"I had a hopeful frisson when I saw the name Dalrymple on the cover, but, alas, it is William, not Theodore (I hasten to add I have nothing against William, and his review of the Adventures of Amir Hamza seems, on a quick skim, interesting)."
-- a comment by Andrew McCarthy, in the article above

Well, McCarthy may "have nothing against William [Dalrymple]." But if so, he either is ignorant of what Dalrymple is all about, or is too easy to please.

I'm not:

Fitzgerald: A tribute to William Dalrymple

Very early on Christmas morning I happened to tune in the BBC World Service. I thought there might be something, perhaps King's College Choir, or the aptly-named Raniero Cantalamessa in Rome, or perhaps someone musing on the fate of Christians in Iraq, other than that moral idiot and historical nitwit, the current Archbishop of Canterbury.

But that would have been a different BBC. This BBC, the BBC of John Simpson and Judy Swallow and Robin Lustig and Barbara Plett of the ready tear for Arafat, is a very different BBC from that of Huw Weldon. And it lived up to my grim expectations. It did not disappoint.

For on the air was someone telling mournfully about "the Wall." And of course I knew which wall he was talking about. He did not mean the Wall of John Hersey, not the Great Wall of China, not the wall being built by Saudi Arabia for many hundreds of miles right through the desert, though no one threatens Saudi Arabia or its inhabitants with their total destruction, nor any other wall being built or being contemplated. No, this "wall" was the wall being built by the Israelis, as a modest measure forced upon them out of desperation as a way to prevent homicide bombers from easily entering their cities, to there set themselves off on busses, in restaurants, and at Passover celebrations. And this "wall," the smooth speaker said, was built right through the usual "uprooted and destroyed" olive groves -- a staple of "Palestinian" propaganda, those "uprooted olive groves," and so important to their propaganda machine that they have been caught uprooting their own olive trees, for the world press to come and cover and bewail.

There was not a hint in this lachrymose tale by this teller of tales of any indication as to why the Israelis might have felt it necessary to build such a wall. There was not a hint of the endless terrorism to which Israel's Jews have been subject, a terrorism of which only now is the rest of the Infidel world is getting a small taste, and which the people of England will be getting a larger and larger taste. There was not a hint as to whether or not this wall was justified in its building. Nor was there any mention made of the fact that it is being built through territory to which Israel has a very large historic, legal, and moral claim. The drawback of this wall is that it appears to lessen this claim. It appears to recognize, although there is no need to do so, the armistice lines of 1948 rather than those of June 1967 as the ones that must prevail.

And the speaker went on. He went on about the travails of the Christians of Bethlehem, with no hint of understanding that the Christian population of Bethlehem, some 80% of the total in 1948, has gone down and down not when under Israel's control, but when it has been under the control of the Arabs. Never has the situation been more grave than now, under the "Palestinian Authority." Local Christians seldom speak out. They are fearful. The Christian Arab strategy, long ago internalized, has been to never complain, and always to parrot the Muslim line, to do the bidding of the Muslims, to be good "Palestinians" always, and therefore always, even when it is absurd and seen by all sensible people to be absurd, to blame -- with no evidence and no logic -- the Israelis, that is, the Jews. To swallow this, one would have to ignore the entire history of Islam, the history of conquest and subjugation of Christians in wide areas of the Middle East and North Africa, and what became of those Christians, and what are the rules, set down clearly in the Shari'a, for the treatment of Christians as dhimmis. The speaker apparently thought he did not have to take note of that. He was under no obligation, he must have thought, to have read or at least to know the contents of The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam or a thousand other possible articles and books that formed the basis for that magisterial study of a major subject in world history. None of that mattered. He longed to go back, to go back one day to see the "Christians of Bethlehem" unoccupied (but they haven't been "occupied" -- even if one were to accept that meretricious and inaccurate word, which I do not -- for more than ten years, but have been under the total control of the "Palestinian Authority").

One longed to ask him what he thought would have happened to the "Christians of Bethlehem" if the Israelis had had the intelligence to insist on retaining Bethlehem as part of Israel, and never surrendered it to the "Palestinian Authority." He could look around at how the Arab Christians have fared in what is Israel, Israel diminished, Israel dimidiated within the 1949 armistice lines (the Arabs refused to recognize them, as they were once offered, as permanent borders; that offer does not remain open forever, to be accepted whenever the Arabs feel like it).

Well, how have they fared?

Can they worship freely? Are they subject to harassment, persecution, even murder as the Christians of Gaza and the West Bank have been, despite their best efforts to further the "Palestinian" cause? Does this speaker know about this? Does he think it relevant to his teary tale?

And who was this speaker, anyway? I waited to the end, enduring the nonsense of it all just to find out. It turned out to be William Dalrymple. Ah, of course. William Dalrymple, described here long ago, quite accurately, as an up-market Barbara Cartland, whose tales of trans-racial passion at the Mughal Court, or at this or that princely court in the time of the Mughals, has it all: star-crossed lovers, and of course the Splendor That Was India, or rather the India of the Muslim rulers who lived off of their Hindu subjects, the subjects who were killed by the Muslims in numbers without any historical parallel. (The historian K. S. Lal and others estimate that 60-70 million Hindus were killed by the Muslim conquerors and masters). Now a love of luxe, and of luxe combined with heaving breasts, is the kind of thing that the Barbara-Cartlands of this world love, including even the plausible sort who put in a bit more history and a little less of the Romance-novelette lord or duke or Arab prince (see "The Sheik"), who picks up the girl in her swoon at the very end (the promise of sex has always been just beyond what Nabokov calls "the skyline of the page") -- that is, William Dalrymple. He's as vulgar and stupid as they come, behind the plummy voice and the pretense of being a historian.

