| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
In an entry about this story, Instapundit expresses an all-too-common assumption:
FREE SPEECH UPDATE: You still can't write about Muhammad. Will other religious groups take the lesson that violence works? Because, in a world of the spineless, it does, and at very low cost. Thanks, guys, for establishing this incentive structure.
Miss Kelly, who kindly alerted me to this, has a good post about it: "Instapundit's Odd Relativism About Religious Violence." In it she notes, correctly, that the answer to his question is: "No, other religious groups won't, because other religions aren't that intolerant and brittle, nor do their leaders sanction or incite such violence."
Reynolds' core assumption, of course, is one that he shares with innumerable others: that violence -- and supremacism -- has no more basis in Islamic texts and teachings than it does in those of Judaism or Christianity, and while there may be violent passages in the Qur'an, well, there are violent passages in the Bible as well. All religions are equal in their capacity to inspire magnanimity or fanaticism. People cling to this assumption tenaciously, and I suspect one reason why is that they are afraid that if they say that one religion has a greater likelihood of inspiring violence than another, they will fall into that sin of sins, "bigotry."
He seems also to be assuming that Muslims commit violence, and threaten violence, because they have found that it works, while others have not caught on to that yet. It has nothing to do with any imperative within Islam, or lacking within other traditions, at all.
But there is, of course, no reason why any of this should be so -- either the idea that all religions are essentially equal in their effect on their adherents, or the idea that to say otherwise would be bigoted. Religions are, among other things, sets of propositions about the world and one's rights and responsibilities in it. The propositions asserted by all religions are not all the same -- if they were, there wouldn't be religious divisions in the world. A religion is a belief-system, and there is absolutely no reason why one belief-system couldn't be more violent and supremacist than another.
Part of the Islamic belief-system is the proposition that one who insults Muhammad should be killed. That is why Muslims so easily resort to threats of violence against those who say things about Muhammad that they don't like. No sect of Christianity teaches that the one who insults Jesus should be killed. In fact, they all teach that one should be patient and charitable with opponents. That is why Christians do not generally resort to threats of violence against those who say things about Jesus that they don't like. There are nuts in every group, of course, and that's why I say "generally," but there is no sanction in the core teachings of the religion for such behavior. And that's why Reynolds's earlier assertion that "sooner or later, you know, fundamentalist Christians are going to pick up on this lesson, engage in similar behavior, and make similar demands" is almost certainly false. The most virulently fundamentalist Christian can find no sanction in Jesus' teaching for the murder of his opponents any more than anyone else can.
It does not make every Muslim a terrorist to point this out, and it isn't bigoted to do so, either. It is simply to state a series of facts -- and if anyone wishes to try to prove that the facts I have asserted here are false, I welcome the challenge. Meanwhile, the relativism of Glenn Reynolds and so many others continues to hinder our response to the jihad threat. If we assume that Islamic violence and supremacism are aberrations taught by a few marginal fanatics and abhorred by most Muslims, we will underestimate the conflict we are facing, as well as the appeal of the jihadist imperative among Muslims, and we will be ill-prepared to meet the jihadist challenge in all its dimensions.
And that is exactly the state of things in the West today.
Posted by Robert at August 6, 2008 12:58 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
No, not all religions are based on equal propositions, especially regarding 'art'.
I recently visited an art exhibit where the 'artist' cut a smily face into the King James Bible, so you can see all the way through the pages. It had a comic effect, 'God's book' smiling back at you, empty of content, which might have been the artist's message. But I could not help wonder what would have happened to the gallery if the same comic effect was done on a Koran. Any guesses?... I wouldn't want to be there when found out!
LOL
Posted by: Battle_of_Tours![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at August 6, 2008 2:31 PM
There is no empirical data to support this theory. In our most recent history, violence used by some of the more fringe christians, those few that either murdered or attempted to murder abortion doctors, failed. Abortion, sadly in my view, is still practiced. Why, because as a society we don't approve of such behavior. If you do not agree with something, you picket, you protest, you write to your Congressman, you write to the local paper, now-a-days you blog, etc. None of which need violence. For if you do, you are tried, convicted and sentenced. Not glorified, except by your small and insular group. Then forgotten. How many actually remember the names of those who murdered doctors who perform abortions? Please, step away from Google and still answer that question? They had their 15 minutes in the spotlight then were forgotten. Why? Because Christianity does not approve of using violence to further it's goals. Because of that, there is no threat of fundamentalist Christians turning to the muslim example. Nor any other peace based religion. Just won't happen as a doctrinal shift. Christianity is a religion based on peace, and peaceful dissemination. Please do not confuse the human need to use religion to further and justify its own selfish needs with religious doctrine. Christianity did not encourage men to implement the inquisitions. It was men's own selfish political goals that implemented the inquisitions. Religion was just used as a justification to the masses. However, one does not need religion to justify, e.g. Nazi Germany, and the USSR.
Let's stay focused on the true enemy. The enemy whose "religion" is based on hate and violence.
at August 6, 2008 2:46 PM
I didn't read this comment of Reynolds as relativistic (i.e. serious) but rather as sarcastic. I don't think he suggests to other religions that they should react with violence and threats when Buddha, Jesus Christ, the Pope, Martin Luther, Joseph Smith, or whoever is maligned. Rather, I read his statements as a criticism towards those who allow Muslims to get away with this behavior. Unless I am missing significant examples, I think that is a consistent reading with what Reynolds has written previously on this topic.
Reynolds may not be a religious person, but I think his sarcasm is not directed towards (non-Muslim) religion.
at August 6, 2008 2:53 PM
Therein lies the problem pseudotsuga. Discerning sarcasm in the written form. Now there is the more obvious form of written sarcasm, such as Jonathan Swift suggesting that the Irish eat their own children as an answer to starvation in his essay, A Modest Proposal. So patently ludicrous as to not be taken any way except as sarcasm. Then there is a more subtle method. One easily misunderstood. Most of us who post have run into that issue. Hence why many use the sarc notation. Is what was written truly sarcasm or not? I do not know. However, I do know it is not inconceivable for some to believe in what was written, even if Instapundit does not. I for one am not trying to say that this is what he believes, that would be presumptuous on my part since I am not entirely familiar with his work. What I am responding to is the very notion that it could happen, for there are those out there who DO believe in what he wrote, regardless is he was being sarcastic or not. But that is the nature of the written word. There will be many different reactions to this. It will be interesting to see what is written.
