I keep telling people that Islam is a system unto itself, and that we have competing systems such as Western democracy, Socialism (Stalinism, Maoism, etc..), and Islam. It's simply one group's Way of Being versus another, and what we think is good/bad or black/white is really irrelevant. It has no basis in reality because you're dealing with people who think and exist within a completely different paradigm.

People who value OUR system need to guard it jealously, and promote it vigorously precisely because THAT is what's happening with the other two systems. We need to really believe that our Way of Being is BETTER than their Way of Being. And that's the crux of the matter. Our country, our Western Democracy has been infested by Socialists that hate our system and has caused most of us to not value what we have. Socialists have weakened our identity and our will, and fighting Islam in any sustantive way is folly because very few people in our system actually believe it to be the best.

Relativism will prove to be our downfall and will usher in the aggressive meme of Islam. It's just the way it is. Our freedom gives safe harbor to Socialism and Islam, and they have not only gained footholds here, but have control and access to our institutions of higher learning, governments, and our military and para-military organizations.

This is quite literally a matter of political will. This battle has to be won politically first. Here. In our Congressional districts. And then in our Senate. And then at the White House. Once we have a political will to confront Islamism, we can actually make progress. Until that happens though, this battle is being fought very deliberately, and very effectively, by the other two systems on every level within Western Democracy. Make no mistake. They are clearly in control at this point.

How do we win?

We need to stop being ashamed of who we are. We need to elect politicians that value our way of life. We need to rid our institutions of Islamist and Marxists. This can only be done at the grass roots level. I'm sorry, but I really do think most people are too distracted to care.

We'll see...

Posted by: antishock8 at January 26, 2008 8:19 AM

"So, to return more strictly to Coughlin's thesis, he says that we are hampered in dealing with the enemy and in producing good intelligence for our strategic plans because instead of listening to what the enemy is saying, we impose our own hopeful, optimistic kind of view on the Islamic world, that everyone is really like us at heart and that we will see this in the end." -- from the article

This is what those in power and in the media told me and I believed it. I thought it made sense.

I don't believe it anymore.

Posted by: Josephine at January 26, 2008 8:33 AM

Re: "Coughlin points out that on the basis of very little, Bush, Rice, and other Administration people blithely declare Islam a religion of peace that has been hijacked by a few violent extremists for their own agenda, an agenda which they insist has nothing to do with Islam".

Thus, for example, we continuously have Elvis sightings on the matter of peace in the Mid East. We refuse to see reality. But it's the ground-zero of the delusion that Jihad is not rooted in Islam. It is rooted in Islam: there and elsewhere. That's why so many Muslims don't like JihadWatch Reality School...

"The next segment of Sura 2, verses 75-105, continues the Qur’an’s criticism of the Jews. When you read statements by Hamas leaders or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad about Israel, remember that they view Israel and Jews through a Qur’anic prism. They have learned, if they have studied the Qur’an at all, that the Jews are the most perverse and guilty – as well as the craftiest and most persistent – enemies of Allah, Muhammad and the Muslims"-Robert Spencer.

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/06/24/blogging-the-qur%e2%80%99an-sura-2-%e2%80%9cthe-cow%e2%80%9d-verses-75-140/

Posted by: Frank at January 26, 2008 9:12 AM

"Muslims are told that they are meant to Islamicize the countries they live in, through "peaceful" means if they can, and violent means when necessary, and we already see signs of this in Europe and America".

As Hugh has pointed out, the whole culture is a failure. Any other culture-civilization (China, Japan, Germans, US, Israel) that had the oil lottery winnings of the Saudis would have used it to build a mighty and productive industrial base in the Arab world and caused that region to be respected wealth producers. Instead, they are a lay-about "cargo culture" that only exports this mind numbing "religion"-"ideology". If they lose that oil lottery ticket they will be banging on the door of producer cultures and demanding jizya from the Dhimmis.

Islam is foot-binding for the mind and is the last thing to import anywhere. It is fatal. Just look at what the Arabs have done with their lottery winnings.

Posted by: Frank at January 26, 2008 9:37 AM

"So, to return more strictly to Coughlin's thesis, he says that we are hampered in dealing with the enemy and in producing good intelligence for our strategic plans because instead of listening to what the enemy is saying, we impose our own hopeful, optimistic kind of view on the Islamic world, that everyone is really like us at heart and that we will see this in the end.

Precisely."

Apparently, like Coughlin, we here at JW are perspicacious as all-get-out, while our "leaders" are mental sluggards. It's like they are deliberately - deliberately - ignoring what the enemy comes right out and says!

Posted by: darcy at January 26, 2008 9:38 AM

To Islamicize means doing this for the mind...

http://hlperson.com/mt/archives/bound%20foot.jpg

Posted by: Frank at January 26, 2008 9:44 AM

"antishock8"

You've nailed it. As one who was, many years ago, a Marxist I know exactly how these people have been destroying us from within and laying us bare to the more muscular, truculent enemy that Islam is.

And there is more. Not only have they eroded our sense of justifiable pride in our country and its institutions, but they have also constructed elaborate, sophisticated viral attacks on our Christian and Jewish religious institutions and values. They have made it possible for the stupid "moral equivalency" argument to be bandied about. Here on JihadWatch on this topic of Stephen Coughlin we see this card being played incessantly by the likes of "Jeffery Carr" on other threads (any bets he'll show up on this thread too?).

You cannot accommodate these viral attacks. They only burrow more deeply into the protein layers of the host and continue to weaken it. It has to be fought robustly in the realm of ideas within our institutions.

Posted by: FredIsinglass at January 26, 2008 9:45 AM

Coughlin uses his expertise in Islamic law to
firmly establish the "third view." That the
Jihad ideology of the "extremists" is in perfect
accord with Islamic Law, and that the legal definiton of Jihad is "warfare against non-Muslims to establish the religion"(establishing the religion meaning having authority over all earth)--'Umdat al-Salik

Because Islamic Law comes from Allah who alone is sovereign, the legal definition is the controlling one. Because in Islam God has rights the "Rights of Allah" create legally binding obligations (hukm shari) and Jihad is a hukm shari that cannot be overruled by man (and is also
beyond the scope of Ijtihad, even if those gates were to be reopened).

There is even a legal support for use of WMD "if the army of Islam attacks the territory of war (Dar al-harb) and it is a territory that has received an invitation to accept Islam...the army may launch an attack on the enemy by night or by day and it is permissible to burn the enemy fortifications with fire or to inundate them with water." (al-Saybani)--WMD tactics of the day being burning and flooding. Just as there is legal support for "martyrdom operations"; killing apostates; killing blasphemers; and the upholding of abrogation--all of the emphasis on Jihad comes from Surah Nine, affirming its pre-eminent status.

Coughlin also shows the extent to which Islamic Law is embedded in the constitutions of Muslim nations. "It should be noted that no other legal standards were recognized as providing such a basis in these constitutions. Postive preference
was given to the Islamic(body of Law). These
constitutions are likewise subordinated to the same Islamic law identified in the 'Umdat al-Salik'." This holds true even when the regimes do not currently follow the requirments of Islamic law.

Coughlin's conclusion is that Islamic law does not appear to provide a legal basis for new interpretations. That the Salafi position today would appear to be the one endorsed by Muhammad: "One who survives me shall see profound disagrement. You should then follow my Sunnah and the Sunnah of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs. Hold fast to it and follow it to the last letter. You should desist from following new practices, because every new practice is innovation (heresy) and every innovation is error." (Abu Dawud) In another hadith Muhammad explicitly tells Muslims the "best of Muslims" (to emulate)are his own generation and the two that will follow.

Implications too grim for the Pentagon "brain trust"?

Posted by: Nick Danger at January 26, 2008 9:56 AM

Excellent post, Robert.

I equivocated between views two and three for some time, and settled on three, a view that I first began to develope 30 years ago when I first encountered the Quran.

My Sufi friends would apologetically tell me at that time that the Quran '...is difficult. Great care must be taken with its interpretation'. That, it seemed to me, both then and now, is the understatement of all time.

But the arguments of your detractors (ahistoricity, literalism, lack of contextualisation or recognition of the pluralism in Islam, which is not monolithic) hold some force too. But what they do not grasp (and you do) is the element of globalisation. They don't see the bigger picture. Their picture is of a myriad of little local quaint colourful Islams, rich in culture and interpretation, secure in their traditions, and at peace with themselves and the world.

If only.

Globalisation has the effect of standardisation. Instead of this quaint oldie-worldy view of hermetically sealed peaceful beautiful Islams (where jihadi theology has not been renounced, but is only inactive)the view that Islamic Studies departments are fascinated by, what we are seeing is the appearance of radical post-colonial discourse of jihadis who read the primary sources in exactly the same way that your detractors say you do - without reference to history, context, literally, etc.

It is because they do that (and 'moderate' Muslims will not revise the Quran or admit it is flawed, and may secretly even agree with its supremacist ideology, for who would not like to see their 'party' win) that your literalist critique is necessary.

All over the world we find this Salafi view gaining ground where it never held sway before. Just look at the visible signs - the burqa and the niqab. These are being worn like a uniform across the globe in places like Pakistan and even India where they were never worn before.