And what is funniest about the Dalrymples and their admirers is that these are the same people who find nothing wrong with the late Edward Said's complaint about Jane Austen in Mansfield Park, the complaint that she does not specify that a main character lives off his revenues from his West Indian plantation, a plantation with slaves.

But here is Dalrymple singing the tale of Mughal India, and its luxe and volupte if not its calme, all of it based on the ruthless enslavement and oppression of the Hindu masses by their cruel Muslim masters. (Of course, there were a few exceptions, such as syncretistic Akbar, his memory revered by Hindus for his temporarily lifting the Jizyah, and his memory despised by the Muslims, for his softness toward Hindus.)

If anyone should be complained about, it is not that subtle miniaturist Jane Austen, who after all was not singing the praises of slaveowning in the West Indies, whereas William Dalrymple has written endlessly about, made his heaving-breast passionate high-toned nonsense out of, nothing but a slave-state.

With his marks -- so inapposite, and yet so typical of the current BBC with its current management and current personnel -- on the hideous Israelis and the woes of the "Palestinian" Christians, William Dalrymple simply showed he was all of a piece. His love-affair with the Muslims of India, his love affair with the Muslim Arabs, his complete indifference to the plight of the Jews in Israel trying, desperately, simply to defend themselves against terrorists and doing the absolute minimum they can -- all this goes together. What does Dalrymple think any other country -- Great Britain for example -- would do if it faced the same kind of endless torment and threats and attempts on the lives of its citizens and of the state, that Israel does as it confronts what it has so far failed to name, and even to recognize, as a Lesser Jihad?

He, William Dalrymple, singer of The Wonder of Mughal India, so far coheres. He coheres, and he nauseates.

[Posted by Hugh at December 26, 2006]

Posted by: Hugh at January 5, 2008 12:44 PM

I find that back in 2005 I summed up in a phrase the much-ovderpraised historical work (do see Dalrymple's very own website, for all of that praise -- unless by now, having been mocked so much here and at www.newenglishreview.org, he's taken some or all of it down -- just the way he's begun to modify what he writes about Muslims -- not quite as obviously apologetic and absurd as before -- ever since his disastrous (and comical at times: that's why we now call him "Okkidental" Dalrymple) performance at that London debate some months ago, the one in whcih he and snide Charles Glass and reptilian Tariq Ramadan, were crushed by Ibn Warraq, Douglas Murray, and David Aronovitch:

"the William-Dalrymple barbaracartlandesque Tales of Star-Crossed, or Transracial Transgressive Love at a Mughal Court, or something)."

I'll look around for more. I'm sure there have been forty whacks, and I should be able to find one or two more.

Posted by: Hugh at January 5, 2008 12:54 PM

Here's another, posted at www.newenglishreview.org:

William Dalrymple, The West, and "A Little Old-Fashioned Humility"

“but it is in the arrogant and forceful assertion of the superiority of western values that we have consistently undermined not only all that is most precious in our civilisation, but also our own foreign policies and standing in the world. Another value, much admired in both East and West, might be a simple solution here: a little old-fashioned humility.”

William Dalrymple, whose amazing performance last week should be engraved on his tombstone in lieu of ci-gît, for the edification of generations, has now written a piece in The Times. He repeats his presentation, a flat-out wrong presentation, of Akbar -- the later Akbar – as an example of a “Muslim” ruler. Akbar was sui generis as a Mughal ruler; his syncretistic enthusiasms caused him to become a non-Muslim, and to think and behave as a non-Muslim; he lifted, for example, the Jizyah tax that after his death was promptly reimposed by Aurangzeb. Yet Dalrymple, who was informed directly by Ibn Warraq on the spot and again, later, in private encounter, that Akbar was no Muslim, ignored this, as if he didn’t quite take it in or thought he had no need to change his bizarre misrepresentation (has he read the “Akbarnamah” of Fazl or hasn’t he? Has he read V. A. West or hasn’t he?) and in his Times article still presents Akbar the Muslim, or still worse, Akbar the (Impliedly) Representative Muslim.

Dalrymple ends on that treacly note, that pious nonsense put here to malevolent use, that we – we the inhabitants of the Western world -- should practice “humility.” If he thinks that is the proper course to suggest at a time of mortal peril from Islam, and when the entire Western world for decades been exhibiting both confusion and embarrassment about its own achievements and about where those achievements come from, and has been unable to muster the common sense and courage to demonstrate both a sufficient appreciation for its own civilizational legacy and, what should naturally follow, a willingness to defend it and the conditions that made it possible, he is wrong.

And if Dr. William Hamilton-Dalrymple prescribes as his panacea “a little old-fashioned humility” – at this point his faccia da schiaffi presents itself to my imagination, and I can hardly hold back -- is in short supply in the Western world – and by “humility” he means accommodation and appeasement and surrender, and a refusal to recognize the superiority of Western “values,” as if the entire West hasn’t been falling all over itself exhibiting far too much of that “humility” for the past fifty years, and at an accelerated pace of self-abasement and self-destruction, one has to laugh. For just check the link he wrote, the one that describes him as as “William Dalrymple, internationally acclaimed author.” And takes you to a website – www.williamdalrymple.com, that overflows with self-promotion and self-congratulation. The person who created such a website, who allows it to be shown, is not exactly in a position to lecture anyone on the nature of “a little old-fashioned humility.”

There is one thing about Dalrymple’s article in The Times of London that does, however, make that piece not quite as embarrassing as his performance at the debate held hard by Kensington Gore last week.. For in the debate we can clearly hear William Hamilton-Dalrymple’s Received Pronunciation of the word “Occident.” He pronounces it as “Okkident.” Fortunately for Dalrymple, his absurd article in The Times could not be heard, only read.