Posted by: Kevin at August 6, 2008 3:11 PM
First of all, I think you're reading a lot more into his comment than he actually wrote. Second of all, as I posted here, there is precedent of other religious groups using force in recent times to shut down things they don't like.
You're right in that all religions are not created equal. Witness the way that no one dares argue that "just because someone obeys the teachings LaVey's Church of Satan, doesn't mean they're a bad person" (in spite of the fact that it teaches you to treat your enemies like dirt, among other pleasant teachings). Nor do you see people saying that followers of the Aztec religion or Kali worshippers are just normal Joe Sixpacks for that matter.
The reason that Islam gets away with it is that it's similar to Judaism and Christianity, and has a certain appeal to leftists because of it being the dominant religion in regions that used to be under Western imperial rule. Can't have your self-flaggelation without something to feel guilty about, can you?
Posted by: MikeT at August 6, 2008 3:13 PM
Islam has a long history (dating back to Mohammed) of killing critics of Mohammed and Islam. It's one of those quaint customs that we Islamophobes "misunderstand".
Posted by: tanstaafl at August 6, 2008 3:15 PM
As an unbeliever I would certainly point out that it hasn't always been so safe to insult Jesus (or Luther, or Calvin, or the Pope, depending the particular brand of Xianity in the surrounding community). But at least Jesus enjoys deniability about the tactics of his followers. Muhammad himself, through the Quran and by himself encouraged the mutilation and assassination of anyone who argued with him. This makes it hard to believe anything calling itself Islam is capable of reform. If it's not a religion of hatred (with various sanctimonious and hypocritical appeals to compassion and charity scattered among the incitements to murder), it's not Islam.
Posted by: Karl Pov at August 6, 2008 3:37 PM
All other religions welcome visitors to their places of worship and prayer services, except ISLAM.The reason is Islam itself.
The other religions aren't preaching Supremecy,Hatred for "Non-Believers", VIOLENCE towards Infidel "Non-Believers" on the "Path" to World Conquest, and the DESTRUCTION of NATIONS!
Other Religion's CLERGY Do NOT make FIERY Violence -Inducing Rants, but rather sermonize on GOD,Love,Being better people,and the spiritual tenets of their faiths.
Other religions followers are 'Ports in the Storm",ISLAMONAZIS ARE THE STORM!
at August 6, 2008 3:44 PM
The Bible was used as a rational for lots of things in the past. Than the West grew more an more civilized.
Are you saying that the World can hope for nothing better from Muslims?
Posted by: rjschwarz at August 6, 2008 3:52 PM
Something tells me this is going to be a good thread.
Posted by: omvi at August 6, 2008 4:12 PM
I don't think it is productive to pick a fight with Mr. Reynolds, His speculation has merit and hardly makes him some dreaded "moral relativist" (whatever that realy means?) or a jihadist agent.
What about that case last week where some Christian nut shot up the Unitarian Church amd killed a couple people cause they weren't Christian enough? No one says that this was organized or common, but maybe he saw all those Muslims getting away with stuff like that and that was enough to send him over the edge. Violence and fanaticism tends to beget more violence and fanaticism on both sides and some posters here really demonstrate that sort of thinking.
Posted by: MorrisMinor at August 6, 2008 4:17 PM
Glenn Reynolds states in his update (Response) to Mr. Spencer
“Well, I believe in evolution, memetic as well as physical, and I think that if violence works, more people will use it, and the religious doctrine to justify that will follow. Am I right, or is Robert Spencer right? The world had better hope that Spencer is, since our spineless powers-that-be seem determined to conduct the experiment. . . .”
The flaw is easy to spot: The Islamic doctrine comes FIRST, and the violence is simply the result. The “spineless powers-that-be” don’t help at all, but Muslims don’t use violence, because those people exist. Europe of the past was far less spineless, yet did that discourage Muslims from waging war against European Christians? Hell no! This has been the standard operating procedure for Islam since the time Muhammad became a successful warlord.
Posted by: greatcometof1577 at August 6, 2008 4:54 PM
"Part of the Islamic belief-system is the proposition that one who insults Muhammad should be killed. That is why Muslims so easily resort to threats of violence against those who say things about Muhammad that they don't like."
So why DOESN"T this suggest that all Muslims are terrorists? If they believe this and they support it does it matter if they have joined an organized group? The threat is there. We just don't know who will carry it out and so we keep silent in the hope that we need never find out. What makes the Muslim who remains silent in the face of such threats anything BUT a terrorist?
I don't see how you separate the Islamic belief system from those who practice it. We can't pick bits and pieces from it. They don't. What makes a "good" Muslim?
Posted by: PMK at August 6, 2008 5:41 PM
The Bible was used as a rational for lots of things in the past. Than the West grew more an more civilized.Are you saying that the World can hope for nothing better from Muslims?
It was indeed used as a rationale for a lot of unsavory things. However, most of those rationales were quite tortured, and all of them invariably conflicted with generally clear guidance from the Bible to the contrary. Just as one example, the entire notion of forced conversion is anathema and condemned by Jesus Himself in Luke 9. Islam, on the other hand, does not have to twist its scripture to find plenty of justifications for the most brutal treatment of other peoples.
Islam cannot have a Reformation experience without abandoning scripture, and thus such a movement will never have legitimacy. If anything, they will be regarded as heretics and hunted down by true believers.
Posted by: MikeT at August 6, 2008 5:58 PM
Glenn is a good guy, unfortunately he seems to have adopted too much of Richard Dawkins' "Root of All Evil?" perspective on religion, i.e. they are all trying to kill us.
For goodness sake, Glenn, get hold of yourself. Even Sam Harris says this kind of comparison is ridiculous. He's right.
