| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
I listened to the Q2 debate once through yesterday morning, and took no notes, but I remember some important details. The resolution, about being unafraid to assert the superiority of Western values, had on one side, supporting the resolution, Ibn Warraq, David Aronovitch, and Douglas Murray, and opposing it, Charles Glass, Tariq Ramadan, and William Dalrymple.
Ibn Warraq opened with a nine-minute non-stop summary of why the values of the West -- a thing different from the present-day West, or parts of it -- are superior to those of the non-West. Once he had finished, it was all over.
Charles Glass then came on, to deal with the situation as best he could. He was full of arch humor, but they were fallen arches, even crestfallen arches, and consequently the humor was lame, at the level of "since I am a Westerner, and so obviously superior, as you have told me" and so on. He discussed the West, a West that in his version appeared to be one rocky horror picture show after another, consisting in the main of the Spanish Inquisition, Western imperialism at its absolute worst, the mass-murder of European Jews by the Nazis and their collaborators, and, bien entendu, that most horrible of all crimes of humanity ever committed, the famous Auschwitz-sized death-camp-and-torture-chamber known as Abu Ghraib. Charles Glass apparently did not understand that these historical events had nothing to do with "Western values" and their assertion, which was the subject of the debate, and so the subject under discussion did not faze him.
Aronovitch I hardly heard, because there were other distractions, including some phone calls. But he did talk about Islam, or Islamic states and societies, that we can observe today, beginning with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Then came the serpent, Tariq Ramadan, who turned out to have lost his head. He delivered a confused mess. He insisted that he was a "European Muslim," someone who belonged in Europe, confusing his geographical presence (yes, he is living in Europe) with an intellectual or emotional bond that he does not have, and could not have. He may live in Europe, but he is no European, and never will be. He went on and on about how so much of European civilization owed its this and its that to this or that figure whom, in Europe, "we never hear about" and "no one knows about." It was his fantastical history, where the Renaissance and for all I know the Enlightenment and the French Revolution thrown in for good measure, really owe their existence to those wonderful Muslim thinkers whom we are unaware of, but of whom Tariq Ramadan is very aware. He told us again and again how necessary it was to have a real "dialogue" which dialogue could only take place if the insufferable Westerners would stop saying how "superior" they were -- that was not quite the theme of the debate, of course -- and no one interrupted to shout "but, but, isn't Islam based on the idea of the superiority of Islam, and the right and duty of Muslims to work to spread Islam until it dominates everywhere, tearing down every conceivable barrier to its spread, and to its dominance?"
He made all kinds of remarks that, when I listen for a second time, I will try to jot down. Toward the end, he started to talk about capital punishment in the United States, and how the only way to get rid of it would be not to call for an outright ban but for a "moratorium," and then he explained that that is why it was wrong for others to have attacked him for calling for a temporary "moratorium" on the stoning to death of women caught in adultery in Muslim lands. You had to know this, for otherwise his allusion to it remains obscure.
In general, he fell apart, and he fell apart still more, raising his voice, and yelling that he believed in "humility, humility, humility." He convinced no one, but no doubt part of the audience, the third that voted for his side, would not have voted otherwise no matter what. They came to support what they saw as the Muslim Team, and they did.
The one who really gave himself away was the odious and stupid and remarkably ill-informed William Dalrymple. He went on and on about how, near to where "I live in Delhi" there is some spot connected to the reign of Akbar. And then he proceeded to tell everyone -- thank god it has been preserved on tape, for all time -- how Akbar, the "Muslim emperor," had called together Shi'a Muslims, and Sunni Muslims, and Jains, and Christians, and even Jews from Cochin, for a colloquy. And he went on and on about how splendid Akbar was. Of course, Akbar was splendid, when he became syncretistic, when he ended the Jizyah, when he essentially stopped being a Muslim in every important way. The British historian V. A. West, in his "History of India," notes that Akbar demanded that those in his inner circle had to abjure the Qur'an -- not exactly the sign of a Muslim.
So his entire speech was all about Akbar, and he apparently did not know that Akbar, the Akbar he praised, is remembered today fondly by Hindus and despised by Muslims. And at one point he even described "Ashoka and Akbar" as Muslim leaders. Ashoka was no Muslim. Could I really have heard him say that? Not possible. No, I suppose anything is possible, especially if Dalrymple shows he has missed entirely the main point about syncretistic Akbar, has not understood the whole point of his later rule, and why he is revered by Hindus and despised by Muslims, though some may now invoke his name to show that “Muslims are tolerant.”
No, Dalrymple’s idiocy about Akbar will live on forever, on the tape made of the other evening, forever made available online with a single click, to haunt him, to mock him, to serve as proof that Dalrymple the historian of Mughal India, “internationally-acclaimed,” is unsteady when it comes to possibly the most important figure in Indian history during the entire Mughal period.
Ibn Warraq, in one of later replies, noted -- too quickly, alas -- that Akbar was no Muslim, and it was clear, according to observers, that Dalrymple was nervous, that he knew he was out of his depth.
And why was he "out of his depth"? Did he not know about Akbar? Never read the "Akbarnamah" of Fazl? Strange, isn't it, that someone who has made his entire professional career out of his supposed knowledge of Mughal India, and has written all his books about Mughal India, appears to be so ignorant about Akbar, the celebrated emperor who during his reign ended the practice of demanding the payment of the Jizyah (his successor, Aurangzeb, promptly re-imposed it) and was clearly indifferent or even hostile to so much of Islam. And Dalrymple cannot claim that little is known about Akbar or his reign, for it was recorded in great detail by Fazl, and by others. Or does Dalrymple not know that, either?