It is time Islamic Studies departments woke up to the fact that Islam is being hijacked by the rather unattractive literalist interpretation that you have been highlighting and opposing, and their world is increasingly one of the past.

And they have been able to do so because the primary sources themselves are flawed!

Posted by: devorgilla at January 26, 2008 10:00 AM

However, the truth will out, one way or the other, and cannot be ignored and denied forever.

Agreed, but the question is whether it will out in time or not.

I keep insisting that this clash will boil down to feet-on-the-ground, toe-to-toe fighting. In that case, the important consideration is "how many fighting men and women do we need to secure our civilization?".

This interesting scenario analysis is along the lines of what I mean:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=64924

Fortunately, the enemy we face is almost completely dependent on outsiders for weaponry, and we could perhaps shift our flow of aid from all Muslim countries to those countries supplying them with weapons that are potentially recruitable. I'm thinking primarily of Russia. If we just took all the money we send to the Palestinians, Egyptians et al. we could probably get Russia to stop supplying Iran with nuclear equipment. North Korea would be a different story, but if the Israel-Syria episode this fall really did involve destroying something shipped from NK, it would seem we have a decent handle on what's flowing to the Mideast from NK. We could probably pressure China (they send us shirts and toys, we make sure their teeming masses have jobs. I'm pretty sure the impact of mass unemployment would be worse for them than the impact of paying a few extra bucks for a shirt or doing without a toy would be for us).

I read the other day that Muslim countries are net grain importers and, hence, literally depend on non-Muslim countries for their daily bread. Stop those shipments and let them starve. You can't wage jihad on 200 calories a day, no matter how much you want to fight in the way of Allah.

I know, there are those who will say "collective punishment", blah, blah, blah. Ride that moral high horse all the way to your funeral, buddy. As for me and mine, I'll take the low road and find a way to live (emphasis on "live") with myself later. Somehow I doubt I'll be losing much sleep.

Posted by: venividivici at January 26, 2008 10:03 AM

Apparently, like Coughlin, we here at JW are perspicacious as all-get-out, while our "leaders" are mental sluggards. It's like they are deliberately - deliberately - ignoring what the enemy comes right out and says!
Posted by: darcy at January 26, 2008 9:38 AM

The folks at JW school know that Elvis is dead. They (our "leaders") are in denial. I'm sure it leaves an uneasy feeling in many folks who realize that.

Posted by: Frank at January 26, 2008 10:13 AM

As plain as the nose on one's face.

OK now, how do we deal with the illusionists with whom we have to ally to achieve victory ?

The same way one eats an elephant.

A little at a time.

(But let's hope it's not too late.)

Posted by: dgene at January 26, 2008 10:22 AM

While some holders of the 2nd view may find it productive to work with the minority of holders of the 3rd view (you, Horowitz, Epstein, etc.), in spite of their differences, many more find your position to be counterproductive to the U.S. mission (my view), and helpful to the extremists who can point to your hate propaganda and use it to fuel their radicalization efforts. If that's true, then you and the entire Islamofascism movement are doing the same thing that the extreme Right have accused liberals of doing - aiding the enemy!

Posted by: Jeffrey Carr at January 26, 2008 10:37 AM

Quoted from the article, "administration has been wrong on the relation of Islam to jihadist and terrorism."

My take:

I have repeated so many times here at JW:

For years I told my American friends of the dangers I lived under Islam, but I am taken as a lunatic.

I will repeat it again of what my audience said to me--- "It won't happen here--we love freedom to much."

The article should say, " WE AMERICANS have been wrong on the relation of Islam to jihadist and terrorism."

We elected our officials out of the pool of people in America. What's offered is taken from the pool of people who have the same attitude.

When the pool is turbid, what's drawn for a cup cannot possibly be clean water?

Democracy is governed by its people. What's elected is chosen by the people of the like mind.

It's hard enough for to rouse a brother, let alone waking the populace.

Posted by: ssa at January 26, 2008 10:42 AM

If as you assert the reality is no.3 then from this we can ascertain;

1) The war on terror and the democratisation of the world plans of the neo-conservatives in the white house will fail

2) that the new Democratic Imperalism plans by the neo-cons for the planet will fail and that all US and UK troops must return home ASAP as they are doing no good in those nations they are in such as Iraq and Afghanistan

3) That Internationalism must be replaced by Nationalism and nations like the UK must repatriate their troops and police their own borders and defeat the Jihad in the UK and that the Jihad cannot be defeated in Iraq and Afghanistan

4) That we have all been conned by Bush etc and the Neo-Cons and that both the Democrats and Labour and the Conservatives and the Republicans are idiots who have deluded themselves and us

5) That Israel is not the front line of the Jihad BECAUSE IN FACT EVERYWHERE THERE ARE MUSLIMS IS THE FRONT LINE OF THE JIHAD and therefore the argument for defending Israel must be replaced with the need to defend ourselves first

6) That muslims must be divided into those with us and those against us and that those against us must be regarded as enemies within

7) That the Liberal Democratic system has failed and that the Liberal Consensus is as dangerous to us as the Islamists themselves as it disarms us

8) That Liberals and Islamists are both the inner enemy

9) That at some point ati-Jihadists must allie with those nationalists and naionalist parties to defeat both the liberals and the islamists if we are to save our nations, culture and democracies from both the liberals and the islamists

Posted by: Spear Of Odin at January 26, 2008 10:46 AM

Jeffrey Carr-- The question is which of the three is most true, which description most conforms to reality so as to fashion a strategy that will also correspond to reality. Show, as in demonstrate, how this statement of Coughlin is inaccurate & qualifies as "hate propaganda":

"If Current Approach (to the War on Terror) advocates were correct, threat doctrine would have found doctrinal Islam does not support extremist doctrine. In fact, it fully corroberates the claims of the enemy in the WOT. The 'extremists' are correct."

Posted by: Nick Danger at January 26, 2008 10:49 AM

Whence the double standard, Mr. Carr, with respect to Christianity and Judaism, on the one hand, and Islam, on the other hand, such that it is considered "hate speech" (PC code)to criticize Islamic scripture and legal code, but not "hate speech" to speak ill of our core religious traditions?

I fail to have found in anything of what Mr. Coughlin has written in his thesis (I'm not yet finished reading it)that constitutes "hate speech" or in any way inaccurate. I fail to have found anything in Robert's books and articles, or Andrew Bostom's, Serge Trifkovic's, or Bat Ye'or's that constitute anything but solid scholarship. Also, I trust what my eyes have seen and brain processed in my long slog through the Qur'an.

So far on JihadWatch.org your investment in the topic of Maj. Coughlin has been heavily slanted towards seeing his reputation sullied and his work discredited. And that is an accurate assessment, I think. What's your game?

Posted by: FredIsinglass at January 26, 2008 11:09 AM

This is the follow up for my post above:

Besides criticizing on our short comings, I felt that I owe Americans an offer of solution to change course from the status quo.

Here is my offer:

What's done is done, but America can rebuild the American thinking from ground up to counter the comfort stemmed from the popular beliefs in the innocuousness of Islam.

To rebuild, we must begin the anti-jihad education from grade schools, but obviously, it will not happen because the opposition has become too turbulent. It can be done only if we have more than 2/3 of the 3 executive branches to undertake the efforts, but then again this 2/3 must still be drawn from the same turbid pool.

Whether chicken or egg came first, it's a mute point. Please do it ASAP!

Posted by: ssa at January 26, 2008 11:09 AM

...I hope Stephen Coughlin get put back into his office and those who forced him out find themselves on the outside looking in....It is very clear to see why the Muslims wanted him out...he knows too much about Islam and Islams battle plans...

Ban Muslim Immigration.

Posted by: exsgtbrown at January 26, 2008 11:13 AM

many more find your position to be counterproductive to the U.S. mission (my view), and helpful to the extremists who can point to your hate propaganda and use it to fuel their radicalization efforts. If that's true, then you and the entire Islamofascism movement are doing the same thing that the extreme Right have accused liberals of doing - aiding the enemy!

You are assuming that the jihad dynamic comes from a reaction to an external threat or the perception of an external threat. Even if this were true, which it is not, what would constitute this external threat? Would it be necessary, for example, to directly attack Muslims in order for them to consider us an external threat? No, it is enough simply to resist Islam's missionary impulse to "trigger" the jihad doctrine. The "internal logic" of jihad requires that it be waged wherever there are non-Muslims who have no plans to convert ("revert") to Islam. This is the only interpretation of Islamic doctrine that maintains fidelity to the texts. All that other stuff about "fueling radicalization efforts" is a projection on YOUR PART of what it would take for YOU to wage war against someone. You are guilty of cultural imperialism by denying Muslims the "right" to define whether or not they are a "warlike people" in essence.

Those of us, myself included, who put ourselves in Muslim shoes and view (temporarily) the world as they see it (all it takes is a little imagination and some study) know that they live for jihad. Put in existentialist terms, without jihad, they'd succumb to despair ("the sickness unto death"). It helps that I've studied Greco-Roman culture for a couple of decades, so I'm easily able to put myself in the shoes of a foreign culture. Islam is generally like the earliest Greek culture (pre-Iliadic culture), which was also a shame culture, so I have no problem identifying its defining characteristics and saying that I want no part of them in my daily life.

