Dhimmi Watch: Dhimmitude at the Christian Science Monitor: Islam not only religion marred by violence

May 26, 2005

Dhimmitude at the Christian Science Monitor: Islam not only religion marred by violence

Tom Regan in the Christian Science Monitor Blog (thanks to DC Watson) takes issue with Jeff Jacoby's Qur'an flushing column, which was remarkably similar to mine, and engages in an extended exercise of the theological equivalence that I have argued against for several years now, and which I believe interferes with effective resistance to the jihad.

Last week conservative columnist Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe looked at this "dark side of the force" as he saw it manifested in recent events. Jacoby asked an important question: why are we so upset with reports that Newsweek printed a short piece about the desecration of the Koran at Guantanamo, but not at the reaction in Afghanistan that led to the deaths of at least 16 people?...
But then Jacoby writes that this kind of reaction to a perceived slight is one reason why Muslims are so disrespected in the West - violence, it seems to Jacoby, is second nature to Muslims and to Islam, but not to other religions.

Christians, Jews, and Buddhists don't lash out in homicidal rage when their religion is insulted. They don't call for holy war and riot in the streets. It would be unthinkable for a mainstream priest, rabbi, or lama to demand that a blasphemer be slain.

The above paragraph makes an interesting point. There's only one problem with it - it's wrong.

Christians, Jews, and Buddhists don't "lash out in homicidal rage when their religion is insulted"? Would that it were so.

Unfortunately, even a cursury scan of the headlines from the past few years, or even this past week, shows how wrong it is.

Shall we talk about the religious leaders in Israel who have threatened violence and riots, and perhaps worse, to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his supporters, if he goes ahead with his disengagement plan?

Bait and Switch Alert: I thought we were going to get examples of Christians, Jews, and Buddhists lashing out in homicidal rage when their religion was insulted. And the first one Regan offers is a political matter: Jews protesting against Sharon's disengagement plan. In what way is their religion insulted by this? Did Sharon flush a Torah? Of course not. They are angered because they think his plan threatens Israel's survival, not because they think Sharon has insulted Judaism.

These religious leaders believe they have a 'God-given right' to the Gaza (and the West Bank), and have inspired their followers with the same belief. By defending the settlements through force and threats, they are carrying out God's will.

Maybe they do. This is still a red herring. They are defending land, not lashing out at those who don't share their religous point of view. "God gave us this land and we will defend it" still doesn't equal "We will murder innocent people because some other people insulted our holy book half a world away."

Let's not forget that one Israeli leader has already died at the hands of a Jewish religious zealot, who believed in 1995 that there was "a religious commandment" to kill Yitzhak Rabin.

One. He said, "one." He said "one" and expects to be taken seriously. You still have him, and only him, versus thousands of Islamic jihadists who have committed innumerable murders around the world in the name of Islam.

No Christian violence? Ignoring the whole decades-long situation in Northern Ireland, there are many other examples.

"I won't mention Northern Ireland," he said, casually mentioning Northern Ireland. And a good thing he didn't mention it, as it is another weak argument. The war in Northern Ireland was over political power in Ireland. The participants were fighting over land and political power, not killing innocents over a perceived slight to their religion.

It was Christian militias who murdered hundreds of people in the Lebanese refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila in 1982, and it was Serbian Christians who murdered 20,000 Muslims in 1995.

And did these Christian militias commit these murders because Christianity had been insulted? No. Both conflicts were again political, not religious.

The Associated Press reports that "Members of the Pentecostal religious community in the former Soviet republic of Georgia have been harassed and beaten this month" by members of the the country's dominant Orthodox Christian faith. The attacks, the report noted, had been taking place for years.

Did the Pentecostals flush an icon? The question here is not whether or not Christians commit violence. Of course they do. Human nature is everywhere the same. The question Regan is doing his best to obfuscate is whether or not Islam as an ideology exhorts people to violence. Manifestly it does, and violence committed by members of other religious traditions does nothing to mitigate that fact: Islam is unique among world religions in having a developed doctrine mandating violence against unbelievers. This has spawned in our day a global network of Muslims dedicated to jihad. Are these Orthodox Christians targeting Pentecostals worldwide? Of course not. It is a local dispute. Until the Muslim and non-Muslim world are ready to acknowledge the role of Islam in inspiring people to violence, that violence will continue on a global scale.

The recent Terri Schiavo controversy is chock-a-block with incidents where Christian religious leaders encouraged their followers to react in a manner that was often violent. Michael Schiavo and his family, as well as the Republican judge who ruled against Terri's family, have all received numerous death threats from Christians.
Schiavo himself is still in hiding, after being "Salman Rushdie'd" by the religious right in America.

And we all know how Republican House leader Tom DeLay made a not-so-veiled threat that these judges would get what was coming to them. He later said he "regretted the remark but not the sentiment." And there have been similar provocative remarks by other Christian right leaders.

Numerous people on the side of Terri Schiavo pleaded against violence. And in fact, no violence occurred: just a few people crossing police lines with glasses of water. No one, except Terri Schiavo, died. No Christian Church has endorsed or called for violence against Michael Schiavo, and I challenge Regan to come up with one. On the other hand, calls for violence against unbelievers are so common in mosques that the world yawns: they aren't even reported as news.

And what about Christian preachers who say, quite publicly, it's OK to kill abortion providers or the people who work for them?

Names, please? The murder of abortionists has been condemned by all mainstream Christian traditions. Where are the mainstream Muslim traditions that condemn jihad violence? The Free Muslims March Against Terror drew 50 people. Fifty. Why?

And Buddism? Many in North American see Buddhism personified in the presence of the Dalai Lama. But in Buddhist countries like Sri Lanka, and Thailand, violence against religious minorities is a serious problem.

Look again at Thailand. Search the archives here. The violence is coming from Islamic jihadists, not Buddhists.

In Sri Lanka, thousands of people have died in clashed between the Tamil Tigers, who are Hindu, and the Buddhist government. Catholic churches have been attacked as well. And the Thai government has come under heavy criticism for its treatment of its Muslim minority.

Mmm-hmm. Once again, except for the jihad in Thailand, these are political disputes that have nothing whatsoever to do with innocent people being killed because of a perceived slight to a religion.

And let us not forget Arum Shinrikyo, the Buddhist-inspired Japanese cult that carried out one of the worst acts of pre-9/11 terrorism the world had seen.

OK. Let's not forget them. When they start operating in countries around the world, exhorting their followers to violence by the millions, get back to me.

I could give you countless other examples of religious violence of the kind Jacoby ascribes to the Muslim world being committed by non-Muslim religious groups. But for me, the more important question is why is there religious violence at all....
And while it's right to decry any violence in the name of religion, as Jacoby did, it's wrong to say only one religion has a problem in that way. To do otherwise only serves to prevent us from stopping all religious violence, and keeps us from focusing on the messages of hope, justice and meaning that all religions contain at their cores.

No, it is not true that only Muslims commit violence. It would be silly to affirm that. But Regan's analysis only serves to prevent us from acting against Islamic jihad terrorism, as we divert our energies to fighting chimerical Christian Identity types or chasing Buddhist shadows.

Our need to consider this is not just Judeo-Christian boosterism, a chant of "Yea, team! The West is Best!" The nature of jihad violence has serious consequences for the Bush policy of attempting to destabilize terrorism by establishing democracies across the Middle East. It shows how difficult it will be to export the live-and-let-live attitude necessary to make for a society that enacts the will of the majority while protecting the rights of the minority. Thomas Jefferson said: "If my neighbor believes in one god, or twenty, is of no concern to me, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." But is that exportable as a political credo to societies in which the legal tradition includes death for blasphemy and apostasy?

All religions are not the same, and do not have the same capacity to inspire violence. As un-PC as that is, it is the truth. It must be faced. Regan reflects conventional PC wisdom, to be sure -- views that are held across the spectrum, from the New York Times to National Review -- and until this wisdom is seen for the hollow and deceptive thing it is, we are all that much more vulnerable.

Posted by Robert at May 26, 2005 8:44 AM
Print this entry | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us

Comments
(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.)

Bravo, Mr. Spencer! Excellent rebuttal.

But it's really frightening that someone, to begin with, can write up such ratrap as was published in the CSM. Really frightening!

Posted by: Shy Guy

at May 26, 2005 9:55 AM

Once upon a time, the Monitor enjoyed an excellent rep for unbiased reportage, but then so did a whole lot of other media outlets that have since shown amazing bias.

Posted by: waterdragon52

at May 26, 2005 10:16 AM

Robert:

In the political thought of Christendom, there's a powerful tradition that speaks of "right of resistence" to tyranny--especially if led by a lesser magistrate. It was common to Jesuits and Reformed, with the Lutheran city of Magdeburg penning something close enough to it back in the 16th century. It's one reason why Great Britain and the Netherlands have constituional monarchies. Echoes of it appear as well in many of the sermons preached throughout the colonies in the 1770's-'80's.

As an Evangelical and a Presbyterian, I freely admit that some of my brethren are involved in political violence in Northern Ireland and against abortion providers--and do not approve. I note the case of Paul Hill, who gave himself up after shooting an abortionist, and who ended up executed in Florida for it. (For the record, while I utterly despise the abortion industry and its PR shills and hold that Roe v. Wade is a travesty, I also believe that it is not the prerogative of the private citizen to take vengeance while the possibility of persuasion and changing the law remains).