Posted by: John VS at August 6, 2008 6:25 PM
Also it is somewhat unfair to compare Islam with other religions. No other religion is also a government (a political system, law code etc.). How come so few ever try to compare Islam to other forms of government. Why not compare the Quran, and aHadith to the U.S. Constitution? Are pro-democracy advocates going to become more violent, because Islam is violent? Can I justify violence using the U.S. constitution?
People need to remember Jihadist are not just trying to save souls, but they are trying to establish a world wide government. Islam is just not comparable to any other religion (as practiced today). I still think the best way to tackle Islam is on political grounds, and not religious grounds. People respond better once they understand what Islam (the government) has in store for them.
at August 6, 2008 7:00 PM
There is, of course, no equivalency between Islam and all other religions, as people who read and learn from this site well aware. The danger of violence among other religions is, I believe, now largely confined to the acts of unbalanced individuals who can be tagged with the label "religious fanatic". How many of us have been discussing the dangers of Islamic Jihad with generic everyman only to have the old Eric Rudolf or Timothy McVeigh thing thrown in our face? This happens to me fairly regularly.
So many post-religious people in the increasingly secular West seem so determined to see all religions as equivalent that they will glom onto any narrative that upholds this notion. All it will take is perhaps 2-3 fairly random acts of violence by individuals who can be labeled "Christian fundamentalist", and among the moronic secular fanatics of the West, these cases will evenly counterbalance the ubiquitous violence and hate-mongering which is so rampant in the entire Muslim world.
I have no fear that Christians, Jews, Hindus, or Buddhists will begin the wholesale adoption of the violence, hatred, intimidation, and supremacism which are central to Islamic doctrine. But the stupidity, blindness, and unwillingness of vast numbers of Westerners will guarantee that we will confront the Muslim Menace well into the future with blinders on, hands tied behind our backs, slanderous smears against all religions and religious persons, and no clear focus on our true enemies.
Those blind secularists who insist on continuing to make these false equivalency charges to bolster their bankrupt theories are betrayers of the West and abettors of Islamic supremacist fascism.
Posted by: jsla at August 6, 2008 7:01 PM
Of course violence works! Especially with these pathetic multicultural milquetoast politicians we have now.
Now if we had Reagan back...
Coincidence the terrorists/Iranians released the hostages the day he was elected? I THINK NOT!
Posted by: Eversor at August 6, 2008 7:07 PM
Indeed, the cowardly West appeases and rewards Muslim jihadists so eagerly and generously, that it has encouraged even Tibetian Buddhists to behave like Muslims. American and EUrabian politicians and media alike go on with their verbal whoredoms about "the violent suppression of Tibetian demonstrators by the Chinese authorities". The arrests of rioters in Tibet were not violent. All the violence came from the Tibetian "demonstrators" who can be seen on security videos randomly slashing away at innocent defenseless citizens whose only "crime" is having been born Han Chinese. And the Pelossius-Imbecilus specimens ardently rushed to the side of the racist Tibetian cutthroats, just as they did to the side of the rabidly racist, sadistic, genocidal Kosovar Albanian KLA terrorists. "NATO has become KLA's Air Force", US and EUrabian media vermin gushed approvingly. What message does this Clinton-Albright doctrine send to every religious cult and ethnic gang that has an ambition to become a government? "Start a war against your country's government, and we'll fight it for you". Indeed, as the US & NATO criminals presented the sovereign Serbia with the thuggish Ramboulliet ultimatum to capitulate to the terrorists, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan jihadists struck in Uzbekistan's capital Tashkent on Feb. 16, 1999 with car bombs, murdering 16 people. And in late May 1999, as "KLA's NATO Air Force" conducted their worst murderous bombing of Serbia, the Chechen jihadists broke the lull in violence launching deadly attacks into Russia out of Chechnya. And as the US and NATO criminals vanguished the Serbs and let their Kosovar Albanian death squads loose on Serb civilians and Christian places of worship, the Pakistani army and the Kashmiri Islamists launched a joint jihad on India in the peaks of Kargil in July 1999. Meanwhile, the Chechen jihadists escalated their attacks into a full-blown war on Russia. The leader of the Chechen jihad, Shamil Basayev of the Budyonnovsk and Beslan infamy, actually asked Western reporters why doesn't NATO bomb Russia for him as it did Serbia for the Albanians. Tony Karon of Time magazine provided the answer: "Because Russia still has nukes".
Posted by: Enragedsince1999 at August 6, 2008 7:39 PM
(fyi, I submitted this previously with two links embedded -- but it may have been rejected because of a spam filter from typekey)
Robert,
You just called Glenn Reynolds a cultural relativist, and in doing so, you’ve just granted the real relativists a small victory. You are diminishing the meaning of the term. Glenn clearly has a very real sense of right and wrong. I’d wager he sees all forms of mysticism as inherently anti-humane (regardless of their relative degrees of current threats to civilization). But more than anything, saying that not all Muslims are bad people — or that some Christians are potentially prone to terrorism — is NOT a relativistic statement. It is actually a fact (something relativists deny).
It seems this post must have been inspired by the comments you placed on LGF yesterday regarding Michael Totten’s piece, “An Israeli in Kosovo“.
Do you subscribe to the Julia Gorin (who you have endorsed by publishing on this site), Gates of Vienna, Pamela Geller (@ Atlas Shrugs — her attempt to co-opt Ayn Rand) school of thought that every Muslim in the world is a disaster waiting to happen?
Do you believe that Serbia deserves American support against an independent Kosovo SIMPLY because they are Orthodox Christians and the Kosovars are Muslim? Is Orthodox Cristian Russia justified in cleansing Chechnya too?
So, the fault lines on the “right” are becoming quite interesting these days. I suppose the line is between the religionists/mystics and secular humanists (of the non-leftist variety).
I’ll post here what I posted on LGF last night:
Whatever you think of the chances that Saudi money can come to dominate Kosovo and Albania — you ought to be mindful of what company you encourage when you dismiss the populations wholesale as hopeless and unworthy of our support. The solution from the US perspective is simple - continued support of liberal democracy and free trade. Isolation will undoubtedly breed your prophecy.
