as morally corrupt, its stains to be avoided at all costs.
from the article
The West has no bar on freedom of movement. Unlike in Soviet Russia, those who are not comfortable are free to leave. If liberal society is to be avoided, then why not avoid it?
Posted by: PMK at July 3, 2007 2:35 PM
It was normal to see the liberal society around us as morally corrupt, its stains to be avoided at all costs.
from the article
The West has no bar on freedom of movement. Unlike in Soviet Russia, those who are not comfortable are free to leave. If liberal society is to be avoided, then why not avoid it?
Posted by: PMK at July 3, 2007 2:41 PM
Now I understand how easy it is to double post!
Posted by: PMK at July 3, 2007 2:47 PM
Good article and he make some very good points; however, he makes one foolish and dangerous mistake. There is no state called Palestine.
Posted by: Papa Bear at July 3, 2007 3:03 PM
"Muslim communities must openly argue precisely what it is they fear and loathe about the West. Much of it centres on sexuality."
-- from the article above
The author is wrong here, and taking at face value - in the manner of Dinesh D'Souza, the proferred explanation of Muslim rage at the West. This emphasis on Western "sexuality" is a red herring. There will always be something to raise, even by those whose hearts -- but not necessarily minds-- are in the right place. It is not "sexuality" that explains the attacks by Muslims on Hindus, beaten to death in Bangladesh if they happen to be passing a mosque when Friday Prayers let out. It is not the "sexuality" of those three chaste Christian schoolgirls decapitated in Indonesia, or those Christians who have nothing to do with decadent Western mores, in Nigeria or the Sudan, that explain Muslim attacks on them. It is not "sexuality" that explains why orthodox Jews, merely studying the Talmud, have been murdered by Muslims -- a rabbi in Antwerp, a man in Toronto, and yeshiva students in Israel itself.
The reason for hating Infidels, and attacking them, and wishing them ill, whether or not they look more like Britney Spears and Madonna or like the Salvation Army Lady or Eleanor Roosevelt, is because they are Muslims, and we are Infidels.
Nothing else, no Western decadence, need be required. And the decadence of the sheiks and sheiklets is given a pass, because they, you see, are Muslims. They, you see, contribute funds to the world-wide Jihad.
Believers and Infidels. That is what counts, not the "chaste" and the "decadent."
Posted by: Hugh at July 3, 2007 3:10 PM
Good article and he make some very good points; however, he makes one foolish and dangerous mistake. There is no country called Palestine.
Posted by: Papa Bear at July 3, 2007 3:15 PM
"Muslim communities must openly argue precisely what it is they fear and loathe about the West. Much of it centres on sexuality."
-- from the article above
The author is wrong here, and taking at face value - in the manner of Dinesh D'Souza, the proferred explanation of Muslim rage at the West. This emphasis on Western "sexuality" is a red herring. There will always be something to raise, even by those whose hearts -- but not necessarily minds-- are in the right place. It is not "sexuality" that explains the attacks by Muslims on Hindus, beaten to death in Bangladesh if they happen to be passing a mosque when Friday Prayers let out. It is not the "sexuality" of those three chaste Christian schoolgirls decapitated in Indonesia, or those Christians who have nothing to do with decadent Western mores, in Nigeria or the Sudan, that explain Muslim attacks on them. It is not "sexuality" that explains why orthodox Jews, merely studying the Talmud, have been murdered by Muslims -- a rabbi in Antwerp, a man in Toronto, and yeshiva students in Israel itself.
The reason Muslims have for hating Infidels is that they have been taught by their texts, as naturally and not perversely understood, and the fact that some Infidels look and behave like or like Britney Spears and Madonna does not exempt those Infidels who work for the Salvation Army or the Temperance League. If you are an Infidel, no matter how sober or sedate, and insist upon remaining an Infidel, you are an obstacle to the spread of Islam, and an enemy.
Western decadence not required. And the decadence of the sheiks and sheiklets is given a pass, because they, you see, are Muslims. They, you see, contribute funds to the world-wide Jihad.
Believers and Infidels. That is what counts, not the "chaste" and the "decadent."