Also, all religions (including "humanism" falsely so-called, scientism, positivism, Marxism, and various non-theisms) have an intensely political aspect. After all, they're associations of people, and politics is nothing but how associations work or fail to work.

To those who will not recognize the Buddhist element in the Boxers of China, the Sri Lankan crisis, and the trouble in Myanmar, I reply that the Boxers included appeals to the coming Maitreya (Mi Le Fo) in their propaganda, the Tanils of Sri Lanka listened to Marxists because the Sinhala Buddhist majority was pressing for dominance, and the Burmese generals long privileged Theravada Buddhism, and sometimes couched their campaigns in terms of saving Buddhist Burma from Christian proselytizing.

Also, in periods of time when order broke down in the borderlands of Tibet and China (the province of Qinghai, SW Gansu, W. Sichuan, and NW Yunnan) you can bet the farm that the Lama Buddhist Tibetans and Muslim Hui will be at each other's throats over identity issues.

And, I have made the point before that the secular idols of the 20th century have proven to be the most violent spillers of human blood in history.

I am the first to admit that the foundational texts of Islam (Qur'an and Hadith) reveal a clearer warrant for violence and less warrant for keeping peace than many another set of foundational texts. Also, I freely recognize that there is something deeply wrong with Islam, and at the present time, it is the religious culture that is clearly "on the boil". But I'm also of the mind that we fallen and sinful descendants of Adam the First have it in our nature to go to war over just about anything.

Posted by: Kepha

at May 26, 2005 10:22 AM

Funny how Tom Regan didn't mention the Christian Science Monitor itself. Here's a newspaper which has for years run column after column bashing Israel. Why, one might conclude that their fixation on the evils of Israel borders on the antisemitic. But Jew-bashing has always been acceptable to the folks who write and produce the Chrisitan Science Monitior.

Posted by: MJ

at May 26, 2005 10:44 AM

I've very little knowledge on Lankan conflict but it is certainly NOT BETWEEN HINDUS AND BUDDHISTS. It is btwn TAMILS AND SINHALESE.

Posted by: Vikrant_Camberleykar

at May 26, 2005 11:10 AM

What a freeking idiot! Why do so many people willfully deny the obvious?

Posted by: Dumbo

at May 26, 2005 11:12 AM

I know this is an urelated post but its so incredible :
"A Toddler Accused of Adultery in Bangladesh"

Posted by: Vikrant_Camberleykar

at May 26, 2005 11:58 AM

The central problem here is the widespread and persistent unwillingness to distinguish between the deeds of isolated persons, whose crimes are in no way condoned nor encouraged by their religions, and the deeds of persons who are anything but isolated -- who share a single faith that literally sends them out searching for "infidel" blood to spill.

If Islam were shorn of its explicitly theological component -- in the technical jargon, its "mythos" -- it would resemble Nazism in too many ways to list. No decent man would tolerate it for an instant. Thus, we are shown that there's a "practical use" for a religious cover, if one wants to dissemble about one's intentions toward one's enemies.

Posted by: Francis W. Porretto

at May 26, 2005 12:18 PM

People who call themselves Christians have commited many violent crimes, but most did not do it because of Christianity, they did it in spite of it. Christ instructs to love your enemies, not kill them. Mohammad/Allah/Quran, instructs to kill the enemy, designated as anyone with different religious ideologies.(Opposers of Allah).
You cannot claim you love your enemies while beheading them...Christians who kill or attack for any reason other than legitimate self defense are in grievous error. If you want to kill or attack people for religious ideology, convert and become a muslim...they are experts at it... Allah knows best...

Posted by: duh_swami

at May 26, 2005 12:58 PM

Welcome to the dictatorship of relativism.
You are required to accept that all relgions are alike. Who are you gonna trust: the Christian Science Moniter or your own lyin' eyes?

Posted by: 40

at May 26, 2005 12:59 PM

Surprised he didn't use the exmaple of "Christian" Timothy McVeigh as another one of his false examples.

Posted by: emperor_diocletian

at May 26, 2005 1:51 PM

Christian Science is niether.

Christian Science was founded by Mary Baker Eddie. She had a enlightenment of a angel that came to her and she created a religion. She has her own book that must be used as "keys" to unlock or translate the Bible. According the Mary Baker Eddie the Bible is not to be taken literally.

According to Mary Baker Eddie all of us are gods that have the ability to heal. Jesus was no differant than any human, He just remembered how to heal and we have forgotten our way.

When reading the Bible then going to Mary Baker Eddies book, she creates story that is way off of the Bible.

They don't believe in prophicy, Isreals place, Jesus the Messiah, the Holy Spirit, etc. they believe that we are all gods. That is it.

Mary Baker Eddie is held in higher regard than Jesus in their church. You can question Jesus, but don't you dare question Mary Baker Eddie.

Mary Baker Eddie died after being married and divorced 5 times. She died crazy, having to be rocked to sleep each night by her last husband in a large adult size cradle.

The Christian Science college Principia in Missouri is nothing but a liberal school. On campus you bash everything conservative and accept everything liberal. Both the church, college and their summer camps are routingly run by homosexuals and many acting pedaphiles and the Democratic party lecture circuit.

The Christian Science church loves Jimmy Carter. That kind of says it all right there.

It is another religion created by a person that was approached by a heavenly entity, came up with a new book and the human that created it is placed higher than Jesus. Although a very passive cult, their creation/or coming about is very similar to islam.

Posted by: alaskan1000

at May 26, 2005 1:58 PM

Alaskan:

Thanks for this post! What a gem!

You 're right on peanut Carter. The world seems to be full of them these days!

Posted by: Terminator

at May 26, 2005 2:41 PM

This website is clearly missing the entire point of why some violence is coming from predominately Islamic sources and this sorry "rebuttal" confirms it. Indeed, one only needs to put down their Christian trumpet in order to see the issue and fix it. Sadly, this website does nothing of the sort and perpetuates INTOLERANCE through ignorance. Ignorance is the most violent thing out there!

There are hundreds of millions of humans who practice the faith of Islam yet only a small percentage of them act violently (and effectively) in the name of their religion. Their reasons for violence stems from politics and political strife fueled by oppression, poverty and radical education that has been left unchecked. Just as the violence in Northern Ireland (Christians), the violence in Sri Lanka (Hindu v. Buddhist) and the violence within Israel. Wherever politics and religon mix bad and extreme things happen all around.

The term "Jihad" has been hijacked by a fractional number of Muslims and reformulated into a term the West has identified as violent. In fact, jihad means "personal religious strife" wherein the jihad is personal spiritual betterment. IT IS NOT STRAPPING BOMBS TO ONE'S SELF IN THE HOPES OF ACHIEVING A POLITICAL VICTORY - THAT IS TERRORISM, NOT JIHAD OR ANY OTHER MAINSTREAM RELIGIOUS VIEW.

I suggest that those who feel the need to "Jihad Watch" also watch their own backyards for sources of political strife in other parts of the world. The United States is rife with infractions and reasons that other global citizens have gotten fed up with. That gas guzzling SUV you drive may be filled with oil supplied from an oppressive regime in the Middle East - their oppression and complete lack of leadership may be fueling the "jihad" you are paranoid about. Those clothes you wear may have been sewn in a sweat shop filled with people getting tired of being poor so you can be well-dressed. That steel holding your office building up may have been produced in a nation that is tired of getting screwed so the US can have a beautiful skyline. Indeed, there are many political reasons that can be fueling global dissent and violence against Americans citizens. its not all religious.

Posted by: KingTolerance

at May 26, 2005 2:42 PM

King Tolerance, We have heard every one of your arguments time after time. Poverty has nothing to do with islamism. Jihad is NOT an internal struggle, it is warfare, ask OBL. The qur'an and islam itself is the cause of jihad, there are 164 verses calling for jihad.

Posted by: Carolyn2

at May 26, 2005 2:58 PM

Link:
http://www.angelfire.com/moon/yoelnatan/koranwarpassages.htm

Posted by: Carolyn2

at May 26, 2005 3:00 PM

King Tolerance:

Was that sarcasm? Humor? If someone hijacks your religion and you do nothing about it its their religion now. And they choose which face to show the world. I would really like to see some of these Islamic "moderates". Must be a really rare species.

Religion of Peace huh?

Posted by: Rich

at May 26, 2005 3:03 PM

Well some of our islamic friends have messed with that link, it shuts down the 'net on my computer to go there. They don't want you to know the truth.

Posted by: Carolyn2

at May 26, 2005 3:05 PM

KingTolerance...

No one blogging is going to solve the worlds problems. Sorry, it is not going to happen.

But the first step in moving away from ignorance is awareness...not tolerance. You have to be aware of what you are being tolerant of.

I would want to know if I wanted to pick up a bunny or a cobra which one I should tolerate and which one I should not.

Tolerance ends at self preservation.

When a society is a moral society we do not need to "tolerate" each other, then we get along because we are not violating each others rights.
The world is not getting more complex as most would like us to believe. It is the continued avoidance of issues that is getting more complex to "avoid".