How we should approach Kosovo and Albania is nearly the same way we need to work with Columbia — a country clearly desirous to live as liberal democracy in the 21st century — but with criminal elements both within and in neighboring states who will lose big time if Columbia rises up in freedom. We can and will help Columbia rise up in freedom.
Winning this war on terror happens at the margins. In many developing societies, the margin between a population embracing freedom and succumbing to criminality is real and can quickly change (often depending on the winds of American foreign policy). I urge you to consider how your actions and words potentially affect those on the margins — those people we need on our side.
-MPH
Posted by: popcontest at August 6, 2008 9:09 PM
MPH:
Actually this post has nothing to do with that LGF thread, but it's extremely interesting that you think it does.
Do you subscribe to the Julia Gorin (who you have endorsed by publishing on this site), Gates of Vienna, Pamela Geller (@ Atlas Shrugs — her attempt to co-opt Ayn Rand) school of thought that every Muslim in the world is a disaster waiting to happen?
Not only do I not think that, and challenge you to find any statement of mine remotely to that effect, but I don't believe that Gorin, GoV or Pamela believe that either. That is simply a caricature.
Whatever you think of the chances that Saudi money can come to dominate Kosovo and Albania — you ought to be mindful of what company you encourage when you dismiss the populations wholesale as hopeless and unworthy of our support.
I never did that. Being wary, and realistic, is not the same as dismissing them as hopeless. But in any case, you seem to be suggesting that being skeptical of the prospects of this putative moderate Islam in Kosovo is damaging, and wrong. Interestingly enough, I feel the same way about an uncritical acceptance of and dependence upon this new American ally. So I could say the very same thing to you that you said to me: "I urge you to consider how your actions and words potentially affect those on the margins — those people we need on our side."
Meanwhile, re Kosovo, stay tuned for much, much more tomorrow morning.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at August 6, 2008 9:27 PM
Robert,
Is it true that you are an advisory board member (along with Julia Gorin and Andrew Bostom) for the Serbian nationalist lobby group called the "American Council for Kosovo?" (quite a devious name, don't you think?)
The "American Council for Kosovo" is funded by the "Serbian National Council" -- which is headed up by Milan Ivanovic, a radical nationalist doctor/politician formerly arrested by the UN for instigating riots against UN peacekeepers. He is also a hard-line political enemy of Boris Tadic, the moderately "pro-western" Serbian president. In other words -- Ivanovic is a serious Anti-American and Serbian supremacist looney toon.
The lobby has a new book called "Hiding Genocide in Kosovo" and they attribute the following endorsement to you:
"Finally, the truth is coming out about the Kosovo jihad and how it has been aided and abetted by NATO, the UN, and the EU. Thanks to Iseult Henry, maybe the shameful and ultimately suicidal support of the Kosovo jihadists by Western powers will finally be ended. -- ROBERT SPENCER"
Since you are seemingly on record as calling Kosovo a jihadist state, your comments attempting to diminish Michael Totten's Balkans reports make a bit more sense now. I just had no idea you were actually on their payroll as well.
Here I am suggesting support and fair dialogue with the world's newest state --- opining that to turn our backs on Kosovo may fulfill your prophesy --- and all the while you are being paid by people who are still calling it a Serbian province.
When say above that you have never dismissed a population wholesale as hopeless or a disaster waiting to happen -- how do you defend your position with the "American Council for Kosovo" which clearly believes Kosovo is already a disaster with no chance of success? Before Kosovo's independence, the Council was doing everything could to prevent it from happening -- and now its primary goal is to revoke it. Your position with the Council contradicts your statement above.
Regarding your comments on the LGF post last night --- they pretty much mirror your accusation against Glenn Reynolds today -- the similarities, and your biases, are quite clear from this seat.
-MPH
Posted by: popcontest at August 6, 2008 10:38 PM
MPH:
Robert,Is it true that you are an advisory board member (along with Julia Gorin and Andrew Bostom) for the Serbian nationalist lobby group called the "American Council for Kosovo?"
Yes.
(quite a devious name, don't you think?)
No.
"Finally, the truth is coming out about the Kosovo jihad and how it has been aided and abetted by NATO, the UN, and the EU. Thanks to Iseult Henry, maybe the shameful and ultimately suicidal support of the Kosovo jihadists by Western powers will finally be ended. -- ROBERT SPENCER"Since you are seemingly on record as calling Kosovo a jihadist state, your comments attempting to diminish Michael Totten's Balkans reports make a bit more sense now.
I never called Kosovo a jihadist state.
I just had no idea you were actually on their payroll as well.
I'm not. I have never received a penny from the American Council for Kosovo.
Here I am suggesting support and fair dialogue with the world's newest state --- opining that to turn our backs on Kosovo may fulfill your prophesy --- and all the while you are being paid by people who are still calling it a Serbian province.
No, I am not. I repeat: I have never received any money from the American Council for Kosovo.
When say above that you have never dismissed a population wholesale as hopeless or a disaster waiting to happen -- how do you defend your position with the "American Council for Kosovo" which clearly believes Kosovo is already a disaster with no chance of success? Before Kosovo's independence, the Council was doing everything could to prevent it from happening -- and now its primary goal is to revoke it. Your position with the Council contradicts your statement above.
No, it doesn't. More, much more, tomorrow morning.
Regarding your comments on the LGF post last night --- they pretty much mirror your accusation against Glenn Reynolds today -- the similarities, and your biases, are quite clear from this seat.
As are yours. But I rather think you are not aware of them.
RS
Posted by: jihadwatch at August 6, 2008 10:44 PM
You wrote:
"Finally, the truth is coming out about the Kosovo jihad and how it has been aided and abetted by NATO, the UN, and the EU. Thanks to Iseult Henry, maybe the shameful and ultimately suicidal support of the Kosovo jihadists by Western powers will finally be ended. -- ROBERT SPENCER"
You also wrote:
"I never called Kosovo a jihadist state."
My question: What the hell are you calling it then?
The US is supporting Kosovo -- your quote is quite clear -- support of Kosovo is support for Jihad.
