| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
Last April I wrote here about a professor at Colgate University, Omid Safi, who in a fine example of how indoctrination and propaganda have replaced genuine intellectual inquiry, was requiring his students to write brief reports on a person selected from a list he provided, which he had labeled "Islamophobes, Neo-cons, Western triumphalists, etc."
I wrote then about his propagandistically stacking the deck for his students with such labels, particularly when they are applied to such world-class scholars as Bat Ye'or and Samuel Huntington. I also took issue with his list for demeaning such scholars (which of course is what he intended to do) by lumping them together with political activists, journalists, etc., whose work is far more superficial. And for including a Muslim, Stephen Schwartz, on a list of "Islamophobes."
Safi almost certainly saw my post, as several of his students contacted me indignantly not long after it went up, demonstrating their wholehearted acceptance of Safi's propangandizing and their imperfect command of English (one remonstrated with me for calling Safi's students "hapless" in the belief that this word meant "stupid," when actually it means "luckless" or "unfortunate").
However, the good professor is unrepentant: in the Spring 2005 version of this course, he has explained his inclusion of Schwartz in a footnote, and has expanded his broad-brush smear of his little enemies' list: now the list, which is otherwise unchanged, is made up of "unrepentant Orientalists, outright Islamophobes, Neo-conservatives, Western Triumphalists, right-wing Christian Evangelicals, etc."
Hmmm. "Unrepentant" Orientalists? Omid, my man, of what exactly do Orientalists such as Schacht, Wansbrough, Jeffrey, Muir, Margoliouth, Hughes and others have to repent? Telling the truth? Not confusing academic research with propagandistic indoctrination? Not considering Islam to be beyond criticism, particularly in the ways it incites people to violence and fanaticism?
And "outright" Islamophobes? Tell me, Omid: which person on your list is an "outright" Islamophobe? "Islamophobia" is a term invented by people trying to stifle uncomfortable questions about Islam; tell me, which one of your enemies willingly accepts this term?
You tell me, Omid. Last year, when I first became aware of your course, I offered to come to Colgate and have a public discussion with you. I'm still available; contact me at director@jihadwatch.org.
Report on Islamohpobia [sic]:You are each required to turn in a report on a significant person who contributes to a negative public presentation of Islam and/or Muslims; whose political views and/or scholarship shape how Islam is presented today. This group is a broad coalition that includes folks from diverse backgrounds, such as unrepentant Orientalists, outright Islamophobes, Neo-conservatives, Western Triumphalists, right-wing Christian Evangelicals, etc.:
Report: 4 pages. Include: a brief biography, intellectual history, and comments on Islam (and/or Middle East where relevant)
-1) Bernard Lewis, 2)Samuel Huntington, 3)Fouad Ajami, 4)David Frum, 5)Paul Wolfowitz, 6) Leo Strauss, 7) William Kristol, 8) William Bennett, 9) Daniel Pipes, 10) Charles Krauthammer, 11) Alan Bloom, 12) Robert Spencer, 13) David Pryce-Jones, 14) Stephen Schwartz, 15) Bat Yeor,16) Jerry Falwell, 17)Pat Robertson, 18) Francis Fukuyaman, 19)Franklin Graham 20) Niall Ferguson 21) Robert Kagan 22) Dore Gold 23) Ibn Warraq
[*Stephen Schwartz directs his critique at the Wahhabis, and is affiliated with Sufism, but he has fully identified himself with Neo-con think tanks and political ambitions.]
UPDATE: I confess that I wrote all of the above without noticing that Safi has appended a lengthy piece entitled "Omid Safi comments on Islamophobia" mostly about me. He even quotes the April 11 post linked above in full, with comments, "before it can be taken down or altered." (Don't worry, Omid. I have no plans to do either.)
There is not much of substance in all of this beyond documentation -- which he evidently thinks will be horrifying enough in itself to his students -- that my books have been published by conservative publishers and I am affiliated with conservative organizations. Omid, I assure you: if I could interest any liberal groups in this struggle for our survival, I most certainly would. As I have said many times, the struggle against the global jihad is not a conservative or liberal issue, but a human rights issue. In the meantime, however, given the general indifference (at best) of the Left, I will get the word out any way I can.
Omid's other points, and my comments:
1) Accusation of taqiyya: the notion that one is hiding one's true belief to survive. This is a common accusation against many moderate and liberal Muslim thinkers, including Tariq Ramadan.
All right. But is it accurate? Is there not evidence of Salafis engaging in taqiyya? Does the fact that it's a "common accusation" mean that it's false? Omid, my man, surely even your undergraduates can see the holes in that one.
2) Accusation of dhimmitude: the notion that one seeks to create an Islamic state in which Jews and Christians would be second class citizens. There is no proof given, of course, on how one little professor at Colgate is going to create an Islamic state, of all places in the United States
Nice try, Omid, but your straw man here is simply absurd. I have never suggested that Omid Safi is trying to create an Islamic state. My April 11 post is headed "academic dhimmitude." This refers to the fact that Safi is passing off propaganda as education, and making his students accept highly politicized and controvertible material as fact -- notably, that Islam as a religion is peaceful and tolerant, just as the dhimmis of old had to sing the praises of Islam's peacefulness and tolerance or risk forfeiting their contract of "protection."
3) Look at the first question of the first comment: "Only one question: does he have tenure?" This can be taken as nothing other than an attempt to silence academic voices and discussions by threatening the source of their employment.
Absurd again. Comments are unmoderated, and I neither have nor claim any responsibility for them, but in this case I'll reply. Safi here is using the tactic we have recently seen Ward Churchill and Shahid Alam use: claim that academic freedom is being threatened when all that is really being threatened is their professional irresponsibility and passing off of propaganda as fact. If Safi really believed in academic freedom, his course syllabus would not have an enemies list.
4) Without me asking them to, two of the students in the class, named Josh and Alyssa above, wrote back to contest Robert Spencer's views. Their main point was that unlike Mr. Spencer, they had actually been in the class. Their objections are never acknowledged.
Omid, Omid, Omid. Do you expect your indoctrinees not even to read your own material? You posted the April 11 Dhimmi Watch post in full, in which I answer Josh and Alyssa not once, but several times. Come now, man! If you wanted to tell your students that I didn't answer Josh and Alyssa, you shouldn't have republished my answers!
5) Here is a bigger issue about who Robert Spencer is. Does he have a PhD in Islamic Studies? Is he teaching as an academic? Does he present his views at the American Academy of Religion, Middle East Studies Association, American Oriental Society, etc. (established, respected academic organizations that specialize in the study of Middle east, different religious traditions, etc.) Are his books published by academic publications? Answers are no, no, and again, no.
Right. And why don't I do these things? Because the organizations you name are full of people who are not genuine academics, but ideologues who praise those who parrot their politics and savage those who don't. Your presentation of my publishers' (horror of horrors) conservative funding is evidence enough of the fact that you cannot deal with the substance of what I have said about Islam, but think it sufficient to press your followers' ideological buttons.
One more thing: You say, "Once Carl Ernst pointed this the [sic] connections of Robert Spencer to consverative [sic] oganizations [sic], what was Robert Spencer's response? To write a column called: 'Well done, good and faithful servant: American prof's book on Islam wins award in Cairo'"
Actually, I didn't write that in response to Ernst. I hadn't seen what Ernst wrote until tonight. But I'm glad you brought it up, Omid, because the Egyptian prize is just another indication of the high ideological coloring of both Ernst's work and yours. It is more than absurd for you to quote Ernst saying that my books are "supported by specific political and ideological interests," as if yours aren't.
Bottom line, Omid: you can't refute them. You can't go into Islam Unveiled or Onward Muslim Soldiers and find anything inaccurate in them. So instead, you resort to dark mumblings about my "connections" and smears of "Islamophobia."
This is what passes for higher education these days.
Posted by Robert at February 7, 2005 5:11 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Congratulations.
Interesting: Notice, at the bottom of the page, that he is quoting some of our posts. Thus, posters here at JW are on the "enemies list".
Posted by: epg![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at February 7, 2005 6:41 PM
Mr. Spencer..... you go guy.
You tell me, Omid. Last year, when I first became aware of your course, I offered to come to Colgate and have a public discussion with you. I'm still available; contact me at director@jihadwatch.org.