Posted by: alaskan1000

at May 26, 2005 3:06 PM

Frenchies put Hindu God Lord Ram on shoes.. Do Hindus go on a killing frenzy? No They go to courts instead.. check this link:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1122438.cms

Posted by: Vikrant_Camberleykar

at May 26, 2005 3:52 PM

To KingTolerance: to me the word "tolerance" implies that one group defines what's "normal", and graciously allows those who differ to exist. This also implies a power differential in favor of the tolerators. The differential occasionally manifests in the dark side of tolerance -- a pogrom. As long as the tolerated "know their place", peace reigns. Let one be accused of a crime or just act "uppity" and violence is applied to the whole community until the tolerated act properly as a subjugated people. Dhimmitude is just the Moslem version of a typical human practice.

I, being a unique fun-filled tiger-striped being who bounces upon his miraculous springy tail, am fortunately free of your human ways.

Posted by: Great Omnipotent Tigger

at May 26, 2005 4:16 PM

I'd like to respond to to folks in kind:

alaskan1000 said: "It is the continued avoidance of issues that is getting more complex to "avoid"."

Response - You are exactly correct. How about becoming aware of how the world veiws America and how our policies perpetuate political strife, indignation and suffering elsewhere? Avoiding these crucial issues 'aint cutting it. When you do gain a better understanding come back and talk to me about "a society that is moral." Until then, I consider you intolerant of Islam.

Rich asked: "Was that sarcasm? Humor?"

Response: No sarcasm at all. There are many Islamic moderates, you just have to push aside your bigotry to find them!

Carolyn2 said: "Poverty has nothing to do with islamism. Jihad is NOT an internal struggle, it is warfare, ask OBL. The qur'an and islam itself is the cause of jihad, there are 164 verses calling for jihad."

Response: Poverty has everything to do with people turning to extreme behavior to solve political strife! "One man's terrorist is another's hero." Radical Islamism happens to be a potent form of this phenomenon. You need to open your mind to understand rather than subscribe to myopic, intolerant bupkus being put forth on this website.

Posted by: KingTolerance

at May 26, 2005 4:35 PM

Robert's excellent summary deserves repeating:

"All religions are not the same, and do not have the same capacity to inspire violence. As un-PC as that is, it is the truth. It must be faced. Regan reflects conventional PC wisdom, to be sure -- views that are held across the spectrum, from the New York Times to National Review -- and until this wisdom is seen for the hollow and deceptive thing it is, we are all that much more vulnerable."

And KingTolerance's execrable nonsense deserves oblivion.

Posted by: Zeno

at May 26, 2005 4:51 PM

Tom Regan isn't bright enough to do the simple math for his story. He should have added up the body count over the last 30 years or cast an eye at who is killing whom in the Sudan as he types.

It's not like "jihad" is a central dogma in the Old or New Testaments either. As the Islamic scholar Bernard Lewis observed "Islam has bloody borders."

It never ceases to amaze me that there are so many clueless Toms out there and so damn many of them are journalists. Do IQ's drop when you enter a newsroom?

Posted by: onecent

at May 26, 2005 4:59 PM

Zeno chided: "And KingTolerance's execrable nonsense deserves oblivion."

King responds - Your paranoia and selective disregard for the big picture is your own oblivion! It is much easier to cast blame on a religion than it is to dissect and see the radical minority for what they are, isn't it Zeno?

Your view is tantamount to saying:

"All Blacks are responsible for the inner city drug trade since most of the drug trade in the inner cities is perpetuated by Blacks."

Your view is just like saying:

"All Mexicans support illegal immigration since a majority of illegal immigrants are Mexican."

Your view is like saying:

Christianity is to blame for child molestation in the Catholic Church since Catholics are Christians."

Oblivion indeed!

Posted by: KingTolerance

at May 26, 2005 5:14 PM

Bet King tolerance is a US liberal...the bit about SUV's gives it away...

Posted by: duh_swami

at May 26, 2005 5:20 PM

KingTolerance....

Thank you for the reply.

Issues that are being avoided are on both sides. Tolerance is two sided. Why is a democracy critisized and a fascist ideology is not. The ideology will never be tolerant. If we as Americans changed our ways only so that others would tolerate us would not be acceptable to me. So tolerance must be on two sides. But tolerance cannot be confused with compromize. What I read in your postings is compromize.

I do not like the world view when we (Amercians) do something stupid. But we do not live in a utopia, we will make mistakes and strive to be better. A society should not be defined by its mistakes, it should be defined by its progress and intentions.

Take the "Cold War". Should we have been tolerant of communism? the lack of civil rights?

Are you against civil rights? Would'nt the muslim world be better for having civil rights? or are we not tolerant for wanting a country to have civil rights?

There will always be two sides to every view or opinion. This you and I can agree on. But which side is trying to do right, even if making mistakes.

The human race does not like the person or people that are on top. So, we will have to accept that we will not be liked no matter what we do. But have you ever noticed that it is the countries that we are tolerant of and we try helping out, money, aid, education, military support, peace corps, medical....it is these countries that don't like us and have the worst view of us than any others. The moral of the story is don't give hand outs because the reciever will view you with discontent. So why are we being accused of not being tolerant of the countries that we are helping?

You are right, I am intolerant of islam. As nazisim, islam, communism...any people that oppress their societies and keeps the majority uneducated I do not tolerate. As a human I would tolerate the people, but not the ideology that is between their ears.

Posted by: alaskan1000

at May 26, 2005 5:27 PM

First off, the CSM is talking bollocks and is unable to distinguish between legitimate political struggle and the ongoing jihad as RS pointed out. Northern Ireland, I nearly laughed. Sure there is sectarian violence between the catholics and proddies but at the root it is really about who is loyal to the crown and the foaming at the mouth Rev (ha ha) Ian Paisley is plenty able to drag religion into the battle.

KingofTolerance puts his cards on the table but clearly relies on his wishful thinking (and assumptions about JW) rather than the facts.

Posted by: ReligionOfPeaceMyArse

at May 26, 2005 5:36 PM

Tolerance of the intolerant is suicide. Should one have tolerated the Nazis?

The koran on which islam is based, is shockingly intolerant of all non-muslims and has nothing but death or dhimmitude, as realistic choices for the non-muslim. In creed and above all in practice, islam resembles, if not surpasses Nazism. The fact that many muslims are peaceful, is despite the koran. However, if the issue was forced, they will, more often then not, side with the teachings of the koran. It is for this reason that significant numbers of moderate muslims cannot be found. As a consequence, they, that is, moderate muslims are irrelevant to the debate on this site. Attention on this site is on the jihadis, be they actively violent or supporters.

Tolerance as a fixed attitude, without reflection on the nature of the enemy, is not really tolerance but prejudice.

Posted by: DP111

at May 26, 2005 5:58 PM

KingTolerance-

I'm sure others can quickly educate you on your laughable ignorance of Muslim history and civilization, including how central warfare and global conquest have always been to Islam both in practice and theory.

My interest in you, however, is that you seem to embody a particularly interesting specimen of Western liberal, the type who through the best of intentions so wants to embrace the "Other" that in the end they cannot allow any daylight between them and their own psychology. They begin by embracing them, but in the end just annihialate them because they do not have the courage, intelligence, or honesty to admit not everyone thinks like they do.

"That gas guzzling SUV you drive... Those clothes you wear may have been sewn in a sweat shop... That steel holding your office building up may have been produced in a nation that is tired of getting screwed so the US can have a beautiful skyline."

I suggest you educate yourself on the history of the Middle East and then develop a little bit of imaginative generosity. Maybe then you will see that there are people out there whose outrages are not your outrages; that there are people who come from a psychically very twisted place where generosity is seen as weakness, and your freedom from their cultural and political domination the greatest affront; that in short there are millions and millions who would instantly trade their cellphones, sattelite dishes, and modern cars for a medieval caliphate so long as their foot was once again on the neck of the world.

Posted by: emperor_diocletian

at May 26, 2005 6:16 PM

How does the saying go again? "A good indicator of a person's future behavior is his past behavior."

This can also be applied to Islam. What KingTolerance needs to understand is the history of Islam from its very inception to the present day.

A history which most normal people cannot fathom as being a history of a religion.

A history of annihilation of entire cultures, a usurpation of that culture's knowledge which is then credited to Islam, and an utter disregard of tolerating anything but Islam.

Most people ask, "How can this history be true if there are 1.2 billion adherents?"

That history is true and is not made up by the enemies or detractors of Islam.

Posted by: Skeet Street

at May 26, 2005 6:23 PM

Hi Kingtolerance,

Welcome to Jihadwatch, I like your views, they are very 'rational', something the people here will not be able to comprehend.

Now I am a moderate Muslim, I oppose extremism, the people here take versus out of context, you know the usual, 'I’ll take a bit of this and a bit of that and mix some lies so Islam will look bad' the usual strategy used by extremists.

No we have had terrible things sad about Muslims, absolutely terrible things, one thing mentioned was that all Muslims in the West should be deported, let me tell you that this is one of the attacks against us law abiding citizens, well you can consider this attack ‘soft’ as they have said many horrid things that I wouldn’t dare repeat. Little do they know that Muslims are commanded to follow the law of the land.

I oppose extremism and I have done much to fight it in my own country, The people here make NO distinction between Muslims, any Muslim is a bad Muslim to them. They just can't realise that they have millions upon millions of Muslims on their side.

They really enjoy living in a state of paranoia.

Posted by: ia786

at May 26, 2005 7:02 PM

ia786 says,

"...Muslims are commanded to follow the law of the land."

Can you provide a link or quote? Thanks.

Posted by: Skeet Street

at May 26, 2005 7:05 PM

Paranoia, Ia? I don't think so. In fact I Know for a Fact there's no paranoia here.