Posted by: popcontest at August 6, 2008 10:53 PM
MPH:
The US is supporting Kosovo -- your quote is quite clear -- support of Kosovo is support for Jihad.
Probably so. But the principal jihad activity is not at this point at the state level.
It would have been generous of you to retract your false statements about my being paid by the American Council for Kosovo.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at August 6, 2008 10:55 PM
"It would have been generous of you to retract your false statements about my being paid by the American Council for Kosovo."
I retract (you are listed on their website you know) -- but you would not associate with this front group if it did not benefit you in some way. Regardless, you are clearly not doing your credibility a favor by associating with these people.
http://www.savekosovo.org/default.asp?p=1&au=advisory
Posted by: popcontest at August 6, 2008 11:03 PM
MPH:
I retract
Thank you.
(you are listed on their website you know)
Of course I know I'm listed on their website. I'm on their Advisory Board.
-- but you would not associate with this front group if it did not benefit you in some way.
Front group? Front group for what?
Anyway, it benefits me in this way: I know I'm doing the right thing, and trying to resist the jihad in Kosovo.
That's a very important benefit this association gives me.
Regardless, you are clearly not doing your credibility a favor by associating with these people.
You clearly don't have a high opinion of my credibility in the first place. In any case, I am going to continue to do what I believe to be the right thing and do all I can to resist the jihad and Islamic supremacism. All the decisions I make about what groups to associate with etc. are made on that basis. Clearly your priorities, or at least your convictions about how best to accomplish that end, differ. Nor will I stoop to your level and make all sorts of sinister insinuations as you have about my motives, from filthy lucre to secret neo-Nazism, just because your judgments as to how best to do this differ from mine. I wish you well.
Anyway, watch Jihad Watch for a big Kosovo article in the morning.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at August 6, 2008 11:11 PM
"Islam cannot have a Reformation experience without abandoning scripture, and thus such a movement will never have legitimacy. If anything, they will be regarded as heretics and hunted down by true believers."
I agree Mike, this can happen if the west firmly stands up to Muslims and tells them we will not accept any abridgement in human rights, our version, anywhere in the name of Islam and we firmly accept that secularism, backed by human rights, is the best way to deal with world affairs. we can start by backing any minority group or country being persecuted by a Muslim majority and requiring any immigrant to pay allegiance to the UN Charter or US constitution and abide by our laws and customs as a prerequisite for entry. Eventually, their backwards oppressive ways will lose, like the Communists. they are the past and most educated Muslims in their hearts probably know that. But in order for tht to happen, we must be truculent and persistent and be ready to throw pig fat on any fat Saudi scum who insults or abuses us or toss Captain Hook and his family in the English Channel.
at August 6, 2008 11:22 PM
You say: "Front group? Front group for what?"
Do you claim ignorance to the goals of American Council for Kosovo? or its sponsorship from the "Serbian National Council?" The goals of the front group of the Serbian National Council are very clearly stated on their website, savekosovo.org. Return Kosovo to Serbia. How do you not know this?
And the more I find out about James Jatras (former assistant to Larry Craig, of all people) and Patrick E. O’Donnell -- the crazier it all gets.
As partners in Venable LLC, they were seemingly paid over a million dollars to work on behalf of Putin's man in the Ukraine, Victor Yanukovych? Jatras was also a defense witness in the Hague trial of Milosevic. What the hell is going on here? This is your friend and reliable source on Kosovo? Excuse me for my skepticism about this front group.
In any case, I look forward to your article on Kosovo tomorrow.
-MPH
Posted by: popcontest at August 6, 2008 11:54 PM
MPH:
Sir, you said the American Council for Kosovo was a "front group." I asked you what you thought it was a front for. And you respond by telling me the group's open and explicit goals.
You may not know this, but usually when someone calls something a "front group," they're not talking about the group's open and explicit goals, but some supposedly secret agenda.
I am, of course, fully aware of the goals of the American Council for Kosovo. Unless you're going to tell me -- and prove -- that they're a front for some other, sinister goals, you haven't told me anything.
I didn't know that James Jatras was a former assistant to Larry Craig. Do you think that everyone who once worked for Larry Craig bears some moral taint? And as for Milosevic, Jatras says this:
Yes, I testified as a defense witness in the trial of Slobodan Milosevic at the UN tribunal at The Hague, per the request of the lawyers advising him. As a lawyer I have to comment on the fact that anyone would consider this controversial in a proceeding that supposedly is based on a presumption of innocence.As is clear from the record of my testimony, which is available on the tribunal's website, I stated that I could provide no information about the defendant's actions, having no first-hand knowledge of them.
But what I did testify about, and which I believed then and continue to believe was relevant to the charges, was the policy of the United States, specifically of the Clinton Administration, regarding 1. its "green light" for and complicity in the shipment of Iranian weapons to Islamic forces in Kosovo in violation of the UN arms embargo, and 2. the fact that the Clinton Administration had already decided to attack then-Yugoslavia on behalf of the Albanian Muslims in Kosovo as soon as a suitable pretext could be arranged and months before any supposed "ethnic cleansing" took place.
On cross-examination the prosecutor did not call into question any of the substance of my testimony but did seek to discredit me by reference to my ethnic origins (Greek), my religion (Orthodox), my party affiliation (Republican), and my writings on jihad violence (I'm against it).
I don't see a problem with Jatras objecting to the shipment of Iranian weapons to Islamic forces in Kosovo.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at August 7, 2008 12:37 AM
Good grief...
When Christians act up it is in spite of Christianity, not because of it. When muslims act up it is because of Islam, not in spite of it...
Posted by: duh_swami at August 7, 2008 12:41 AM
Robert - I am stunned at what you had to put up with from pop; and I am equally stunned by his curt "retraction", if you want to call it that. He went on & on accusing you of this that and the other thing, and in a rather lenghty and outrageous manner; but when it came to retracting his accusation, which took some cajoling from you, all he could muster was, "I retract", as if suddenly at a loss for words!
Come on, pop, surely you can do better than that, given the nature of the charges you leveled on Robert.