**************************************************
This list could quite possibly be a hit list in disguise.
Stay Safe
Posted by: Chuck at February 7, 2005 7:05 PM
Prof. Safi's seminar is junk-science in its purest form. By labelling all kinds of critical thinking about Islam as "islamophobic" he abandons every standard of scientific work. There is no science without critical thinking. Science is not about self-esteem and hurt feelings, but about truth. If Safi was a scientist, he would try to refute "islamophobes" instead of smearing them. His rationale seems to be "Anyone who doesn't agree with my point of view and criticizes my religion is my enemy". Sounds like the middle ages to me. How could someone like him become a professor at a western university? He should consider emigrating to islamophobia-free places like Saudi-Arabia or Pakistan. I'm sure he misses the Taliban.
Greetings from Germany
Simon
Posted by: Simon at February 7, 2005 7:46 PM
Mr. Spencer,
Am I missing something here or am I just a naivete?
During my tenure in college, I took several courses in Christianity (history and philosophy) and never was I directed in such a specific manner concerning proponents or dissenters of that belief.
The courses I took enveloped all sects of Christianity with no emphasis on a particular one.
It certainly appears that Islam, as it is taught in our colleges and universities, is indeed specific and dogmatic.
Does this teacher direct his students towards the difference between Sunnite and Shiite beliefs?
What is the point of the pinpointing and indeed, highlighting detractors of this ideology? Is this a veiled call to jihad?
The Islamophobes are the Islamists themselves; they know that their doctrine and their entire creed is susceptible because it is so shallow.
Sometimes it appears that they hate themselves for what they expound.
Posted by: eschwapp
at February 7, 2005 7:51 PM
Looks like an honor roll to me. It is missing a few:
24) Theodor Noldeke; 25) Leone Caetani; 26) W. St. Clair-Tisdall.
Posted by: Hulegu Khan at February 7, 2005 8:35 PM
So what happens when a Biography of Muhammed is used from the Quran and it shows his misogeny
and pedophilia has harmed Islam far more than
any infidel.
I mean,if the Quran is the final word that Muslims use for geting their facts then I'd like to see the Professor condemn the life of Muhammed
that's portrayed in the assignment.
BTW,Islamophobia is a made-up term so Muslims can silence any opinion expressed by intelligent
people that judge the whole Quran and see through the veneer of deceit from the Muslim taqiyya's
here in the West.
Phobia is a unfounded fear created in the mind
based on over reacting to a unknown,in actuall fact the title Islamophobe may be true,there is a wellfounded fear of a real threat from Islam and
Muslims only re-enforce that phobia by being defensive and suffering from paranoia and denial
over the truth about Islam itself.
There's way too much blood flowing from the Quran to continue this charade by Imam's and people like Hooper at CAIR , very soon Hooper will become the National joke and his tirades will be on the Discovery Channel as part of showing the link between Man and Monkeys.
Posted by: ala-sux
at February 7, 2005 8:35 PM
I don't think many of the people here really give a crap about the women oppressed, or the people dying, at the hands of certain extremist Islamic groups.
I think most of the people here are certain Christians and Americans who love to hate islam.
If you disagree, please explain to me why one million dead tutsi rwandans provoked NO RAGE LIKE THIS, back during the rwandan genocide in the early 90's. On top of every dead American in the WTC rubble, we could pile two hundred Rwandans who were systematically butchered by machetes. Yet, even when begged, America couldn't even be bothered to jam the Rwandan radio station that was openly endorsing the genocide.
The way I see it, there was no competing religion to shit all over, so most of the people in here didn't care.
You can hate Islam if you want to, but don't you dare say that all this glorified hate speech of the Spencer-ites is intended to save the women and the victims.
Thank God, we live in a time where "socially acceptable bigotry" is in short supply. Robert Spencer comes in like a dope peddler, offering a cheap fix so you can get away with hating another culture, without feeling so much like a bigot.
And look how the masses come running for it...
Posted by: mathandhumanity at February 7, 2005 8:54 PM
mathandhumanity=knowalot ???
Posted by: eschwapp at February 7, 2005 8:58 PM
Mathandhumanity
Glad you have spoken up about Riwandan Genocide and urge everyone to do so.You are free of course to express your opinions on this site but cannot agree with calling Robert Spencer a 'Dope Peddler'. He addresses all issues in a calm, rational manner and has studied Islam for many years.
My question is how is Professor Safi able to use his position to promote a political agenda at taxpayers' expense?
at February 7, 2005 9:06 PM
Of course, you realize that being mentioned at Jihadwatch represents the high water mark of Omid Safi's fame.
Posted by: Miss Moneypenney at February 7, 2005 9:15 PM
Nice try Mathandhumanity. If you care about math, and you care about humanity, kindly address the number of people killed in the Sudanese jihad since 1990.
I am neither a christian, nor a jew, nor a conservative. But Islam is the enemy of humanity, plane and simple. I know that there are a lot of (mostly silent) Muslim dissenters that would never commit the atrocities widespread in the Ummah, but they moderate and open minded despite Islam, not because of it.
I want to use your analogy, and the fact that less than 10,000 people have been killed in Israel and "palestine" since 1990 while over two MILLION have been killed in Sudan.
For every Jew and Arab killed there, stack a black Sudanese animist/Christian/Muslim on top, overwhelming killed by white Arab Muslims, and again we get: 200.
And the Sudanese genocide is ONGOING. Why isn't it in the press like it should be? You tell me.
While your at it, please direct me to the Christian, Jewish, or other non-Muslim "version" of the Beslan massacre. Or the non-Muslim version of the 9-11 attacks. And please remember, according to Bin Laden and his sheep, the intention was to KNOCK OVER the Towers and kill upwards of 100,000 people. There was speculation on 9-11 that as many as 30,000 had been killed anyway.
Where in the world is to be found a picture of peace-loving, tolerant, open-minded, accepting Muslims, TODAY? Where to Muslims support women's equality, or a woman's right to choose birth control and/or abortion? Where are the Muslims that allow openly homosexual men and women equal rights and recourse to the law?
Posted by: kj at February 7, 2005 9:26 PM
Let's see. What books does Omid Safi assign? Let me guess without having looked:
How about:
1. John Esposito, Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality
2. Karen Armstrong, Islam
3. Edward Said, Orientalism
4. Maria Rosa Menocal, Ornament of the World
5. Michael Sells, Approaching the Qur'an
6. Carl Ernst, Following Muhammad
How many did I get right?
And how many of his impressionable young brood of students will begin to look at www.secularislam.org and www.faithfreedom.org or read, without his attempt to undercut ahead of time (he is, after all, determined to poison the minds of students so that they will not read and think for themselves) "Islam and Dhimmitude" or "The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam" or "Why I Am Not a Muslim."
And why has he failed to attack Ayaan Hirsi Ali? Perhaps he's afraid his male students might fall for her?
Posted by: Hugh at February 7, 2005 9:27 PM
kj said
"I know that there are a lot of (mostly silent) Muslim dissenters that would never commit the atrocities widespread in the Ummah, but they moderate and open minded despite Islam, not because of it."
So it seems kj, thankfully, realizes something that many other people here don't. Terrorists are not the face of Islam, anymore than the christian KKK is the face of Christianity.
Posted by: mathandhumanity at February 7, 2005 9:33 PM
Do you think Omid lies awake at night wondering how many books Robert Spencer has sold?
Omid: (yawning)"Terrible thing, really, allowing ideas to compete like that on the free market. Wonder how much that *&^%$#@ gets per copy. Of course, his publisher is that right wing place. Not like my book coming out any day now from the Lower Nevada Acemart University Press. Hmph. Disreputable little islamaphobe. He says he's Catholic but I know what he is really. You can just tell..."
at February 7, 2005 9:36 PM
Thank God, we live in a time where "socially acceptable bigotry" is in short supply. Robert Spencer comes in like a dope peddler, offering a cheap fix so you can get away with hating another culture, without feeling so much like a bigot.
And look how the masses come running for it...