On the other hand, I suppose you find this rational:

http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1&display=rednews/2005/03/27/build/world/70-nigeria.inc

Posted by: Gary

at May 26, 2005 7:10 PM

ia786....is kingtolerance.

I recognize the same words are improperly spelled and you use the same sentance run ons.

So you post under several calls to make it appear that you do not stand alone. You make one irrational comment then agree with your own comment under a differant sign on.

Or are they the voices in your head? You could start your own religion. I mean, come on, why settle on 72 virgins? was muhommid short sighted? I bet you could come up with a better religion than that. Now there is a reality show!

Posted by: alaskan1000

at May 26, 2005 7:14 PM

"ia786 says,

"...Muslims are commanded to follow the law of the land."

Can you provide a link or quote? Thanks."

Can't get a quote right now, I'm gonna go to bed now, I'm knackered.

Well I can tell you to read about the Muslim immigrants, the Muslims that left Arabia for Ethiopia (they were being persecuted), read about how the Prophet instructed them to behave in a foreign country.

Posted by: ia786

at May 26, 2005 7:19 PM

"ia786....is kingtolerance.

I recognize the same words are improperly spelled and you use the same sentance run ons.

So you post under several calls to make it appear that you do not stand alone. You make one irrational comment then agree with your own comment under a differant sign on."

You make me laugh, I am right. You are paranoid, everyone is out to get you!!!

^_^

Posted by: ia786

at May 26, 2005 7:20 PM

ia786 says,

"...read about how the Prophet instructed them to behave in a foreign country."

I have read about that incident, but I interpret it much differently than you do.

Muhammad was aware of the fragility of the emerging ummah and didn't want it annihilated. Of course, he instructed his acolytes to behave themselves. The Ethiopians would have pulverized them.

It was when Muhammad garnered more adherents to his message, when he became a force to be reckoned with, that the decent "behavior in a foreign country" became abrogated.

Posted by: Skeet Street

at May 26, 2005 7:29 PM

ia786 posted:The people here make NO distinction between Muslims, any Muslim is a bad Muslim to them. They just can't realise that they have millions upon millions of Muslims on their side.

Whether muslim "moderates" exist is neither here nor there, as it is the islamists who drive the extremist agenda. The moderates OTH are either silent by timidity, support the extremist agenda, or are unable to refute the extremists, as the islamists have islamic doctrine on their side. Whatever maybe the cause of the missing muslim moderates in any significantly vocal numbers, they themselves have made themselves irrelevant to the issue that is central to this site i.e. the jihad.

You question why some on this site advocate the deportation of muslims from the West. The reason is for a very similar reason, that "muslim moderates" have not done what they should have done- expunged the fanatics from their midst. Unable as we are, to distinguish muslim moderates from the fanatics, and with no help from the islamic community, it is not surprising that some advocate deportation. In the final analysis, we in the West have to protect our heritage, just as I respect, that muslims in islamic countries, have to protect theirs.

For muslim moderates there is real danger if they do not speak up, as Islamic fanatics will continue to push the islamic agenda and take the moderates along with them, on the road to hell. So in a way, commentators on this site, who are against islamist ideology and ideologues, are doing work that should have been done by muslim moderates such as you. If that is what you have been doing, then I find it inexcusable that you are trying to attack the very people on this site, who are doing the work that muslim moderates should have done, and are in the process, safeguarding the interest of peaceable muslims.

At this moment in time, the leadership in the West, does not feel that islam is a mortal danger to Freedom itself. And in this frame of mind they are willing to circumscribe freedoms that we have taken as natural, such as freedom of expression, and making it a hate crime to criticise the koran or mohammed, just so as to make muslims feel that they are welcome. This limitation on freedom of expression is nothing short of bizarre. You have no idea what an alien concept this is to us in Britain. Most people are going along with it for the moment, but rest assured, that if they and the people feel that islam is a threat, then all such magnanimous gestures will vanish.

As I wrote, we will protect our heritage by whatever means necessary. This is a heritage of tolerance to all, so long as they do not cross the boundary and become a threat to Freedom itself. On 9/11, islamists crossed that boundary, and muslims around the world rejoiced. I sincerely pray for all, that never happens again.

Posted by: DP111

at May 26, 2005 7:59 PM

emperor:

Ever since McVeigh was tied to Islamists
in the latest book by Jayna Davis(jaynadavis.com for the 411 on McVeigh)even Hooper from CAIR won't touch the McVeigh example.

The recent reports about a FBI cover-up in the Oklahoma Murrah building bombing is old news,I hear that information over a year ago when Jayna was on a TalkRadio show exposing these facts from Court documents. The msm ignored her and now has jumped on the bandwagon touting the news as a
major revelation.

Posted by: ala-sux

at May 26, 2005 8:01 PM

how the Prophet instructed them to behave in a foreign country.

Some examples of muslim behaviour in foreign countries.

1. 9/11

2. Madrid

3. Bali

4. Beslan

5. Burning churches in Holland after the ritual slaughter of Van Gogh

6. Burning the cross and the US flag in London, last week.

I wonder if non-muslim demonstators could burn the koran in an islamic country, while the police looked on.

As I said, our leaders do not think that islam is a threat to Freedom, as we are so much stronger then muslim nations. I believe they are wrong in that assumption.

Posted by: DP111

at May 26, 2005 8:09 PM

duh_swami chortled: "Bet King tolerance is a US liberal...the bit about SUV's gives it away..."

King replies: If you think I am offended by the "L" word....

duh_swami also opined: "People who call themselves Christians have commited many violent crimes, but most did not do it because of Christianity, they did it in spite of it."

King reminds duh-swami of the glaring double standard in the argument. Case closed. Duh, Swami!

Posted by: KingTolerance

at May 26, 2005 8:35 PM

Alaskan1000 deduced:

"ia786....is kingtolerance.
I recognize the same words are improperly spelled and you use the same sentance run ons."

King replies: I'll let it up the the board operator to determine my authenticity through my IP address. For the record, I will have two of them since I post from home and from work. In the meantime, I'm afraid your erroneous jump to conclusion has voided your ability to have a meaningful, objective discussion with me. Ta-ta.

P.S. You cannot even spell "sentence" so quit with the spelling remarks.

Posted by: KingTolerance

at May 26, 2005 8:40 PM

Bible Quotes and violence. It is rather easy to surf the internet and find numerous quotes from Judeo-Christian scripture that can be construed as violent by EXTREME FUNDAMENTALISTS.

Radical Islam is practiced by EXTREME FUNDAMENTALISTS.

I challenge someone to point out the difference between peaceful Christianity and violent Islam when we read things like:

#1 In resettling the Israelites after the Egyptian sojourn, God instructed them to steal the land of seven nations. And he told them to "not leave any creature alive. You shall annihilate them. . . ."

#2 Spare no one; put them all to death, men and women, children and babes in arms, herds and flocks, camels and asses."

#3 Those who bear bad fruit will be cut down and burned "with unquenchable fire." 3:10, 12

#4 Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other. He has "come not to send peace, but a sword." 10:34-36

#5 Jesus will send his angels to gather up "all that offend" and they "shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." 13:41-42, 50

Posted by: KingTolerance

at May 26, 2005 8:49 PM

DP111 - Not to sound like a broken record, but you are getting sucked into the bigoted vortex of not being able to separate a religion from its radical practitioners.

Allow me to offer you a counter argument: Let's suppose there is a nation that is run 100% by Christian fundamentalists. The law of the land is the Bible and the leadership is dedicated to staying in power and appeasing foreign government and local zealots to make sure it stays that way.

1. Women would be covered.
2. Media would be censored.
3. The Bible would enjoy iconic status higher than the flag. Desicrating it would be a crime.
4. Bible verses would be interpreted verbatum. See my post above.
5. Etc.

My point is that you need to look waaaaay past the religion and see what a mess radical minorites have made of it.

Posted by: KingTolerance

at May 26, 2005 9:03 PM

King Tolerance...

I suspect you're a Muslim, in which case reasonable argument is lost upon you, if you're just a Socialist, then you have a lot of studying and thinking to do as regards Islam. If you study the religion with an open mind, it becomes as clear as daylight that Islam is both intolerant and highly Fascistic in nature, and to leap to its defence is counterproductive to establishing a more harmonious and equitable society.

You somehow link US prosperity and Third World problems with the Islamic hate issue. So tell me, KT, why is it that only the Muslims are out burning US flags? One of the poorest countries in the world is Buddhist Bhutan, and yet the people and government there are not anti-American at all. In the Buddhist, Christian and Hindu areas of India there is hardly any anti-Americanism at all, even in the Communist dominated areas. And then, once amongst Indian Muslims, you learn that "America is the root of all evil". Rabid anti-Americanism is largely cultural. Fascists always have their scapegoats -America and the Jews are the scapegoat of the Muslims. Hmmmm...let me think, didn't somebody else hate Americans & Jews 60 or 70 years ago? It was an Austrian guy I think.

I admit American foreign policy is quite mad and counterproductive, and they do themselves few favours. I feel that American governments always have good intentions but.... the road to hell is paved with good intentions. They didn't deserve 9/11 but they did excellent job at setting themselves up for it. I hope that they give up on trying to fix the world and instead address their huge resources to their own internal problems.

