| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
George Carey has now rejoined the dhimmi ranks, and is displaying all the fervor of a new convert. I wonder why: is he running for office? From the BBC, with thanks to Twostellas:
The term Islamic should be dropped when referring to terrorists in a bid to foster better relations between the West and Islam, Lord Carey says....Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has warned that linking international terrorism and Islam was damaging.
"There is an urgent need to stop tarnishing the Muslim world by unfair stereotypes," he told the United Nations this week.
Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf has also said there is an "iron curtain" falling between the Islamic world and the West.
However, Lord Carey said that while there was a divide, he wanted to resist using such a serious phrase as "iron curtain"....
He had begun a personal campaign "to challenge anyone who talks about Islamic terrorists", Lord Carey added.
Well, George, I hope you see this, because I would love for you to challenge me on this point. I'll explain below.
"I think we have to drop the word Islamic because in so doing we deprive the terrorist of his religious legitimacy."He wants religious justification for his evil deeds, and we shouldn't give it to him," Lord Carey said.
"And second, by dropping Islamic before terrorist we are taking a lot of pressure off the average Muslim who simply doesn't want to be portrayed as a fellow murderer."
'Tiny minority'
He said he accepted that the problems in the Middle East and Iraq had to be addressed, "but it would help the building of bridges if we helped the average Muslim to understand that we are not blaming Islam for this".
"We're blaming that tiny, tiny minority of people who are using Islam as a weapon to get their own back against the West and to undermine all we're trying to do."
Lord Carey reiterated his call for Muslims to denounce terrorism more often.
"Terrorists are very evil people and I want to hear Muslims say that more and more," he said.
So do I, George, so do I. But it is myopic and naive to think that if we — non-Muslims — stop calling terror "Islamic," we will thereby "deprive the terrorist of his religious legitimacy." How can we take away what we did not give? George, I didn't invent the idea of Islamic terrorism, and neither did you. Jerry Falwell didn't either. The idea of Islamic terrorism comes from people like Shamil Basayev, who use carefully constructed Islamic arguments to justify the murder of children. No is Basayev alone. I can refer you also to the writings of Osama bin Laden, which are full of Qur'an and Hadith references, or to those of other Islamic radicals around the world. You can read many of them, George, in my book Onward Muslim Soldiers.
These are the people who are responsible for the term "Islamic terrorism," George, and it is only they who can make the term disappear by stopping doing violence in the name of Islam. But until they do, I myself am going to talk about "Islamic terrorism" all the more: as long as no one wants to admit what the problem really is, it can't possibly be fixed. As long as you and your ilk, George, want to ignore and even cover up the Islamic roots of modern terrorism, that terrorism will continue to flourish. I, on the other hand, am going to keep shining light on it, in hopes that one day it may be eradicated. There is no other way that the necessary reforms of Islam can even be contemplated.
So call me, George. I accept your challenge regarding the term "Islamic terrorism," and I look forward to our debate.
Posted by Robert at September 29, 2004 8:47 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
One is reminded of the efforts of the apologists who referred to the Germans as Nazis encouraging the belief that somehow the war was being fought against the Nazis and not the germans!
If Lord Carey wishes to deprive islamic jihadists of their religious mantles so as to whitewash Islam then why does he not ask Islam to expell all terrorists or issue fatwahs against them?
As for dropping the word "islamic" from islamic terrorism, i am not aware that this terminology is being used in the western press anyway. Usually the nomenclature is "Insurgeants or "militants".( See reuters and AP on the Beslan genocide)
perhaps Carey means we should not use these terms in the privacy of our own homes!
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at September 29, 2004 10:11 AM
Within the last, oh, say, 20 years, how many acts of terrorism on this world were committed by terrorists outside of Islam? On a percentage scale, no more than 1 to two percent? We are just calling it as we see it.
Mr. Spencer, you should make sure Lord Carey sees what you have written by emailing it to him, along with an invitation to publicly discuss/debate the matter.
