Christ, nothing about the Hindus?

Posted by: Cornelius at November 4, 2005 7:54 AM

Cornelius:

Assuming you are being sarcastic. I think the last paragraph above is a blanket reproach to all countries invaded by Muslim conquerors.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at November 4, 2005 8:47 AM

Waterdragon,

I don't mean to denigrate the substance of what this courageous soul is writing, but if you go to the original article, he specifies the necessity to atone for sins against the Druze, Bahai, Ismaili, Ahmadi, Shiite, Africans...

Considering the tens of millions of Hindus slaughtered --- what will Durant characterized as "the bloodiest chapter in human history" --- I just thought it was a rather glaring omission.

Posted by: Cornelius at November 4, 2005 9:05 AM

All this apologising is a bit silly. The Archbishop of Canterbury has just apologised for the fact that Anglican missionaries gave Africans 'Hymns Ancient and Modern'. Why? I suppose it's a bit odd that Africans are singing about the rich man in his castle (the Wabenzi) and the poor man at his gate (the rest), but it's all harmless fun.

As for Muslims, they can't apologise for all that stuff and remain Muslims. Conquest, subjugation of women, the dhimma - all are mandated by Islam and practised by Mohammed. Are they going to apologise for him, and for the Koran too?

And I bet Switzerland had its fingers crossed.

Posted by: Interested at November 4, 2005 9:32 AM

It is indeed refreshing that someone at least in islamic society is recognizing the Quran-mandated inequity that exists in the dealings of islam with other cultures.

Hopeful? Well, no. This scholar's views would have to be spread, would have to be accepted. I suspect that they can't, and won't. It seems to me inimical to the very society islam is founded on. Imagine: thousands, nay, MILLIONS of people realize that the monopoly on truth they had enjoyed up until now, justifying all their sacrifices, all their hardships, all their sufferings and pains and losses and indeed the very fabric of their culture and existence is all: meaningless. There is suddenly no certainty of anything: of this Allah character, of Mohammed, of the superiority of islam, the evils of the Jews, the shirk and obstinacy of the Christians, the inferiority of women and all those evils done in the name of islam - that welcome imperialism, that holy violence, that thankful rape and pillage and plunder and holocaust - like the necessary evils of the early- to mid-stages of the historical Communist dialectic are all lies.

Can you say "cultural meltdown switch"? I knew you could.

Some, reacting to what they know-but-don't-know, will take to further violence, to greater extremes, to bloodshed on as wide and wild a scale as they can make it, in hopes of calling this non-existent Allah back to their service by the sheer smell of blood, a chumming of the karmic waters on a scale not seen since the Sufi holocaust against the Hindus. Others, left without any ultimate hope in their lives, will sag against the state of cultural inertia like nerveless, boned fish; not active, but pressing, pushing, exerting force all the same in random directions, to be pushed and pulled at the direction (if they can manage it) of those who Rage against the dying of their dark machine - that pitiless vehicle of those who love death while we love life - and cajole, beat and thrust that mountain of catatonic-yet-restless flesh into a beast that sloucheth its battalions towards Bethlehem, its hour to slay and bleed come round at last.

For if the tower of ignorance fall, we at least who know must be prepared for the torrent of falling mortar. And mortars.

...

Who says you can't wax rhapsodical on a Friday morning?

Not I, for I am

Prophet Geoff [bbuh]

PS: Ia - the Illuminati and their Lizardoid servants are coming for you today after mosque. Could you have a bag, thumbscrews and some electrical nipple-prods ready to go? Otherwise you have to pay four quid to rent them. Thanks.

Posted by: Geoff at November 4, 2005 10:22 AM

I think Dr. Iqbal Al-Gharbi might want to consider hitting the ground running for his life if that's his belief.

OTH - it'll be a frosty Friday in hell before the Muslim world apologizes for dhimmitude, slavery, conquest and massacres.

Posted by: johnb at November 4, 2005 11:24 AM

Oops - should read "running for her life"

Posted by: johnb at November 4, 2005 11:26 AM

"Our defective understanding of the Koran ..."

Isn't 1400 years long enough to get it right? How long does it take to turn "defective" into "correct"?