Oh, did I mention that the same Dalrymple (google his name and "Jihad Watch" and "Posted by Hugh" for my many descriptions of him as an upscale Barbara Cartland, singing the life of luxe and volupté at the Mughal court, with love intrigues in the palaces, and trans-racial transgressions, and all the rest of it) a few years ago was earning all kinds of prizes and glory for his book “The Last Mughal.” For that book the claim was repeatedly made that he, Dalrymple, had come along and finally made use of the Mutiny Papers that no historian had seen or used, and until Dalrymple came along had simply been overlooked or, in some accounts, even entirely unknown. But if you read his much-overrated "The Last Mughal" you find, in the footnotes, that Dalrymple takes much, perhaps most, of what he quotes from those Mutiny Papers not directly, but from books by other, much more solid historians. He admits as much. And yet the story still makes the rounds about how William Dalrymple used a cache of papers that no one had known about. Good Christ, you’d think he was Hyde at Malahide Castle. It’s blague. Curious that his self-promoting website, the one you get to by googling his name and then clicking on a link that proudly describes itself as yielding “[t]he Home site of William Dalrymple, internationally acclaimed writer and historian” (who do you suppose wrote that?), continues the tale of the Papers That No One Knew About.
There is some extravagant praise for William Hamilton-Dalrymple by the quite similar David Gilmour. He is similar in ways that include the vicious and viciously-expressed detestation of Israel (and one suspects, a little more than just Israel). Also like Dalrymple, he has won praise from Amartya Sen, who may be world-famous and Indian, but has given no signs at all of thinking that he has a duty to find out a bit more about the texts and tenets and attitudes of Islam, and what the Muslim conquerors and rulers did in and to India. The at-times egregious Sen, one presumes, has never read K. S. Lal, or Francois Gautier, or Koenraad Elst, and would recoil at the name “Sita Ram Goel.” For Sen is an example of the Indian who becomes famous in the Great World and who wants to make sure that he can never be accused of what in India is called “communalism,” but which really means all those Hindus who are aware of their being Hindus, and aware too of what Islam did to India’s civilization of Hinduism, a way of life and thought rather than a religion as we understand it in the West. V. S. Naipaul is a lonely exception. Most Indians with Hindu backgrounds in academic posts in England and America attempt to distance themselves, ostentatiously so, from any hint of “communalism.” Part of that distancing requires them to ignore or deliberately overlook the destructive and cruel consequences (including 60-70 million murdered Hindus) of Muslim rule. It just won’t fit. And so the vague and tepid praise of Amartya Sen, which carefully does not mention the actual history which Dalrymple purports to treat, is understandable, as is that of Gilmour. But note: neither Gilmour nor Amartya Sen is a historian of India. What do the real historians of India think of the works of Indian history written by William Dalrymple? Judging by their non-presence at his site, not much. Perhaps I am being unfair -- so someone set me straight. Some one please send me all the reviews in the scholarly journals that praise William Dalrymple the way that David Gilmour does, the way someone who is an “internationally acclaimed writer and historian” deserves to be praised.
Who cares if Dalrymple writes about Englishmen at a Mughal Court (“White Mughals”), the kind of stuff that may impress those who are not experts in the field, or can convince the world, by dint of repetition, that he and he alone has made use of the Mutiny Papers, that, supposedly, no one else knew about or ever used them, even though merely by looking at his footnotes one can see that Dalrymple quotes extensively from other historians who did know about them, and did use them.
Incredible. He’s now hoist by his own permanently-preserved-on-tape petard. Just click on the link, and perform that fast-forwarding act so you can be brought right up to William Dalrymple, making a fool of himself, for all historians of India, right at the Royal Geographical Society, next to the Kensington Gore.
And Tariq Ramadan will not be able to recover either. Those debating him in the future should use the knowledge of how easily he gets rattled, angry, grading into – if only there had been more time to see it happen – hysteria when he thinks he is not being given his due, by those beastly Westerners who for some reason think Europe belongs to them, when of course it belongs in the end to Tariq Ramadan and to Islam. For Islam was responsible for so much of Europe’s cultural advancement, and stands ready to work its magic on Europe yet again, thanks to those “European Muslims” such as Tariq Ramadan who apparently have a European version of the Qur’an, and a European version of the Hadith, and a thoroughly European version of the Sira, so that no one need think that their Islam, European Islam, will be anything like the Islam we see, and have seen for more than a millennium, all over Dar al-Islam.
Of course, their claque came, and determinedly voted for them, and would have, no matter what. And no doubt there was a claque of sorts among some -- but by no means all -- of those who voted in support of the resolution. But the lopsided two-to-one result suggests that the great middle, the undecided part of the audience that came to hear and to be persuaded, was indeed persuaded by one side and one side only -- by Ibn Warraq, by David Aronovitch, by Douglas Murray.
Note, by the way, the amusing makeup of the opposing sides. Whoever selected the two teams appears to have, possibly unconsciously, to have had One of Each: one brown-skinned person who was born into Islam, preferably in the East; one English-based journalist with a name that others might perceive as "Jewish"; one upper-class Englishman with the right old school tie. Of course, there was a difference. Ibn Warraq told the truth and Tariq Ramadan was a slithering and, at times, maddened and confused liar; David Aronovitch pointed out what was happening at present, in such places as Iran, a state that tried to impose as much of the Shari’a as it could, while Charles Glass wished to keep very far from the present, except as to the putative sins of the West (Abu Ghraib! Abu Ghraib!), and tried to dwell on Islam’s presumably splendid past (“when such-and-such was happening in the Abbasid court, woad-painted savages were wandering through the woods of Surrey and Kent” or words to that effect). And then there was the suave Murray, and the rightly-unnerved, revealingly ignorant, "internationally-acclaimed" historian of Mughal India, William Dalrymple.