Posted by: Hugh at January 5, 2008 12:58 PM

A second one

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/018453.php

First thoughts on the debate, "We Should Not Be Reluctant to Assert the Superiority of Western Values"

I listened to the Q2 debate once through yesterday morning, and took no notes, but I remember some important details. The resolution, about being unafraid to assert the superiority of Western values, had on one side, supporting the resolution, Ibn Warraq, David Aronovitch, and Douglas Murray, and opposing it, Charles Glass, Tariq Ramadan, and William Dalrymple.

Ibn Warraq opened with a nine-minute non-stop summary of why the values of the West -- a thing different from the present-day West, or parts of it -- are superior to those of the non-West. Once he had finished, it was all over.

Charles Glass then came on, to deal with the situation as best he could. He was full of arch humor, but they were fallen arches, even crestfallen arches, and consequently the humor was lame, at the level of "since I am a Westerner, and so obviously superior, as you have told me" and so on. He discussed the West, a West that in his version appeared to be one rocky horror picture show after another, consisting in the main of the Spanish Inquisition, Western imperialism at its absolute worst, the mass-murder of European Jews by the Nazis and their collaborators, and, bien entendu, that most horrible of all crimes of humanity ever committed, the famous Auschwitz-sized death-camp-and-torture-chamber known as Abu Ghraib. Charles Glass apparently did not understand that these historical events had nothing to do with "Western values" and their assertion, which was the subject of the debate, and so the subject under discussion did not faze him.

Aronovitch I hardly heard, because there were other distractions, including some phone calls. But he did talk about Islam, or Islamic states and societies, that we can observe today, beginning with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Then came the serpent, Tariq Ramadan, who turned out to have lost his head. He delivered a confused mess. He insisted that he was a "European Muslim," someone who belonged in Europe, confusing his geographical presence (yes, he is living in Europe) with an intellectual or emotional bond that he does not have, and could not have. He may live in Europe, but he is no European, and never will be. He went on and on about how so much of European civilization owed its this and its that to this or that figure whom, in Europe, "we never hear about" and "no one knows about." It was his fantastical history, where the Renaissance and for all I know the Enlightenment and the French Revolution thrown in for good measure, really owe their existence to those wonderful Muslim thinkers whom we are unaware of, but of whom Tariq Ramadan is very aware. He told us again and again how necessary it was to have a real "dialogue" which dialogue could only take place if the insufferable Westerners would stop saying how "superior" they were -- that was not quite the theme of the debate, of course -- and no one interrupted to shout "but, but, isn't Islam based on the idea of the superiority of Islam, and the right and duty of Muslims to work to spread Islam until it dominates everywhere, tearing down every conceivable barrier to its spread, and to its dominance?"

He made all kinds of remarks that, when I listen for a second time, I will try to jot down. Toward the end, he started to talk about capital punishment in the United States, and how the only way to get rid of it would be not to call for an outright ban but for a "moratorium," and then he explained that that is why it was wrong for others to have attacked him for calling for a temporary "moratorium" on the stoning to death of women caught in adultery in Muslim lands. You had to know this, for otherwise his allusion to it remains obscure.

In general, he fell apart, and he fell apart still more, raising his voice, and yelling that he believed in "humility, humility, humility." He convinced no one, but no doubt part of the audience, the third that voted for his side, would not have voted otherwise no matter what. They came to support what they saw as the Muslim Team, and they did.

The one who really gave himself away was the odious and stupid and remarkably ill-informed William Dalrymple. He went on and on about how, near to where "I live in Delhi" there is some spot connected to the reign of Akbar. And then he proceeded to tell everyone -- thank god it has been preserved on tape, for all time -- how Akbar, the "Muslim emperor," had called together Shi'a Muslims, and Sunni Muslims, and Jains, and Christians, and even Jews from Cochin, for a colloquy. And he went on and on about how splendid Akbar was. Of course, Akbar was splendid, when he became syncretistic, when he ended the Jizyah, when he essentially stopped being a Muslim in every important way. The British historian V. A. West, in his "History of India," notes that Akbar demanded that those in his inner circle had to abjure the Qur'an -- not exactly the sign of a Muslim.

So his entire speech was all about Akbar, and he apparently did not know that Akbar, the Akbar he praised, is remembered today fondly by Hindus and despised by Muslims. And at one point he even described "Ashoka and Akbar" as Muslim leaders. Ashoka was no Muslim. Could I really have heard him say that? Not possible. No, I suppose anything is possible, especially if Dalrymple shows he has missed entirely the main point about syncretistic Akbar, has not understood the whole point of his later rule, and why he is revered by Hindus and despised by Muslims, though some may now invoke his name to show that “Muslims are tolerant.”

No, Dalrymple’s idiocy about Akbar will live on forever, on the tape made of the other evening, forever made available online with a single click, to haunt him, to mock him, to serve as proof that Dalrymple the historian of Mughal India, “internationally-acclaimed,” is unsteady when it comes to possibly the most important figure in Indian history during the entire Mughal period.

Ibn Warraq, in one of later replies, noted -- too quickly, alas -- that Akbar was no Muslim, and it was clear, according to observers, that Dalrymple was nervous, that he knew he was out of his depth.