Stop trying to impose your history-deprived views on me. They're intellectually vacuous and practically dangerous.

Posted by: venividivici at January 26, 2008 11:19 AM

Put in existentialist terms, without jihad, they'd succumb to despair ("the sickness unto death").

If you don't believe this, look at how pre-Islamic Arabia is decribed and tell me that it wasn't a "civilization" full of despair, the same sort as overtook the ancient pagan world of Rome. That's why Islam "took". A place that's vibrant and full of life would never adopt Islam. Hence the Jews refusal to accept Muhammed as a prophet. Hence my refusal to give them one iota of slack.

Posted by: venividivici at January 26, 2008 11:27 AM

venividivici,

Russia is like the Arab countries - blessed with natural resources. It also has people who know how to work hard. They produced scientists and they held most of the world at bay for the better part of fifty years. Today they have their own Muslim problem but they continue to prop up governments like that of North Korea and to openly support Iran. They are not lending their power to fight the jihad - they too are enabling it. Just like the Arab countries, Russia's future is in its own hands. It has the resources, human and natural, to create a productive society. Weapons aren't all they have to sell. They're the only means Russia has of extending its influence - proof that that is all Russian leaders seek - power and influence.

You would have us transfer still more wealth to another country whose leaders don't believe in freedom and that wants to extend its hegemony? Why don't we just raise the white flag?

Posted by: PMK at January 26, 2008 11:32 AM

Having had the opportunity now to travel in the Muslim world on numerous trips, having met and discussed certain Islamic matters with Islamic jurists, scholars, and theologians, and having completed my own readings in the area, I am increasingly finding some of the treatment of 'jihadism' here to be suspect.

It's one thing to oppose an interpretive application of a normative teaching when the context of that interpretation has clearly shifted and some do not wish to shift with it. It's another to cast the interpretative application as being normative and immutable itself. The Muslims I have spoken to have made cogent explanations of jihad theology to me, and luminaries such as Al Azhar's Mahmoud Shaltout seem to have presented plausible treatments and understandings of the matter.

Also, it seems rather odd that folks automatically lump Judaism in with Christianity in opposition to Islam when, I think, any reasonable, balanced, objective fair-minded review of the faiths would show that Judaism has more in common with Islam than it does with Christianity. Among these commonalities would be a normative, immutable set of authoritarian theocratic laws that govern civil society and cannot be intellectually reconciled with what the West has now developed as standard notions of constitutional republicanism, including basic freedoms, civil rights, and civil liberties.

Posted by: fairuzfan at January 26, 2008 11:33 AM

venividivici,

I doubt Mr. Carr will answer the bell to your challenge. Expect him to dissemble, change the direction of the conversation, and deny that you even hit home with a major dissection of his logic. I spent a few years in academia listening to how people debate and argue their positions, so I've seen almost every conceivable form of escape and evasion. Such is the state of post-modernism in the West. Now, THAT is also a form of sickness unto death.

Posted by: FredIsinglass at January 26, 2008 11:35 AM

and helpful to the extremists who can point to your hate propaganda and use it to fuel their radicalization efforts. ~ posted above

Now if a Christian was to go jihadi on Mr Carr because of his anti-Christian hate propaganda, we he excuse it as easily as he excuses Islamic jihad?

In other words, would Mr Carr blame himself?

Liberal hypocrites would like to know!

Posted by: BurgerBoy at January 26, 2008 11:38 AM

PMK,

I don't offer my suggestion as a way of raising the white flag. I'm not even saying the Russians would take up the offer, but if they did, and then broke the conditions of the aid by supplying nuclear equipment and weapons, we'd have a 'causus belli' with them. My broader point is that if we can force the "fast jihad" Muslims to rely on their own devices for weapons development, it will be a strategic victory. What I hear you saying is that this is difficult, maybe impossible, and I concur. I just think it's one of the few constructive ways forward.

Posted by: venividivici at January 26, 2008 11:47 AM

"I know, there are those who will say "collective punishment", blah, blah, blah."

Posted by: venividivici

Yes, this is what the more tenderhearted and well-intentioned people would say. But, here's the thing--most of our foreign aid, be it monetary or other, doesn't reach the intended recipients, anyway.

Whenever they can, the men with the guns take the food, and damn the women who have no guns but plenty of hungry children.

I'm inclined to agree. Stop sending the grain, unless it can be guaranteed to reach those to whom it is being sent. (Not that they won't loathe us, anyway, but humanitarianism is what it is--a hard habit for Americans to break.)

Posted by: Abscedere at January 26, 2008 11:49 AM

Mr. Carr:

Your continued unsubstantiated smears on me and my work are noted.

Now I ask you to document them: please produce one false statement I have ever made about Islam, the doctrine of jihad, or any related matter.

A simple assertion of its falsehood, mind you, is not enough. Please provide the exact statement from me -- a quotation, not a version of what I say written by you -- and clear evidence that it is false.

Please post it here. In other words, put up or shut up. Prove that I am just a "hate propagandist," or take your defamatory hate propaganda elsewhere.

If you cannot do prove this, and I am quite sure you cannot, then I will ban you. I am quite willing, as any longtime reader will attest, to allow disagreement with me in these comments fields, but your continued substanceless smears are not the same thing as honest disagreement.

Thus I await your documentation, and assure you that I will not ban you until you produce it or demonstrate that you cannot do so.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at January 26, 2008 12:01 PM

Also, it seems rather odd that folks automatically lump Judaism in with Christianity in opposition to Islam when, I think, any reasonable, balanced, objective fair-minded review of the faiths would show that Judaism has more in common with Islam than it does with Christianity. Among these commonalities would be a normative, immutable set of authoritarian theocratic laws that govern civil society and cannot be intellectually reconciled with what the West has now developed as standard notions of constitutional republicanism, including basic freedoms, civil rights, and civil liberties.

While I agree broadly with some of the initial parts of this statement (uncompromising monotheism is definitely part of both Judaism and Islam), it is rife with errors and debatable assertions.

1. The "character" of God in the Hebrew scriptures and the Koran is quite different. One obvious point of differentiation is that the Hebrew God loves his creation, whereas Allah more or less puts up with us because if we didn't exist, he couldn't exercise his "judging" powers.

2. The Hebrew scriptures at least partially support the idea that a "Messiah" will emerge from the Isrealites and that "Messiah" may or may not be God in human form, as in the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.

3. The item I've bolded is the worst, though. Have you ever really studied the evolution of God's message, as embodied in the prophets of Israel? The very fact that it "evolves" from the Mosaic code to the end of the prophetic tradition shows that it is the very opposite of "immutable" (the irony of saying that Jewish law is "immutable" is probably lost on you unless you know Greek. "Deutoronomy" literally means "second set of laws", i.e. to replace the original laws. This is why not everyone is qualified to have an opinion about some things). Also, you should study the histories of the Isrealite kings, as portrayed in the Bible. God wants the Isrealites to remain a "theocracy", but the Isrealites want a king, so there is political evolution as well. Would the Jews ever have evolved republican government "on their own"? I don't know, but I do know that when they could have remained aloof from republican government in Europe, all they wanted to do was participate in it. With their small numbers, it's unlikely that they wanted to do so because they thought they could vote in a Judaic theocracy.

4. If Judaism was so much like Islam, why did the Jews not accept Muhammed as a prophet? I think it's obviously related to point 1 above, but it's difficult to reconcile the historical facts with your assertion. I think it's basically because your assertion is based on one relatively superficial and abstract commonality (monotheism) and doesn't take into account the much more concrete differences between Judaism and Islam (just about everything else, including, as I've shown, your misunderstanding of Judaic law).

And I'm not even Jewish or Christian! Nevermind what some of the actual Jews or Christians would say.

Posted by: venividivici at January 26, 2008 12:05 PM

Yes, this is what the more tenderhearted and well-intentioned people would say. But, here's the thing--most of our foreign aid, be it monetary or other, doesn't reach the intended recipients, anyway.

Yep, absolutely. I'm sure that unless the strongest get their fill and more, the weakest get nothing.

Let them eat their oil, mixed in with a little sand. Or, if they're from a non-oil country, let them eat their guns and bullets.

Posted by: venividivici at January 26, 2008 12:10 PM

"While some holders of the 2nd view may find it productive to work with the minority of holders of the 3rd view (you, Horowitz, Epstein, etc.), in spite of their differences, many more find your position to be counterproductive to the U.S. mission (my view), and helpful to the extremists who can point to your hate propaganda and use it to fuel their radicalization efforts. If that's true, then you and the entire Islamofascism movement are doing the same thing that the extreme Right have accused liberals of doing - aiding the enemy!"

Just more of the same logic that will not stop Jihad and allow it to slither around the globe. As long as we honor the core of the Islamic religion and label any opposition to the practice of it as "hate speech", as if it has been "distorted" by extremist radicals...and try to work with the so called peaceful element, nothing will change. Exactly why we find ourselves in this present mess.

Jihad is Islam.

Always was & will be. As long as the religion gets a free pass and think somehow if we just snuff out the fundamentalists, thinking Islam can peacefully co-exist with us...we've bought into the lie.