As for making their fine cities off the backs of the Third World... well, most of the material comes from China nowadays. China is in fact turning itself into a First World country through such cheap exports, and by 2050 its economy will be the same size as America's. So, the USA is feeding Chinese development, and somehow you see this as wicked exploitation? I'm sorry KT; I don't follow your logic.

Many Muslim countries, such as Malaysia, and a whole bunch of oil rich Arab nations, can't even be termed as poor. Then you have tens of millions of Muslims in the West, who enjoy the same economies as we do, and yet they are likewise full of hate. Economic exclusion, poverty and capitalism have nothing to do with why Muslims hate. The root of ISLAMIC INTOLERANCE is the Koran. Why do you try to find obscure socio-economic reasons, when the cause is so obvious?

As for the SUV's, you’re right, the Americans are dumb. As a nation they use as much oil as possible, then they bitch about rich and powerful Arabs and freak storms - on this issue they are disingenuous to say the least. Perhaps one day they will understand that alternative energy and a slightly downward economic adjustment is for their ultimate good.

..............

786, your community in England causes 10 times more strife in than any other South Asian community. You know it. Islam is a warrior religion, this sounds cool perhaps, unfortunately warriors belong in savage tribes or the Middle Ages - not 21st Century Bradford and London. "Burning crosses in London" !!!!!!!!!!! What???? When do you see Hindus doing that crazy shit? Maybe it's a minority, but it's always a bloody MUSLIM minority. It's always the Muslims. Yesterday, I read in the newspaper here (in Sydney) that a woman of Greek origin was wandering through a Muslim neighbourhood (Lakemba) with a baby in a pram, when a youth "of Middle Eastern appearance" stabbed her in the back, crippling her for life, just to steal her handbag. We have a far bigger Chinese community here, and you never hear these horror stories about them. Yet the Islamic community's thuggish behaviour is constantly in the news. Admit it 786, Islam breeds hate and violence.

Posted by: Timbo

at May 26, 2005 10:01 PM

KingTolerance:

I will take your hypothetical nation but replace it with an islamic one, with the koran as its standard. You will note that this nation is not hypothetical anymore, and its retrograde practices are a fact, and worse still, there are many such muslim nations around the world.

You will also note that the hypothetical Christian nation, with tendencies you suggest as an example, is just that - a hypothetical one.

The difficulty that you seem to be having is resolving your commendable attitude of tolerance, aptly reflected in your name, with the political reality of the day. Radical minorities are not the source of the problem, just as radical communists were not the source of the problem. The source and difficulty, lies in the defining ideology. In the issue that pertains to the war we are in, it is the koran.

You mention that it is the radical element that has caused the problem. Indeed they have, but they have not caused any such problem for any other nation state, except muslim ones. I'm sure you can see that only muslim nations seem to fit your hypothetical nation state. So the question is, why is it that diverse muslim nations, with different ethicities, seem to have similar retrogressive attributes. The only common, and rational explanation seems to be the ideology within the koran. In all honesty, one then has to discount the 'radical minority' explanation. It is also this all embracing koran, that the moderate muslim majority has such difficulty in contradicting the radical minority with, for the radicals have the koran on their side. And the koran, as all muslims believe is the literal word of allah, and there is no gainsaying that. Thus the moderate muslim majority is irrelevanmt to the debate. Only the radical minority (and this is not hypothetical), and the defining ideology is of any relevance.

No one wishes to see the persecution of individuals. It is morally wrong, and from a practical point of view, of no worth at all. I have a feeling that you are under the impression that this site is anti-muslim. It is not, though some comments may have given that impression.

The problem we have,is that Western liberalism tries to embrace all, including those whose agenda is to destroy that liberalism and tolerance. Islamic agenda is quite the reverse; it is not tolerant at all of the OTHER, and is primarily imperialistic in its ambition. Again the source is the koran. It is our folly to ignore it.

Posted by: DP111

at May 26, 2005 10:02 PM

Any first year philosophy professor would have given this specious excercise in "reasoning" a failing grade.

Any competent editor would have red-pencilled it to shreds (and Mr. Spencer has ably done, performing the negligent CSM's work for them) and thrown it back at Regan for a major rewrite.

A pathetic example of special-pleading, misdirection, false analogies, strawmen, unbalanced symmetries, laughable lies, insults to the intelligence, lapses in logic, and a host of other fallacious crap.

And I imagine that a lot of the CSM's readers swallow this daft dithering whole, untutored in analytical-critical thinking or how to see through the pseudo-intellectual sleights-of-hand utilized by those who practice classically shameless propaganda.

Uh-oh! The Buddhist terrorists are marching down my street!

Oh no! And here come the Christian terrorists right behind them!

Look out, another beheading video posted by those nefarious Jewish terrorists!

Help! I'm being held hostage by a rampant band of Hari Krishna terrorists!

In cahoots with a bunch a Bahai bandits!

Right.

Truly deplorable puke.

Posted by: BigSleep

at May 26, 2005 10:06 PM

KT - that's "hell fire" you dick!

Plus the Old Testament is the old covenant. The New Testament overrides it.

Hey, those quotes are soft and cuddly compared to what's in the Koran!

Posted by: Timbo

at May 26, 2005 10:08 PM

Glad to see Timbo posting again, and I also think King Tolerance is a muslim. The old "but Christians are really scary" trick.

Posted by: Carolyn2

at May 26, 2005 10:16 PM

I'm beginning to notice that ordinary people are becoming aware, that muslims are a threat to our way of life. Even the UK govt is finding this worrying, and is trying to foist a hate speech law, whose main purpose is to protect the koran and mohammed, from any critical examination. This circumscribing of our Freedom, is something that I never thought I would see in my country, a country that gave birth to the very idea of free expression, and then fought succesive wars, sometimes on its own, to protect that freedom.

As I wrote, we will protect our heritage by whatever means necessary. This is a heritage of tolerance to all, so long as it does not become a threat to Freedom itself. On 9/11, islamists crossed that boundary, and muslims around the world rejoiced. I sincerely pray for all, that never happens again.

Posted by: DP111

at May 26, 2005 10:19 PM

Timbo wrote, "Plus the Old Testament is the old covenant. The New Testament overrides it."

Have any other bigoted remarks to make about Jews?

Posted by: MJ

at May 26, 2005 10:38 PM

and they will sow discord among you,
and encourage hate to grow
and when the heat of your passion
destroys all your compassion,
renders you deaf, dumb and blind
they will strike and destroy all they find
there will be no mercy for the un-believer.
So we must look for those things that bind us,
and know that the diamond has many colors,
many facets but is just one stone.

Remember they want us to quarrel,
to fight, to split us up into little pieces,
so we won't have any power,
it's master, slave, dhimmi,
there's a part in this play for everyone
if we're apart, remember they're into power
Remember what belief system this is a rop.

Posted by: the poetess

at May 26, 2005 11:06 PM

KingTolerance

What you fail to realize is not one of those scriptures you quoted tells a Jew or Christian to kill someone they perceive as a non-believer today! The big difference being, God dishes out the punishment, not fallible men.

The Qur’an does tell Moslems to kill unbelievers today!

Posted by: Bar

at May 27, 2005 12:17 AM

My take on what the CSM wrote is that there is a very evil impulse hidden deep in human nature--although Robert is right to call attention to how different traditions view it.

IA786: I freely recognize your concerns about what's going on in the Islamic world. Indeed, if Zarqawi really is seriously wounded, I have a sneaky suspicion that the soldier who fired the gun that did the job may well have been a Muslim Iraqi whom many and Iraqi clan would be proud to claim (after all, a country where everyone has an AK, yet inflicts a shockingly scanty number of casualties on its invaders,and then defies a "resistance" to go to polls its invaders organize, might have a different take on the "invasion" than the conventional wisdom demands). Please note that I, for one, have often demurred from the "deport 'em all" rhetoric I've seen here--even though as a Christian "fundamentalist", I cannot agree with Islam as a religion. I gave an e-mail addrss offlist once and you may feel free to contact me.

King Tolerance and Timbo. I prefer not to see the Old Testament as "overridden"; rather, with the coming of Messiah, we have a more complete revelation and understand all that God was doing previously.

Yes, the books of Moses command the destruction of the Canaanites. Yet, Genesis 15 clearly states that Abraham was not allowed to inherit the land (save a cave where he buried his dead, which he bought) because the sins of the Canaanites were not full. As we read Exodus-Deuteronomy, we see as well a red thread that if the Israelites followed the same abominations as the seven nations, they, too, would be expelled from the land. If we read on in the Old Testament prophecies and in the histories of Samuel and Kings, we see that Israel went the way of the Canaanites, and paid with it in the Babylonian exile. I read this and recognize that whole nations may become so corrupt that they need to be wiped out--and pray that God's Spirit would so move to bring repentence and faith in order to preserve society and call down peace on the cities where we live (even if that city is Babylon--see Jeremiah's advice to the exiles).

And, of course, KT, you are absolutely right that Jesus brought conflict in families. Such has to be the case where one loves righteousness and the other cherishes sin. The fact that Muslims kill their relatives who embrace Jesus Christ is proof enough of Jesus' Words.

And I freely admit we talk much of Hellfire, and many are headed for it. But I defy you to find a single text in the New Testament that tells me I am to hurry anyone on his way thither. On the other hand, in Romans, Paul tells us to leave room for the vengeance of God when we are wronged--for God can use any means He likes to punish those who hurt his people--indeed, we are taught to make disciples rather than corpses--i.e., use preaching and example to turn the Hell-bound in the other direction.