And why was he "out of his depth"? Did he not know about Akbar? Never read the "Akbarnamah" of Fazl? Strange, isn't it, that someone who has made his entire professional career out of his supposed knowledge of Mughal India, and has written all his books about Mughal India, appears to be so ignorant about Akbar, the celebrated emperor who during his reign ended the practice of demanding the payment of the Jizyah (his successor, Aurangzeb, promptly re-imposed it) and was clearly indifferent or even hostile to so much of Islam. And Dalrymple cannot claim that little is known about Akbar or his reign, for it was recorded in great detail by Fazl, and by others. Or does Dalrymple not know that, either?

Oh, did I mention that the same Dalrymple (google his name and "Jihad Watch" and "Posted by Hugh" for my many descriptions of him as an upscale Barbara Cartland, singing the life of luxe and volupté at the Mughal court, with love intrigues in the palaces, and trans-racial transgressions, and all the rest of it) a few years ago was earning all kinds of prizes and glory for his book “The Last Mughal.” For that book the claim was repeatedly made that he, Dalrymple, had come along and finally made use of the Mutiny Papers that no historian had seen or used, and until Dalrymple came along had simply been overlooked or, in some accounts, even entirely unknown. But if you read his much-overrated "The Last Mughal" you find, in the footnotes, that Dalrymple takes much, perhaps most, of what he quotes from those Mutiny Papers not directly, but from books by other, much more solid historians. He admits as much. And yet the story still makes the rounds about how William Dalrymple used a cache of papers that no one had known about. Good Christ, you’d think he was Hyde at Malahide Castle. It’s blague. Curious that his self-promoting website, the one you get to by googling his name and then clicking on a link that proudly describes itself as yielding “[t]he Home site of William Dalrymple, internationally acclaimed writer and historian” (who do you suppose wrote that?), continues the tale of the Papers That No One Knew About.

There is some extravagant praise for William Hamilton-Dalrymple by the quite similar David Gilmour. He is similar in ways that include the vicious and viciously-expressed detestation of Israel (and one suspects, a little more than just Israel). Also like Dalrymple, he has won praise from Amartya Sen, who may be world-famous and Indian, but has given no signs at all of thinking that he has a duty to find out a bit more about the texts and tenets and attitudes of Islam, and what the Muslim conquerors and rulers did in and to India. The at-times egregious Sen, one presumes, has never read K. S. Lal, or Francois Gautier, or Koenraad Elst, and would recoil at the name “Sita Ram Goel.” For Sen is an example of the Indian who becomes famous in the Great World and who wants to make sure that he can never be accused of what in India is called “communalism,” but which really means all those Hindus who are aware of their being Hindus, and aware too of what Islam did to India’s civilization of Hinduism, a way of life and thought rather than a religion as we understand it in the West. V. S. Naipaul is a lonely exception. Most Indians with Hindu backgrounds in academic posts in England and America attempt to distance themselves, ostentatiously so, from any hint of “communalism.” Part of that distancing requires them to ignore or deliberately overlook the destructive and cruel consequences (including 60-70 million murdered Hindus) of Muslim rule. It just won’t fit. And so the vague and tepid praise of Amartya Sen, which carefully does not mention the actual history which Dalrymple purports to treat, is understandable, as is that of Gilmour. But note: neither Gilmour nor Amartya Sen is a historian of India. What do the real historians of India think of the works of Indian history written by William Dalrymple? Judging by their non-presence at his site, not much. Perhaps I am being unfair -- so someone set me straight. Some one please send me all the reviews in the scholarly journals that praise William Dalrymple the way that David Gilmour does, the way someone who is an “internationally acclaimed writer and historian” deserves to be praised.

Who cares if Dalrymple writes about Englishmen at a Mughal Court (“White Mughals”), the kind of stuff that may impress those who are not experts in the field, or can convince the world, by dint of repetition, that he and he alone has made use of the Mutiny Papers, that, supposedly, no one else knew about or ever used them, even though merely by looking at his footnotes one can see that Dalrymple quotes extensively from other historians who did know about them, and did use them.

Incredible. He’s now hoist by his own permanently-preserved-on-tape petard. Just click on the link, and perform that fast-forwarding act so you can be brought right up to William Dalrymple, making a fool of himself, for all historians of India, right at the Royal Geographical Society, next to the Kensington Gore.

And Tariq Ramadan will not be able to recover either. Those debating him in the future should use the knowledge of how easily he gets rattled, angry, grading into – if only there had been more time to see it happen – hysteria when he thinks he is not being given his due, by those beastly Westerners who for some reason think Europe belongs to them, when of course it belongs in the end to Tariq Ramadan and to Islam. For Islam was responsible for so much of Europe’s cultural advancement, and stands ready to work its magic on Europe yet again, thanks to those “European Muslims” such as Tariq Ramadan who apparently have a European version of the Qur’an, and a European version of the Hadith, and a thoroughly European version of the Sira, so that no one need think that their Islam, European Islam, will be anything like the Islam we see, and have seen for more than a millennium, all over Dar al-Islam.

Of course, their claque came, and determinedly voted for them, and would have, no matter what. And no doubt there was a claque of sorts among some -- but by no means all -- of those who voted in support of the resolution. But the lopsided two-to-one result suggests that the great middle, the undecided part of the audience that came to hear and to be persuaded, was indeed persuaded by one side and one side only -- by Ibn Warraq, by David Aronovitch, by Douglas Murray.

Note, by the way, the amusing makeup of the opposing sides. Whoever selected the two teams appears to have, possibly unconsciously, to have had One of Each: one brown-skinned person who was born into Islam, preferably in the East; one English-based journalist with a name that others might perceive as "Jewish"; one upper-class Englishman with the right old school tie. Of course, there was a difference. Ibn Warraq told the truth and Tariq Ramadan was a slithering and, at times, maddened and confused liar; David Aronovitch pointed out what was happening at present, in such places as Iran, a state that tried to impose as much of the Shari’a as it could, while Charles Glass wished to keep very far from the present, except as to the putative sins of the West (Abu Ghraib! Abu Ghraib!), and tried to dwell on Islam’s presumably splendid past (“when such-and-such was happening in the Abbasid court, woad-painted savages were wandering through the woods of Surrey and Kent” or words to that effect). And then there was the suave Murray, and the rightly-unnerved, revealingly ignorant, "internationally-acclaimed" historian of Mughal India, William Dalrymple.