Either Muslims, despite hundreds of years of patient memorization of the Qur'an and obligatory lessons, have never (neither imam nor student) really understood their prophet's teachings, or ... they have understood very well, hence the state of Islam versus the world today.

If the former is correct, that no Muslims have been able to break out from this pervasive and enduring "defective understanding," then we must question their critical thinking ability. Is it possible that the rote memorization and inculcated beliefs have a stunting effect on mental ability?

If time and future developments show that the latter is correct, that there's been no "defective understanding," but rather, a true understanding, then Dr. Al-Gharbi will be faced with a dilemma: Will she continue to maintain that misinterpretation lies behind Islam's faults, or will she take the courageous leap into apostasy?

The attempt to blame Islam's persona on a misinterpretation and faulty understanding of the Qur'an is a manifestation of wishful thinking, a personal defense mechanism against the unthinkable truth.

Posted by: Jen at November 4, 2005 12:07 PM

"Let's ship Justices John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen G. Breyer over to Tunisia to help Dr. Iqbal Al-Gharbi deconstruct the Koran."

Better yet, let's commission our Leftist agnostic students of Wittgenstein, Foucault, Quine, Derrida, Baudrillard to deconstruct the Koran -- as they have deconstructed and dismantled all Western virtues -- for the world's Muslims.

Posted by: Dr. Pepper at November 4, 2005 2:03 PM

"let's commission our Leftist agnostic students of Wittgenstein, Foucault, Quine, Derrida, Baudrillard to deconstruct the Koran.."
-- from a posting above

The notion that Willard Van Orman Quine, the philosopher of logic, a lifelong conservative and Republican, is somehow to be breezily listed along with Foucault and Derrida and Baudrillard as a master of "leftists" (a word best "left" at the door as you enter) makes no sense. And similarly strange is the careless inclusion of that sui-generis-to-a-fault (ask Norman Malcolm, Rush Rhees, Elizabeth Anscombe) Ludwig Wittgenstein. What conceivable relation is there between Wittgenstein and the miseducation, often of a bent some might call "leftist" but I would prefer to identify as simply stupid, now so easily to be obtained in the colleges and universities of the Western world?

As for the formula "leftist agnostic" I will leave that alone. It explodes all by itself.

What was it Wittgenstein said? "Whereof we do not know..." etc. Words to live by.

Posted by: Hugh at November 4, 2005 3:29 PM

I want to tread very carefully here. I'm trying to cultivate a new sensibility in myself and the last thing I want to do is to backslide into old habits. That said....

In one of my earliest encounters with Hugh, a thread in which David Horowitz's name was first broached, he expressed a similar repudiation of the notion of Left and Right.

Perhaps there is merit in trying to bridge the divisions within our own civilization as we gird for the epochal struggle looming against the "other." Perhaps Hugh is trying to shatter hackneyed stereotypes in his desire to think outside the box and marshall all our available human resources for the fight. I don't discount the possibility that his vision is absolutely appropriate.

Personally, I think the differences existing within the Western political spectrum are not only substantive, but pivotal as we search for the appropriate strategies for civilizational self-defense. I believe that while there are blind-spots and ignorances advocated and propagated by the Right (e.g., Bush's "RoP" invocations), these are errors of a certain nature and depth and do not negate the fact that most on the Right - excepting the lunatic fringe - are defenders of Western Civilization.

Many and probably most of the Left suffer not only from comparable misconceptions, but from something far more malignant, a desire - wittingly or not depending upon the individual or group involved - to weaken our civilization in its fight for survival, aiding and abetting the enemy in ways large and small.

The principle ideological impediments to a successful challenge of Islam - multiculturalism and political correctness - are clearly constructs of the Left. Though segments of the Right have fallen prey to them, it is the Left that nourishes and maintains them, provides them their legitimacy, and uses them in our universities and media to obstruct an honest exposition of Islamic intolerance.

We ignore the important distinctions between Left and Right at our own peril.

Posted by: Cornelius at November 4, 2005 4:34 PM

Geoff, your postings are becoming increasingly childish and churlish, and that is sad because for so long I honestly enjoyed your humor and posts.