Posted by: champ at August 7, 2008 12:47 AM
Champ
Cut the guy some slack! He is a very accomplished young man. I have just been reading about him. Quite a guy!
Yrs
Robert
at August 7, 2008 12:48 AM
Popcontest:
Do you believe that Serbia deserves American support against an independent Kosovo SIMPLY because they are Orthodox Christians and the Kosovars are Muslim? Is Orthodox Cristian Russia justified in cleansing Chechnya too?Not simply because of the above reasons, but largely because of them. Not to mention that Kosovo has been illegally populated by Albanian immigrants to the point that they became a plurality in the province. If that is enough to justify Kosovo seceding from Serbia, what's to stop Kashmir from seceding from India? Mindanao from Philippines? Xinxiang from China? Yala from Thailand? In fact, since there have been unchecked immigration of Mohammedans from Bangladesh to parts of India, what's to prevent such parts from either seceding from India, or going to Bangladesh, based on your criteria?
As for Chechnya, that terretory belongs to Russia every bit as much as the above terretories belong to their countries. Since the Chechens have been on a jihad not only in Chechnya, but also in Moscow, North Ossetia and other places, the Russians are fully justified in doing whatever they have to to quell that insurgency, even if it means resorting to what's called 'clensing' by the likes of you.
Since you are so supportive of the right of the Kosovars[sic] of self-determination, I wonder what you think of the rights of the people of Srpska, who are overwhelmingly Serb, and who'd rather be a part of Serbia or independent, rather than a part of the Islamic republic of Bosnia-Hercegovina. Or is it your position that Eastern Orthodox peoples don't have any rights of self determination, but only Mohammedans do?
Posted by: Infidel Pride at August 7, 2008 1:06 AM
Yes, Mike, in light of the section of your questions that Infidel Pride highlighted just above, I wonder if you would take the position that Serbs and Russians, whether or not they are observant Orthodox Christians, have any right to defend themselves against jihad aggression and Islamic supremacism.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at August 7, 2008 1:09 AM
You guys, pop must be watching South Park at this moment, so I am afraid that we will have to wait for his answers.
Posted by: champ at August 7, 2008 1:22 AM
Robert,
The American Council for Kosovo, with its purposefully misleading name, is a front group for Serbian nationalist interests (and by proxy, Russia/Putin). That the ACK is a front for Serbian nationalists is not controversial.
We're investigating now much more into Jatras's background and connections and preparing a comprehensive report. One interesting thing to note, the reports Jatras refers to in order to substantiate the claims of Iranian weapons transfers were authored either directly by Jatras himself by way of the Republican Policy Committee or they came out of Larry Craig's office (coincidence?). A lot more on this later...
Jatras, recently speaking to a Belgrade daily Vecernje newspaper about the US:
"They are but a paper tiger, stop treating them with the respect they do not deserve." He advises the Serbian government to be "more aggressive" and to demonstrate its "seriousness" by holding military exercises along the border with Kosovo.
And despite his lawerly disclaimers to the contrary, he nevertheless attempted to portray Milosevic as a victim of an international conspiracy, and to cast doubts on the entire scale and nature of his regime's actions. He tops off this victim myth with ludicrous claims that Bosnians fabricated genocide by killing their own people to gain western support and to frame the Serbs.
I have read the transcript of his testimony to the Hague, and it was not nearly as neutral as you are making it to be here. He also calls NATO and US actions illegal and casts conspiratorial motives behind them, and makes some blatantly false claims about "exodus" of Serbs in Krajina, easily proven false by historical records and video footage.
All of this is just the tip of the iceberg. If you were not aware of his connections to Larry Craig, then there is probably a lot more you are not aware of, or at least I hope so. I urge you to look deeper as well.
-MPH
Posted by: popcontest at August 7, 2008 2:09 AM
The Albanian activist/propagandist comment blitz on several blogs is interesting.
The Michael J. Totten "Israeli in Kosovo" posting is the centerpiece, with the LittleGreenFootballs post on the Totten column attracting quite a few comments, and now this thread at JW. Also a May 28 (?), 2008 thread here is involved (the Julia Gorin column)...
The Albanian activist(s) post as "nameless-fool" (MJT), "Medaura19856" (lgf), "MPH" (lgf -- likes to give up and down dings), "popcontest" (here -same person as MPH, apparently from above). Other commenters support them to some extent, but don't appear quite the same. Both the unsubtle and subtle twisting of history ("serb-nazis" is one of their taunts, -- an inversions of history) and practiced hand at insinuation and insult suggest nameless-fool, medaura and mph are the same cloth. My vibe is that a sockpuppet may be in action. If not a sockpuppet, it is an interesting little propaganda offensive. All are careful to never criticize islam, and to criticize as "bigots" those who do.
Posted by: del at August 7, 2008 3:04 AM
Dam! I miss all the good stuff! How the hell did this end up on Kosovo???
"watch Jihad Watch for a big Kosovo article in the morning" Mr. Spencer
This is going end up like the last scenes from Dr. Strangelove?
at August 7, 2008 3:28 AM
I recently visited an art exhibit where the 'artist' cut a smily face into the King James Bible, so you can see all the way through the pages. It had a comic effect, 'God's book' smiling back at you, empty of content, which might have been the artist's message. But I could not help wonder what would have happened to the gallery if the same comic effect was done on a Koran. Any guesses?... I wouldn't want to be there when found out!
LOL
Posted by: Battle_of_Tours
---
Would be interesting to find out the name of the "artist". Check out the rest his his/her work.
Then do the exact same smiley face using a KKKoran and send it to the same gallery asking for inclusion in a future show.
I'm pretty sure you'd be getting a stiff upper-lip rejection letter.
To which one would of course reply, asking why is a Bible with a smiley-face cut-out worthy of being shown in a gallery but not a KKKoran.. maybe even try to frame it in a moslem kind of way.. so they have to argue against it because they're both afraid and PC challenged at the same time
Now that would put a HUGE :-) on my face.
Posted by: Ummah Gummah at August 7, 2008 3:56 AM
Mike:
Re Craig, you didn't answer the question.
Also, who is this "we" who is preparing this hit piece on Jatras?