Posted by: mathandhumanity at February 7, 2005 08:54 PM
Everything that goes awry in the world is the fault of the United States. What about that magnificent, all-powerful, all-knowing body of rotten -to- the core bureaucrats, thieves, and perverts in N.Y. that was created to prevent wars and genocides? You probably genuflect to Kofi Annan; maybe he can explain why the United Nations allowed this atrocity to happen, even if it wasn't on his watch. He and his cabal of satraps are doing what the U.N. does best as we speak---completely ignoring an ongoing genocide in Darfur where fantatical muslim butchers are annihilating tens of thousands of helpless Christians.
Robert Spencer has never provided a "fix" to help me hate "another culture." I have hated Islam for twenty years and my hatred is totally justified. It would appear that you "love" all cultures but your own, or do you really believe that there will some day be one big, borderless, utopian world with no white people?
If you are not a brainwashed, zombie muslim, you could well be a pathetic, indoctrinated product of the American public school system, or a recent university graduate, thoroughly duped by activist, radical, America-hating professors.
Or maybe you're a European socialist, lover of multiculturalism, hater of Western Civilization.
If this site disturbs you so, why do you come here?
at February 7, 2005 9:46 PM
A few more to add to that "Enemies List" of the Colgate Caliban, Omid Safi:
Ayaan Hirsi Ali (threatened with death in Holland)
Francis Bok (of the Sudanese "Lost Boys")
Oriana Fallaci (at 14 helping, as best she could, the anti-Fascist resistance in her native Florence, then a celebrated left-wing journalist in Italy, interviewing, inter alia, Khomeini, Arafat, Fidel Castro, Khaddafy).
Pavel Kohout, participant in the Prague Spring, and the Czech resistance to the Soviet invasion.
Assorted Buddhist monks and villagers and Thai politicians, worried about Muslim murders in southern Thailand.
Ditto, among Hindu and Sikh villagers in Kashmir, India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh.
Col.Ojukwu, and millions of Igbo in southern Nigeria,as well as Christian Africans belonging to the Hausa and other tribes, in Nigeria, Togo, Cameroun, Ivory Coast, Senegal, Kenya, Tanzania,etc.
Habib Malik, and a large number of Christian Lebanese and Iraqis and Syrians.
Egyptian Copts, in Egypt and in New Jersey.
Add them all to the list. All those "right-wing Christians" and "Orientalists" and "Western Triumphalists" and "Outright Islamophobes."
Really, does the faculty and administration have no shame? Is it going to continue to let this Agitprop substitute for teaching? One is not asking for Jacob Burkhardt or S.E. Goitein or Arnaldo Momigliano or Oswyn Murray or Jacques Barzun but really -- a little teeeny-tiny demonstration of some standards, some feeling that someone is concerned about what the already put-upon poor students, who hardly know not only what they do not know, but lack all historical sense (see Regine Pernoud, "Those Terrible Middle Ages") that is so necessary to make sense of the universe.
Where is the history faculty? Where is the college president? The beating heart of the university is of course its Development Office. When will some intellignet alumni get the attention of the Development Office, and in turn, that of the Adminstration, not only for the Omar Safis of this world, but for all the rest of the frauds who have taken over so many posts that they did not, and do not, deserve.
Posted by: Hugh at February 7, 2005 9:51 PM
You can always tell when a Liberal is losing an arguement,they call you a racist or bigot.
at February 7, 2005 9:52 PM
Not to start a petty statistics fight kj, but if you type "Sudan Genocide" into google, the pages give death tolls in the tens of thousands range. Perhaps you meant "two million dead or displaced."
But regardless, you are actually making my point anyway, by pointing out Sudan. I say, many of the Islam-bashers here don't really care about dead and suffering foreigners in general. When the terrorists and oppressive fudamentalist governments are gone, still these Spencer-ites will hate Islam. They just won't have any excuse to anymore.
Yes, why isn't the Sudan situation getting more attention? Why didn't we do anything about the Rwanda genocide? It belies all the alleged "concern" in here, about oppressed women and dhimmis in Arab nations.
at February 7, 2005 10:03 PM
Susanp, you ask,
"It would appear that you "love" all cultures but your own, or do you really believe that there will some day be one big, borderless, utopian world with no white people?"
No, indeed. My utopia would have whites too, and there would be borders. But no one would be shooting bullets and missiles across those borders. And no christian president would shit all over Jesus Christ by claiming he got "God's approval" for an Iraq war.
You also ask,
"If this site disturbs you so, why do you come here?"
That's easy. I am not going to let extremist Spencer-ites spread their cancerous ideas to my generation. As long as this hate monolith stands, seducing the American youth to hate muslims, I am going to present the opposing viewpoint for them to see.
Very simply, I am going to fight for what your children believe.
And win.
Posted by: mathandhumanity at February 7, 2005 10:38 PM
Anybody with half a brain will be horrified by any number of Qur'anic verses (such as "slay the infidels everywhere they are found"). This is not 'Islamophobia'. This is common sense. Human beings are programmed to wish to live.
Human beings are not programmed to want to be murdered by killer zombies that hold the belief they are on a divine mission giving them a license to kill those who do not believe in what they believe. Although Muslim leaders deny it, this is not natural. Slaughter revolts most people instinctively. But slaughter IS endemic to Islamic teachings.
And that is what the Islamic world refuses to understand.
Posted by: pythagoras at February 7, 2005 10:50 PM
mathandhumanity, you make it sound like islam is above bashing. Personally I hate the religion/culture, if for nothing else than its lack of acceptance, but that's my right.
I think you're just a self-loathing agitator; I don't suppose you teach at CU? Try putting some blame with those who are actually doing the cutting off of limbs and heads, jackass.
Islam bashing Spencer-ite? I was just looking for Betty Crocker baking recipes in the 911 degree range when I found this site, but you're right, I really, really need a religious bashing outlet. You're a bright one mathandhumanity. Jackass.
at February 7, 2005 10:51 PM
To mathandhumanity
I openly hate the death cult
How many videos on al jazeera(the terrorist network) show christians sawing peoples heads off for no reason?
Executing people for no reason?
Flying planes into biuldings killing thousands for no reason?
Go back to you're sand trap in the sun and leave the rest of us alone!Give yourself an oil enema!
14 of you're Muslim pig brothers gang raped my daughter and not 1 of them have repented so just fuck off and stay out of this site with you're lies.
at February 7, 2005 10:51 PM
Sorry meant" buildings" just too angry at knobs like mathandhumanity
Posted by: D.T. at February 7, 2005 10:54 PM
I am an educated white American male, D.T., born in Arizona, who believes in God and Good Will, but I have no specific religion.
That is horrible that your daughter was so violated. But no brother of mine did it. And, forgive me for saying so, but blanket-hating Islam is not going to make it any better. Hate and general disrespect for others is the general problem all around us today. Terrorists hate the west. And from your statements, you currently hate all of Islam--somewhere around one fifth of the world. This is your haven for that hate. Am I really a liar for saying so?
at February 7, 2005 11:12 PM
Dear Math and Humanity:
The Rwanda genocide of 1994 was an Islamic Holy War or jihad. The Hutu tribe was and still is converting to Islam. An Algerian al-Qaeda operative shot down the Rwandan President's plane with a Stinger missile plunging the country into anarchy and ripe for the slaying of the 'unbelievers'. The Tutsi tribe had been extensively Europeanized and was singled out by al-Qaeda for extermination as it had the Jews and Christians (which the Tutsis were). Militias from Somalia and Pakistan among other Islamic nations carried out much of the slaughter of the Tutsi tribes. Machetes had been provided by bin Laden networks operating out of Egypt.
Why didn't we stop it?
Answer: There was no way to know that a holocaust of such enormous scope and magnitude would ensue. Once Rwanda was found to be literally riddled with cadres set to massacre Tutsi tribes, it was too late to stop it anyway. Most western interventionists coulnd't have identified these cadres if they HAD intervened. The only feasible solution would have been to evacuate the Tutsi tribespeople out of Rwanda-- and again no one knew MILLIONS of lives were at immediate risk and the genocide took place in the course of 10-12 weeks.
Who know that such a terrible and highly sophisticated killing operation was in the works? Very few people knew that the Hutus were Islamicizing and receiving assistance from al-Qaeda. Civil wars are a common phenomenon across much of the developing world, but this appeared to be a more or less routine Third World tragedy to an unknowledgeable outsider. And not a landmark human holocaust.