Posted by: SoteriA at January 26, 2008 12:10 PM

Fred - if your inability to understand what I've written is indicative of your general reading comprehension, then no wonder you hold the views that you do. You accuse me of a double-standard when I've written nothing to warrant that. I've never referred to Christianity or Judiaism as non-religions.

My position, and I'll put this simply to help you grasp it, is that every religion has, among its adherents, differences in how their individual holy books are interpreted. We see it in Christianity all the time. There are radical fundamentalists in Christianity, known as Christian Reconstructionists, who believe that their interpretation of the Bible is correct and everyone else's more liberal interpretation is wrong. Are you a Christian Reconstructionist, Fred? If you aren't, do you know they consider you apostate? If you are, do you realize that your view is radicalized Christianity?

Likewise, the Stephen Coughlins of the world prefer to interpret the Koran in its most literal sense, holding it to a 7th century mindset and completely ignoring more liberal Islamic views. By doing this, the Islamofascist camp is no better than other radicals, and just as wrong. It's never right to claim one correct interpretation of scripture, regardless of the religion. In fact, such a narrow view is ALWAYS considered an outlier; not part of mainstream thought.

Furthermore, there's a difference in impact. If you're just Fred living in Muskeegee and you hold this position, it harms no one. If, on the other hand, you're a policy advisor for the DOD, you extremist views can cost lives. That's why Coughlin deserved to be fired.

Posted by: Jeffrey Carr at January 26, 2008 12:11 PM

Mr. Carr:

The clock is ticking. I ask you with all respect not to ignore my request.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at January 26, 2008 12:14 PM

Any idea that is so threatening to others that the speaker must be silenced must have some power that commends the reaction. In Coughlins case the idea that seems to have set the long knives a whetting was the idea that the jihadi aims are embedded in the quran and the hadiths.

If Coughlin had made an error of fact, possibly citing some grievous translation that misstake would have been overlooked, all those involved able to take what was misspoke and adjust accordingly.

If Coughlin had made a weak case for the idea, others could have presented their cases and the step of letting him go would not have to have been made.

It seems self evident that Coughlin presented a case that was irrefutable to such an extent that the only option left for those was to smear him with a hater label and attempt to evade and change the subject.

It seems that the weakness of the ideas floating around in the DOD must have been so threatened by Coughlins thesis that they were UNable to refute them fairly, this also shows to me that there is a lack of confidence in the "official" policy, those who are confident do not need to go postal when confronted with ideas that do not conform to their own.

Hopefully, we will someday reject the obvious cronyism of Gordon England and others like him, who enter service with their own courtiers and yesmen, and not replace them with those who substitute political correctness (oxymoron) for cronyism.

The house of representatives should investigate the obvious cronyism that has infected the DOD and should probe wether the money being spent on "outreach" is money well spent or money being misspent.

Posted by: stickman at January 26, 2008 12:22 PM

With all due respect, venividivic, I believe most of your comments are not correct in your response to my posting. And while I am not any kind of official Judaic authority or scholar, I did spend several years in Orthodox Jewish yeshivah day school and have had numerous, in depth dicussions with rabbis.

Normative binding orthodox Judiasm is based on the authoritiative and immmutable Mosaic code. It is Torah, not the 'prophets' that kept Israel, and provide the static, eternal blueprint for Judaic belief and practice. I don't think reference to non-Jewish, liberal Judaic currents of thought from the past 2 centuries changes my fundamental point and assertion.

Also, I can state with supreme confidence that normative Orthodox Judaism does not allow for a God-in-human-form messiah in any way, shape, or form. It doesn't even allow for the second coming of a purely human messiah, an issue that is currently roiling the Chabad Lubavitch Chasidim with their view of their late rebbi who died in the mid-1990s.

Posted by: fairuzfan at January 26, 2008 12:22 PM

Robert Spencer, I accept your challenge. I won't post anything further in your blog until I've demonstrated how what you've written qualifies as hate speech.

Posted by: Jeffrey Carr at January 26, 2008 12:27 PM

Mr. Carr:

Robert Spencer, I accept your challenge. I won't post anything further in your blog until I've demonstrated how what you've written qualifies as hate speech.

Thanks. And good luck with that. Remember: the simple assertion by you is not enough. You have to have evidence. Clear, demonstrable evidence, that what I say about Islam is false.

Otherwise, however unpleasant it is to you, it's true, and it would behoove you to accept the implications of its truth rather than shooting -- or defaming -- the messenger.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at January 26, 2008 12:29 PM

Also, remember, sir:

The writings of anyone else, such as unmoderated comments on this site, do not count as documentation. The documentation must come from my own writings. I have written 7 books and hundreds of articles, as well as over 19,000 blog posts; you shouldn't have any problem finding "hate propaganda" if it is indeed there.

Happy hunting.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at January 26, 2008 12:31 PM

" in spite of their differences, many more find your position to be counterproductive to the U.S. mission (my view)"

What is that 'mission' - is that the delusional attempt to democratise the Middle East or the attempt to delude the public that they arent after the oil ?

Posted by: Spear Of Odin at January 26, 2008 12:31 PM

Mr. Carr,

I am indeed not a Christian Reconstructionist, as you've probably guessed by now. However, here is the difference between the so-called Christian Reconstructionists who would consider me a heretic and apostate and the Muslims who consider those who do not treat the Qur'an as a divine dictation: the Christian Reconstructionists would not put me to death. They would merely choose to not associate with me, or exert great efforts to try to point out that being a Roman Catholic gets me into hell.

Muslim orthodoxy condemns Muslim apostates not just to Gehenna, but to death as well. So it is written in Sharia Law and in the Qur'an, and so shall it be done.

Mr. Coughlin in only trying to point out that jihadis correctly cite Qur'an, Sunnah, and Sharia Law to justify fighting in the way of Allah. It is entirely a defensible argument, replete with so much documented proof that it beggars belief that anyone would consider his work "hate speech" and inciting jihad. The people who incited jihad in the 7th through 21st centuries are those who revert to Islamic sources, not those who point out that this is happening. The victim here is not Islam. It is we infidels, the kafirs. Those who are Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, and, yes, even socialists/Marxists. When I was in college in the late seventies and early eighties I knew a lot of Iranian expats who had to flee, even though they aided the revolution that toppled the Shah, because they were Communists or socialists. Anyone who is not a Muslim is not in al illah's good graces. In fact, most Muslims are not, since there are vastly more than the mere 70,000 who will not make it into paradise.

Posted by: FredIsinglass at January 26, 2008 12:40 PM

Christian Re constructionists are obliged to follow the laws of the land or be imprisoned.

Oh goody! Jeffrey Carr is going to read all of RS' work....maybe he will get hit by the "cluebat".
/doubt it tho

Posted by: interestinconundrum at January 26, 2008 12:55 PM

"The Muslims I have spoken to have made cogent explanations of jihad theology to me, and luminaries such as Al Azhar's Mahmoud Shaltout seem to have presented plausible treatments and understandings of the matter."
-- from a posting above

One would like set out here those "cogent explanations" by those "Muslims" you "have spoken to," including whatever "luminaries such as Al Azha's Mahmoud Shaltout" offer by way of "plausible" treatments and understandings of the matter.

And then one could compare those "cogent explanations" and "plausible treatments" with what Joseph Schacht, C. Snouck Hurgronje, Arthur Jeffrey, Charles-Emmunuel Dufourcq, Henri Lammens, St. Clair Tisdall, Samuel Zwemer, and other Western scholars, studying and writing during the Golden Age of Western Scholarship on Islam, before the Great Inhibition set in. These scholars of Islam, who devoted their entire lives to the subject, never made the mistake of relying merely on personal interchanges with Muslim interlocutoers, for they understood, as all who have had experience in Muslim countries or with Muslims outside those countries comes to understand, Muslim apologists are extraordinarly adept at turning on the charm to Westerners wanting to "find out" all about Islam, and well versed in every kind of taqiyya and tu-quoque, and in presenting demisemihemiquavering fractions of fractions of truths, reflected through prisms that bend or refract crazily (see Snell's Law) the occasional beam of truth, and that in the end leave that Western inquirer quite convinced that he has been wrong, that Muslim apologists have a point, and the Western skeptics and "detractors" are far too severe.

And if those hundreds of Western scholars, writing before the days of Arab money (the same money that supports John Esposito in his fiefdom), writing in the days before everyone was so deeply concerned not to offend, eager to believe such bromides (see George Bush) as "people are the same the whole world over" or "all religions are the same" or "everyone believes the same thing" or (your bromide here), are insufficient to undermine credulity, then perhaps the testimony of the swelling ranks of "defectors" from the Army of Islam, those highly articulate and obviously intelligent people who, having been born into, and grown up within, societies and families suffused with Islam, managed in the West to continue what they might have begun to do even in Muslim societies, that is to compare and contrast and to think clearly, and then, in the freedom of the West, came to openly reject Islam -- such people as Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan -- and are quite capable of setting the naive straight about the full meaning of this Total Belief-System.