Posted by: Walker Colt at September 29, 2004 10:19 AM
Mr. Spencer,
No, I'm afraid I don't, but wouldn't somebody in his position have a public access email address? Similar to what our polititians' have? I would think that would be the case. I'll try to look around today to see if that exists.
at September 29, 2004 10:47 AM
Robert is attempting, yet again, to explain what should be so obvious. It is good that he retains his good humor (not all of us find this possible). People who commit terror who are Muslims, whose speeches, whose videocassettes, whose writings, whose every communication, are chock-full of Islamic references, who can hardly utter a word without using an allusion to something in the Qur’an or hadith, cannot reasonably be described except in relation to Islam. It simply makes no sense. Their hatred of Infidels comes from the teachings they find in the canonical texts of Islam. Their belief that it is right and proper to seize hostages comes from the canonical texts of Islam – including the model of Muhammad himself. Their belief that it is, when it helps Islam, right and proper to kill Infidels, including civilians, does not come out of the air – it comes out of the hadith, and out of the Qur’an, and above all out of the model of Muhammad, who had hostages executed in cold blood (the Bani Qurayza, among others), and who ordered, or received with pleasure news of, the assassination of those he felt opposed him. Why is this so difficult for the Careys of this world, and all those Mother Carey’s chickens now running around squawking in the international barnyard about unfair it is to mention any of this, how unhelpful, how mean. But it is a lot less mean than blowing up buses, killing children in schools, kidnapping and decapitating people who came to Iraq, naively, to “help” (think of Nicholas Berg, who never understood the reality of inculcated, murderous hate – how could he, given the suicidally naïve upbringing he received from his parents, where the only enemy were people like Bush?).
Does Carey think that if the word "Islamic" is not used by the non-Muslim -- and it is not used nearly enough, it ought to be used all the time -- that this will help to “reform” or change Islam, get Muslims themselves to begin to examine, and to constrain, their own bloodthirsty doctrines? If there is nothing wrong with Islam, then of course there is nothing to worry about, and we can all go home – all except the occasional warmonger still trying to create a completely baseless “clash of civilisatons” which are based on some enormous misunderstanding of the sheer wonderfulness of Islam. Does Carey want to encourage Muslims to be embarrassed into looking into, and openly discussing, what it is about their religion that makes it a danger to all non-Muslims? Or does he want them to be reassured that there is nothing wrong – just the wrongheaded perception of a few Infidels? Does Carey think, upon close examination and study of Islamic texts, there is nothing to worry about? Something? A great deal? Almost everything? Or is he pontificating, this pontifex minimus, without having studied Islam? Who is informing him? Where does he get his information, his understanding of Qur’an and hadith? Has he heard of “dhimmitude”? Has he read “The Decline of Eastern Christiainty Under Islam” by Bat Ye’or? No? Why not? No time to read? What about “Islam and Dhimmitude”?
Does George Carey understand something about Islam that escaped the notice of, inter alia, Grotius, Montaigne, Spinoza, Hume, Tocqueville, Jacob Burckhardt, Henri Pirenne? Does he notice some redeeming features in Islam that the statesmen John Quincy Adams and Winston Churchill failed to notice?
Carey is a fool, but so are so many of our Great Ones, our Lords Spiritual and Temporal. A fool, an ass, dangerous -- and in his dangerousness, a very wicked ex-Archbishop. Though he would no doubt be surprised to find that anyone would think of him in that way. But everyone of sense should.
at September 29, 2004 12:10 PM
The Cronica de Alfonso, which was written in the 9th century in Spain and gives an account of the Reconquista up until that time, provides the following exchange between Pelayo, who started the Reconquista in the 8th century, and a BISHOP (like Carey??!!):
Bishop Oppas: "I believe that you understand how the entire army of Spain cannot resist the force of the Muslims. How can you resist on this mountain? Take my advice, abandon your efforts and you will enjoy many benefits from the Muslims."
Pelayo: "Our hope is in Christ. This little mountain will be the salvation of the people of Spain. The mercy of Christ will free us from that multitude".
Archbishop Carey, Prime Minister Zapatero...the odds faced by Pelayo then were far worse than the odds you face today. Where is your courage? Pull yourselves together, Christians, and fight for justice!