Rwanda moreover was not believed to possess an infrastructure large enough to perpetrate such a vast crime against humanity. That it in fact did is testament to the fact that the Hutu tribespeople received international (and criminal) assistance from abroad---likely in the form of intelligence and military schooling. Yes, and the government of France assisted the Hutus too (we KNOW)at one point.
Now how come you're unwilling to punish the people who actually planned and executed the genocide? The west for the most part did not kill these people or wish them such terrible suffering. Ditto Sudan. We feel YOU are using victims of this tragedy to score political points and it is YOU that actually is deficient in the heart and soul department. You continue to ignore the real perpetrators: the Islamic world and its leaders.
Please reference passages in the Quran if you do not understand action being taken against Islam. It is not merely a 'religion.' It is the only 'religion' that incorporates homicide into its core belief system. And it has perpetrated at least 500 million murders over the past 13 centuries. You cannot hurt an ideology. It exists on paper and in the mind ONLY. 'Hating' Islam and/or declaring war on Islam is like 'hating' Mathematics. You cannot hurt its feelings. It hasn't any. But like a murder weapon, it can be used to kill. As on 9-11. Rwanda. Sudan. Timor. Hindustan. Yugoslavia. etc.
This is not cause for hate. It is cause for self-defense. I will defend myself by getting these folks to convert to a 'religion' that doesn't require "slaying the infidels everywhere."
Posted by: pythagoras at February 7, 2005 11:26 PM
Mathandhumanity, no you won't win. Your muslim friends are too impatient to just bide their time and overwhelm us by population. They have blown their cover and more and more of the sane people of the world are waking up to the threat of islam. Three mainstream newspapers carried the story of hate in the mosques today, the ball is beginning to roll.
What esteemed professor gave you your world view? I am beginning to think that higher education is a waste of hard earned money. Education was never supposed to be indoctrination. Where is your sense of self-preservation? Do you think the crocodile won't eat you? (Unless you are really muslim)
Posted by: Carolyn2 at February 7, 2005 11:26 PM
pythagoras, "technically", as it stands, the christian and jewish scriptures still call for stoning queers, as well as stoning kids who curse their parents. But it's not a problem, because (almost) nobody takes those passages seriously.
Since you're interested in self-defense, and not hating Islam, why wish that these muslims convert and abandon their faith? Wouldn't it be good enough if extremist muslims quit taking violent and oppressive passages seriously, just like christians now laugh off Leviticus in the bible?
I fear many people would still hate Islam, even then...
Posted by: mathandhumanity at February 7, 2005 11:41 PM
By the way, pyth, the main Hutu motivations revolved around culture and political power, not really religion. And I applaud and encourage the war crime trials which brought, and continue to bring, the players in the Rwandan genocide to justice.
I hope that international tribunals will soon bring to justice those in Sudan who are responsible for the genocide there. I hope that this time around, we will jam the radio stations in Sudan, if we are asked to. (We refused to do so, in Rwanda...while the government owned radio station was openly encouraging the slaughter...)
I also hope that, out of the top 20 wealthiest countries in the world, the United States will quit being consistently RANKED LAST every we measure [financial assistance given, divided by gross domestic income]
Posted by: mathandhumanity at February 7, 2005 11:58 PM
It is true that Islam is on the rise in Rwanda...AFTER the genocide. Here's an article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53018-2002Sep22.html
But of course, that'll probably just be shrugged off as left-wing media bullshit, right?
Posted by: mathandhumanity at February 8, 2005 12:12 AM
islam is the enemy. Study it mathandhumanity, before you come bashing this site, you white, educated, male.
must be tony over there in sunny Arizona, eh, buddy boy?
over here we're missing buildings, not the mud and brick type, if you can remember.
but thanks for getting my back, you stupid desert dwelling, liberal, chronic mal-content, anti-American, little pussy.
Yea, let's give them even more money.
You must be a teacher.
what a dick.
Posted by: khamr at February 8, 2005 12:15 AM
Sorry,I'm a little tired of people not getting the point.
Posted by: khamr at February 8, 2005 12:22 AM
That's easy. I am not going to let extremist Spencer-ites spread their cancerous ideas to my generation. As long as this hate monolith stands, seducing the American youth to hate muslims, I am going to present the opposing viewpoint for them to see.
Very simply, I am going to fight for what your children believe.
And win.
Posted by: mathandhumanity at February 7, 2005 10:38 PM
Too late for my children sweetie, I've already poisoned their evil little minds. Me, an extremist? That is absolutely hilarious!! I suppose to a naive, uninformed, neophyte, I might be an extremist. One day you will experience an epiphany; it will hit you like a bolt of lightning. You will see with crystal clarity that we were right, you were wrong. You go out and fight for the terrorists and the muslims, be their useful idiot. They'll hate you no less for your efforts.
Believe it or not, I don't "hate" muslims, I hate Islam. Muslims are dangerous, volatile, and unpredictable victims of a vile, pernicious, evil ideology that cannot in any rational way be compared to Christianity. All muslims aren't terrorists, but muslims are responsible for 99% of all terrorism.
Have you studied Islam? Do you read the articles posted here, or just the comments?
You gave yourself away when you called the United States selfish (in so many words).
I'm not going to give up on you though. Even after the most thorough left-wing indoctrination an American university can impose on unwitting, malleable suckers, eventually you will experience real life in the real world. That's always a wake-up call. One of the first things you will learn is that all cultures are not equal or compatible with ours, and we are not responsible for the plight of the world's downtrodden.
America is the envy of the world. That should be apparent to you, despite your present state of confusion, by the millions of illegal immigrants who risk life and limb to get inside. I haven't noticed a mass exodus of disillusioned citizens rushing to the Middle East (or anywhere else) for a better life. Not even the poor, pitiful, persecuted muslim victims who suffer endless indignities and humiliation as they plan for the great American jihad. Poor things, how do they endure such hardship? Allah's "best people", and look at them, humiliated by infidels. But don't you worry about those poor wretches, they're tough. They're going to take over America and once that's done, the rest of the world will be a piece of cake. Just ask them.
at February 8, 2005 1:02 AM
As hard as you may try to stick "Anti-" into the label, khamr, I am an American.
And actually, I don't live in Arizona. We moved when I was two. In fact we moved many times because my dad was a Marine. A US Marine. I love my dad and I love my country. Even if I don't always agree with both of them.
Now, what was it you called me? Oh yes, it was
"stupid desert dwelling, liberal, chronic mal-content, anti-American, little pussy...teacher"
Well, out of 10 words, two were somewhat correct, "little" and "liberal". I'm not the tallest guy, and I do somewhat tend to the left.
But don't worry, if I were a teacher, I would give your modest 20% a B+ for "good effort," since after all, I'm such a liberal.
at February 8, 2005 1:17 AM
Susanp says,
"Believe it or not, I don't "hate" muslims, I hate Islam. Muslims are dangerous, volatile, and unpredictable..."
OK you don't hate them, you just think they're all dangerous, volatile, and unpredictable. Oh and you hate their religion too. Sheesh, maybe I WAS over-reacting! (???)
I have had friends of many different ethnicities and backgrounds, among which have been whites, middle-eastern indians and arabs, an iranian muslim, an armenian, several mormons, jews, jehovah's witnesses, gays, catholics, atheists, hispanics, blacks, people of various asian decents, and even some southern "good ol boys" back when I lived in north carolina.
Just about every stereotype I have ever heard, has either been wildly exaggerated, or altogether false, when applied to my friends.
So either my sampling of friends was extraordinarily unlikely, or our stereotypes are patently blown out of proportion, because of polarizing bullshit like the hate-speech on this website.
Tell me, SusanP, how many muslims or arab middle-easteners have you bothered to befriend and get to know?
Posted by: mathandhumanity at February 8, 2005 1:42 AM
mathandhumanity:
I see you missed my posting about Liberals
losing an arguement,you have proved my point by resorting to paint your opponants and "Racists" and "Bigots" to silence any intelligent factual
evidence that threatens your version of reality.
From what I've read about Muhammed he was the epitome of a abuser in denial,his defensiveness about misogeny and pedophilia forced him to dream up a unproven dispensation
from Allah to cover his action of rape and sex with a child. The first defense for abusers is to blame the victim or portray themselves as the real victim of the abuse,for Muhammed to create stories from Allah that brought death to anyone that questioned his fabrications was so convienant to suppress the challenge against Muhammeds perception of reality.