And finally, there are even those Muslims so "moderate" and so true in their "moderation" that we may describe them as having rejected altogether large portions of Islam, and who often describe themselves as "cultural Muslims" but in reality, we can call them "Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only" Muslims, and among their ranks is such a person as the Egyptian-born, naturalized citizen of Italy Magdi Allam, who has recently denounced the viciousness coming out of Al Azhar, the very same Al Azhar where, apparently, the poster above discovered "luminaries such as Al Azhar's Mahmoud Shaltout."

I can well imagine what the unfoolable Magdi Allam would have to say about the apparent impressiveness, to the poster above whose travels, and conversations with many "plausible" and "cogent" Muslims, have led him to take a dim view of the predominant view at Jihadwatch, of Al Azhar. For the criticism of Jihadwatch, based on these "plausible" and "cogent" apologists, requires one not only to dismiss Jihad Watch, but also to dismiss those with views identical to those expressed by the principals of Jihad Watch: it means to deny the truth of what Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Wafa Sultan and Ibn Warraq and a hundred others have to offer as their own testimony and analysis, the product not of talking to this or that "plausible" Muslim described gushingly as a "luminary" but as the product of living deep inside Muslim societies. And the same criticism of Jihad Watch implies, as well, a criticism of those great Western scholars of Islam -- of Arthur Jeffrey, of Henri Lammens, of Snouck Hurgronje, of Joseph Schacht.

And, of course, it also implies a willingness to ignore the reality we see all about us, by those who take the doctrines inculcated by Islam to heart. In other words, we end up where we began, long ago, with the first paragraph of "Islam For Infidels" and the old joke about the man whose wife discovers him in flagrante delicto and who defends himself indignantly: "Who are you going to believe? Me, or your lying eyes?"

Posted by: Hugh at January 26, 2008 12:56 PM

Normative binding orthodox Judiasm is based on the authoritiative and immmutable Mosaic code.

This is just a "generic" definition of "orthodoxy". I could just as easily say "Normative binding orthodox Greek paganism is based on the authoritative and immutable Homeric code".

I don't see how you can go from that observation to "Islam and Judaism have a lot in common".

Also, I can state with supreme confidence that normative Orthodox Judaism does not allow for a God-in-human-form messiah in any way, shape, or form.

I guess the Jews who were early converts to Christianity must not have been Orthodox, then, even though the early Christians appealed to them using "Jewish" arguments about the Messiah.

Within any "orthodox" community, there's an element of "selection bias", so what is orthodox isn't static (assuming, as is NOT the case with Islam, but is the case with Judaism, that dissenters from the orthodox view are not killed as apostates). Today's "Orthodox" Jews almost certainly hold some views and engage in practices that Jews of the Mosaic day and age would find non-Orthodox. It's just that there are no "Mosaic" Jews alive to alert them to this fact, as well as the fact that those who believed that orthodoxy lay elsewhere went off to form their own congregations. The claim of orthodoxy is no proof in and of itself of orthodoxy. For that, one must do historical and philological excavation.

From wikipedia (my bold):

"Orthodox Judaism has a range of opinion on the circumstances and extent to which change is permissible. Haredi Jews generally hold that even minhagim (customs) must be retained and existing precedents cannot be reconsidered. Modern Orthodox authorities are generally more inclined to permit limited changes in customs, and some reconsideration of precedent. All Orthodox authorities, however, agree that only later Rabbinical interpretations are subject to reconsideration, and hold that core sources of Divine written and oral law, such as the Torah and the Mishnah, cannot be overridden."

I bolded "overridden" because it is, essentially, ambiguous in meaning, which means that there is even further scope to introduce interpretation into "orthodoxy" in Judaism. If enough people consider that an innovation in Judaic law doesn't "override" an earlier decree, who adjudicates and retains the right to the claim of "orthodoxy"?

You may have learned lots in yeshiva, but legal reasoning doesn't seem to have been a focus. Any good lawyer can see that your definition of "orthodox Judaism", upon which your comparison of Judaism and Islam is made, is lacking in nuance. Islam has "closed the gates of interpretation", meaning that there is no ambiguity and one is forced to select from existing legal rulings, not innovate, as is still possible in Orthodox Judaism.

Posted by: venividivici at January 26, 2008 12:59 PM

venividivici-
While my time is unfortunately limited to be logged on where I am, I do not think your response is particularly sound.

Orthodox Judaism is a strict set of beliefs and practices. My presentation comes from what I have learned and is certainly no more lacking in nuance than much of the discussion here about Islam appears to be as well.

Briefly, Jews who believe in Christ became CHRISTIANS and departed from Jewish Orthodoxy when they did so. Also, apostates are subject to possible capital punishment, such laws are simply considered suspended for the time being until Torah theocratic law is re-established. It hasn't been abrogated.

Posted by: fairuzfan at January 26, 2008 1:08 PM

Carr has been called out.."put up or shut up" as Robert said. I am putting all my money on shut up, after Carr makes a futile attempt to back up his position..which seems to be in a corner.

Posted by: pismopal at January 26, 2008 1:13 PM

"Likewise, the Stephen Coughlins of the world prefer to interpret the Koran in its most literal sense, holding it to a 7th century mindset and completely ignoring more liberal Islamic views. By doing this, the Islamofascist camp is no better than other radicals, and just as wrong. It's never right to claim one correct interpretation of scripture, regardless of the religion. In fact, such a narrow view is ALWAYS considered an outlier; not part of mainstream thought.

Furthermore, there's a difference in impact. If you're just Fred living in Muskeegee and you hold this position, it harms no one. If, on the other hand, you're a policy advisor for the DOD, you extremist views can cost lives. That's why Coughlin deserved to be fired.

Posted by: Jeffrey Carr"

"Likewise, the Stephen Coughlins of the world prefer to interpret the Koran in its most literal sense, holding it to a 7th century mindset and completely ignoring more liberal Islamic views."

.....it seems to me, thatit is the Muslims in power who prefer to interpret the Koran in it most literal sense, holding it to a 7th century mindset and completely ignoring more liberal Islamic views (if such a thing exists)....

.....when i see the present day activities of the violent Muslims around the world, the one thing that is very apparent is that they quote from the Koran literally word by word as it was originally written long ago...They refuse to amend , modernize, alter, clarify, or otherwise update the old writings to fit a modern day existence....as I read through the old writings , they appear more like religious military manifesto writings ....(and I take time to look up the definition of religious and find nothing in the description that infers religion is peaceful).....I suppose one could say Muslims are religiously following the instructions for the domination of the world as instructed by the obviouly militant writings in the Koran....
"

"It's never right to claim one correct interpretation of scripture, regardless of the religion. In fact, such a narrow view is ALWAYS considered an outlier; not part of mainstream thought." sez you...

...It is a known fact that the violent Muslims consider their interpretion of their scripture (in its own narrow way) to be the only correct interpretation of their activities, and they justify their violent actions while constantly quoting from the Koran (claiming this is all the justification they need for the slaughter of the enemy, the acquiquisition of the land of the enemy, and the subjugation of all NonMuslims (in effect, rendering them slaves and prostitutes for the Islamic Slave Masters), and confiscation of all material wealth owned by those who are killed or captured by the Islamic jihadist raiders)...as time goes on these views are accepted by an ever increasing portion of Mainstream Islamic thought....

....Stephen Coughlin recognized this....The Muslims knew it ....and they were afraid he might just influence the leaders of this country who may not as of yet achieved total dhimmi conversion....

....The Muslims knew it, they feared the possibilites of an Islam knowledgeble NonMuslim leadership, they reacted in the only way a Muslim can....They get rid of the problem....one way or the other....just like they do in Muslim countries....

Ban Muslim immigration...

Posted by: exsgtbrown at January 26, 2008 1:13 PM

Mr. Spencer,

Given Mr. Carr's penchant for scholastic laziness, I respectfully recommend you also hold him strictly to source documentation, lest he merely produce regurgitated drivel, to which you've responded (i.e. ban him if he plagiarizes without accreditation). That way, he may continue another's debate if he felt your response was insufficient, but not waste, what I consider as precious, your time.

Respectfully submitted,

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at January 26, 2008 1:32 PM

Jeffrey Carr: "Likewise, the Stephen Coughlins of the world prefer to interpret the Koran in its most literal sense, holding it to a 7th century mindset and completely ignoring more liberal Islamic views….It's never right to claim one correct interpretation of scripture, regardless of the religion. In fact, such a narrow view is ALWAYS considered an outlier; not part of mainstream thought."

Then the same could be said about the "liberal" views of Islam which you claim Spencer and Coughlin are ignoring. What is your proof that those liberal views constitute mainstream Islamic thought? You're begging the question here. The question is whether the jihad imperative and the imperative to impose Sharia law (including blasphemy laws and death for apostasy etc) is sufficiently mainstream Islamic thought to argue against the idea that a tiny minority of extremists has hijacked Islam. If you claim that pointing this out constitutes hate speech, then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that the “liberal” interpretations in fact constitute mainstream Islamic thought (not to be confused with simply pointing out that most Muslims are either ignorant of or ignore what Islam actually teaches, something that Spencer has acknowledged numerous times).