Posted by: Hugh at July 3, 2007 3:17 PM
Foehammer you made those Dhimmicrats look like fools. So typical of the left. They believe that by registering Dhimmi they are automatically infused with all the knowledge of the universe based on thier multi-culti dogma. Rebuttal based in research, and history is a sour pill to swallow for people that make up historical perspectives and social viewpoints without even bothering to do any critical thinking. Good work got a real long and hard laugh over it. Reminds me of some "discussions" I've had with lefties on the subject. Too funny anyways I forewarded your website to several "keepers of all knowledge" lefty friends of mine. The e-mail was titled, "Hope this doesn't offend anyone".
Posted by: Ameriki at July 3, 2007 3:50 PM
Hugh has it right. If hidden cameras ever make their way behind the harem doors of the fat, rich sheiks, I'm confident we would uncover some things that would make the producers of Dateline blush.
Posted by: Foehammer at July 3, 2007 3:50 PM
Exactly, Hugh. I recall reading that eye-witness (a Muslim) who boarded a plane (in Saudi Arabia) and reported how he saw the "modestly-dressed" Saudi women suddenly disappear, only to re-appear in scanty outfits, followed by drinks (alcoholic, etc.) and fine meals (presumably pork). The "pious" Muslims, although claiming to be shocked, nonetheless excused the behavior. I really don't think so generous an attitude is extended to infidels. Oh, and the lewd and lascivious behavior of Arab sheiks is well-known, rampant, and always the source of gossip (but, quelle surprise!, no beheadings!) Whenever one reads about "chastity" in the Arab world -- 9 times out of 10 it's for Da'wa purposes and Infidel consumption. as in "those Muslims are o so pious and observant!!" yeah, sure. just more lies and hypocrisy.
Posted by: J.S. at July 3, 2007 3:52 PM
Why would the Islamists in the West even consider revising the more aggressive nature of their faith? When we in the west have done nothing but acquiesce to their demands domestically, and more and more internationally. As their populations grow more influential politically through numbers they will gain even more control. If it is your viewpoint that you want installed, and the larger public refuses to counter it, why change? There is absolutely no reason to change for them at this point.
Posted by: Ameriki at July 3, 2007 4:18 PM
John Derbyshire writes popular books on math. These are well written and help explain what texts often don't do a good job explaining. They also help motivate the material.
In general, math ed has to assess why some students have trouble with certain concepts in math. This applies from numbers onwards. Math ed tries to come up with teaching strategies so that students are not stopped at fractions, signs, etc.
There are cases of kids learning calculus, at least in terms of taking derivatives, at early ages. Is it boring that math ed has to figure out what hangs up students and alternative strategies to get around those blocks that work for different people?
Is it important for math ed to figure out how to get as many people as possible past as many blocks as possible in learning math? Is it important to get people beyond problems, not by saying memorize it, but by their learning the concepts?
Is that boring? Is it important? Is that how Derbyshire earns his living?
Posted by: Old Atlantic at July 3, 2007 6:22 PM
Every religion has a theological blueprint. The blueprint of every major religion except Islam is essentially innocuous to societies across the globe. Islam's blueprint is different. It is one that contains all sorts of inimical elements, which begin with its founder, who was a brutal, albeit clever, man. Whether it be jihad, dhimmitude, the disallowance of separating spiritual and secular authority, the lack of the golden rule, sanctioned deceit, a draconian religious law (which is intended for everyone, not just believers), an antipathy to reconciling reason with faith and so much more, Islam's theological blueprint is bad news for mankind.
Yes, the occasional fanatic can come from any religion but Islam produces them in droves. To continue this architectural metaphor, that is because that although one can build a bad house from a good blueprint, one can never build a good house from a bad one.
at July 4, 2007 1:34 AM
J.S. :
If you notice, when you fly into an Islamic country, there is always an announcement 10 minutes prior to entering their airpspace. This is to give the women time to don the hijab. When leaving, an announcement is given once the airpspace is cleared. I have witnessed the same thing on airplanes that have burka clad Saudi women (and princesses) who take everything off and are practically lap dancing over a plate of BBQ pork ribs by the time they reach the states. Saudi, Oman, Iran all do this and I assume the others do as well.
at July 4, 2007 8:19 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)