And a good time was had, and can continue to be had, by all -- by all those, that is, who are on the right side of that "Resolved," as of course everyone here is, or should be.
Posted by Hugh at October 12, 2007 2:30 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
The strange thing is that William Dalrymple knows exactly what Islam did to Christian civilisation in Asia Minor. His book 'To the Holy Mountain' is one of the saddest books I've read.
Posted by: Silvester![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at October 12, 2007 3:33 PM
Ramadan:
Europe 'needs 20 million workers' he claims, we need them all, in the next 20 years. And he is appalled, no: outraged about the awful treatment of how EUrabia treats these immigrants, and he wants respect...
I really wish I was able to give this PoS a shoe in the ass, literally.
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at October 12, 2007 3:59 PM
My favorite line of the debate, "I don't want to live in a country that stones those who commit adultry, but would rather live in a country where you get stoned then commit adultry"
It is demeaning to even attempt to compare these two cultures.
Posted by: jihadthis at October 12, 2007 4:11 PM
One of the beautiful things about free speech is that people will always make themselves clear to others, not only by what they say or by what they Don't say, but in How they say it.
Case in point, Traiq Ramadan's inability to keep his agression out of his 'dialogue'.
David Thomspon comments more on Ramadan's stance:
'The “dialogue” Ramadan forever alludes to, somewhat vaguely, is by implication a dialogue on strictly Islamic terms.'
The man cannot help but be pressured, even in his own Mind, by Islam and its demand that he scrap this crap and do it the old Mohammed way.
But Ramadan understands that he has to continue this facade, so long as the Superior West is the power in the world.
at October 12, 2007 4:20 PM
It's a pity Aaronavitch felt the need to say that he thought that Ramadan was a good man and he disagreed with him being debarred from entry to the US. Denouncing him as a slippery weasel would have been a more appropriate approach. At one point Ramadan referred to people who have left Islam and tell the west what it wants to hear. This was a direct slur on Warraq, implying all sorts of venal and fawning motives for the latter's criticisms of the devil's own religion.
Posted by: wallyUK at October 12, 2007 4:30 PM
What I am failing to grasp is why, while I was born and lived under communism, I was able to see its crimes and atrocities even as a child, but the people born under Western democracy manage to be blinded and deafened by islam to a degree when debate is not possible???
We need to concentrate on understanding why islam is attractive as a concept, way of life, political doctrine, religion, you name it...
I can't help - I am religion free whether that's good or not...
Posted by: Charles Martel at October 12, 2007 4:58 PM
And it is only in India that you find, monuments built by her conquerors, celebrating and glorifying their victories, now turned by the happy vanquished into tourist attractions.
No one objects. Because to have protested then would certainly have meant having your head crushed by the foot of an obedient elephant, and to say something now would carry an altogether more ignominious fate: you could be labelled “communal”!
Posted by: Hermit at October 12, 2007 5:29 PM
Ibn Warraq made the point that he considers the self-criticism and critical analysis (especially of fixed ideas)of Western Culture is the superior cornerstone of Western Culture. (BTW, certainly British and American Bombers provided an education for Hitler and the Nazis who wanted to reject Western Civilization as they extolled barbarian "values". Hitler said, "We are barbarians". The Nazis learned self-criticism via that educational project.) Yet Dalrymple chose to ignore the assertion that "self-criticism" is the cornerstone of Western Culture and chose instead to treat the concept of "superiority" as if it were an arrogant one-upmanship attitude that has nothing to do with self-criticism and everything to do with a smug un-self-critical assertive-supremacism. He entirely missed the point of Ibn Warraq.
-------------
The emphasis on individual human rights is central to our culture. In the US we have to be very careful not to lose sight that our constitution is a document that is meant to protect individual rights. It is not a document that is meant to protect group rights (as per foot-baths, Sharia law, Loyal Order of the Moose laws, etc.) The individual person's life, liberty and property, and due process of law, must be the only rights that matter in a society that seeks equality of rights as the common good.
Posted by: Frank at October 12, 2007 5:39 PM
What I am failing to grasp is why, while I was born and lived under communism, I was able to see its crimes and atrocities even as a child, but the people born under Western democracy manage to be blinded and deafened by islam to a degree when debate is not possible???
by Charles Martel
Call it a cocktail of political correctness and multiculturalism. Either can be dangerous but together they make a lethal brew.
The West has been bamboozled into blaming itself for its "colonialism". Never mind that prior to WWI, the Muslim history of colonization of Europe was ten times longer than the brief period of Western "colonial rule" of the Middle East.
People in the West preach self-flagellation as penance for slavery (as if we invented it) and the superiority of Islamic culture (which gave us our "numbering system" and which saved European culture from extermination during the dark ages - never forget all those documents preserved in the Middle East during Islam's "golden age" when Europe was destroying itself).
How do we debate a superior culture? All we can do is bow before them.
at October 12, 2007 5:51 PM
Europe needs 20 million EUROPEAN BABIES-NOT 20 MILLION MUSLIM WELFARE ABUSERS!!!!!