But nowhere am I enjoined to take up personal vengeance--and that does seem to be a large difference between the ethos a radical Christianity (as opposed to a merely sociological conformity playing at having faith) instills and the one a radical Islam instills. Granted, there is a difference between belief and action; and interpretations within a community (I understand the Muslim theologians also dispute over whether hamzas should go in certain places in the Arabic text of the Qur'an--but not being an Arabic scholar, I leave that dispute to them); and even bearded, skullcapped types with worry beads may despise OBL.

Vikrant: Yes, the Lankan trouble is between Sinhalese and Tamils--and it just so happens that the majority of Sinhalese are Buddhist and the majority of Tamils are Hindus. I'm not crowing about my superiority to them (after all, there's Northern Ireland; and my religion is about accepting a free gift rather than accumulating positive kharma), nor am I advocating a war on Buddhists and Hindus. Yet, I do think that educated Americans tend to let mystical religions off a little too easily.

One Cent: Certainly Islam has bloody borders. All civilizations do.

Posted by: Kepha

at May 27, 2005 4:10 AM

My take on what the CSM wrote is that there is a very evil impulse hidden deep in human nature--although Robert is right to call attention to how different traditions view it.

One Cent: Certainly Islam has bloody borders. All civilizations do.

Posted by: Kepha

at May 27, 2005 4:10 AM

Tom Regan must have been chasing the dragon or is truly cracked.

Now here`s the latest from Malaysia:
24-05-2005 04:05 pm

WHEN MUSLIMS ARE AT prayer, five times a day, all entertainment at those times – on radio, television, on stage, in night clubs, restaurants and elsewhere – must stop. Men and women at these places must be segregated at all times. The deputy minister in the prime minister's department, Dr Abdullah Mohamed Zin, says the Islamic development department's new rules demands it. It does not matter if they are Muslims or non-Muslims, or if no Muslims are in the audience. It is a blanket rule all must agree, or face the consequences. The non-Malay and non-Muslim parties in the National Front (BN) did not object; the head of non-Muslim religions were not consulted. It sets religious freedom a step backward. The non-Malay parties in BN and non-Muslim religious heads and bodies kept a shocking silence.

http://mggpillai.com/article.php3?sid=2110

Posted by: hutchrun

at May 27, 2005 4:50 AM

The War of Islam against Minorities in the Middle East. The Religious Core of the Civilizational Clash

Inasmuch as Islam as a supercessionary religion is committed to world conquest, with previous monotheistic faiths submerged within and under it, then no room exists for permanent co-existence among Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Islam triumphant is the slogan of a universal religion bent on confrontation and competition, de-legitimizing and transcending Judaism and Christianity, no less Hinduism and Buddhism, and leading ineluctably to total victory. This civilizational clash is like no other that mankind has known or that the twentieth-century, engulfed in wars and ideological struggles, had ever experienced.
http://www.jerusalemsummit.org/eng/full.php?id=43&speaker=111

Posted by: hutchrun

at May 27, 2005 5:32 AM

For the record, I am not a Muslim. I'm just an average, free-thinking American who knows myopic bigotry when I see it. I am also fully aware of the violence described in the Bible (OT and NT) and therefore, see any Christian or Jew who accepts the crap on this website as 100% pure hypocrites.

Posted by: KingTolerance

at May 27, 2005 8:08 AM

Timbo wrote:
"I admit American foreign policy is quite mad and counterproductive, and they do themselves few favours. I feel that American governments always have good intentions but.... the road to hell is paved with good intentions. They didn't deserve 9/11 but they did excellent job at setting themselves up for it. I hope that they give up on trying to fix the world and instead address their huge resources to their own internal problems."

King responds: I accept this as a round-about agreement to my basic argument here. Everything else you wrote is eclipsed by this pretty powerful capitulation. Decades of American foreign policy, some of it ruthless to certain oil-bearing parts of the world, is beginning to catch up with us. 9/11 was a statement, as you rightfully admit, and we are now failing once again by blaming everything else but the true source of the issue. Radical Islam is only one of the facets but you bigots are trying to make it the key issues.

The Western World enjoys an extremely high standard of living and does so on the backs of many people. The Middle East has been one of the most heavily exploited regions on Earth due to their oil riches. Period. The West does everything it can to make sure that oil keeps flowing freely and cheaply - even if it means keeping corrupt and brutal government in power as long as they are friendly to Western interests.

Saudi Arabia, for example, is one of the richest countries in the world, as long as you are in the 1% of the population there who can enjoy that wealth. For the other poor slobs, its life as it was in the 1800's where you pretty much work and pray, watching your leadership kiss the West's ass and deprive you of your due rewards (oil revenue). Their corrupt leadership is so uninspiring and so corrupt, other aspects of Arab culture have been allowed to rise to the surface, namely, radical Islam. Once again, radicals comprise only a fraction of those people who practice Islam globally, but these radicals are highly effective at scaring powerful nations like the US and UK. Rather than understand this pretty simple phenomenon, we blame he religion, not their reaction to our encroachment. Pity.

Posted by: KingTolerance

at May 27, 2005 8:27 AM

KingTolerance:

Who do you think fostered the growth of radical Islam globally by building mosques and maddrassahs around the world and staffing them with Wahhabi preachers? The US or Saudi nobility, who probably did so only to consolidate their absolute authority. It is, of course ironic, but not suprising that in so doing, the Saudis have ended up creating an entity that hates them as much as they hate westerners, holding the Saudi royalty in contempt as westernized and corrupt. (e.g.: Osama bin Laden, whose personal wealth is wholy drawn from the spin-off benefits of selling oil to the west)

Posted by: waterdragon52

at May 27, 2005 8:48 AM

"I am also fully aware of the violence described in the Bible (OT and NT) and therefore, see any Christian or Jew who accepts the crap on this website as 100% pure hypocrites."

The key difference is that Christian and Jewish theology does not interpret the violent passages from the Bible as a basis for violent action today. Most importantly, Christianity and Judaism have almost universally accepted the concept of separation between church and state. That's why you can burn the Bible in the US, and there is no stoning adulterers in Israel (there's no death penalty at all in Israel, in clear violation of the Old Testament laws).

If Islam is going to be peaceful then it also needs to reject theocracy. The combination of political and spiritual power is a recipe for disaster. It took the West aobut 1700 years to recognize this, and Islam needs to learn the same.

Another difference between Islam and the other religions is that the vast majority of Christian and Jewish theology (at least in the last few centuries) rejects terrorism. No Christian terrorist can use the Bible to justify his actions and expect to go unchallenged. I've never heard the IRA quote the Bible in their propaganda. They know that if they were to use the Bible to justify their campaign of violence, they would be loudly and immediately condemned by Christian leaders worldwide.

The same cannot be said about Muslim terrorists. Al Qaeda and others regularly quote the Qur'an and Hadith to support their actions. The Spanish Muslims who pronounced Bin Laden a criminal on the anniversary of the Madrid bombings claimed that they were the first group to make a fatwa condemning terror. Why were they the first? If Christians had planted the March 11 bombs and used the Bible in the propaganda, Christian leaders would be lining up to condemn the perpetrators.

The fact is that Christians and Jews who support terrorism are a "tiny minority of extremists". Moderate Muslims (yes, they exist) may wish the same could be said of Muslim terrorists, but it simply isn't the case. The jihadists claim that Islam is on their side. Moderates want to pretend that the jihad movement doesn't really exist, or that it is clearly condemnded by Islam. However the jihadists surely think that Islam supports them, and they are having little difficulty in convincing other Muslims that they are correct.

If moderates want to stop the jihad, they're going to have to convince Muslims that the jihadists are wrong, and the ONLY way this will happen is if they develop a system of Islamic theology that rejects jihad and dhimmitude and respects the equality of all people. If jihadists "misunderstand" Islam, then the proper understanding must be made known. That's the challenge that JihadWatch poses. It's useless to rail against JihadWatch as a "hate site". If JihadWatch has misunderstood Islam, then by all means post an explanation of why. And then we can begin the work of challenging the thousands of other sites (many written by Muslims) that claim the jihadists follow the true path of Islam.

Posted by: Viking5

at May 27, 2005 9:13 AM

KingTolerance,

Whose fault, exactly, is it that the Saudi aren't into redistribution of wealth? The Americans'?

It's exactly as you say: these nations are the richest in the world. How much richer do their leaders need to be before they decide to let the rest of the nation in on the largesse?

Then again, they do decide to redistribute blame: to the West. So they know something about the process.

Geoff

Posted by: Geoff

at May 27, 2005 9:29 AM

KT -

You can't blame the US for the existence of dictatorships and poverty in the Middle East.

Take for example Iran. For the last 25 years that country has cut itself off from any U.S. interference, and yet the country is still a mess. People claim that Iran is in a mess because America has blocked assistance to it, and won't trade there. OK so let me get this clear... when America is involved - everything is their fault. When America is not involved - everything is their fault. When America attacks a Fascist regime in the Middle East (i.e. Iraq) - America is an evil-doer. When America helps a Fascist regime in the Middle East (i.e. Saudi) - America is an evil-doer. When America helps a strife torn African country (i.e. Somalia) America is in the wrong. When America doesn't help a strife torn African country (Rwanda) - America is in the wrong. Nothing America does, or doesn't do, is OK by your people, because you hate America.