And a good time was had, and can continue to be had, by all -- by all those, that is, who are on the right side of that "Resolved," as of course everyone here is, or should be.

Posted by Hugh at October 12, 2007 2:30 PM

Posted by: Hugh at January 5, 2008 1:01 PM

All part of the how many 60 0r millions being spent by the OIC to fine tune Islams "image".

Posted by: GrennBeck at January 5, 2008 1:01 PM

Here's a third, and while short, it is my favorite:

Sunday, 14 October 2007

William Dalrymple, Received Pronunciation, and "Okkident"

If you click on this link [at http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/10678] to the debate (Ibn Warraq, Aronovitch, Murray vs. Glass, Ramadan, Dalrymple) you can hear William Dalrymple quoting, and misunderstanding, and misapplying, a statement by the historian of the Crusades Stephen Runciman. Fifty minutes and 31 seconds (51:31) into the debate, Dalrymple quotes Runciman on the interaction and fusion and so on "between Okkident and Orient." You heard right. Okkident.

As the Italians say: Accidenti.

Posted by: Hugh at January 5, 2008 1:03 PM

Has anyone read Ramadan's piece in the New York Times on reading the Koran? If you have, can you please explain to me what exactly he is arguing for?

He appears to be saying that the Koran is for everyone, that "no sheik is needed, no wise man, no confidant." Further, the Koran "lays down laws, a moral code and a body of practice that Muslims must respect, whatever their era and their environment." Yet despite the clarity and closeness of the Koran, these codes, rules and practices DO require the shieks, wise men and confidants, apparently, because "study, specialization and extreme caution" are necessary (not in the least because the Koran is apparently stuffed to the brim with, to put it mildly, "differing though noncontradictory elements").

Well, fine. Every day shieks, wise men and confidants issue fatwas instructing the believers to beat women, torture gays to death, murder apostates, demand nonbelievers submit to Shar'ia laws, etc., etc. These must be the skilled interpretations of the Koranic texts that Ramadan's talking about, right? I mean, who else is out there to do it?

"The Text is one, but its readings are multiple." Is that like saying "words mean what I want them to mean"? I feel like Tom Hanks in "Big" when he raises his hand in the business meeting and says, confused, "I don't get it."

Posted by: Marwan'sDaughter at January 5, 2008 3:19 PM

Islam issue this weekend?

I'm going to be sick.

Posted by: darcy at January 5, 2008 3:57 PM

Sigh ...( that narrates my lament that Jihad watch can only ever see the 'glass half empty').

The New York Times actually attempts 'balance' and this is subject for further complaint instead of acknowleging a shift away from the supposedly wilful obfuscation the NYT ( aka 'Greylady' , aka 'Duranty times') has been continually condemned for on this site.

Posted by: David Xavier at January 5, 2008 4:59 PM

Appears to me that the NYT has "balance" tipping over to the islam side.

Without doubt Robert Spencer should be in this issue. He should have been asked to write an article about Mohammed.

Posted by: darcy at January 5, 2008 5:22 PM

I have only watched him a couple of times and he seemed smart , until he launched into a excruciating tired Bush-is-dumb tirade. His attacks on Christianity are probably the same - the mean spirited , petty , malicious masquerading as humour so as to make his point which could be: How can we dare ask Islam to examine its beliefs , what about examining our own beliefs ! But is most probably: Believe not in God but in the Democratic party they will really save you... just more political nastiness.

Posted by: David Xavier at January 5, 2008 5:23 PM

Oppsy daisy - the above posting should have been in the "Catholics riot, demand that Bill Maher be beheaded " thread.

Posted by: David Xavier at January 5, 2008 5:26 PM

There again speaking of "mean spirited , petty , malicious".... Mr Fitzgerald's 'take no prisoners' critism of all who do not reside in the Jihadwatch-land netherworld , as evidenced by his revelling in William Dalrymple's mispronunciation of occident as "Okkident"...is unworthy. And may even out 'small' Bill Maher in this sort of ad hominem humour.

Posted by: David Xavier at January 5, 2008 5:44 PM

"The New York Times actually attempts 'balance' and this is subject for further complaint instead of acknowleging a shift away from the supposedly wilful obfuscation the NYT ( aka 'Greylady' , aka 'Duranty times') has been continually condemned for on this site."
- from a poster above

The objection is not to what you describe as an "attempt" at "balance" but at two quite different things. First, the "balance" is a specious balance, for The Times still does not tell its readers anything like what they need to know about Islam. How often have you seen, in The Times, a long discussion of the Hadith, of what they are, of why they are important, of who the most important muhaddithin are, and how they studied and reduced in number, and assigned levels of likely "autheniticity," to hundreds of thousands of stories -- the ahadith (or Hadith) -- about what Muhammad said and did, and how often have you seen The Times explain what the figure of Muhammad represents (uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil) and why it is important to understand how central that figure is to the thoughts, the worldview, the behavior, the attitudes of Muslims? And how often have you seen in The Times a discussion of such imporant events in Muhammad's life as the execution of the Banu Qurayza prisoners? The attack on the Khaybar Oasis? The killing of Asma bint Marwan? The killing of Abu Akaf? The marriage when she was six, and the consummation of that marriage when she was nine, of Muhammad to little Aisha? How much has The Times written about the Treaty of Hudaibiyya, the basis for all subsequent Muslim treaty-making with Infidels, and therefore of immediate relevance to that supposed "peace process" The Times so enjoys hectoring those "stubborn" (actually absurdly yielding)Israelies about?