What muslim in Europe today even has a job?
They are all crying and soiling their pants(naturally it seems)that muslims are good citizens but facing horrific discrimination and abuse from Europeans. It is non-muslims fault that integration is failing and tensions exist.
Muslims are wholly innocent from all wrongdoings.
Europe and the west need to stop aborting babies and let them live.
The cult of abortion is what is destroying our society and social security net for the future.
Yes, Europe needs workers, but muslims DONT WORK!!!
Sorry, but marching and screaming death threats to the western world, burning cars in France, and drug dealing on streets do not count as gainful employment
Wake up Europe and smell the shite and sharia coming your way.
Posted by: Hungarian Crusader at October 12, 2007 5:56 PM
I tried, oh, I really tried to get more than a few minutes into Charles Glass' "speech," but after he failed to get a laugh with one after another of a half dozen variations on "I'm therefore superior" at the very beginning, followed by a plea of "I guess you didn't hear me..." [so certain he was about his comedic talents] I kept thinking back on the succinct nine minutes of the opening speaker, and decided to be happy with the distillation provided here by Hugh.
Readers at this site know full well that if the "pro" side of the debate had wanted to take it down to that same simple level of historical-tit-for-historical-tat the organizers would have needed to supply blankies & snacks just to get through a recitation of [let me check...I'm back] the 9755 Islam-Means-Peace-attacks since 9/11, alone.
Posted by: wholebrainer at October 12, 2007 6:09 PM
[Paraphrasing]"The notion that any one culture is superior to another, is absurd and ignores a large amount of cross-cultural resources."
Said another way: "All cultures are equal."
Yet another demonstration of the central performative contradiction in many of today's progressives and intellectuals. You can see it right? If all cultures are equal, then the one that produced that statement is also equal, ergo, the statement itself cannot be taken as anything other than a contextual truth: only true for the culture that produced it.
at October 12, 2007 6:18 PM
Perhaps a few too many pixels dedicated to that dust mote Dalrymple... But withering withal. I can barely credit the notion that this topic is even a debatable one -the last time I checked, the third world, global communists, and the supposedly Western loathing Muslims are virtually battering down our doors for admittance to the West, not the other way around... And while that's certainly not an endorsement of our values, it's certainly a confirmation of the utter horribleness of commie and Muslim societies across the board and their so-called 'values' in fashioning desirable societies and cultures for their citizens.
I could barely make it through the drolleries of those in opposition. Tired out husks. Vile venomous desiccated tired out husks.
Posted by: jsla at October 12, 2007 6:33 PM
"The West has been bamboozled into blaming itself for its "colonialism".-PMK
It's all propaganda meant to make one feel shamed. For example, Israel is accused of being an "apartheid state" and meanwhile a real Arab-racist apartheid state exists in Saudi Arabia. Where's the "self-criticism' there? All the Muslims bow to the racist-Arab Saudi Arabia. Go figure.
Posted by: Frank at October 12, 2007 6:40 PM
I would like to thank you Hugh, for saving me several thousands of dollars in a wasted MESA education, with a MESA degree. How much do we owe ya for the edumacation?
Posted by: Jauhara Al-Kafirah at October 12, 2007 6:46 PM
Jauhara Al-Kafirah-
I feel inferior when I read your posts, like somehow I'm a dumb hick. This is the first one I can understand.
Posted by: Frank at October 12, 2007 6:51 PM
Jauhara Al-Kafirah,
Don't worry, Hugh is a thorough guy. After exhausting current, and not so current events, he's bound to throw you some spelling and grammar bones.
I imagine tips are always welcome...
Posted by: deesine at October 12, 2007 6:54 PM
To defend you culture, you first have to know it.
If the arc of Western intellectual and creative history is gelded of its greatness, the students will be unable to see any reason for defending it.
What primary schools teach the philosophical roots of reason -and the emphasis on love- that was born in Greece (Thales to Socrates) and Israel (Job to Jesus) and India (Yoga sutras to Tagore) and China and Korea (Kung Fu Tzu and Pak Chi-Won), and produced the scientific and rational underpinings of the West, and its Eastern allies?
Kids need to be reminded:
If you do not grasp the core value of Critical Thinking, you are prey to any superstitious folly or madness that wanders along.
In the popular formula:
If you do not stand for something, you'll fall for anything.
We should stand with Sappho and Anaximander, Heralcitus and Hero of Alexandria, Epictetus and Hypatia, Bahu Bali and Patanjali, Lao Tzu and Confucius, Roger and Francis Bacon, Christiaan Huygens and Van Leeuwenhoek, Descartes and Voltaire, Hume and Wollstonecraft, William James and A.N. Whitehead, Husserl and Wittgenstein, Edison and Einstein, Philip Wylie and C.S. Lewis, and, most recently, Camille Paglia and Julian Jaynes.
The neutering of the Western intellectual and scientific and artistic heritage in the educational system -for multiculti "tolerance"- leaves its heirs robbed of their spines.
A nation of jellyfish will not stand.
Posted by: profitsbeard
at October 12, 2007 6:56 PM
profitsbeard:
You left out Aquinas, Pascal, da Vinci, Belloc, etc..
Posted by: atheling at October 12, 2007 7:03 PM
When I was a kid I still learned about the crusades in great detail. Also about the gates of vienna and the fall of Constantinople and Al Andaluz, the moors and the constant raids.
Then the world was clearly divided in Orient and Occident, and it was generally understood that if the musulman had not been beaten back we would be farting towards Mecca today, and women would be, or rather should be wearing burkas.