Your accusations are paranoid and unsubstantiated. US foreign policy since 1960 has been a Greek tragedy of total incompetence. I don't think they are capable of installing sympathetic governments, and when they do, they are sooner or later replaced by new hostile regimes. Your world view of an omnipotent America controlling the Middle East and oil prices is chillingly naive, paranoid and contradictory.

They can't find one single individual (OBL) and bring him to justice, and they can't bring to order a small country like Iraq, and then 30 years ago a tiny Third World speck on the map (North Vietnam) kicked their arses - and you're trying to me that these sad bungling people are controlling the destiny of the world - OH PLEASE -wake up to yourself! Come and join us on planet Earth.

Posted by: Timbo

at May 27, 2005 10:01 AM

And yet, with all of his counter-examples, he still can't produce a single case of a Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Jew, Sikh, Hari Krishna, Jedi, Wiccan, or Elvisian killing or murdering because they were told someone left their holy text of choice on the crapper.

Posted by: Electronicdaze

at May 27, 2005 10:03 AM

Viking5 wrote: "The key difference is that Christian and Jewish theology does not interpret the violent passages from the Bible as a basis for violent action today."

King responds: No, the key is that you are denouncing an entire religion based on the interpretations and actions of a distinct few who happen to have political power. Israel has its own problems with extreme Jews who would just assume die for their cause.

Geoff asks: "Whose fault, exactly, is it that the Saudi aren't into redistribution of wealth? The Americans'?"

King responds: Yes, in large part. We want a Saudi government who is willing to play ball to keep the oil coming and keep it cheap. This is so important that our economy is linked to it. For such high stakes, the US government is willing to empower a regime that is corrupt, has horrible human rights records and also allows religious extremism to flourish. This is truly a volitile mixture and 9/11 shows us this. Sitting around amd making websites about how evil Islam is is so far off the mark and so myopic (not to mention bigoted) that it is comical.

Easy enough to understand?

Eloectronicdaze yelped: "And yet, with all of his counter-examples, he still can't produce a single case of a Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Jew, Sikh, Hari Krishna, Jedi, Wiccan, or Elvisian killing or murdering because they were told someone left their holy text of choice on the crapper."

King teaches: Let us examine the history to expose religiously driven horrors:

1. Crusades perpetuated by Christians who were "on the march to convert."
2. American slavery was rationalized by many radical Christians who thought it to be a God given right prescribed in the Bible.
3. Christian burning of suspected witches in colonial Massachusetts.
4. Christian burning and beheading of heretics (indifels) in Europe.

Shall I continue or are you still in your electronic daze?

Posted by: KingTolerance

at May 27, 2005 11:19 AM

1. Crusades perpetuated by Christians who were "on the march to convert."
Wrong. The Crusades were a response to 430 years of land grabs and wars against Europe by islam

http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm

2. American slavery was rationalized by many radical Christians who thought it to be a God given right prescribed in the Bible.

I Notice you use the word 'radical.' Fair choice. So are you claiming it was all atheists / secularists, who ended slavery?

http://www.jonathantweet.com/religionslavery.html

3. Christian burning of suspected witches in colonial Massachusetts.

The resulting problem of the Salem witch trials was that you had superstitious, unconverted people using extra-biblical, unorthodox criteria by which to judge witches:

http://www.forerunner.com/ccbc/X0018_Puritans_and_Witches.html

4. Christian burning and beheading of heretics (indifels) in Europe.

And this is going on today? If not, WHY not? Why do you hand onto things centuries old, which no longer happen?
Truth to tell, I am having trouble finding a link for this one, KT. When one puts in 'Christians beheading people,' all that comes up is Muslims beheading Christians across the centuries.

Posted by: Gary

at May 27, 2005 11:37 AM

"We want a Saudi government who is willing to play ball to keep the oil coming and keep it cheap. This is so important that our economy is linked to it. For such high stakes, the US government is willing to empower a regime that is corrupt, has horrible human rights records and also allows religious extremism to flourish. This is truly a volitile mixture and 9/11 shows us this."

Empower them? Holy crap - and here I thought we weren't supposed to get involved and use our power to spread imperialist doctrines of democracy and all that. Again, without using invented terms, how exactly is it the American's fault that Saudi Arabia's monarchy controls and amasses almost all the oil money coming into the country? What ought the US do then? Invade them? I'm sure that would go over well. I too think the US should be putting pressure on the Saudis - but then again, I think you can see how that wouldn't go over too well in the house of Saud. Hell, they still think the Jews were responsible for 9/11. Or the CIA maybe. Whatever.

As for the list of Christian crimes - examine the comparable list, the ongoing, modern one - that islam enjoys and ask yourself which is the greater force for evil. I might also add that it was Christian sentiment that ENDED slavery in the US as well. You don't mention that fact. Where does this still occur? Someone put a crucifix in a jar of urine and called it art, yet the Christian riots seem slow to develop.

Geoff

Posted by: Geoff

at May 27, 2005 12:19 PM

Onward PC Soldiers
Ridley Scott’s Kingdom of Heaven.

By Thomas F. Madden

Every May thousands of medieval scholars descend on Kalamazoo, Michigan for the International Congress on Medieval Studies. It is the largest such gathering in the world, featuring hundreds of papers on virtually every imaginable topic in medieval history and culture. This year the meeting coincided with the release of the much-anticipated film, The Kingdom of Heaven, directed by Ridley Scott and starring Orlando Bloom — a film that is set during the period of the Crusades. As a Crusade historian, I knew I would be asked about the movie, so I decided to see it sooner rather than later. Ducking out on what I am sure was a fascinating session called “Focus on Fluids: Analyzing Urine in the Middle Ages,” I corralled a few of my graduate students and headed to the local cineplex to catch the matinee. The theater was largely empty — a bad omen, given the number of geeky medievalists in town.

FICTION. . .
If I were a film critic I would say that this movie is dead dull. After one hour of ponderous dialogue and assorted arrow wounds I was already checking my watch to see if I might still make that paper on medieval English uroscopy. The film can best be described as a series of bloody medieval battle scenes stitched loosely together with a thin, yet preachy, modern morality play. The moral of the story, which Scott cudgels his viewer with at every opportunity, is that religious tolerance is a good thing and we should all have more of it.

But I am not a film critic; I am a historian. As a historian it naturally irritates me that there are people who will leave theaters certain that Scott and his writer, William Monahan, have served up something that approximates reality in the Middle Ages. They haven’t. In fact, there is very little that is medieval about The Kingdom of Heaven. It is instead a mixture of 19th-century Romanticism and modern Hollywood wishful-thinking. The real Crusades began in 1095 as a response to centuries of Muslim conquests of Christian lands. Their purpose was to restore those territories, including the Holy Land, to Christian control. The Kingdom of Jerusalem, which was established by the First Crusade in 1099, was an outpost of European Christians planted in a largely Muslim world for the purpose of safeguarding the holy sites. Subsequent major Crusades were called in response to subsequent Muslim conquests.

Scott’s Kingdom of Heaven is set in the years 1186 to 1187, a time when, he assures us, King Baldwin IV of Jerusalem made the Holy City a place where “anyone could come and go as they pleased, and worship as they pleased.” This golden age of tolerance was then shattered by the Templars, Christian zealots thirsting for Muslim blood who were led by the evil Reynald of Chatillon and Guy of Lusignan. After Baldwin’s death, Guy and Reynald provoked a war with the wise and tolerant Muslim leader, Saladin, who crushed the Christians and then moved his armies toward Jerusalem. The story itself is centered on Balian of Ibelin (Orlando Bloom), a French blacksmith on the run because he has killed a priest. He joins up with his long-lost father, Godfrey of Ibelin, who has a place in the Holy Land. Godfrey assures Balian that the Kingdom of Jerusalem is a “kingdom of conscience,” a place where a person can leave the past behind and become all that he or she can be. Picking up swordplay and chivalry on the trip, Balian is knighted and settles in the Holy Land where he has a love affair with the king’s sister, fights plenty of gory battles, and ends up commanding the defense of Jerusalem when Saladin shows up.

. . . AND FACT
How much of that actually happened? Not much. Balian of Ibelin was born in the Holy Land, not France, where he grew up a respected knight in the kingdom. He was never a blacksmith. His father, Barisan (not Godfrey) died in 1150 — 36 years before the opening of this film. Although the movie makes Balian out to be a troubled young man who has lost his faith, he was really a mature man in his 40s or older, renowned for his devotion to God and to the saints. Balian is not the only historical character to get a modern makeover in this film. While it is true that King Baldwin IV had leprosy, it is not true that he possessed a wardrobe of silver Brando-esque masks for various occasions. Heck, Baldwin wasn’t even alive at the time, having died one year before the events portrayed in the movie. Neither Saladin nor Baldwin were tolerant rulers seeking peace between Muslims and Christians. The real Baldwin flew into a rage when he learned that Guy failed to attack Saladin in 1183. The real Saladin was, according to his biographer, filled with joy as he watched the decapitation of hundreds of Christians in 1187. Saladin preached jihad throughout his reign, making no secret of his desire to capture Jerusalem and massacre its Christian inhabitants. Both Baldwin and Saladin were, not surprisingly, men of their times, not ours.