I'll tell you, because I know. The answer is this: you have read, since 9/11/2001, not a single word about the Hadith, not a single word about the figure of Muhammad, about what he said and what he did. Not a word about little Aisha, the Khaybar Oasis, the Banu Qurayza, Asma bint Marwan, Abu Akaf. Not a word about Hudaibiyyah, and the treaty made there, and how Muhammad broke it after 18 months. Nothing.

So to commend The Times for its phony "balance" would be absurd. Why should we? And furthermore, what does that word "balance" mean? I thought that intelligent people had a right to be informed, not provided with some kind of pseudo-"balance" where a side that tells the truth, and a side that doesn't, are both offered, without any explanation or analysis or showing-up of how the side that is lying does lie, and why the evidence supports those who happen, as certain principals at this website, to tell the (most disturbing and apparently difficult to grasp and to accept) truth.

"Balance" means nothing. It is not a virtue. The truth, the telling of the truth -- that is a virtue.

Posted by: Hugh at January 5, 2008 5:47 PM

I refuse to read the paper of ill repute, but thank you for alerting me to John Bolton's new book!

Posted by: lonewolf at January 5, 2008 6:21 PM

"not a single word about the figure of Muhammad, about what he said and what he did. Not a word about little Aisha, the Khaybar Oasis, the Banu Qurayza, Asma bint Marwan, Abu Akaf. Not a word about Hudaibiyyah, and the treaty made there, and how Muhammad broke it after 18 months. Nothing." --posted by Hugh

Exactly why I posted above that Spencer should have been asked to write an article about Mo.

But, that article would have been filled with facts. And we can't have facts in PC World because facts tell the truth and we can't tell the truth about Islam/Mo/Koran in PC World. Facts are too dangerous because they tell the truth - therefore, no facts. Also, facts might show that people/cultures/religions aren't equal, aren't equivalent - Nope, can't have that in PC World.

PC World doesn't want to hear that Mo murdered thousands of Jewish and Christian males - the 1st Holocaust - and enslaved their females or took 'em as concubines for Mo. Because Mo is the "Perfect Man," just as the Mohammedans say.

Posted by: darcy at January 5, 2008 6:30 PM

Hugh: '"Balance" means nothing. It is not a virtue. The truth, the telling of the truth -- that is a virtue.'

Nail--head--thwhack!

Posted by: Stendec at January 5, 2008 7:06 PM

I just read through once but to be fair, some of the points raised here are also raised by the various book reviewers.

I have no problem with the MSM being impartial in presenting the world. Tariq is fine as long as they also have Lady Ali, which they do.

I think Bat Ye`or is an unforgivable omission however.

Posted by: tokyobk at January 5, 2008 7:25 PM

By the way, and no one here needs convincing, the essay by Tariq Ramdan is severl hundred words of absolutely nothing. General moral platituded that could be said with a few detail changes about the Book of Mormon or the Wizard of Oz.

And he suggests not to start with the Koran but with the life of Muhammud?

Is he kidding? Even in my pre-9/11 days what I had read from Ibn Ishaq made me cringe. In once scene the Prophet allows the lighting of a fire on the chest of a prisoner to get him to tell where the gold is hidden? I guess if that was done at Gitmo it would be considered torture.

Tariq must be refering to his own recent book.

Posted by: tokyobk at January 5, 2008 7:34 PM

"Balance means nothing. It is not a virtue. The truth, the telling of the truth -- that is a virtue."

There are different perspectives that yeild different 'truths'. For instance , there are different historical perspectives such as: Was the USA settled or invaded? From the perspective of the native America it was "invaded". Yes the word 'balance' is hardly useful , but 'truth' also has its own problems...so perhaps 'balance' or the presentation of different points of view is best. Finally , where have you seen a long discussion of the hadith etc , in any daily paper?

you stack the terrorists upon the radicals upon the Muftis upon the amorphous unwashed Muslim masses. And then you place this little pyramid all upon the scriptures of Islam , like stacking Lego, so that everything flows back to the scriptures. The truth according to you , must be seen through this lens. This creates a preconception and only the tit-bits and morsals that reinforce this preconception are posted at this site. Of course the connections abound , if they didnt they wouldnt be posted here. Is this really representative of truth?

A truth is that Westernisation of Islam is occurring , albeit at snail pace , two steps forward and a step back. The West is a cultural Juggernaut ..which is why the reaction to our inroads is so vicious. Every Muslim , though , is not a terrorist , every Muslim isnt strapped with explosives..just like every Black kid isnt Willie Horton with a knife.Islam cannot win because the siren song of our ipodlistening blondecovered porntopia Macworld is overwhelming.

Finally you seem to be afriad that we in the West will go 'silently into the night'. That our political leaders ( or Israels) will not do what is ..."required"... if I am wrong about Islam. That the US will not climb down into the dirt and mud to squeeze the life out of any movement that is an existential threat. And maybe the truth of the matter is , that the NYT understands and grasps this much better that you'll do. And seeks to ensure the leash is tightly held on the "Dogs of war" else they escape unnecessarily.

Posted by: David Xavier at January 5, 2008 8:05 PM

Xavier, with respect to your sentiments.

It is not becuase we are armed with Big Macs and Ipods that the West will triumph.

It is because Enlghtenment trumps tyranny every time.