Posted by: Pelayo at September 29, 2004 12:33 PM
Has this guy been on a crack-high for the last few years? Once again, repeat in unison "not all muslims are terrorists but all terrorists are muslims". In addition, it should be pointed out to Lord Ignoramous that the vast majority of these terrorist acts are being commmited in the name of Allah, not for some general, unspecified complaint. They think they are doing Allah's work, so it is natural and reasonable for us to refer to them as "Islamic Terrorists"!
Posted by: Buck at September 29, 2004 12:41 PM
Robert,
This is the official advice given for contacting a member of the House of Lords like
'Lord Carey':
Telephone
Ring the main Palace of Westminster switchboard (UK prefix) 020 7219 3000 and ask to be put through to a
member. The switchboard will try to connect you if the member has a desk and telephone number.
OR leave a message with the ‘Message Service’ (UK prefix) 020 7219 5353.
Write
Letters addressed to members at the -
House of Lords
LONDON
SW1A 0PW
ENGLAND
No email address is given.
Good luck!
Benelux
Posted by: Benelux at September 29, 2004 1:44 PM
Lord Carey, John Kerry.....I see no difference.
Lord have mercy, on the brain of Lord Carey.....
Milton-Bradley should make a new board game and call it Who Blew It Up?
Unfortunately, the answer will always be: Some retarded dumbass Muslim, who else?
Posted by: DCWatson at September 29, 2004 2:05 PM
I seem to think that Lord Carey dosent remember how many "bridges" Islam has burned, and will burn.
Its not a matter of acceptance, goodness knows how much the West has tried, is trying and will try to mend "bridges" with Islam.
These people dont want it, any pretence of wanting to is a buying of time to facilitate their goals. And Lord Carey and all the likes of him in power are the lubricants.
Posted by: Joe Bananas...in Pyjamas at September 29, 2004 6:04 PM
Speaking of dimwitted dhimmis:
ISLAM: Labour lies, Muslim muddle
Sir, After arriving in Baghdad to promote Ken Bigley's release, one of the
UK Muslim leaders Dr Hussein said he believed in the 'power of prayer'. Is
this authentic Islam or were his words simply an attempt to hijack
Christian language in order to deceive viewers about Islam's true
character? If Muslims believe in the power of prayer, why is Islamic
history red with the power of the sword? Because 'militant' Muhammad's
piety was very different from the 'moderate' Muslim cleric's. Indeed, also
providing a charter for today's terrorists and suicide bombers, the Prophet
declared:
"The sword is the key of heaven and hell: a drop of blood shed in the cause
of God, a night in arms, is of more avail than two months of fasting or
prayer: whoever falls in battle, his sins are forgiven: at the day of
judgement his wounds shall be resplendent as vermillion, and fragrant as
musk; and the loss of his limbs shall be supplied by the wings of angels
and cherubim."
In his double reference to Islam at the Labour Party Conference, the Prime
Minister distinguished between militants and moderates, insisting that the
former represent a 'perversion' of Islam. Did Muhammad therefore 'pervert'
his own teaching? If not, then Mr Blair is guilty of misleading the nation
over Islam as he misled us over the war in Iraq. In his speech, he also
affirmed the Government's intention to introduce so-called 'religious hate'
legislation. Does this mean that attempts to correct the misinformation of
both the Prime Minister and so-called Muslim moderates will become a
criminal offence?
Yours faithfully,
Dr Alan C. Clifford
Pastor, Norwich Reformed Church
www.geocities.com/nrchurch
at September 29, 2004 6:46 PM
"Carey is a fool, but so are so many of our Great Ones, our Lords Spiritual and Temporal. A fool, an ass, dangerous -- and in his dangerousness, a very wicked ex-Archbishop. Though he would no doubt be surprised to find that anyone would think of him in that way. But everyone of sense should."
I beg to differ and suggest that Carey is not so much a fool, but rather, the masses to whom his lordship deigns to speak, are the hapless dupes, should they be easily swayed by his ridiculous assertions.
In this, I concur that Carey is as dangerous as a "very wicked ex-Archbishop" and more so! For Carey, unlike the ex-Archbisop, retains position, title, and right.