What need to taunt, from afar, Ia or King Tolerance or anyone? Is there perhaps some spleenal juices that are on overload.

Rather than childishly taunt a poster who might not even be reading the thread, save your remarks for when the post and in reaction to what they post, and then do so with maturity and a semblance of respect for another opinion.

Engage them like a rational adult, ask a specific question and demand a specific answer.

And you got them there, they squirm like a worm and avoid addressing issues, then again so do some, and in specific one, supposedly Jihad Watcher (whose real agenda I suspect is to use any venue he can reach to lash out against his personal bete noire, the so called liberal left).

If Jihad Watchers don't grow up, pull the wool out of their own belly button, take the beam out of their own eye.. then surely, (and sadly for my grandchildren and great grandchildren) all is lost.

I spent a career in special operations and frankly with few exceptions if any Jihad Watchers were on my team when I was inserted behind enemy lines, they would have been the first to be neutralized, I don't go into battle with idiots, fools and children, it endangers the mission and the rest of the team.

Posted by: Nariz at November 4, 2005 4:37 PM

nariz, this one is for you and kj:

Today’s Extras on Jihad’s 5th Column:

Indoctrination in the schools:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20033
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20029

Posted by: Gary at November 4, 2005 4:49 PM

I have been left,
I have been right
and found each dogma
is too tight, binds my mind
and leaves behind
its ideals trailing
in the dust of mankind.

Posted by: the poetess at November 4, 2005 4:52 PM

Hugh, I didn't list Quine as a Leftist; I was talking about the Leftist students of Quine, et al. Leftists like deconstruction in order to deconstruct the West they hate, and intelligent Leftists mine any talented deconstructionist to pursue that end.

Quine, whether he likes it or not, has (as have other unlikely and involuntary bedfellows) become part of the arsenal of the Leftist nebula.

Posted by: Dr. Pepper at November 4, 2005 5:01 PM

Cornelius,

I'm with you on that one. The screamingly evident fact is that over the last few years, Leftists have been outrageously remiss in dealing with the problem of Islam; whereas, far more conservatives (neo-, paleo- or just plain unflavored) have been on an admirable learning curve with regard to that same epochal problem we face.

The most logical reason for this disparity would have to do with sociopolitical culture: Leftists are far more entrenched in, and participate far more broadly and deeply in, and in many ways helped create, the PC nebula that is perilously hobbling the West now with regard to the problem of Islam.

This is not to say that there aren't quite a few myopic conservatives (Bush, Rice, Blair, to name a few glaring examples) as well. But I would maintain that myopia among conservatives is not due to flaws within conservatism per se, but rather to the victory of the PC nebula in gaining hegemony over the general sociopolitical culture of the West -- a victory so great that even quite a few conservatives (glaring and otherwise) either limit themselves out of fear of incurring its wrath, or worse yet, have fallen under its spell ("drunk the Kool-Aid" as the saying goes).

This isn't just a matter of political science theory for us to debate in the gentlemen's club over cigars and [fill in your erudite reference of obscure cognac or recondite Spanish sherry here]. This is a matter of utmost, concrete peril.

Posted by: Dr. Pepper at November 4, 2005 5:14 PM

Amen Pepper.

"Leftists...in many ways helped create the PC nebula that is perilously hobbling the West now with regard to the problem of Islam."

How about we dispense with the "helped create"...they DID create it.

"This isn't just a matter of political science theory for us to debate in the gentlemen's club over cigars and [fill in your erudite reference of obscure cognac or recondite Spanish sherry here]"

I'm a beer man myself...I'm sure I lack the pedigree to gain admittance. But in the trenches of a bonafide shooting match, I'm right with you buddy! ;-)

Posted by: Cornelius at November 4, 2005 5:47 PM

In what way does either the human being Willard Van Orman Quine, who died a few years ago (soon to be followed by a nephew whose obituary was almost as long), or his work, or his reviews on everything from philosophy to cartography, have anything to do with that word, that idea, that thing whatever it is called "deconstruction" or with that other invoked bogey-man, "leftist" tendencies?