Charles Manson defends his action because he believes the voices in his head as devine words from God and only he is trusted to judge all mankind and mete out the punishment,does any of this sound familiar when Muslims talk about the Quran and punishment for questioning it or Muhammed's escapades in kiddie-porn and pedophilia.
Theo Van Gogh was murdered by a follower of Muhammed and I will never beleive in the tenets
of a faith that allows people to murder God's children for the glory of Allah and obedience
to the Quran and Muhammed.
We in the West aren't that stupid as the uneducated poor in the middle east that Islam exploits with the threat of death of eternity in hell for not acting out the endless rituals of idolatry that make up religion Muhammed created to exalt him to overlook the murder,rape,beheadings,child sex,spousal abuse,and incest from him screwing his Sons Daughter. He also visited a friend and after seeing his wifes uncovered hair he got so horny he wanted to screw her so he told his friend to divorce her so he as the Prophet could be blessed with having sex with her.
These are the words from a Imam that has a Saturday night TV show about islam and he reads verses from the quran and explains Muhammed's actions as part of the accepted action of that time in history,even Muhammed's rape of a child bride was said to be allowed and can't be judged by todays laws for protecting children.
Please take note that Muhammed's lust and violence is seen in his eyes as reating to external problems and he never accepts himself as being the problem from his lack of self-control
and inner rage which might have been from his upbringing as an orphan that caused the misogeny from abandonment and a desire to kill Gods children to punish God for his painful childhood.
Muhammed was pretty screwed up and abused himself,the pedophilia and hate for females is really a transference of his pain to affirm his
belief that he's correct in the perception of the world and that Allah chose him to lead the infidels to Islam.
The denial and paranoia by groups like CAIR only re-affirm the danger of blindly accepting
a fabricated history of a man that spoke for God
and has been said to be taken up to heaven by God
to explain why there is no grve site for Muhammed.
Remember it's the Muslims that deny this happened to Jesus so how can we believe them
when they say it happened to Muhammed,it can't
both ways for islam. The story of Jesus was also hijacked by muhammed to play into his ego,he didn't hear voices until around 40 and nobody saw or recorded any miracles by him.
at February 8, 2005 1:42 AM
OK Ala-sux, you say,
"I see you missed my posting about Liberals
losing an arguement,you have proved my point by resorting to paint your opponants and "Racists" and "Bigots" to silence any intelligent factual
evidence that threatens your version of reality"
That sounds all nice and cutting, but, if you've been following along at all, my main argument is the following:
"People here are spewing bigot-like blanket hate for religions and peoples"
So you can't say I'm "resorting" to anything, silly. I'm sticking to my guns--I'm making my main argument.
What, are you going to say I must have lost the argument, because I'm making my argument???? Take some logic lessons man.
This is predominantly a hate site. I see it in the posts all the time. It's even in your fucking name.
Posted by: mathandhumanity at February 8, 2005 1:57 AM
Mathandhumanity, I make no apologies for my dislike of Islam, it is a Nazi type religion, created by a false phophet to gain and apply total control to its followers. I know that a large percentage of Muslims are decent people, but the religion that they follow is not.
I do not want this religion destroying our freedoms of speach with its bigoted intolerance, the murder of Van Gogh is just one example and I as a free Westerner say no to this Nazi ideology.
What do we do, I have asked this question many times, the first thing to do is weed out the intolerent, the second is bring the Mosques out of the control of the extremists and develop a proper world religion suitable for a world where the rule of law and freedom is the most important aspect from this bigoted mess. Those that leave this cult must be helped and protected. Its laws must never be allowed to subvert our own laws and we must weaken the hold it has on its people.
My fear is that when the West wakes up to the threat in our midst then a holocaust type event will occur, this I do not want to see, we must start to deal with this threat by education, development and control.
I am aware that I am advocating impinging on the freedom of religion of these people, but Islam is not suitable for our societies.
If that defines me as someone that is full of hate then so be it, but I see in the West people who care and do the right things, but we also live in a world which is full of hate and envy and the need to destroy and control and we must not allow our hard won freedoms to be taken away from us.
I have struggled for years with my feelings on Islam, but now I have clarity on what we need to do and that path does not require death and destruction, just awareness and effort and this is what this site is trying to do.
On Sunday at lunch I managed to make some French left wingers that I know, finally admit that Islam is a Nazi type system and a threat to our values and beliefs, to me that was a victory and a start.
Posted by: Daffersd at February 8, 2005 3:41 AM
Daffersd,
Interpretations of a religion vary from group to group, and change with time. Very few jews and christians (I hope) now think that we should stone queers and adulterers to death...even though Leviticus in the old testament specfically calls for such executions. Yet, even as recent as the 17th and 18th century, queers were executed by both European and American colony christians.
You have incorrectly extended your correct assessment of "Militant Fundamentalist Islam", to all interpretations of Islam. Maybe you also feel Christianity is no different than the christian KKK?
Do you really expect anyone to ever give up their religion? Think about how fucking infuriating and condescending it would be, to be told "We decided your religion is evil, so you have to give it up. Don't worry though, we'll help you."
Tell you what, Daffer, we'll put you in a room with a large group of these people, and YOU can tell them that. Personally I think they'd kick your ass, just like any self-respecting group of Catholics or Mormons or Jews or Atheists would if you pulled that shit.
You cannot call for the abolition of a religion with billions of members, and then expect to get along with the world around you. Your views are inimical. Don't you realize that?
Posted by: mathandhumanity at February 8, 2005 4:09 AM
hi mathandhumanity, you've made some interesting posts and here are a few thoughts of my own. none of the following is directed at you personally, just general observations.
i'm sure you'll agree that the world is facing a serious threat, the threat of terrorism from radical islam, chiefly because of technology, ie, the availability and willingness of people to use weapons of mass destruction. (it's amazing how technology changes the world but that's a different story i guess). this threat makes people emotional, like some people on this site that you call bigots and haters. this label isn't true. they are emotional because they correctly perceive a serious threat to freedom and the way of life that most humans in the world would choose if only they could.
it's my personal opinion that a "dirty bomb" or such like will be used against a western city in the next five years. maybe london, maybe chicago, who knows.
many blame success for the current state of affairs. the success of america, the success of israel, the material wealth of the west juxaposed with the poverty of the third world. many liberals seem predisposed to this world view - that the west should feel guilty somehow for their success.
the truth, however is that FAILURE is to blame.
the recent tsunami is an interesting case. there are numerous calls for "rich" western countries to give aid which is fine, but no-one publicly states the reasons that indonesia is poor, and has flimsy buildings, and has failed to plan for disasters and invest in a pacific-style early warning system for tsunamis. no-one publicly states why corruption in indonesia is endemic, particulary in the military, and that the west is more concerned about the disaster than indonesia itself.
and now to link the above to islam and the islamic world - over the years i have spent many months in algeria, jordan, morocco, niger, egypt, sudan, syria and israel and have personally witnessed life in islamic countries and the effect of islam.
in 2002 i read the "arab development report" produced by the united nations, also partly funded by the arab league. it is a sobering document. covering 22 arab countries it finds, for example, that half of all arab women are illiterate, that the total Gross Domestic Product of the 22 arab countries surveyed is similar to a single country like spain, that their death rate from child birth is the highest in the world etc etc, i could go on. whats the point of this? the point is that islam and its effects is sick. islamic countries have not industrialized, produce little, do not have separation of church and state, have not developed an objective system of secular law or of individual property rights. this property rights issue alone is a pivotal reason why the west has grown wealthy and the third world has not. (read "the mystery of capital" by de Soto for example). much of the venom directed towards the west, and america in particular is envy. envy, not jealousy. jealousy to to covet something another has. envy is to destroy what another has.
islam produces millions of angry, failed young men, who are unable to relate to women as we westerners take for granted. and it produces millions of oppressed and frightened young women. if you haven't been to muslim countries, go there and see for yourself. don't rely on the media for your information. to paraphrase the austrian economist ludwig von mises "the principle difference between the free countries of the west and the closed, petrified states of the east is the west's focus on the individual, and individual rights."
Posted by: leelion at February 8, 2005 4:25 AM
mathandhumanity,
where exactly do you draw the line between islamophobia and critical thinking about Islam? Do you share Prof. Safis view that every "negative" (i.e. critical, non-apologetic) view is islamophobia and should be supressed?