Islam is self-defined as submission to the will of Allah and the Mohammud worship makes even kind and decent people tailor their view to a man who can at best be a representative of his own time but hardly a model for the ages.

Big Macs and Ipods are the result of a free society but not its essence.

Posted by: tokyobk at January 5, 2008 8:12 PM

Ladies and gentlemen

I do not think 'david xavier' has chosen the right internet handle.

HIs posting name should be Dr Pangloss.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at January 5, 2008 8:12 PM

I do not think 'david xavier' has chosen the right internet handle.

HIs posting name should be Dr Pangloss.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at January 5, 2008 8:12 PM

Right, a foolish optimist.

Also, there's no comparison between: "Every Muslim , though , is not a terrorist , every Muslim isnt strapped with explosives..just like every Black kid isnt Willie Horton with a knife."

Muslim terrorists are operating from a manifesto, the Qur'an. The famous and much-used "Willie Horton" is just a murderer, no manifesto.

In addition, it's not required that every Muslim be a Terrorist for us to fight Islamic Terrorism. Every German was not a Nazi, yet we still fought the Nazis. Capische?

Posted by: darcy at January 5, 2008 8:35 PM

David Xavier,

The truth is that Mohammed was a murderous pirate. The truth is that Muslims revere Mohammed as the Perfect Man. The truth is that the Koran defines Islam's sole objective as a temporal world empire under Islamic law, achieved by undermining and destroying all competing cultures. The truth is that Islam is unicultural and intolerant of non-Muslims. The truth is that Muslims, to a man, deny every bit of this, absolutely. The truth is that, when Muslims make such denials, they are barefacedly lying to us. The truth is that when we call them on these lies, with copious unambiguous proof from their own writings, quotations, and their own history, they threaten us and try to take away our free speech.

The truth will destroy Islam, and the Muslims know it. I will not participate in their lies. And I will not excuse them for protecting their vicious canonical doctrines from criticism.

Posted by: Stendec at January 5, 2008 8:37 PM

tokyobk
"It is because Enlghtenment trumps tyranny every time."

The Liberal Weimar Republic gave way to fascism... I am not that optimistic. The material benefits make the West very enticing. And as long as the West is unyeilding in its values , takes pride in its hertiage and doesnt disown it culture .. its essence should ( and does) suffuse through those who come to the West as well as influence those outside the West who have contact with it.

Posted by: David Xavier at January 5, 2008 9:19 PM

Dumbledoresarmy

I had to hold onto my head for fear it would fall off from laughter... such highbrow mirth from a person who calls himself ..."Dumbledoresarmy"

Posted by: David Xavier at January 5, 2008 9:36 PM

"Muslim terrorists are operating from a manifesto, the Qur'an. ....
..... it's not required that every Muslim be a Terrorist for us to fight Islamic Terrorism. Every German was not a Nazi, yet we still fought the Nazis. Capische?"

yes I agree that Muslim terrorists use Islam's scriptures to justify and derive inspiration for their obsence acts.You infer fighting terrorism means discrediting a "manifesto" because a minority use it as a source for terrorism. The same texts are used by millions of Muslims who are not inclined to terrorism , who think terrorism is equally abhorent. Is it the texts or is it interpretation of the texts. The small number of terrorists makes me suspect most Muslims engage in a apathetic interpretation of Islam...and just want to carry on their small lives harming no-one. We are fighting the " Nazi's" , they are lead by OBL and are call Al Queada ... or should we start up the internment camps for all Muslims?

Posted by: David Xavier at January 5, 2008 9:55 PM

"The same texts are used by millions of Muslims who are not inclined to terrorism , who think terrorism is equally abhorent" --posted above

Who are these Muslims who think this? I haven't heard one word from any Muslims who feel this way. Please provide some proof for your statement.

Also, it's not a "small" number of Terrorists. There have been over 10,000 Islamic murders and mass-murders since 9/11. See thereligionofpeace.com. That is not "small."

Concerning "interpretation of the texts," the Koran is completely literal, not metaphorical in any way. "Slay the Infidel wherever you find him" has only one, literal interpretation. There can be no other.

Posted by: darcy at January 5, 2008 11:08 PM

darcy,

From bottom to top,

Yes the Koran is supposedly literal, yet infidels remain living among majority Muslim populations...so why arent the Muslims out ' a slaying'? Yes the Koran and the 'rest of it' allow choice in expediencies , revenue raising trade-offs ( as the name of this site alludes to)but another reason could be that most Muslims ignore it.Hence what I mean by 'interpretation' is that either "Slay the Infidel .." is an imperitive that cannot be ignored OR it can be put aside in a similar manner to obsolete laws in the West ..simply not enforced. The terrorist of course use it as a imperitive to justify ..well anything.

Your second point reveals the problem of only visiting sites that reinforce a preconception. Yes Jihad is the paramount 'terrorist ' problem of the world... it is a response to modernity, to the West , to our success and their repudiation. But 10000 victims( again I do not wish to be little this cruel number ) over 6 years when 10000 die a year from gun shot in the US alone. Islam is often compared to the threast of communism , but Bolshevism must have killed aleast 50 million , throw in Mao and you have 100 million. Heck , by the time Pol Pot started his run at utopia , he was already a cliche. So some perspective is necessary. The West is properly reacting to the threat of Islamic terrorism which in itself is a reaction to ourselves...even if the most lame Democract gets elected , this President will live in fear of another terrorist action on US soil so the war against Islamic terrorism will go on. ( OK this is a hope). Ultimately though, in the end the West will win out.

The proof of my first statement is that, most muslims arent marching in the Streets ..rageboy is a rentboy ..its shameless propaganda propagated by a shameless media looking for some angry video grabs. But take Pakistan if I extrapolate a survey from Pakistan.