“many more find your position to be counterproductive to the U.S. mission (my view), and helpful to the extremists who can point to your hate propaganda and use it to fuel their radicalization efforts. If that's true, then you and the entire Islamofascism movement are doing the same thing that the extreme Right have accused liberals of doing - aiding the enemy! ”

If the vast majority of Muslims are really liberals though, as you claim, why would we worry that they could be so easily radicalized? Your concern about this actually undermines the case you are making about “real” Islam.

But let’s just say that pointing out that jihad and Sharia are central to Islam does in fact aid the radicals in their recruitment efforts and so in some sense “aids the enemy”. Which aids the enemy more in the long run – the liberal pretense that Islam is a religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims are liberals like westerners – leading us to keep up high levels of Muslim immigration to the west? Or even if it does aid recruitment efforts in the short run, does pointing out the truth about Islam galvanize westerners to stop Muslim immigration into their countries, cut off the jizya etc etc? Which approach holds the greatest LONG-TERM promise of defending the west against the jihad imperative (jihad here understood in all its senses)?

Posted by: Caroline at January 26, 2008 1:33 PM

Here's the problem, Fairuzfan:

Whatever may be true of a non-Islamic faith -- or whatever someone claims is true of it -- doesn't negate what Islam teaches, including the threat of jihad. Islam is what it is.

The main aim of your argument seems to be to undermine common cause between Christians and Jews against jihadists.

But Islam's goal is to dominate and supersede both Christianity and Judaism. There is not only a common history among Christians and Jews (there's Jesus' Jewish heritage and upbringing, and the fact that Christianity has retained the Jewish scriptures, rather than discarding them in favor of a revisionist document), but there is an undesirable outcome -- subjugation under sharia law -- that both groups have a tremendous stake in avoiding, regardless of the differences between them.

Posted by: MarisolJW at January 26, 2008 1:35 PM

In fact, most Muslims are not, since there are vastly more than the mere 70,000 who will not make it into paradise.
Posted by: FredIsinglass

Logically it's correct, but Prophet Mohammad said, hell is of 7 stories:

The 1st story down is created for bad Muslims, where they will be punished for 500 years, after which they may join all good Muslims in paradise. Each Muslim man will be given 72 paradise virgins, who will always revert to their virginity after copulation, where they also will receive more than 300 female attendants. In other words, Muslims, according to Mohammad, can never be in hell for eternity. Then who shall go to hell for eternity? All non-Muslims will be thrown into the 2nd story all the way down to the seventh hell, where they remain to suffer for eternity.

Let me tell this to all of you, who visit here, more interesting things about Muslim unfixable jihad obsession. But first let me finish with the 7-story hell.

The 2nd story down, called Ladha, where the Jews will reside under more intense heat than the floor above;

The 3rd story down, called Hotama, where Christians will suffer more than the Jews;

The 4th story down, called Sair, where Sabians reside; these Sabians were ancient Arab pagans, who built Ka'aba, where they make annual pilgrimage to Mecca. Yes, folks, Hajj and Ramadan are Sabian tradition, which are not originated from Islam; instead, Mohammed borrowed from it to make it widely appealing to his compatriots.

The 5th story down, called Sakar, where the Maji's suffer the torment. If you are a Christian, you should remember that there were three Maji's from the east to bare gifts to baby Jesus at the manger. Maji's were found in pre-Islamic Arabia, the entire Persia, and India. Today they are found in a small part of India. Today's Maji's are called Zoroastrians.

The 6th story down, called Jahin, assigned for idolaters; this is where Mohammed showed his lack of intellect for failing to lump Sabians and Zoroastrians together with other idolaters as Hindus, Buddhists, Animalist, etc

The 7th story down, called Hawjat, which is reserved for Muslim apostates, which they also called hypocrites. These hypocrites include the Mutafiq (hypocrite) and the Taqfir (the excommunicated).

Mohammed forgot many things and forgot to make hell deeper than 7-story because homosexual don't have a place to go, not to mention all other trouble makers we have in this world.

We Christians have our heart in heaven, but Muslims in general don't because Mohammed told them that the upper heaven is totally reserved for 144 prophets and Muslim clerics. The lower heaven is reserved for Jihadists, whom they called Shahids; these jihadists will live with Gene. Another thing unheard of amongst Christians is that Mohammed said, "The entire heaven is an unbridled whore house.

Now, folks, you know why every Muslims wished to go there. As to Muslim women they go there to serve their husbands who have no need of their body. But still that's a better arrangement then previously promised by Mohammed.

To kill your curiosity as to what Mohammed promised previously, I will end this by telling you the rest.

Previously, on the way back from robbing, Mohammed said to his gang, "I saw all Muslim men in paradise, and I looked down; then I saw all women in hell." These did not go well with him, as he sees his followers departed from him one by one, since their newly subjugate foreign beauties could not be there with them. Therefore, when he arrived in Medina, he re-varnished his revelation of the paradise, by telling them that Muslim women may go to paradise to accompany their husbands.

Again, the unmarried women have no place to go.

Posted by: ssa at January 26, 2008 1:50 PM

Carol Iannone said

The enemy is not Islamo-Fascism, but the jihadist elements of Islam itself.

I have to stop and rub my eyes when I read a sentence like that. And those direct, unmincing sentences are appearing more and more often, by more and more writers.

It's working. The message is getting out. Thank you Carol, and thank you Robert, Hugh, and Marisol.

Posted by: special_guest at January 26, 2008 1:55 PM

ssa, I don't see a place in those 7 hells for a lifelong atheist. And I sure don't want to end up in the bordello called Islamic "paradise", raping women for eternity, hanging out with a "god" that mandates beheadings and stonings.

Maybe I'll be left alone, and finally be able to get some peace and quiet.

Posted by: special_guest at January 26, 2008 2:02 PM

"So, to return more strictly to Coughlin's thesis, he says that we are hampered in dealing with the enemy and in producing good intelligence for our strategic plans because instead of listening to what the enemy is saying, we impose our own hopeful, optimistic kind of view on the Islamic world, that everyone is really like us at heart and that we will see this in the end." -- from the article

Reminds me of the movie, "Mars Attacks" where the pointy headed Noam Chomsky type invents a universal translator that only says happy, peaceful things. As the Martians were screaming, the dulcet tones of the translator were putting out Kumbaya phrases, and people who wouldn't even look at BODY LANGUAGE (little children in bomb vests waiving the Holy book of the Religion of Peace, for example)
It would be small satisfaction for me, if, as it was in the movie, we could see the head of the academic floating in a jar, and the dimwitted cluck reporter's head attached to her accessory-dog's body.

Posted by: Jauhara Al-Kafirah at January 26, 2008 2:08 PM

Kudos to Coughlin the Brave.

Looking forward to troll shooting season. Ah, bring on the hunt.

Interesting what happens to a liberal leftist mind when it tries to reason or make choices - it turns to mush.

(A good mind is like a good magnet, and a bad mind repels - Eric Hoffer, - where are you when we need you ?)

Posted by: dgene at January 26, 2008 2:13 PM

Interpretation is a valueless argument. It is based upon the assumption that all is relative. I am not saying that people don't bias what they hear or read. You Mr.Carr are just as guilty as any. It is plain that you are of the first group that Coughlin describes.

Mr. Coughlin gives three interpretations. The evidence based on facts appears to be the third interpretation.

Now, here is the important thing, what is the truth. It is not relative as you argue. Far more lives are at stake on our side if we miss identify the enemy. I would prefer to be very conservative on picking the interpretations. Even if we piss off the whole world.

As has been posted, they depend more on our economy than we do theirs. Not saying it might be hard but we are at war.

Posted by: Im.mad.as.HELL! at January 26, 2008 2:13 PM

Orthodox Judaism is a strict set of beliefs and practices. My presentation comes from what I have learned and is certainly no more lacking in nuance than much of the discussion here about Islam appears to be as well.

My point is that it isn't as strict as you think it is and it isn't as strict as Islam, so your assertion that there is much in common between Islam and Judaism, vis-a-vis their legal codes and immutability, is inaccurate. "Innovation" is heresy in Islamic law, but not in Orthodox Judaic law.

Briefly, Jews who believe in Christ became CHRISTIANS and departed from Jewish Orthodoxy when they did so.

At this far remove, it's difficult to know what their self-image was, so I'm kind of speculating here, but I don't believe that the considered themselves "Christians" in the same way we would define that. The more likely scenario is that they thought of themselves as "Jews" who were ahead of the game (I think there's historical proof in this also, since there were a number of Christians who repudiated Christianity and went back to Judaism, but they must have thought Paul's message consistent with Judaism on some level, to say nothing of the Apostles themselves), so I don't really see how you can consider my point not made, which is that the Jews who became "Christians" did so on the basis of the very Jewish argument used in support of that position. Christianity didn't come from out of left field, but built upon a prophetic tradition very specific to Judaism.

Also, apostates are subject to possible capital punishment, such laws are simply considered suspended for the time being until Torah theocratic law is re-established. It hasn't been abrogated.

If this were true, one would expect at least some Orthodox Jews to be killing non-Orthodox or secular Jews, unless Orthodox Jews are, paradoxically, non-fervent in their beliefs.

Sorry, Marisol, if I'm continuing a discussion that you think has veered too far off-topic. I do also suspect my interlocutor's motivations, but my own personal preference in internet debate is to engage with ideas, not motivations, hence my continued replies to this fellow.