Why should Islam not be exposed to the same standards of scrutiny as other religions? Do Christians want to ban Nietzsche or Russell as "christianophobes" because they portrayed the basic ideas of Christianity in a negative light?
I am an evangelical Christian, and I think that atheism actually made Christianity stronger because it forced the religion to look for better arguments. That's why most Christians today tolerate atheism and other forms of criticism of Christianity. Why can't Muslims tolerate criticism of their religion? Are they afraid that they'll find no arguments to defend themselves?
at February 8, 2005 4:43 AM
leelion, I totally agree with your response, I have read the same report.
mathandhumanity, your obviously trying to get me to say something extreme, using the f word is not really necessary is it.
But anyway, I respect the rights of people to follow a religion within our free and open societies, but with that comes respect for the rights of individuals and the fule of law. Islam creates a feeling that they the followers of this cult are above our law, which is unacceptable.
My view is that Islam is not compatible with Western democracy and individual freedoms, therefore as such it can not exist in our socities in its present form. There are many Muslims who want to mordernise their religion, I wish them well in their endevours and I hope they manage to do this.
I saw another person make the same connection between the KKK and the Islamic fundementalists in another chat area, but this has no relevence to this issue and hardly comparable, we are talking racists when we talk about the KKK.
Christianity teaches people to love their neighbours, Islam currently teaches people to convert, depise, hate and slay their neighbours. Sorry, but that is the gist of it. The Qu'ran is quite specific is it not?
I have read history from an early age, the history of Byzantium is fascinating, you should have a good close look, it might make you understand something about the issue, the best thing I ever did was read a English copy of the Qu'ran.
Posted by: Daffersd at February 8, 2005 4:47 AM
A lot has been said, and I may add this:
We did not declare war on Islam, Bin Laden attacked the US and called on all Muslims to wage war until the west is destroyed. Many followed his call...
We are not at war with 'billions'. At present there are perhaps 16 million muslims in Europe, in the US probably less.Wherever they are, they have overstayed their welcome and caused plenty of trouble. Minorities in Muslim countries live in fear for their lives and are humiliated on a daily basis.
Throughout history there have been purges and forced conversions of whole populations, and Islam has shown how it is done without leaving any traces of the previous culture.
China declared the Falun Gong a 'subversive cult' and effectively got rid of them.
Germany outlawed the 'church of scientology' for it left many people destitute and with mental problems. It was declared a dangerous cult.
Islam has a clear agenda based on conquest, terror and murder. The Qu'ran is a guide book to terror and calls the believers to kill infidels and Jews on nearly every page.
I have a problem with that. When my son asks me 'why do they hate us so much'- then I tell him it is OK to hate them for what they do. It is good to hate those who want to kill us and it is wise to be on guard. We have to learn how to hate without feeling guilty. We have to learn how to kill those who are coming to cut our heads off.
With some luck with will see that this cult is outlawed in all civilized countries and those who do not integrate into a secular society should be stripped of citizenship and dumped in desert countries where they can chop each other to pieces.
If we don't stand for something, we will fall for everything.For more than 1000 years the West has faught against Islam, we got them out of Spain, we beat them before they could take Vienna, and we got them out of East Timor.
If Israel is attacked, they will be beaten again. And I'll be there to defend her to my last breath!
at February 8, 2005 4:59 AM
You bring up good points, Leelion.
I agree with you that much of the rage directed at Islam is probably fueled by fear.
I, too, think the shit is going to hit the fan soon, now that practically any joe-shmoe can cheaply build a dirty bomb.
I suspect that much of the problem is that we never used to have to fear radicals in these poor under-developed countries before. After all, what were they going to do, throw rocks at us across the ocean? So we treated them like shit, for our own gain, because we could get away with it. We supported horrible dictators. We sold weapons. We played war games with the communists, across their country-sides. We meddled over oil. We launched an Iraq war whose only decisive motivations were Pro-American and Pro-Western. And then we had the audacity to play it off like we did it to free the Iraqi people. [Yeah, just like we were so intent on liberating Rwandans, right...?]
I suspect the radicals over there have hated us all along--perhaps due to a mixture of just cause as well as envy. And now, technology has made it possible for the radicals to kill us by the thousands [millions?], probably for less than a dollar a head.
We should be afraid, and moreso when websites, like this one, make it look like we all hate Islam. People here keep telling me there is a horrible hungry beast out there, and then those same people incessantly poke at it with a stick.
It's almost like they're *trying* to get us all killed.
Posted by: mathandhumanity at February 8, 2005 5:25 AM
Simon, you ask,
"where exactly do you draw the line between islamophobia and critical thinking about Islam?"
I draw the line when people make blanket statements about Islam. It's fallacious to quote stuff from particular passages of the koran, and point to actions by certain radicals, and cite laws passed by extreme Islamic Fundamentalist governments, and then make a statement about ALL of Islam and all muslims.
Even Robert Spencer quietly aknowledges this, if you read his statements carefully. He essentially says that the radicals are the bad guys, while the [majority] moderate muslims are guilty of not doing anything about it. Of course, he doesn't really forgive the moderates either, though. [By the way, if you buy into that line of thinking, then since Israel and USA are on the same side, every American is partially responsible for the atrocities that Sharon has committed throughout his infamous career.]
Posted by: mathandhumanity at February 8, 2005 5:48 AM
No I beleive that we should be more afraid of WHY islam is in America...I never really was until I read the comments of CAIR officials (these are people that represent muslims in the US) those comments are more frighteneing than any suitcase bomb...yes a bomb would cause destruction but survivors would be able to pick up and go on eventually....if CAIR comes through with what they want (and since they represent US muslims, I have to assume they want this also since I have heard nothing to the contrary) there will be no picking up and going on....CAIR wants the US constitution replaced by islamic law, that concerns me more than any bomb, or plane, or act of terror. What I cannot understand is that CAIR is spelling out what their goal is (remember that islam is not in America to be equal to any religion but to reign supreme) they are not even trying to hide it....that says either they have nothing else to do and every day for them is April 1...or they realize that most of America is too soundly asleep and too taken by the "religion of peace" and too afraid to speak their minds and worried about being PC that they CAN spell out what their goal is, so if and when that goal is ever realized they will be able to smugly tell Americans "we told you so"
Posted by: USAgirl at February 8, 2005 5:54 AM
mathandhumanity, I am scared, but when you look at Islam in detail it really begins to sink in how extreme it is as an ideology.
We can stick our heads in the sand and hope for the best, but its not an option, we must try to do something that does not result in total war and another holocaust.
In another of my posts I re-acted to the possibility that they will carry out some outrage in the UK, part of me almost wanted it as it would wake up people from their slumber, but if it does happen I fear it, we will become extreme fighting extremism and in doing so lose what we are.
True in the past we made mistakes, but we were fighting another war, the Cold War... and that had to be won too.
Posted by: Daffersd at February 8, 2005 5:57 AM
well mathandhumanity, as my mother used to say "it's a funny old world". we all have our bias' and opinions, and we all like to be "right", and to feel that what we think is how things really are, "the truth" if you will.
I don't have all the answers. Who does? We find ourselves born into this world at a certain time and place, none of our choosing, spinning around on this planet we call earth through an ever expanding universe... I guess I love life and I just hope we don't blow ourselves up.
I like individualism and the relative freedoms of western countries. I hate being dictated to. But i also realize that these freedoms are relatively recent and rare in recorded human history.
I hope we can agree to agree, and disagree.
Sites like Dhimmi Watch are great for sharing ideas and debate. The important thing is to keep up civil dialogue - we can all learn new things from each other, regardless of background. Don't mean to sound P.C but that's how it is for me.
Posted by: leelion at February 8, 2005 5:59 AM
@mathandhumanity
>I draw the line when people make blanket statements about Islam. It's fallacious to quote stuff from particular passages of the koran, and point to actions by certain radicals, and cite laws passed by extreme Islamic Fundamentalist governments, and then make a statement about ALL of Islam and all muslims.
According to your definition of islamophobia none of the persons on Prof. Safi's list qualifies as an islamophobe. Robert Spencer has stated again and again that he is not anti-islamic but antiislamist. So have Daniel Pipes, Stephen Schwartz (himself a Muslim), Niall Ferguson etc.