It is a disaster that the leftarded teachers and polit-wankers today refuse to take history on board and continue to shove this indigestible PC garbage down everyones throat.
That we are somehow 'guilty of colonialism'- that the crusades were some kind of crime against the musulman, is an absolute perversion of reality.
It is indeed masochism prescribed by sadists, and I won't have any of it.
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at October 12, 2007 7:42 PM
Interesting, thx, Hugh.
Though I didn't see this debate, what strikes me is that to an extent I think that the framing of the debate in East-West terms is asking the wrong question. To me, the right question is: "Is Islam a threat to adherents of other religions, or to civilization itself?"
A friend of mine is a Thai Buddhist who has read one of Robert's books and is appalled by what he reads in JW about Thailand. He's as East as you get, but has the same problem we Westerners have with Islam.
at October 12, 2007 8:23 PM
OT/
Watch the Glenn Beck program at 6 pm on CNN. Glenn Beck interviews Pastor John Hagee for the full hour about the End Times. I agree with Pastor John Hagee. I believe we are living in the End Times. Watch Glenn Beck's interview with Hagee tonight at 6 pm PST or 9pm PST.
If you haven't done so already, convert to Christianity. Accept and believe in God and His Son the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior!
:)
at October 12, 2007 8:42 PM
I don't know whether we are living in the end times or not, because Jesus' peers certainly believed they were, and their martyrdom proved them correct, in a way, but we certainly do live in interesting times. We are at a tipping point, and at some point, it may be difficult to fight back, and maybe at some point it will be impossible to win.
Posted by: Jauhara Al-Kafirah at October 12, 2007 10:34 PM
Who's really at fault for the infiltration, and eventual takeover, of the Western world by the Islamic tyrany?
Muslims are only doing what we've invited them to do. For 60 years now we've glorified Birth control and abortion as the liberation of women from the tyrany of male dominated societies.
Since 1973, 40 million abortions have been performed in the United States, and probably even more in Europe, and now we're being told that there won't be anyone to support us in our old age unless we import more and more young people from the third world, and Who better to supply those young people than the Islamic world, where birth control and abortion are unknown, and where breeding puts the rabbits to shame?
Muslims are more than happy to fill the vacuum we've created in our own socities.
The irony is that when Muslims have control, they'll put an end to birth control and abortion, even if they have to stone half the female population to death, and no one better claim a women's right to anything.
We are our own worse enemy.
Posted by: rational
at October 12, 2007 11:03 PM
Robert and Hugh,
"If you haven't done so already, convert to Christianity. Accept and believe in God and His Son the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior!
:)
Posted by: Freedom1 "
I object to this post.I came here to learn about the threat of islam.
I consider religion or lack thereof, a personal issue. People can believe what they want and I respect them for it, but attempts at conversion do not belong here,IMHO.
at October 12, 2007 11:55 PM
atheling-
"...you left out..."
So many.
Thousands.
Spartacus and Aristotle
Semelweis and Priestly.
Newton and Copernicus.
Lister and Pasteur.
T.S. Eliot and Dylan Thomas.
Rodin and Dante.
Mary Cassatt and Mary Shelley.
Verne and Wells, -ad infinitum.
And, instead, kids are learning about pablum and treacle and vagueness and vapidity.
Denatured and Malnourished.
Posted by: profitsbeard at October 13, 2007 1:33 AM
Akbar founded the religion Din-i-Ilahi which was basically a mix of different religions.Akbar took the good aspects of all the religions including Hinduism,Christianity,Buddhism,Sikhism,Islam,etc and merged it to form Din-i-Ilahi.He cannot be considered a Muhammedan, because of Islam, which considers other religions false.
But I am wondering what good he took from the Religion of Peace as Islam offers nothing divine to its believers.
Posted by: anti islamocommunist at October 13, 2007 3:23 AM
Robert and Hugh,
"If you haven't done so already,
convert to Christianity. Accept and believe in God and His Son the Lord Jesus Christ
as your personal Lord and Savior!
:)
Posted by: Freedom1 "
I object to this post.I came here to learn about the threat of islam.
I consider religion or lack
thereof, a personal issue. People can believe what they want and I respect them
for it, but attempts at conversion do not belong here,IMHO.
Posted
by: Gramfan
I protest too, but with an exception that while I do respect the person, I do not have to respect his beliefs. What ever they may be.
at October 13, 2007 4:45 AM
Dear Hugh,
You are incorrect in stating that 60-70 million Hindus were murdered. Thats simply not what Lal said or meant.
What Lal did was to estimate a certain level of population, estimate the growth and then take the difference between the estimated and actual at the end of the Moslem rule. This is always a very dangerous exercise. I majored in Statistics and can tell you with certainty that such exercises give extremely misleading pictures. Firstly, the initial massacres started at around 664 CE. The massacres went on and on till the time Aurangzeb died. So such a figure isn't the count of Hindus murdered. But its a count of "Hindus/Buddhists etc. missing". This would include people dying because the Moslems were building expensive graves like the Taj Mahal and exotic gardens and starving the poor. It would also include the deaths due to disease and so on.