Posted by: venividivici at January 26, 2008 2:33 PM

If the US government accepts that third interpretation it has to change all its foreign policy because it considers many Muslim countries as allies.Such a thing never happened historically.
Many states of the past understood Islam as the enemy but at the same time realpolitik even in these times obliged them to have deals with them to face other enemies.
US and Russia still think that they are the principal adversaries and try to undermine each other by using Muslims that are against the other power.What Russia does in Iran US does in the Balkans.
So it is possible that people in strategic positions know the truth but they will not accept it because they want to justify their Muslim alliances for big-power game,and of course for oil.

Posted by: athenian at January 26, 2008 2:58 PM

It looks lie Carr put the peddle to the metal when faced with reality. Mr. Carr: go to this site..

http://www.elvissightingbulletinboard.com/

Posted by: Frank at January 26, 2008 3:06 PM

Mr. Spencer, don't be surprised with what Jeffrey Carr comes back with. He, and those like him, can be very confused as to the meaning and what constitutes 'hate speech'. You may be amazed by their assertions.

Posted by: Sounder at January 26, 2008 3:12 PM

Caroline asked Jeffrey Carr:

"If the vast majority of Muslims are really liberals though, as you claim, why would we worry that they could be so easily radicalized?"

The question represents not merely the view of Carr, but of millions of people throughout the West. This view may, when challenged, be sometimes defended with what appear to be logical arguments, but at bottom it is based upon an illogical and incoherent bundle of feelings, such as

Muslims are just like us / Muslims require special "sensitivity" and deference (because, obviously, they are not "just like us")

Muslims, like all Third World peoples, are regarded more as noble savages, precious Children who can never grow up and must be perpetually coddled by the West, even as noble Animals whose ways and "habitats" must not forever be protected by the West -- which brings to mind another incoherent contradiction of this view:

The West must stop "meddling" with Muslims (and with Third World peoples in general) / The West must coddle and help Muslims (and Third World peoples in general) as our way of restitution for all the Colonialist wrongs we committed and also as a process of absolution for the eternal racism that lurks in our white hearts; etc.

For many Westerners, this view and the psychology behind it is sufficiently based in pathological self-criticism and shame at being Western and white that, as the idea of anti-"Racist" Reverse Racism which structures the view becomes reconfigured to accomodate data about Islam, only conversion to Islam or penitential dhimmitude would be able to assuage the guilt and shame at being Western and white. And finding meaning in the context of a West that for them has become frighteningly devoid of meaning adds another dimension of appeal, either for conversion to Islam (providing an instant -- and of course refreshingly non-Western -- Cosmos of completely regulated meaning), or for dhimmitude (providing meaning in its own way, as you find the place and slot in which you now belong, like those who prefer life in prison or in the Army because of the order they impose, an order the individual for various neurotic reasons cannot find normally).

Posted by: cantor at January 26, 2008 3:51 PM

venividivici,
We should not have to bribe the Russians to stop supporting regimes like Iran. They aren't poor. They have their own problem with Chechnya. They are using these regimes to enhance their own power. George Bush may have seen Putin's soul but from here it looks putrid and we shouldn't be supporting him. Russia is a nuclear power and a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Their behavior in the last four years indicates that they will do nothing to help the US. Why should we feel obligated to them?
I would rather we took all that money we gave to the Palestinians, Egyptians, etc. and either kept it or gave more to Israel and other non-Muslim countries that are fighting the jihadists.

Posted by: PMK at January 26, 2008 3:57 PM

And finding meaning in the context of a West that for them has become frighteningly devoid of meaning adds another dimension of appeal, either for conversion to Islam (providing an instant -- and of course refreshingly non-Western -- Cosmos of completely regulated meaning), or for dhimmitude (providing meaning in its own way, as you find the place and slot in which you now belong, like those who prefer life in prison or in the Army because of the order they impose, an order the individual for various neurotic reasons cannot find normally).

This is consonant with my thoughts. Just like the early Hebrews went back to worshipping The Golden Calf when given the chance, Westerners fall back into the same servile habits in which they existed until the French and American Revolutions, now that Muslims are giving them a chance to do so.

There is a book called "The Art of Being Ruled" that, for my money, explains the age of mass-politics better than any other work. The author foresaw the infantalization of the masses, the use of news media as a diversionary, rather than informative, device, the rise of the "nanny state", the denigration of the traditionally masculine virtues, the rise of the homosexual movement, and lots else. Written in the mid-20s. He argued in this book that, contrary to the Enlightenment philosophes, the average man does not want freedom and is frightened by it, and that many of the problems of the West are caused by attempting to artificially force this freedom on people who don't want it and don't know what to do with it. It doesn't deal explicitly with Islam, but I think that the narrative he constructs around "power politics" and the rise of fascism and communism, and why those movements became so popular, so quickly, can easily explain why, seemingly overnight, religiously-motivated intrusions into freedom of speech rights that we thought were settled as given are actually accomodated, rather than laughed off as the rantings of lunatics.

The men and women of Western civilization who have fought for freedom have, unfortunately, always been a minority, with most of the rest as "free riders" on those sacrifices or worse, openly hostile to that freedom. That's why one of the first steps to winning this war is the reinstitution of robust treason laws.

Posted by: venividivici at January 26, 2008 4:13 PM

Marisol - re your reply to 'fairuzfan' -

holed it in one, Marisol, holed it in one.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at January 26, 2008 4:40 PM

science fiction or science fact anyone know anything about this going on?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuBo4E77ZXo

Posted by: zionist122 at January 26, 2008 5:25 PM

Cantor - another incoherence in Jeffrey Carr's position is that if the vast majority of Muslims are already liberals (i.e. if the liberal interpretations of Islam in fact constitute "mainstream Islam"), then what of all the liberal Muslims themselves who would self-identify as "reformers" of Islam? If mainstream Islam is already liberal, then what the hell are these self-professed Muslim reformers reforming? Carr's position implies that they are guilty of hate speech as well. So actually, Carr is siding with those who consider the Muslim reformers guilty of hate speech for criticizing Islam and implying that something about Islam needs to be reformed. And of course we know what happens to so many of those reformers. They end up dead or with death fatwas on their heads.

Posted by: Caroline at January 26, 2008 5:25 PM

This man Coughlin is under a gag order as a Pentagon contractor. When his contract expires, he’ll be pissed off, knowledgeable, and on TV. Hopefully he'll write a book about his stint in the government.

He’s much more powerful on the outside.

Posted by: pez at January 26, 2008 6:00 PM

Hate Speech or Truth?

You would have to be blind, deaf & dumb to miss the glaring Truth concerning the evil behind Islam.

All you have to do is read the Qur'an, study Mohammad's life, and learn about the current events of our time.

Sadly, the Truth about Islam is labeled "hate speech" only to those who have something to hide.

Posted by: champ at January 26, 2008 6:08 PM

Accusations re "hate", unfairness and even calls for "change" (politicians love that word) are all generic in their appeal. Who's not against hate, unfairness? And we all have our own ideas of "change". Nonspecificity may be good politics, but it's not good logic. Generic terms are often meant to appeal to emotion, but once the accuser is asked to be specific-they evade or run away. Carr is such a phony.

Posted by: Frank at January 26, 2008 6:11 PM

Is it too late to get him on the presidential ballot?

Posted by: interestinconundrum at January 26, 2008 6:23 PM

Here's a guy (Model-T Carr) who accuses someone of being a "hate propagandist" and does not have one specific thing to prove that. He has to off and think about something specific. What an asshole.

Posted by: Frank at January 26, 2008 6:25 PM

I suspect Carr's statement:

If, on the other hand, you're a policy advisor for the DOD, you extremist views can cost lives

will be proven true, not in the manner he suggests, but by the end of the relative calm of convenience in Iraq, a nuclear armed Iran, another large scale assault on Israel, or all of the above.

Indeed, someone should have been fired, but not Coughlin.

Posted by: RalphInfidel at January 26, 2008 6:34 PM

Re: "extremist" views

Always these generic terms. "Extremist". However, once the appeals to emotion are by-passed and we get down to logic and specificity (defining terms, etc.)-people such as Carr become vague or run away. If a person is not specific in what they mean by their terms, or not specific in their charges-you can bet that they are full of crap. Robert is specific and always quotes chapter and verse, unlike Carr, who is full of crap.

Posted by: Frank at January 26, 2008 6:51 PM

PMK,

We should not have to bribe the Russians to stop supporting regimes like Iran. They aren't poor. They have their own problem with Chechnya. They are using these regimes to enhance their own power.

Again, fair points. I am not saying that in a perfect world we would have to bribe Russia, but we need to stop the flow of weapons and equipment to Muslim countries, since they can't manufacture them themselves, and since money is often the motivation for selling weapons to them, we need to give these suppliers a better deal.

If you don't like my Russia idea, fine. I'm not married to it so much as I am married to the idea that we need to isolate Muslim countries from weapons suppliers.