If Prof. Safi's work doesn't meet your criteria, why do you still support his argumentation?
Anyway, criticism of all Muslims is legitimate in some cases. The idea e.g. that the Qur'an is the word of Allah is shared by virtually all Muslims. As long as the refutation of views held by all Muslims is done in a rational way, it is perfectly legitimate.
Posted by: Simon at February 8, 2005 6:18 AM
Simon,
I never said R. Spencer was an islamophobe. Nor did I ever say I agreed with exactly what Safi was saying.
However, I am very confident that many people here ARE islamophobes, and that is why they have flocked to this site. And, for better or worse, Robert Spencer is knowingly feeding them.
Posted by: mathandhumanity at February 8, 2005 6:30 AM
Responding to your last post, True that, lee. True that.
I think I'm going to travel on to the next site now--to discuss, argue, and learn. But Look out...I might come back wanting everybody in the world to hold hands, AND do sing-alongs!!
Remember Christ,
Remember MLK jr,
Remember Gandhi.
at February 8, 2005 6:32 AM
Dear mathandhumanity,
you chose a quite bombastic nick, "Math" and "Humanity"...which would implicate that you are quite sophisticated (I dare to doubt that you know something about Riemann integrals or the Hilbert space) and a very noble and staunch moralist as well.
You should be ashamed for what you do:
Robert Spencer is only one among many who risk their lives for what they say, yet you dare to come to this side and call HIM "hater".
You seem neither to have the guts nor the brains to go to sites where the exponents of the "religion of peace" are discussing whether they should cut a man's head with a short knife or a long one.
Posted by: nippon at February 8, 2005 6:47 AM
I'm a PhD math student at UC Berkeley, nip. I could tell you about Hilbert spaces, Riemann integrals, (or Lebegue integrals, if you prefer), and manifolds, cohomology, and sheaf theory, if you'd like. But my true love, anyway, is combinatorics and complexity theory.
Hate and the instigation thereof are wrong. I don't play favorites--I don't care which side the hate is on. We all seem to be in agreement that it's spewing out of certain mosques, and that that's bad. And y'all seem to be doing just fine, spreading the word about radical Islam. I'm just making sure that we ARE, in fact, trying to minimize ill-will in the end. On both sides. Peoples' opinions displayed here reflect on ME, as an American and a Westerner. Perhaps it is the spewers of hate-speech here who should feel ashamed about that.
But at any rate, it is time for me to move on. I'll be back, maybe in a month or two.
Posted by: mathandhumanity at February 8, 2005 7:11 AM
So, then tell me, please:
Are you discussing with Jihadists, Salafi, Naqshbandi etc. on the net? Do you visit these sites?
If you don't you are not qualified enough to call us HATERS.
Posted by: nippon at February 8, 2005 7:29 AM
Mathandhumanity,
Before you drift off into higher maths, lets hear more about your response to the excellent post by Pythagoras above. Your entrance speech was all about failure of this bunch of "islamophobes" to balance equivalent evil acts - what about Ruanda, you cry!
Pythogoras has a story which might be true. Don't know, have not heard this one. But since you rested your case on this, have to say your case is going south until you give us some counter-intelligence on the affair.
So, about Ruanda?
Posted by: Sam Roony at February 8, 2005 8:14 AM
So 'mathandhumanity' attends dear old UC Bezerkley. 'Nuff said about his logical thought processes.
Posted by: Rick at February 8, 2005 8:22 AM
Don't be fooled: "mathandhumanity" is a muslim posing as a non-muslim.
Check the rhetoric. He utilizes their standard (and by now nauseatingly familiar) arguments and taqiyya. I'll grant that he/she is a more adept poser than most we've had here, but JWers/DWers should be able to spot 'em better by now.
Posted by: CGW at February 8, 2005 8:29 AM
After sleeping on this thread (it was a little uncomfortable, but I am nothing if not a trooper) I found myself with several thoughts about the good professor:
1. Making fun of a professor at Colgage is like kicking a cripple. One should be kinder to life's losers than I was last night.
2. The professor is used to being the big fish in the small pond of his classroom- not even a big fish at his college, but among the handful of young people in his power. No wonder he reacted so strongly to being criticized.
3. None of my children shall ever go to Colgate University on my nickel, and it is a shame that my tax money is being used to secure the loans that kids take out for college these days. (Tuition: $31,230 for 2004-2005)
4. When I stop and think for a few minutes about the actual victims of radical Islam, the idea that a self satisfied toad would spit on those victims and smear those who confront that ideology as "islamaphobes" makes me sick. I suppose in an earlier day the good professor would have smeared those who criticized Hitler as "Germaphobes."
Let the professor's hapless students spend a few years in Saudi Arabia, or Northern Pakistan, or Iran. Let them live where they could be flogged for an illicit Budweiser, killed for illicit sex, punished for listening to music, and forbidden to celebrate infidel customs such as our upcoming Valentines Day. Then they'd have an education.
at February 8, 2005 11:01 AM
CGW, mathandhumanity has been here before and I always assumed he is a muslim. I can't think of what thread you can find him on, but he's been here before.
Posted by: Carolyn2 at February 8, 2005 1:28 PM
You can find contributors here by googling "name jihadwatch."
Mathandhumanity comes up with the same tired poses each time. If you find someone like that you can check to see the history of their posts, and from there, one hopes, refuse to respond to them further. As usual, the sanctimony is thick, and the pose is only for the audience at the cocktail party later where these people brag about how they spent the day slaying racist dragons. I do believe we're all better off to skip past these people and carry on with discusions that are of some value to the majority rather than to simply indulge the vanity of posers like mathandhumanity.
Posted by: sonofwalker at February 8, 2005 3:25 PM
Sam Rooney asks about Rwanda, and pythagoras's "account" of it.
I have never heard anything close to what pythagoras said about Rwanda genocide being a Jihad.
Everything I have read--and I get my news from a variety of sources, including BBC, Fox News online, as well as NY times--indicates that the Rwanda affair was not about religion. It was the sad familiar story about politics and clashing cultures vying for power. The Rwandan population comprises too main ethnic groups, Hutus and Tutsis. The Hutus outnumbered the Tutsis, but strangely, throughout history the royal ruling class was Tutsi. Eventually the Tutsi royals were overthrown, and more modern forms of government were established, primarily Hutu. Tensions were high, understandably, ever since.
At the time, less than 10% of Rwanda was muslim. In fact, if you read about Rwanda, you will learn that they have been the most Christian (and Catholic, in particular) African nation. I forget which European country snatched them up, during the race to claim all of Africa.
There is only one confirmed connection I have heard about, between religion and the genocide, and it is this. But before I tell you about it, remember, like I said, Hutus did not carry out this genocide for religious reasons.
Many Hutus, including religious ones, participated in the slaughter. In fact, to be fair, it was widely reported that reluctants were forced to particpate on threat of death. There were (perhaps isolated) incidents where catholic nuns and other church officials murdered the Tutsis who trusted them. In fact, sometimes Tutsis and Hutu moderates were lured into the churches, and then locked in and slaughtered, like farm cattle. A couple of these churches have actually been transformed into memorials for the people who were chopped up in their place of prayer, murdered by the very people they once prayed along side.
After the genocide, many Rwandans became disenchanted with the catholics and protestants. The once less than ten percent of Rwandan muslims has now doubled, to fifteen percent, from the mid 90's to present.
And, immediately after the genocide, there was a "spiritual struggle" underway, which the Rwandan muslims appropriately called "Jihad." Their spiritual struggle was to move on, and heal, after seeing so many of their loved ones and neighbors chopped to pieces.
Maybe that's the grain of truth in pyth's wild story. Or maybe someone just made it up and s/he heard about it.
I keep saying "chopped up" because the government actually distributed weapons, primarily machetes. They also distributed liquor. There was about one weapon for every three males. The government mouthpiece radio station continually blared encouragement for the genocide, and hate-speech against the Tutsis. America was begged to block the station in the midst of the violence, but refused. However, after the genocide was over, America and others did help out in the relief effort.
at February 8, 2005 4:06 PM
mathandhumanity writes:
I'm a PhD math student at UC Berkeley, nip. I could tell you about Hilbert spaces, Riemann integrals, (or Lebegue integrals, if you prefer), and manifolds, cohomology, and sheaf theory, if you'd like. But my true love, anyway, is combinatorics and complexity theory.