Quine was well-known as the Village Republican in the academical village (the phrase borrowed from that other left-wing deconstructer, Thomas Jefferson) he long inhabited. Well, he did give a few of his books, and even inscribed them, to such colleagues as Hilary Putnam and John Rawls.
And the first may not be quite as much a Republican as was Quine, and should he happen to be the son of the famous translator of Cervantes Samuel Putnam -- well, who knows what that may mean, especially since Samuel Putnam lived for a time in leftist Paris. And Rawls was the author of "A Theory of Justice" -- which is as I understand it practically the manuel of the "Justice for Palestine" boys at San Francisco State, when they go out to scream at and shout down some Israeli consul as he tries to speak. Quine, Rawls, Putnam -- every man jack of them practically Gus Hall.

Posted by: Hugh at November 4, 2005 7:04 PM

think outside the box and marshal all our available human resources for the fight

Thinking outside the box is out of the ark. The socio-political elephant in the room is that we should gird our human resources with blue skies thinking, the better to ward off the PC leftist nebula, hobblesome as the latter may be.

Posted by: Interested at November 4, 2005 7:11 PM

All I know is that I have seen, time and time again, Leftists on philosophy forums approvingly use Quine for their purposes. They may misuse Quine, I wouldn't know, not being a Quinine. That doesn't matter. They like Quine. And how do I know they are Leftists? Because these same folks obtusely refuse to criticize Islam (but alacritously criticize their own West), and they really dig Noam Chomsky. 'Nuff said? (Or perhaps Internet Leftists are not the same as Leftists at large.)

Posted by: Dr. Pepper at November 4, 2005 8:32 PM

Cornelius,

Yes, I agree; the sole responsibility for creating the PC nebula lies on the shoulders of Leftists.

Posted by: Dr. Pepper at November 4, 2005 8:33 PM

Dr. Pepper writes:
"All I know is that I have seen, time and time again, Leftists on philosophy forums approvingly use Quine for their purposes. They may misuse Quine, I wouldn't know, not being a Quinine. That doesn't matter. They like Quine. And how do I know they are Leftists? Because these same folks obtusely refuse to criticize Islam (but alacritously criticize their own West), and they really dig Noam Chomsky. 'Nuff said? (Or perhaps Internet Leftists are not the same as Leftists at large.)"

So what? If a "leftist" uses calculus do Newton
and Leibniz get branded as leftist?

As Hugh said, Quine was a logician. And incidentally, a conservative; not that you couldn't be a left wing logician, but it wouldn't
matter, would it? Their work was more like mathematics (actually, metamathematics) than what
passes for philosophy these days.

Really, the left/right pissing contest is quite
stupid. I'm concerned with fundamental freedoms,
and if I had to pay more taxes under a more
left wing government in the US that understood the danger of Islam, I'd rather have that than have a libertarian/conservative government that
was cozy with the umma.

As a question to my liberal allies, are any left wing media beginning to understand the threat? So
far I've seen more right wing sites that show
understanding. This should be an issue on which we can put aside our differences, right? Surely
an enemy which would murder homosexuals is worse
than the one which wants to preserve the heterosexual monogamous definition of marriage, but not kill anyone, right?

Posted by: American at November 5, 2005 12:20 AM

Nariz,

I read your post and it made me think. I think I can see what you're saying; you need not put it in any more specific terms than that. I read through what you had and it did indeed touch me, deeply.

However, I will not marry you. I just don't swing that way.

Nariz, I'm sorry you find my posts so childish/churlish. I have, indeed, veritably! tried asking specific questions and responding elaborately and skillfully to different points in this aeon-long debate, finally taken up, only to have racist accusations, general slander and ad hominem thrown in my face by the kings and knaves of tolerance and understanding.

There, then, is surpassing need to taunt from afar, to degrade, to denigrate, to abuse and to dun - since ultimately, it appears to be the only language some people speak. The examples are clear. The logic is crystal. The water is clear. Where then, if the horse will not drink? Gentle pleading? Or a kick in the arse?