Inquiring minds, and all that.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at August 7, 2008 5:06 AM
In fact, Mike, you haven't answered any of the questions.
RS
Posted by: jihadwatch at August 7, 2008 5:07 AM
del:
The Albanian activist(s) post as "nameless-fool" (MJT), "Medaura19856" (lgf), "MPH" (lgf -- likes to give up and down dings), "popcontest" (here -same person as MPH, apparently from above). Other commenters support them to some extent, but don't appear quite the same. Both the unsubtle and subtle twisting of history ("serb-nazis" is one of their taunts, -- an inversions of history) and practiced hand at insinuation and insult suggest nameless-fool, medaura and mph are the same cloth. My vibe is that a sockpuppet may be in action. If not a sockpuppet, it is an interesting little propaganda offensive. All are careful to never criticize islam, and to criticize as "bigots" those who do.
Medaura and MPH are, among other things, husband and wife. I was looking at some of their wedding pics not too long ago. I will not reveal who they are so long as they don't do so, but I know. And I invite them to engage in a bit of honest disclosure about why they are so exercised about this issue, and so enraged at what Mrs. MPH called at LGF "Crusaders and Jewhadists."
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at August 7, 2008 5:12 AM
As long as true Muslims have the duty to kill moderate Muslims, then there is not much future in becoming a moderate Muslim. (Hint: It is less trouble for a moderate Muslim to get in line with real Muslims than to risk getting their head chopped off.)
Posted by: Spot on at August 7, 2008 8:27 AM
Christianity is doomed to die out and disappear because it lacks violence. Love and peace have been and will continue to destroy Christianity. What Christianity needs more than anything else is peaceful beheadings of anti Christ or anti Christians? Military style training, arming, educating and funding a strong war like message. The government is never going to defend the Christians when they will be beheaded and eliminated. On the contrary, the US government appears to be helping muslims chip into and destroy Christianity. Wake up Christians and smell the coffee
Posted by: American at August 7, 2008 9:12 AM
Yes -- I am married to "Medaura" and she originally from Albania and of Jewish and Eastern Orthodox descent (from mother's and father's side respectively). We are both non-religous people.
I am not sure who namelessfool is, but there is no organized effort with him or Totten or anyone else to flood the internet with anti-serb propaganda. I log on to LGF and comment occasionally because it is fun when I have downtime. I also think Charles, Totten, and Glenn Reynolds have no pre-conceived notions or interests in this case, except for the protection of freedom wherever it exists and possibly may flourish. Which is much more than can be said about your connections through the American Council for Kosovo.
You ought not confuse your readers to think there is a conspiracy here. My wife has written much more extensively on these topics than I have -- we just happen to share many opinions on the Balkan situation.
You might enjoy her essay:
Rome Didn’t Fall in a Day: an analysis of Western Europe’s cultural demise
http://kejda.net/2007/11/06/rome-didn%e2%80%99t-fall-in-a-day-an-analysis-of-western-europe%e2%80%99s-cultural-demise/
I got a chuckle from one comment above that implies we are "pro-muslim."
Posted by: popcontest at August 7, 2008 9:51 AM
Mike:
Yes -- I am married to "Medaura" and she originally from Albania and of Jewish and Eastern Orthodox descent (from mother's and father's side respectively). We are both non-religous people.
Funny thing: I've never previously known either Jews or Orthodox Christians -- and I know a great many of both -- to refer to "Crusaders" and "Jewhadists." Live and learn!
I also think Charles, Totten, and Glenn Reynolds have no pre-conceived notions or interests in this case, except for the protection of freedom wherever it exists and possibly may flourish. Which is much more than can be said about your connections through the American Council for Kosovo.
One more time: Glenn Reynolds, despite your efforts to link him to this issue, has nothing to do with this whatsoever, and my post about him above has nothing to do with the controversy with you over Kosovo.
Actually, I told you above that my connection to the American Council for Kosovo is motivated solely and wholly by a desire to resist jihad and Islamic supremacism, and to stand up for freedom. Your insinuations that something else is involved, and that I am paid by them, are false, baseless, and bordering on defamatory.
You ought not confuse your readers to think there is a conspiracy here. My wife has written much more extensively on these topics than I have -- we just happen to share many opinions on the Balkan situation.
Yes, what an amazing coincidence!
I never used the word "conspiracy." Do you have no concern whatsoever for fair or honest dealing -- or is that out the window when you're dealing with "Crusaders" and "Jewhadists"?
I got a chuckle from one comment above that implies we are "pro-muslim."
Why? Osama bin Laden, who declared jihad against "Zionists and Crusaders," and other jihadists are the only people who rail against "Crusaders" and "Jewhadists" -- other than your lovely wife. Her masked slipped there, just a bit.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at August 7, 2008 10:02 AM
You might also enjoy her rant on the burka:
http://kejda.net/2007/10/24/burqas-suck/
BTW -- there are more burka clad women in Toronto than in the entire country of Albania.
Posted by: popcontest at August 7, 2008 10:05 AM
Spencer -- what you are accusing her of?
Did you even understand the context in which she used those words?
The word "jewhadist" is quoted from a former LGF commenter who proudly refers to her struggle and activism against islam with this exact word, and who my wife thought was representative of the ideology of religious supremacy as the overriding factor in taking sides in a complex conflict.
Whereas the word crusader is self-explanatory -- referring to the self-described holy warriors from the Christian side. And it is no more a slur against Christians than the word jihadist is a slur against muslims, or do you think that the word muslim and jihadist are synonymous?
Posted by: popcontest at August 7, 2008 10:22 AM
Mike,
I think that what she meant was abundantly clear.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at August 7, 2008 10:28 AM
...so why don't you spell it out. Is she a cultural relativist too?
Posted by: popcontest at August 7, 2008 10:30 AM
Mike:
"Cultural relativist" was Reynolds' phrase, not mine. If you look through the post above, you'll see that I never used it.
And no, I think your wife is just about anything but a cultural relativist.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at August 7, 2008 10:33 AM
You are having to say this "I never said that" quite a lot, lately. Why are people so confused about what you really mean?