Lal took it from 100 CE -1500 CE. While the massacres started earlier to that, the book did not include it. But my point still holds. The British were equally worse. And the figures may not be very accurate and dont talk about people being murdered
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_Muslim_Population_in_Medieval_India
"The book asseses the demographics of India between 1000 CE and 1500 CE. On the basis of the available historical evidence, K.S. Lal concluded that the population of India in 1000 CE was about 200 million and in 1500 CE 170 million. He says however that "any study of the population of the precensus times can be based only on estimates, and estimates by their very nature tend to be tentative"
You might say it does not matter. But the problem is that such exercises can be done to point figures at others too. Especially the west. And figures here are more reliable than for the moslem rulers. For instance, the British killed unknown 10's of millions through artificial famines. If a toll of such deaths (by population extrapolation) is made, the British would come close to or surpass the Mohammedans easily. Tyrants like Robert Clive were no better than the emperors who built tombs and graves. Clive retired a multimillionaire.
But what the British did not do was to attempt to destroy Indian culture. Some of them (I can think of Robert Sewell) made important contributions to Indian history. They also gave a railway system, though it can be argued they did it for themselves. Also, they gave India a judiciary and did not persecute Hindus. They did some good. And it wasn't an overall bad record like the Moslems.
But lets get rid of the "murdered 60-70 million Hindus". Shall we?. Will you also admit that the British killed an equal number of Hindus/Moslems or maybe 10-30 million less?. I don't think so !
Will you answer this question honestly?
Also, there was a report in the Guardian recently about millions killed over 10 year period by the British.
You want proof? Take a look at this article
"Robert Clive declared his fortune in 1770 at 400,000 pounds. By the miracle of compound interest, at a 6 percent discount rate, that amounts to $477 billion today. Fairly serious money, roughly the same as India's GDP, and that is just one man's loot."
http://www.rediff.com/news/2004/mar/29rajeev.htm
Thats enough to wipe out all poverty from India !
Just one mans loot. They were as bad as the moslem rulers.
Though i disagree with you, Being a first time poster from India, i want to say "Thank you" for all your efforts at combating the great terrorist menace. I also want to sincerely appreciate the work you and Robert are doing. Good luck with everything
Posted by: PhonyIndian123 at October 13, 2007 5:15 AM
Tariq Ramadan is a babbling nitwit
Posted by: GrennBeck at October 13, 2007 9:27 AM
I listened for about an hour. And I was struck by two things...
1) As Hugh so amply pointed out, Tariq Ramadan was out of control. At one point, he started screaming so loudly and hysterically into the mic that I had to adjust the volume control.
2) The questions of the audience were strikingly well-informed. Bodes well for our struggle.
Posted by: Cornelius at October 13, 2007 10:18 AM
When Saudi Arabia has a constitutional Social Contract protecting the rights of individuals, and Mecca is a tourist attraction, so will end the debates between European western Civilization and Islam. Until then, it's all on the table, with Islam smug in its 'superiority' to the West, while the truth is we run circles around them. Furthermore, we are now wise to their lies. What good is talk when they lie, and in their 'superiority' don't listen to anything said? These debates are failure of 'multiculturalism' at its best.
These interfaith, inter-historical dialogues are useless. When Saudis have a science research center, a space program, medical advancements in curing diseases, disaster relief for all peoples (not just islamics), nature preserves and ecological study centers, research on global warming (reduced oil use), support for the arts of humanity, archeological research of historical sites, universities open to all humanity, with women equal rights to men, religious freedom where churches and temples with equal respect, freedom of speech and inquiry, and 'innocent until proven guilty' in their constitutional laws, with equal access to such laws by all of any race, religion, gender, or ethnic or bio-background (yes, even gays), then there is no contest. To debate such Islamic 'superiority' as equals is absurd. They are not even a shadow of us.
Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at October 13, 2007 10:29 AM
I listened to the debate last night, it takes a man coming in from the outside to appreciate Western civilisation, many of those inside are full of complacency. That first 9 minutes was everything that I feel, it was perfect.
And all that the opposition could do was talk about arrogance and crimes in the past, such as the inquisition etc., or Nazi Germany, certainly Nazi Germany can not be called Western civilisation.
One of the audience said it in a nushell, it is what is happening here and now that is important, compare the civilisation we have now to the others and it is much superior.
I thought that bringing up Sarkozy's destruction of Ramadan's evasive reaction to stoning of women totally unhinged him, he was most probably already reeling from the first 9 minutes.
I was very aware that Ramadan seems to be totally depressed and aggressive, perhaps he sees that the forces of history are at last moving in our direction, in Europe more and more people are now questioning Islam, he knows that the politicians can no longer ignore this.
Posted by: Daffersd at October 13, 2007 10:48 AM
""When Saudi Arabia has a constitutional Social Contract protecting the rights of individuals, and Mecca is a tourist attraction, so will end the debates between European western Civilization and Islam. Until then, it's all on the table, with Islam smug in its 'superiority' to the West, while the truth is we run circles around them. Furthermore, we are now wise to their lies. What good is talk when they lie, and in their 'superiority' don't listen to anything said? These debates are failure of 'multiculturalism' at its best.