Posted by: venividivici at January 26, 2008 6:55 PM

Robert:

Two questions--

1. A theoretical one--
I studied Islamic history in school over 20 years ago and back then at least no one made any bones about jihad being a pillar of Islam and spelling out exactly what it meant. Being, Israeli I can see for myself the reality as well. Inherent in both opinions 1 and 2 is a strong form of narcissism [i.e., "They MUST be just like me because, well, isn't everybody?!"]. Do you know how long these attitudes have been about?

2. A practical one--
I fully grant opinion 3. Islam cannot be uprooted or eliminated by outsiders [it's too pervasive an ideology in too much of the world] and is extremely resistant to change from within even if there were significant numbers of people "within" willing to try it. What then can be done PRACTICALLY? For example, as an Israeli, I favor treating the "Palestinians" as a hostile popular engaged in acts of war and that our country should fight them as a war to total victory pursued by total war. Fine. We can follow it with a real "occupation" post-WWII-style but then what? Must we defeat the entire Muslim world similarly?!

Posted by: MosheC at January 26, 2008 7:08 PM

"While some holders of the 2nd view may find it productive to work with the minority of holders of the 3rd view (you, Horowitz, Epstein, etc.), in spite of their differences, many more find your position to be counterproductive to the U.S. mission (my view), and helpful to the extremists who can point to your hate propaganda and use it to fuel their radicalization efforts. If that's true, then you and the entire Islamofascism movement are doing the same thing that the extreme Right have accused liberals of doing - aiding the enemy!

Posted by: Jeffrey Carr at January 26, 2008 10:37 AM"

Can you specify what PRECISELY is meant by "your hate propaganda" [I mean specific statement of "hate"]?

Can you provide examples of jihadists "[using this hate propaganda] to fuel their radicalization efforts"?

Can you define "radicalization efforts" and delineate how precisely this "radicalization" aberrates from the norms of Islam as established by Islamic jurisprudence and/or Chadith?

In short, you say "If that's true,..." but can you provide any substantive evidence that it is?

What precisely is that "U.S. mission"? [Please no drivel reminiscent of Kipling's "white man's burden".]

What if opinion 3 really IS correct, what does this do to your "U.S. mission"?

In either case, as an Israeli, why should I or any other person who isn't an American support this "U.S. mission"?

Posted by: MosheC at January 26, 2008 7:28 PM

"Also, it seems rather odd that folks automatically lump Judaism in with Christianity in opposition to Islam when, I think, any reasonable, balanced, objective fair-minded review of the faiths would show that Judaism has more in common with Islam than it does with Christianity. Among these commonalities would be a normative, immutable set of authoritarian theocratic laws that govern civil society and cannot be intellectually reconciled with what the West has now developed as standard notions of constitutional republicanism, including basic freedoms, civil rights, and civil liberties.

Posted by: fairuzfan at January 26, 2008 11:33 AM "

As a charedi Jew [i.e., an "Orthodox" Jew], I agree that in SOME ways we have much more in common with Islam than Christianity but the differences are important.

1. Jewish Law FORBIDS trying to force it on others-- even non-Observant Jews.

2. Our law states we must abide by the laws of the country we are in so long as these laws do not persecute us [such as Nazi-era laws did].

3. Civil rights and civil liberties are very MUCH a part of Jewish law. For example, I have taught in a couple of purely secular U.S. universities while dressing as an obviously daati Jew. Feminists usually assumed my views and Torah were discriminatory against women. Yet when they confronted me about it, they invariably discovered that Jewish law is often more protective of women's rights even than Western secular law.

I could go on but fail to see the point. You are as ignorant and prejudiced about Judaism and Jews as you are about everything else.

Posted by: MosheC at January 26, 2008 7:45 PM

Moshe C: "What then can be done PRACTICALLY?"

I find it fascinating that people ask this question as if the west hadn't largely deterred Islam for many centuries. To answer the question of what to do "practically" - how about looking back at what westerners did for literally centuries to deter Islam, even though Islam was THEN precisely as it is NOW.

So what did our many forefathers do THEN to deter Islam?

Well, for starters, they lived in a pre-PC environment and so they overtly recognized and spoke the truth about Islam and felt no guilt in doing so. I guess when a sufficient number of your children have been kidnapped and a sufficient number of your women have been kidnapped and hauled off and sold into slavery, you're not too likely to mince words.

Having recognized what Islam was, and the mortal threat it posed, obviously for many centuries, Muslims were persona non grata in the west. Look back just 50 years - and especially in the US before the 1965 Immigration Act, sponsored by Ted Kennedy, that opened American borders to a a liberal quota system, as opposed to the previous immigration policies that restricted immigration to the US to obviously cultural compatible citizens.

As far as Israel in particular is concerned, Hugh has written many posts involving the Islamic concept of "darura" - necessity - which demonstrates that Muslims can live with the status quo of a more powerful Jewish state so long as they have no practical means to defeat it. But as long as the means exist to triumph, then Islam demands that they try to do so. Which is why it's so important for Israel to maintain its strength so that Muslims have a theologically grounded excuse for remaining quiescent - a concept that applies to all infidels seeking a practical means to deter Islam.

Islam is what it is. It's essence is expressed in the parable of the scorpion and the frog. Parables exist for a reason - because they express some basic human truths. Islam shouldn't be any harder for the west to defeat than it has been for 1400 years, provided that westerners merely continue what they were already doing for centuries - i.e. recognizing the nature of the scorpion for what it is, rather than living in some recently concocted liberal fantasy world.

Posted by: Caroline at January 26, 2008 8:00 PM

Robert Spencer’s challenge to me (and everyone else who has ever called him on his hate speech) was as follows:

“please produce one false statement I have ever made about Islam, the doctrine of jihad, or any related matter.”

Robert, here is my response:

In your book Islam Unveiled, you wrote:
“Jihad is a permanent war that excludes the idea of peace but authorizes temporary truces to the political situation (muhadana). “

Also, in your book Onward Muslim Soldiers, you wrote:

“The goal of jihad is thus the incorporation of non-Muslims into Muslim society, either by conversion or submission."

Now here are two authentic Islamic scholars whose writings on Jihad contradict your own.

1. Douglas Streusand:
"The term 'jihad' usually means Jihad fi sabil Allah -- "striving in the path of God," says Streusand." Simply by its very definition, striving in the path of God is a good thing to do.
The question is not whether or not jihad is a good thing, because for a Muslim, jihad is a good thing. The question is whether the activity that they are undertaking should be classified as jihad."

"The term in Islamic law which best describes the activities of al-Qaida is hirabah, which originally meant brigandage, but has a more general meaning as sinful warfare."

- Douglas Streusand (in an interview with NPR)

Source: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6392989

Douglas Streusand has been Associate Professor of International Relations at the Marine Corps Command and Staff College since 2005. His publications include The Formation of Mughal Empire (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1989), “Managing the Iranian Threat to Iranian Sea Commerce Diplomatically,” in Getting Ready for a Nuclear Ready Iran, ed. Henry Sokolski and Patrick Clawson (Carlisle, Pa.: Strategic Studies Institute, 2005), available at http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB629.pdf, and more than thirty other articles and reviews. He received his BA in History from Duke University in 1976 and Ph.D. in Islamic History from the University of Chicago in 1987.) As reported in an interview with NPR’s Guy Raz

2. Afroz Ali:

“I wanted to quickly explain the concept of Jihad, as mentioned in the Islamic Holy Book, the Qur’an. Firstly, I put forth to you as a strong assertion that nowhere in the Qur’an does God refer to Jihad as Holy War. Holy War, not referred to in the Qur’an at all, is Harb ul-Muqaddasa. Secondly, the Qur’an refers to Jihad as a concept, around 60% of the time, to a period when any form of fighting was prohibited during the Messengership of Muhammad, upon whom be peace. This is usually referred to as the Makkan Revalations. Thirdly, and which I would like to spend a little time on, is the use of the term Jihad in the Qur’an in connection with the use of force as a conditional permissibility. The Qur’an uses the term “Qitaal” to refer to the use of force, to fight. Not once has jihad been used to suggest this, and only in two places, in the same sentence with Qital or fighting. It is quite clear, therefore that in the use of force Quital, is the struggle to get it right – Jihad.

[9:12-16]
I am not going to go through the whole set of verses, but let me highlight the key points:
Verse 12 refers to those who are undermining Muslims in their daily lives and in their worship;
Fighting these people is given permission with a clear directive – to fight the leaders of those who are suppressing, not the general public or to cause collateral damage;
But a very important move occurs from verse 14-16, that one must strive, Jihad, to uphold themselves with dignity and seek protection from God, in their daily endeavours.

Finally, I also wanted to highlight that Jihad is referred to in the Qur’an more directly to other aspects of human existence, far more directly than to the conditional permissibility to use force. These aspects of Jihad include:
- Striving of, the Jihad of parents as nurturer of their offsprings [31:14-15]
- Striving for collective benefit of society, including refugees [8:72]
- Striving against selfish desires [9:24]
- Striving to learn and spread beneficial knowledge [9:122]”

Written by Afroz Ali of the al-Ghazzali Centre for Islamic Sciences and Human Development
Source: http://www.alghazzali.org/resources/articles/jihad.pdf

There you go, Robert. You have clearly and consistently mis-represented and falsely defined the word "jihad", as demon