You are so impressive! So why didn't you call yourself combinatoricsandcomplexity instead? Perhaps you were worried that we mere mortals wouldn't get it.
Posted by: Infidel at February 8, 2005 5:18 PM
Mathandhumanity,
You say at the opening of your reply:-
"I have never heard anything close to what pythagoras said about Rwanda genocide being a Jihad"
But you go a long way to direct contradiction, saying towards the end:-
"And, immediately after the genocide, there was a "spiritual struggle" underway, which the Rwandan muslims appropriately called "Jihad.""
So, lets see: "no" to jihad ex ante, but "yes" to jihad ex post. And moreover - ex post - it was "appropriately" called jihad.
Seems to me you have gone quite a way towards validation of Pythagoras' cause-of-war theorem. And even further towards your self-exposure as a muslim troll. QED, as they say - in the best academic circles.
at February 8, 2005 6:15 PM
Hi All,
Just a brief comment. Math and humanity appears to be a troll. Probably it would be best to simply ignore him/her because replying to such nonsense seems a real waste of time that could be put to better use.
at February 8, 2005 7:38 PM
Sam Roony, I regret wasting my time telling you the story of Rwanda. You claimed to want to know the story, but it seems all you really wanted were more words to twist.
Let me summarize, since your reading comprehension is now questionable:
1) Rwandan Genocide was NOT a "violent Jihad" carried out by radical islamists.
2) The genocide did not really have religious motivations.
3) The only religious people who DID participate in the butchery were primarily catholics and protestants. (But re-read #2 above)
4) Muslims were only about 8% of population, until after genocide ended.
5) The Rwandan Muslims call their healing and mourning process a "jihad" because the word means spiritual struggle.
There is no contradiction, except yours. Re-read, and re-think, man.
You say I am a muslim troll? I recently went after a Palestinian extremist "scholar," who gave a "research presentation" entitled something like "Israel's Slave Trade". She was out of llne, just like many of the people here.
I bet she thinks I'm a right-wing christian or jewish troll. How ironic.
Posted by: mathandhumanity at February 8, 2005 7:43 PM
OK now i'm really leaving for a couple months...i've literally spent over an entire day aruging here non-stop. But I'll be back, more liberal than ever!
[Please, in the future, label me properly, "flaming berkeley lib" instead of "muslim troll"]
Remember Christ,
Remember MLK jr,
Remember Gandhi.
at February 8, 2005 7:56 PM
Mathandhumanity, I do remember Ghandi as he was dealing with the British, if he was dealing with Islam he would have been chopped as soon as he openned his mouth...
As a Brit I have total respect for Ghandi, and Mandela is an incredible person. I much prefer their methods, however these methods only work if the other side is prepared to listen and be reasonable, enough said on that matter I think.
I did not take you for a troll and its good to hear your views, because people like me were liberal and have now found out that we have let something in that may destroy our liberal society and that makes me quite worried.
Posted by: Daffersd at February 9, 2005 5:44 AM
Mathanhumanity,
The giveaway is use of language. You were very precise about the legitimacy of the the "jihad" label for events post April 1994. Who but a muslim would pay attention to a matter of doctrinal terminology?
And you conspicously distance yourself from the actions of (liberal Clinton) "America". You shift your country of residence to the third person. And the first person is - you and the ummah? Who else is it?
Posted by: Sam Roony at February 9, 2005 6:42 AM
Sam Roony, you should read all the posts here on this thread, before you give such purported evidence that I am a "troll."
At the end of this message is an excerpt from my response to leelion above. As you will see, I do not refer to America in the third person. I keep saying "We," meaning "We Americans." This is my country, although many people here would probably like to kick me out of it. I am a what the ditto-heads would probably call a berkeley "flaming lib". Yes, I know about ditto-heads. My dad is one. He was also a US Marine...he reached the rank of major, but he got passed over for promotion to leutenant colonel three times, and was forced to retire after 20 years because that's how the rules go in marines--you gotta move "up or out", as they say. Run this by any marine, and they will tell you either my dad was a marine, or I am the best fucking muslim "troll" insider ever.
And run this by any of your military friends too. My military dependent ID card is orange. My dad's military ID was green. My military dependent ID card has both my social security number AND my dad's SSN on it as well--very peculiar for an id.
Like I said, I'm leaving...I have homework and studying backed up that I need to get back to. But I will be back, eventually.
Remember Christ,
Remember MLK jr,
Remember Gandhi.
----------------
I, too, think the shit is going to hit the fan soon, now that practically any joe-shmoe can cheaply build a dirty bomb.
I suspect that much of the problem is that we never used to have to fear radicals in these poor under-developed countries before. After all, what were they going to do, throw rocks at us across the ocean? So we treated them like shit, for our own gain, because we could get away with it. We supported horrible dictators. We sold weapons. We played war games with the communists, across their country-sides. We meddled over oil. We launched an Iraq war whose only decisive motivations were Pro-American and Pro-Western. And then we had the audacity to play it off like we did it to free the Iraqi people. [Yeah, just like we were so intent on liberating Rwandans, right...?]
(Quoted from earlier post in this thread)
Posted by: mathandhumanity at February 10, 2005 5:41 AM
Yeah, it's ALL our fault. Like we haven't heard that one a million times from self-proclaimed deep thinkers.
at February 11, 2005 12:38 PM
mathandhumanity,
Did they tell you in school that there is no such thing as right and wrong? Did they tell you that everyones' opinion is just a relativistic snapshot of perceptions based upon flawed and incomplete inculturation. Did they tell you that anyones' opinion is no more or less valid than anyone elses' opinion?
Have you applied these rules to your own thoughts, or (like they) only to the people with whom you disagree?
They were operating on a flawed and incomplete theory, and they were wrong.
And so are you.
The ideas and opinions of those who are often right are more valuable than the opinions of those who are often wrong. This is true in general and in specific context, on both the individual and cultural levels.
While it is unfortunately true that bad things have been done by Christians and in the name of Christianity, there is something very important that arguments such as yours too often overlook...
Bad Christians hurt the neighbors inspite of their book, while bad Muslims do NOT hurt the neighbors inspite of their book.
As to your charge of islamophobia, islamophobia is defined as "an irrational fear...". I am afraid that no matter how great a fear one might entertain of the xenophobic, misogynistic, homophobic, imperialistic head choppers, it could never rise to the level of irrationality.
Posted by: Joseph of Carpentry at February 11, 2005 2:02 PM
Joseph,
Hate begets more hate. When moderate muslims read the epithets and hate-speech on this site, many of them are pushed further into the arms of the radicals. This website could very well be doing more harm than good.
A fear directed against all of Islam--and all muslims--IS irrational. Yet I know many people here harbor that kind of blanket hate and fear. You yourself, by poo-pooing Islamophobia, are tacitly stating that mainstream Islam must be no different than radical militant Islam.
Carefully read Robert Spencer's writings, Joseph. Shame on him for not screaming it from the mountain tops, but Spencer DOES quietly aknowledge there is a huge difference between mainstream Islam and the radical militant kind. I just wish he would unambiguously tell that to the people here--again and again and again--to help curb the hate he is (inadvertently?) cultivating among the masses.
I do believe in right and wrong sir. I dislike relativism perhaps even more than you do. I'm the scariest type of "Liberal" you'll ever meet. I actually like many aspects of the Christian religion; I think Jesus is the greatest moral philosopher and philanthropist who ever lived. And if people here profess his religion, I'm going to hold them up to the standard.
If the polarizing hate-speech on this website stopped, I am sure that there would be less hate on both sides, if only a little less.
As a white American, I cannot make a dent in the hatred spewing from certain radical Islamic groups. They won't listen to me, any more than the people here would EVER listen to a muslim. The pressure on the extremist Islamic groups must come from the inside, from people like me--except who happen to be Arab muslims instead of white Americans.
So long as this hate monolith stands, reflecting on me and my great country America, I will not be silenced. Until the epithets and blanket statements about Islam stop, I am going to keep presenting the opposing point of view. Call it a cyber sit-in.
Remember Christ,
Remember MLK jr,
Remember Gandhi.
at February 12, 2005 7:53 PM
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Dhimmi Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)