These interfaith, inter-historical dialogues are useless. When Saudis have a science research center, a space program, medical advancements in curing diseases, disaster relief for all peoples (not just islamics), nature preserves and ecological study centers, research on global warming (reduced oil use), support for the arts of humanity, archeological research of historical sites, universities open to all humanity, with women equal rights to men, religious freedom where churches and temples with equal respect, freedom of speech and inquiry, and 'innocent until proven guilty' in their constitutional laws, with equal access to such laws by all of any race, religion, gender, or ethnic or bio-background (yes, even gays), then there is no contest. To debate such Islamic 'superiority' as equals is absurd. They are not even a shadow of us.""!!By ;Battle_of_Tours . You are sir very right in your words. But you seems to be terribly optimistic about Islam/Saudi Arabia, having done all that. In 1500 years Islams Track record is all so bad . Nobody looks to them for anything except their 'OIL'.Their problems start ones they are done with it. Then it will be open barbarism. "OIL" ,eating/shitting and Rozas ,Namaz and "Murders" is all the 'culture' they have given . They are obssessed with women and the sex organs , virality , virginity etc.. Theres no wisdom like the 'Platos' and 'Aristotal' and so many others Non-Muslims have given. Are they having any 'philosophy' other than one and one only and anything and everything i.e."Quoran". Their entire world is in that only. Only by coming out of it they will gain. But its a very "DIFFICULT CALL".
at October 13, 2007 12:07 PM
I too found Ibn Warraq's defense of Western values superb; how can anyone lay out better, without any "clever" mind-twists and stylistic flourishes, the reasons Western civiliziation is better and is to be preferred to the Islamic one?
There's a quiet dignity in the man's exposition and yet a fierceness that surely comes from his experience as an apostate. Maybe we are not used to hearing "these truths" spoken out that way anymore. A simple act of re-memoration, of remembrance, of recapitulation, of anamnesis, but seen from the point of view of an "outsider."
His accented English is winsome too, self-confident and respectful. Not to create a false, biased dichotomy, but Ramadan's English came across as an angry, mangled tool by which he was doing Westerners a "favor" for the sake of "dialogue."
What ticked me off was Glass's cheap and incessant sarcasm about getting a kick out of feeling "superior" as a Westerner.
As someone born and raised in Communist Eastern Europe--nominally within the scope of "Western civilization" yet at its margins and now an American by choice--I have no sentiment of superiority over Islam or Hotentot or "Xanadu" culture. Just a deep sense of gratitude and humility that I've been offered the chance to know more, and definitely better, than submitting to what Jefferson & Comp. called "despotism" or to its variations.
at October 13, 2007 1:29 PM
BATTLE OF TOURS: "When Saudi Arabia has a constitutional Social Contract protecting the rights of individuals, and Mecca is a tourist attraction, so will end the debates between European western Civilization and Islam."
Interesting.
I wrote 3 or 4 years ago - probably here at JW, that the tell-tale sign indicating the forces of freedom will have triumphed in the world will be the day when Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and others will be free to enter their respective houses of worship and celebrate their faith...INSIDE Saudi Arabia.
Posted by: Cornelius at October 13, 2007 4:10 PM
It was disappointing that there was no historian on the Western side of the debate that would dispute the bogus claims about the "great islamic contribution" to the world's culture - an all too familiar cliche that needs to be challenged.
Posted by: Mimi at October 13, 2007 10:00 PM
Tariq Ramadan . . . told us again and again how necessary it was to have a real "dialogue" which dialogue could only take place if the insufferable Westerners would stop saying how "superior" they were
the only dialogue worth having with an Islamic is that which on our side emanates from the muzzle of a gun*
(with apologies to the whatever of mao tse-tung)
__________
*and on their side emanates from their lowest bodily orifice as they high-tail it back to their Ummah, never to venture forth from that cultural cesspool again
at October 14, 2007 1:06 AM
Please take special note of William Dalrymple's pronunciation of "Occident" as "Okkident" ("the Orient and the Okkident") -- for me, it was the highlight of the whole evening, now recorded for posterity to enjoy.
Posted by: Hugh at October 14, 2007 9:43 AM
The question should have been phrased much better, something more precise like:
“We should not be reluctant to argue for the vast superiority of the modern Western values of Democracy, separation of religion & state, free speech and equality over those reflected in the Koran & sharia laws that directly or implicitly oppose them.”
Something like this phrasing better expresses the underlying idea. A more precise phrasing than that used could have helped avoid a lot of the time wasting demagoguery including the demagoguery on low points of Western history that were irrelevant but used to deflect from the real issues.
Douglas Murray’s speech was especially impressive while Traiq Ramadan appeared, IMO, to be a BS artist doing his desperate best to deflect attention from the obvious truths. His two accomplices just came off as annoying listen-to-me-miss-the-point morons.
at October 14, 2007 11:03 AM
I wonder of Dalrymple meant to pronounce "occident" as the ancient Romans did?
If so, he is being pretentious.
Posted by: atheling at October 14, 2007 4:17 PM
Now I must raise a number of objections to points and positions taken in the debate.
Many of the participants in the audience and especially Tariq Ramadan and William Dalrymple displayed a poor grasp of the English language in understanding the meaning of the word "assert".
To assert in English does not mean to "impose" or "dictate". Instead "assert" is more akin to the word "propound" and both mean to put forth a position of argument.
The method taken by the two panel participents does not strike me as actually betraying a poor grasp but instead a malicious and devious grasp of language. What they both imply or even boldly state that by "asserting" western values (call it universal if you will) we are imposing our own cultural values on the wider world and in particular the Islamic world.
This is not as I have demonstrated above grammatically correct, but instead seeks to end the argument by a process of rendering it to seem unfair and prejudiced, as a matter of course, merely to state a position that does regard western values as superior (with regard to others).
Since this is not grammatically correct but a malicious attempt to undermine the proposition, this approach taken must be thrown out as flawed, indeed prejudiced and mendacious.
Tariq Ramadan uses many methods of the decontructionalist school of thought usually found in highly politicised leftwing departments. He attacks openly the mere possibility of one value having value over another but without examining the possibility of this being true.