You wrote about Glenn:
"Meanwhile, the relativism of Glenn Reynolds and so many others continues to hinder our response to the jihad threat."
Looks pretty clear to me...you are really starting to confuse me now.
Posted by: popcontest at August 7, 2008 10:38 AM
Mike,
Spencer said: "'Cultural relativist' was Reynolds' phrase, not mine. If you look through the post above, you'll see that I never used it."
Mike quotes Spencer saying: "Meanwhile, the relativism of Glenn Reynolds and so many others continues to hinder our response to the jihad threat."
Looks pretty clear to me, too. As I said, "cultural relativist" was Reynolds' phrase, not mine. If you look through the post above, you'll see that I never used it.
I believe you have established my point.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at August 7, 2008 10:40 AM
What sort of "relativist" is Professor Reynolds then? And does it even matter what "variety" -- a relativist is a relativist is a relativist. Prof. Reynolds is not what you say he is, whatever it is you are claiming.
Posted by: popcontest at August 7, 2008 1:32 PM
Mike
I think my post on Reynolds is clear enough.
Also, I am not inclined to answer any questions from you, since you never answer any of mine.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at August 7, 2008 1:58 PM
"Osama bin Laden, who declared jihad against 'Zionists and Crusaders,' and other jihadists are the only people who rail against 'Crusaders' and 'Jewhadists' -- other than your lovely wife. Her masked slipped there, just a bit." Posted by: jihadwatch
Mr. Spencer,
I am very glad that I am not the only one who noticed those highly objectionable slurs.
Posted by: Josephine at August 7, 2008 2:46 PM
Popcontest should change his moniker to:
Pops-merry-go-round
at August 7, 2008 3:52 PM
Josephine says: "I am very glad that I am not the only one who noticed those highly objectionable slurs."
Then keep demonizing her for using another person's words - namely, the insane ex-lgf user "babbazee," the self-described "jewhadist." See for yourself:
THE OUTRAGED SPLEEN OF ZION
http://babbazeesbrain.blogspot.com/
Look -- it is right on her website (as well as an invitation to "crusaders" - and by that, she means her Christian allies in the fight against Islam).
And keep saying Kejda isn't critical of islam (while ignoring her writings at kejda.net that prove you wrong).
Keep saying these things...
In the words of Robert Spencer, it would be "generous of you to retract your false statements."
Posted by: popcontest at August 7, 2008 3:56 PM
Hmmm....
It must be a conspiracy...give me a break, guys.
Posted by: popcontest at August 7, 2008 4:00 PM
There is absolutely no indication in "medaura's" post that she's quoting Babbazee (who uses the term "jewhadist" in an ironic, humorous way, anyhoo.)
"medaura" isn't quoting here, and she certainly isn't trying to be funny ("she's" incapable of that.) She's insulting Jews, and Christians. Her It's usually jihadis who disparage Christians as "Crusaders', no matter what her lame explanation. Her mask slipped there. You're desperately trying to stick it back on, but it won't stay. Give us a break!
Posted by: TalkinKamel at August 7, 2008 6:35 PM
"And keep saying Kejda isn't critical of islam (while ignoring her writings at kejda.net that prove you wrong)."
I checked out that site and did a search for "islam" and "muslim" and I could find only two essays, Rome Didn't Fall in a Day, which is more about how bad Europeans are than about Islam, and the article about burkas which is only about how bad the extremist fringe is, which leaves a way open for a good Islam to enter big enough for a mac truck to drive through.
Posted by: DenverRodeo at August 7, 2008 7:52 PM
Yes, as I recall "her" (assuming "she's" not really a sock puppet of some sort) posts at LGF were critical of Europeans, Jews (despite the fact she's claims she's partially Jewish) Christians, Americans and the Serbs. She was always left a lot of wiggle room for good Islam and moderate Moslems.
Posted by: TalkinKamel at August 8, 2008 12:02 AM
Oh, yeah, and the "douchetard" remark is very typical of medaura, who's written language is, um, coarse and colorful---and that's putting it real nicely! (obscene and vicious might be a more honest way of describing it.)
Posted by: TalkinKamel at August 8, 2008 12:09 AM
Battle of Tours:
you posted above that you
"recently visited an art exhibit where the 'artist' cut a smily face into the King James Bible, so you can see all the way through the pages. It had a comic effect, 'God's book' smiling back at you, empty of content, which might have been the artist's message.
"But I could not help wonder what would have happened to the gallery if the same comic effect was done on a Koran. Any guesses?... I wouldn't want to be there when found out!"
Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at August 6, 2008 2:31 PM
When I read that, I thought - if anyone *did* cut a face into a Koran, it wouldn't be a 'smiley face'. It would be a mad, hostile shark's grin, with jagged teeth, like you see on the scarier variety of Halloween pumpkin head.
: Thinks: now *there's* an idea for an 'installation'. The happy smiley-face Bible you mentioned, side by side with, or opposite to, a Qur'an with a pumpkin-head manic grin.
There is no copyright upon this idea. Avant-gardists and photoshoppers, feel free to improve upon it.
at August 8, 2008 3:18 AM
Reynolds, in his zeal to properly criticize the current spinelessness of the West in general, appears to have unwittingly professed the moral relativism argument.
While it was not intended as sinister apolo1gia for Islam, at least in my opinion, it serves the same end, as we see Islamic apologists attempt to use this angle all the time, so that we won't inquire about what the doctrine of Islam really teaches.
As was adequately stated already in this thread, there is no textual foundation in Christianity to support this moral relativism argument with Islam.
Potentially, any ideology can seek to acquire power through violence, and we have seen several examples of that historically, most noticably with Nazism, and the response of the West to it, which in Reynold's defense, he correctly states is sorely lacking today and which the main vehicle for support and encouragement for Islam's advancement.
That being said, his comparison to the liklihood of future Christian fundamentaslism arising due to the same rationale, was a rather poor example.
Posted by: awake at August 8, 2008 1:37 PM
Methinks the popcontest doth protest too much.
Posted by: charlie at August 9, 2008 12:31 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)