I am here as a baiter, a beater, and a bossers-about of trolls and goblins and all their internet ilk. I am lower and higher and faster than they, and I walk lighter by far and carry a much bigger stick. I would respect their opinions, if only they could respect mine and - maybe, once in a while - admit they could be wrong. But belief in a supreme being that wants blood seems to trump all that.

"And you got them there, they squirm like a worm and avoid addressing issues, then again so do some, and in specific one, supposedly Jihad Watcher (whose real agenda I suspect is to use any venue he can reach to lash out against his personal bete noire, the so called liberal left)."

I, too, am a leftist - and I guarantee, a far, far more left fellow than yourself (I do indeed guarantee it) and yet I recognize all too well the inadequacy of those on the so-called left who speak for our civilization. They are - with exceptions - buffoons, and I have little tolerance with them. I am certain I would not agree on policy issues with Gary, but at the same time I feel Iraq was a huge mistake and that George Bush is not doing our environment any favours. But I have the common sense to check my differences at the door and accept that I cannot change the political opinions of those from the right who post here - and, moreover, I respect those opinions, because, like those on the left, they wouldn't kill anyone to enforce them.

I'm sorry to say that I've never spent any time on special ops, lest perhaps we include panty-raids, and that while I indeed have served the defense of a nation - perched atop a rickety tank, God help us be he in existence, I only ever killed paper targets, liberated beer from its unlawful imprisonment, and rescued maidens from their virginity.

Or, in short for all of this: if my lance seems aimed a-low, it is because my enemy stoops a-lower still, and I prefer that my point passed into them, and not above their heads.

I shall indeed "perseverate", be it as any prefer.

For I am

Prophet Geoff [beer be upon...well...me]

Posted by: Geoff at November 5, 2005 9:13 AM

Cheers, Geoff! :)

Posted by: Gary at November 5, 2005 9:28 AM

American,

"So what? If a "leftist" uses calculus do Newton
and Leibniz get branded as leftist?"

I never branded Quine as a Leftist. Go back and read the exchanges between me and Hugh.

"Really, the left/right pissing contest is quite
stupid."

The Left has been far more remiss in dealing with the problem of Islam than the Right has. There must be a reason for that.

Posted by: Dr. Pepper at November 5, 2005 1:24 PM

No worries Gary.

Look, the objective of the site is to promote understanding of the plight of the oppressed, and to draw attention to the nature of islam and its role in that oppression. Now, I am a leftist - and a leftist I will remain, ad infinitum - but I am not adverse to evidence either. The fact is that these supposed leftist elements of the political landscape are advocating for more "understanding" of islam, which, to islamists, means more dhimmitude, more jizya, more oppression, more deference, all of which they proudly predict their book and their religion said would happen, and should happen.

This is not a good idea.

In fact, the West should be MORE confrontational, more pushy, more demanding, more intolerant (of stupidity, anyway, and of intolerance itself, though not of religion per se) and more aggressive. Islam will not be coddled - it exists, as CAIR says, only to dominate, not to be dominated; we also know how islam feels about having 'equal partners', now don't we? Being nice to the monster will get you eaten. My children will NOT be endangered because fools speak for me. Some (in articles later on in the site) suggest that leftist support for islam comes from reactionary (presumably "right-wing") elements within this tolerance perspective. Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe some people are just stupid. I'm not sure I can blame fools on my side as being reactionary plants of the other side. I just want them gone.

So: let's stick to the purpose - and, at the same time, let's not bash one or another political movement overall. The left has done great works in its time - social security, health care, retirement aid - and will, if not populated by nutbars, continue to do so, as has the right, with the same stipulation. Would any of us like to see a world populated by one type or another exclusively? No one?

Well, Ia, Shirki and Brownfinger all would.

Get the drift?

No-e fighti-e.

So sayeth

Prophet Geoff [pretzels be upon me]

Posted by: Geoff at November 6, 2005 9:22 AM

Geoff~ I am in agreement! I only wish to add- it is not the goals, but the means used to reach the goals. My concern is that some these days wish to use the means to Punish, rather than heal.

Labatt's Blue to go with the beer?

Posted by: Gary at November 7, 2005 11:32 AM

err, pretzels.

Posted by: Gary at November 7, 2005 12:01 PM