This is a method designed to defeat opposing arguments by denying the ability of debate - that is one side triumphing over another. It is a familar pattern of PC leftist discourse that emphasises the illegitimacy of non-consensual politics without recognising that the group that have set the consensus are dictating the terms of argument. It is an anti-democratic art form, perfected in the early 1980s in CND and the leftist grouping of the far-left.
Furthermore, this technique is used as a substitute for emperical research and critical analysis. Tariq Ramadan does not actually ask whether in general, or in particular scenarios, whether one set of values is more acceptable to people asked to live within those values. Instead, as I have stated, he throws out that approach as inherently biased, while retaining the security of his own biases by hiding within the leftist terms of discourse.
This would suggest that he has something to hide and is being evasive about having to be questioned on his position.
Now, Charles Glass takes a position quite common on the rejectionist right (which is the correct position for the Independent reader). He avoids the question of superiority by attacking the practise of western governments past and present, often seeking emotional, not rational, support from the audience. If this were a music hall, he would be playing for cheap gags.
His position comes out on the grounds that since the principle is not perfectly executed in practise, then the imperfection in practise must lead back to the principle being defunct. Not imperfect, not in need of improvement but defunct, even moribund.
Now, he does not offer an alternative approach, though that may be beyond the terms of debate, but he does offer implictly a negative, frightened, selfish, smug and deeply cynical world view. If practises cannot be perfect, then do not try. It is an approach that inherently rejects any possibilty of the world changing for the better, of being changed or of change being a force for good.
Where does this lead us? If we follow Charles Glass' approach, then we should not react at all. There would be no point in responding to a terror attack, an attack on an ally or an attempt to subvert society. The attacks would only prove how deeply flawed our society must be, since it was not immune from the attack in the first place. It is a deeply cynical, egocentric and immature attitude typified by so many rich, safe, complacent western intellectuals. These are the same people whom the followers an an equally moribund set of values would behead first on seizing power - if they had not already fled, saying "I told you so..."
There is to me, a new approach being practised on the politically correct left and typified by Dalrymple's bland assertions that because ONE Mughal ruler attempted to unify the relgions of India, which by the way strikes me as an incredibly egotistical act by a ruler, then there is the possibility within Islam as in the West of tolerance. That this ruler was murdered (surprise, surprise) and succeeded by a ruler who returned to relgious orthodoxy actually demonstrates THIS as an Islamic abberation.
The history of Islam, including the comparatively tolerant kingdoms of Muslim Spain, does not demonstate this tolerance. The scholars of Germany who in the 18th Century AD (and I make no apologies for using AD) set out to the Turkish Empire to discover the roots of Islam, only one survived. I suspect the rest were murdered by mobs or executed for blasphemy. The last executions for blasphemy in western Europe take place in Spain, which was run by the Catholic Church at it's most vile.
There is NO comparison to the Enlightment, no comparison to the Reformation, to the intellectual theological debates of the Middle Ages and beyond into the early heart of Christianity. Islam reached by the 8th Century AD a state of self-confessed perfection and its consevatives have sought to stay there.
This approach from the leftists attempts to dismiss the achievements AND success of the Enlightment and with it western civilisation by playing up the dark sides of imperialism - without acknowledging the agonised and furious debate provoked IN the west by those atrocities. It does not acknowledge that Nazism, the extreme right of Christianity, the authoritarian left and right were REJECTIONS of western civilisation and the Enlightenment. Instead it is obsessed with the inherent and irradicable wickedness of the west, which as David Aaronovitch points out is a form of intellectual masochism and extreme self-indulgence that rejects the Enlightenment while enjoying its fruits.
By contrast, the opposing set of values to the west is everything that the west rejected on the long march out of barbarism.
Finally, each of the opponant dodged the question of whether or not they themselves would like to live under Islamic rule. Tariq Ramadan simply evaded by arguing that there should be a dialogue. What he means by this is beyond me, since the Islamists state there own violent supremicism and threaten to kill anyone who disagrees. There is no dialogue to be had with them because they are no democratic but tyranical and anti-democratic.
Charles Glass would not like to live under Islam but he is not willing to explain his position and how he arrived at this. Instead he, like Tariq harp on about Abu Graib, rendition, the invasion of Iraq, in short raising a list of horrors that make western civilisition a lie in the case of Glass, or as arrogant and needing debate with Islam in the case of Ramadan.
Dalrymple seems to wish for a sort of tolerant society that both exists only in his head and in the west. Instead he runs down the same track as Glass in raising the horrors of the west and saying that because of these we are incapable and should not be entitled to make comparisions and draw lessons. Instead while the terrorists and their thuggish immans draw closer, we should be self-flaggelating in a queer bid to stave off attack. I'm sorry, but that is called appeasment and when a wolf attacks, you don't ask for a dialogue, you shoot the thing.
All three were not committed to the defence of the values that grant everyone in the west, rights of free speech, assembly, sexual choice, freedom from terror, theft, state appropriation, systematic rape and cultural barbarism that the Islamists represent. Instead, they would like to be fiddling while Rome burns but fervently hoping that the fires will stop. Dalrymple and Glass are egocentric, foolish and cynical, while Ramadan strikes me as yet another Islamic intellectual trying to uphold the honour of Dar-al-Islam, while undermining the very culture that allows him to do it.
These are the fifth column and should be exposed, ridiculed and shown as the traitors and medisers wishing just enough defeat to make us humble and say "I told you so".
at October 15, 2007 8:14 PM
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.)