In this empyrean capacity he chooses to willfully act as agent for the islamic terrorists themselves in effect.
By virtue of his office and station of privilege, he knows well the nature of the islamic terrorists; yet I suspect that he has fallen under the seductive spell of Saudi oil cash.
Perhps his lordship would be so good as to trade places with Mr. Bigley and pontificate to the islamic terrorists that they are not "islamic" from the confines of his cage.
Posted by: witness at September 29, 2004 6:57 PM
Why can't use Islamic vocabulary: "Muhajideen", "Jihad" or "Jihadists"? Are we not allowed to refer to 'terrorists' using terms they would use themselves?
And then Bin Laden, Iraqi 'insurgents', Palestinian 'freedom fighters', Chechen 'warlords', and Indonesian 'militants', would all receive the names they deserve, that is, the names they hold in common, the names that tells us something about who they really are.
Posted by: JTF at September 29, 2004 9:36 PM
Why must WE build - well, rebuild - the bridges. We did once, and they blew them up.
' "We're blaming that tiny, tiny minority of people who are using Islam as a weapon to get their own back against the West and to undermine all we're trying to do."
Lord Carey reiterated his call for Muslims to denounce terrorism more often.
"Terrorists are very evil people and I want to hear Muslims say that more and more," he said. '
Won't happen. Here's why (from "Islam in Perspective" in Arab News):
Q.1. Could you please explain the Islamic view about those spreading tales against people so as to cause problems between them.
A.1. Backbiting is strongly forbidden, as it is universally known. God says in the Qur’an: “And do not spy on one another, nor backbite one another. Would any of you like to eat the flesh of his dead brother? Surely you would loathe it.” (49: 12) This horrid picture is drawn in the Qur’an for someone who is guilty of backbiting, which is defined in Islam as “saying about someone in his absence what he dislikes to be said about him.” This applies even if what is being said is true. The very fact that he is absent and people say about him things that he dislikes to be talked about is backbiting, and falls within what is described in the Qur’an as “eating the flesh of one’s dead brother.”
Note the phrase "even if true".
jay
at September 30, 2004 3:42 AM
In the pleas of UK Muslims for the release of Mr. Bigley they refer to the jihadists as 'believers'.
Supposed 'moderate' Muslims apologists in response to jihadist attrocities frequently say 'this is not Islam', 'the Prophet would not condone this', or 'there are no Muslim terrorists', but then why aren't these 'terrorists' 'Infidels', like us? Why do they not deserve a fatwa or two and a jihad against them?
It seems that even the offense of indiscriminate mass murder does not make these perpetrators loathsome enough to be worthy of the designation 'Infidel', because they believe what the Koran says; we, on the other hand, do not. Hence, we are the legitimate targets of any jihad, which is entirely consistent with the Koran and Islam traditions, and not matter how enormous and bloodly the murderous deeds of jihadists, they merely deserve "condemnation"...which will last, let's see, let me count, one, two, three, four...forgotten already.
Posted by: JTF at September 30, 2004 10:45 AM
I heard the same radio broadcast as Twostellas has written about. There was a reference, near the end, which gave me cause to wonder whether, when the former Archbishop speaks, he remains capable of speaking "in good faith".
The reference was to his co-chairmanship, with Prince Turki, the current Saudi ambassador to the UK, of a committee which seeks to create closer links between the west and Islam - see http://discuss.agonist.org/yabbse/index.php?board=2;action=display;threadid=18091
This is the same Turki who, just three months ago, publicly speculated on links between "Zionists" and Al-Quaida attacks - see http://www.israelforum.com/board/archive/index.php/t-6010.html
Max
Posted by: max at September 30, 2004 12:46 PM
I live in London, and the country code for the UK is 44, and you drop the first zero in UK numbers when dialing from abroad.
So from the States, dial 011-207-219-3000 for the Palace of Westminster switchboard, or 011-44-207-219-5353 for the message service.
Posted by: jfkar at October 1, 2004 3:16 AM
Oops - must get more sleep:
So from the States, dial 011-44-207-219-3000 for the Palace of Westminster switchboard
Posted by: jfkar at October 1, 2004 3:20 AM
(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.)