Rather than catalogue all of the historical inaccuracies in this movie (and they are legion) I will confine myself to two general threads of anachronism that are woven throughout. First, the Kingdom of Jerusalem is frequently referred to in this film as a “new world.” It was nothing of the sort. Indeed, it was the oldest of the Old World. To watch this movie one would think that the Holy Land was a recently-discovered virgin wilderness just waiting for colonization by strapping young blacksmiths. Balian even sets up his own plantation, thus introducing irrigation to the Fertile Crescent. The Holy Land that Scott and Monahan describe clearly owes much more to post-medieval British history, where overseas lands of opportunity like North America, Australia, and India offered a fresh start for those seeking a new life.

The second major anachronism is the movie’s approach to religion. Most people know that the Crusades were wars of faith. Crusaders underwent extreme hardship, risking their lives and expending enormous amounts of money because of their devotion to Christ, his Church, and his people. Crusader piety also manifested itself in extraordinary devotion to the Virgin Mary and the saints, particularly those saints who had lived in the Holy Land. The Kingdom of Heaven, however, performs the delicate operation of stripping religious piety completely out of the Crusades. Balian and his father appear to be agnostics. Other Crusaders, like the Hospitaller, are openly critical of religion. Indeed, all of the good guys in this movie seem to have no devotion to God at all, only a devotion to tolerance. The bad guys, on the other hand, are all religiously devout, which causes them to be either evil (like Guy and Reynald) or mad (like the glassy-eyed preacher who chants, “To kill a Muslim is not murder, it is the path to heaven”). In other words, the medieval world is portrayed in much the same way that Hollywood views America: Smart people either have no religion or do not take it very seriously. The rest are right-wing Christian fanatics.

There are no churches in this movie, not even in the holiest of cities. There are no monks, no nuns, and very few pilgrims, all of whom would have filled the streets of medieval Jerusalem. Only two priests appear in the film, one a twisted corpse mutilator and the other a villain whose strategy for defending Jerusalem is to convert to Islam and leave the people to die. Scott scatters a few crosses here and there, but there are no crucifixes, which were much more common in the Middle Ages. Beautiful set decoration of Crusader palaces includes no icons of Mary or the saints, indeed no religious art of any kind. Christians, Muslims, and Jews all live in harmony in this cinematic Jerusalem. Yet, in truth non-Christians were forbidden to live in the Holy City during the reign of Baldwin IV. But it is not just Christianity that Scott sterilizes. Muslims are shown praying a few times in the film, yet the only devout Muslim is a black-robed cleric demanding that Saladin attack the Christians and capture Jerusalem. The message here is clear: Religion leads to fanaticism, and fanaticism leads to war.

As a matter of plot logic, one might reasonably wonder why all of these Crusaders wearing crosses on their breasts and marching off to hopeless battles care so little for Christianity? When preparing for the defense of Jerusalem, Balian proclaims that it is not the stones that matter, but the people living in the city. In order to save the people’s lives he threatens to destroy all of the Christian and Muslim holy sites, “everything,” he says, “that drives men mad.” Yet if he is only concerned with defending people, why has Balian come all the way to Jerusalem to do it? Aren’t there plenty of people in France who need defending? The truth is that Scott’s Balian has it exactly wrong. It is the stones, the buildings, the city that mattered above all else. Medieval Christians saw Jerusalem as a precious relic sanctified by the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. The people were there to glorify God and defend His Holy City. The real Balian, faced with the inevitable conquest of Jerusalem, threatened to destroy the Dome of the Rock if Saladin did not abandon his plan to massacre the Christian inhabitants. That plan is airbrushed out of the movie. Indeed, the good and noble Saladin of this movie lets all of the citizens depart with a hearty, good-natured smile on his face. The real Saladin required them to pay a ransom. Those that could not — and there were thousands — were sold into slavery.

Given events in the modern world it is lamentable that there is so large a gulf between what professional historians know about the Crusades and what the general population believes. This movie only widens that gulf. The shame of it is that dozens of distinguished historians across the globe would have been only too happy to help Scott and Monahan get it right. After all, by Hollywood standards, historians work for peanuts. According to the movie’s production notes that kind of assistance was apparently unnecessary: “[Screen writer] Monahan worked from primary sources using firsthand accounts (in translation) by people who were present while history was being made, and avoiding interpretations written over the subsequent centuries.” Yet some of those “interpretations” that Monahan so studiously avoided were written by professional historians using rigorous source criticism and relying on far more than a few works translated into English. Why not phone some of them, if only to check your own meticulous research?

Ridley Scott has repeatedly said that this movie is “not a documentary” but a “story based on history.” The problem is that the story is poor and the history is worse. Based on media interviews, Scott, Monahan, and the leading actors clearly believe that their story can help bring peace to the world today. Lasting peace, though, would be better served by candidly facing the truths of our shared past, however politically incorrect those might be.

— Thomas F. Madden is Professor of Medieval History and Chair of the Department of History at Saint Louis University. A recognized expert on the Crusades, he is the author most recently of The New Concise History of the Crusades and editor of Crusades: The Illustrated History.

Posted by: Gary

at May 27, 2005 12:31 PM

Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

I am quite sure that this article was written by a fool (atheist/agnostic) who is not as foolish as a certain troll here

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/7683

Why We Critique Only Islam!
By Syed Kamran Mirza

Frequently we are facing one common accusation from the Islamists, semi-Islamists and even from the moderate (ignorant) Muslims—which is "why only critiquing Islam" and why not critiquing also other religions? This is of course a very prudent question. And this question needs to be answered by the group of critics. Critics may think that enough have been discussed about the fallacies of Islam everywhere in the whole world. By now every simple mind should understand very well as to why we only critique Islam! But I am not surprised by the question, because we must know that—childhood brainwashing of those moderate Muslims and utter hypocrisies of those erudite Islamists they mostly fail to realize the truth simply due to their sheer blind-faith in Islam.

In this essay, I would like to make a hypothetical comparison between the Islam and all other major religions of the world. I shall try to establish the very unique and special character of the religion Islam by an honest and impartial judgment. I shall attempt to answer this very prudent question by my own style. That is, I will generate the right answers from the mouth of those questioners themselves. Instead of answering this question, let me ask those Islamists, moderate Muslims and others the following questions:

Please also consider the following:

============= Islam vis a vis other religions ==============

--slam is the only religion which has "Shariaat book" which plays the constitution to implement its political agenda to a nation.

--Islam is the only religion which holds that other religions must pay its

followers an extortionary tax (Jiziya or poll-tax) in "humiliation."

--Islam is the only religion which preaches that reform of its doctrine and

dogma to adapt to changing circumstances is a grave sin ("bida")

--Islam is the only religion which divides the world up into two spheres

Land of Warfare "Darul harb" (non-Islamic nations) and "Darul Islam" (Land of Peace), and encourages the Land of "Peace" to fight against the Land of Warfare until it is completely "subdued".

--Islam is the only religion which expressly forbids separation of church (or

masjid) and state.

--Islam is the only religion which extracts the death penalty from any of its

followers who wish to leave it (apostate) -- a law which, again is unchangeable.

--Islam is the only religion which holds up a single form of government -- a

non-democratic theocracy headed by a Khalifa -- as the only legitimate form

of government allowable on earth.

--Islam is the only religion that upholds an extensive code of jurisprudence

(unchangeable and barbaric and draconian in many cases) that governs every aspect of human life, both spiritual and temporal.

--Islam is the only religion that largely forbids the free practice of other

religions in its midst.

Please consider also these facts:

--They can't get along with Christians in Nigeria and Sudan
--They can't get along with Eastern Orthodox in Eastern Europe

--They can't get along with Hindus and Buddhists in Malaysia

--They can't get along with Hindus in the Sub-Continent

--They can't get along with Buddhists in Thailand and Burma

--They can't get along with Catholics in the Philippines

--They can not get along with majority Chinese in mainland China

--They can not get along with majority Russian (Muslims in Chechnya) in Russia

--They can't get along with Jews in the Middle East

--They can't get along with Coptic Christians in Egypt

--They can't get along with Christians in Indonesia

--They can't get along with Ba'hai in Iran

--Shia and Sunni can't get along with each other very well in Pakistan,

Afghanistan, Bahrain, etc.

--Sunnis can't get along with Ahmadis on the Sub-Continent and want to

exterminate them.

In some of these cases, the atrocities are on both sides and there is plenty

of blame to share by both sides. Nevertheless, there is a pattern here that

is very disturbing.

The phenomenon is best explained by Huntingtons’ "Clash

of Civilisations." He claims:

* Islam has bloody borders and bloody innards

* Islam has more trouble coexisting with others than any other religion

X-tianity was superior to Islam in that it has a theological basis

that allows to the possibility of change (Jesus himself said, "Render under

Caesar what is Caesar's, render unto me what is mine." That statement was

used by secularists to help bring about separation of church and state, or

at least mitigate the church's influence on the political body.)X-tianity

also was not set up as a political state with its own set of detailed laws,

etc. There were "Christian nations" with some laws that were influenced by

the Church, there was a Papal rule for a while, but nothing was set in

stone. The law as a result was fluid and could be updated -- as it was by

the Magna Carta.

Islam does not have the theological basis for change. Secularism is

strictly forbidden. Innovation ("bida")is strictly forbidden. Muhammed was

the Seal of the Prophets -- his word is final. Itjihad is (now) forbidden.

Islam was set up as a political state with numerous complexes, detailed

temporal laws, not just a few general spiritual guidelines (as is the case

with X-tianity