"....13% of Pakistanis support unilateral American military action pursuing Al Qaedaand Taliban fighters inside Pakistan. Among all Pakistanis nationwide, a majority support the Pakistani military by itself—without the United States military—pursing Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters inside Pakistan."

Again even in Pakistan , a majority want the terrorists gone. This is what I base my "statment" of abhorrence on.

Posted by: David Xavier at January 6, 2008 12:09 AM

"The same texts are used by millions of Muslims who are not inclined to terrorism , who think terrorism is equally abhorent" [sic]
--a poster

Evidence, please? Evidence that "millions of Muslims" who "are not inclined to terrorism"..."think terrorism is equally abhorent."[sic]

That particular poster's English -- spelling, grammar, syntax -- frequently wobbles, but I presume that the adverb "equally" before the mispelled "abhorrent" is meant to convey that "terrorism" is "equally" as "abhorrent" to those "millions" (how many "millions" exactly? Two million? Twenty million? Eight hundred million? Give us your best guesstimate, and explain how you arrived at it, will you?) as it is to the intended Infidel victims of such "terrorism."

Might there be other reasons why Muslims do not all engage in terrorism? Could it be that they are simply following the distinction between "Fard Ayn" -- in which the duty to act is incumbent on every individual Muslim -- and "Fard Kifaya" -- in which because some are acting on behalf of the Muslims, the Umma or Community of the Believers, other Muslims are relieved of that duty?

Don't we see again and again Muslims who do not participate in terrorist acts who yet are willing to defend, to protect, to send money to support those who do, or the survivors of those who do? Isn't that something? Isn't that "engaging (indirectly) in terrorism? And why, for god's sake, do you focus only on the tactic of terrosim and not on all the other ways that Jihad is being conducted, right now, all over the Bilad al-kufr?

In any case, here is the Muslim distinction between Fard Ayn and Fard Kifaya -- perhaps you can commit it to memory, and perhaps you can be a little more circumspect in your all-too-frequent, sometimes quite confused, and often for the rest of us unenlightening but time-wasting postings, which other posters feel compelled to waste time answering, or more accurately, attemptiing to set you straight.

JihadWatch is not Hyde Park Corner. We do not all relish the prospect of acccompanying you on your voyage of mental discovery as you slowly begin to puzzle things out more fully, even begin to parrot fixed phrases and ideas that I recognize. We would be grateful if you might, occasionally, keep something to yourself, and worked a bit more on that grammar, that spelling, that syntax.

Now, as to Fard Ayn and Fard Kifaya:

Fard Ayn

It is the Fard that is a compulsory duty on every single Muslim to perform like praying and fasting.

Fard Kifaya

It is the Fard that if performed by some, the obligation falls from the rest. The meaning of Fard Kifaya, is that if there are not enough people that respond to it, then all the people are in sin. If sufficient amount of people respond, the obligation falls from the rest. The call for it in the beginning is like the call for establishing a Fard Ayn, but it differs in that a Fard Kifaya is absolved by the performance of some of the people. But a Fard Ayn is not absolved by any number of people performing it.- That is why Fakhr ar Razi defmed Fard Kifaya as the obligation that is carried out without looking to the souls of the ones who perform it.

Shaffie said: "A Fard Kifaya is a command directed towards everyone seeking only a response from some". - The definition agreed upon by the majority of scholars, of them Ibn Hajib, al Amdi and Ibn Abdu Shakur, state that Fard Kifaya is obligatory upon everyone, but is absolved upon the performance of some. People are now arguing about the jihad ruling, and they consider it is Fard Kifaya, that means it is obligatory upon everyone, but is absolved when some perform it. According to this opinion, the Fard of jihad in Afghanistan is, Fard Kifaya. Rather, it is obligatory upon all Muslims on the earth until the completion of this Fard, which is the expulsion of the Russians and communists from Afghanistan. The sin is suspended on the necks of all the people until the expulsion of all the communists is complete. Because the Fard, or obligation, in the condition of an attack by the Kuffar is: the expulsion of the Kuffar from the Muslim land.

Some people from far away say, "jihad in Afghanistan needs money and not men". This talk is bare of truth, because the interval of approximately six years of Russian aggression against Afghanistan, the migration of 5 million to the outside, and 7 million refugees inside, scattered in mountains and in the wilderness, is enough to answer this claim.

As Sayyaf said: "Fourteen countries, the fIrst of them the Soviet Union, followed by the Warsaw Pact and the international communists, are unified in their attack against us. While the Muslims in the Muslim world are still arguing: 'Is jihad in Afghanistan Fard Ayn of Fard Kifaya?' So let the Muslims wait until the last man becomes Shaheed, then they will believe that jihad is Fard Ayn, while it is known that up to now there have already been nearly one and a half million Shuhada."

The Afghani people say: "The presence of one Arab among us is more loved by us than one million dollars."

The scholar Sayyaf said in a call to the Ulama and Da'i in Jihad Magazine, ninth issue. We quote:

All praise be to Allah and may peace and blessings be upon the Messenger of Allah, upon his family, companions and whoever is guided by his guidance. And what follows:

You are aware that jihad in Afghanistan, began and still continues to raise the words of Allah, and to establish a state founded on the Qur'an. To realise this objective we need mujahideen who properly understand Islam and who can safeguard the principles of true Islamic jihad, therefore we need Da'i and Ulama, to continually teach and instruct. You should know that there have already been many tutors and scholars martyred in the fields of jihad in Afghanistan. That is why we are in a great need of men who are capable of teaching, tutoring and directing in mujahideen schools, training camps, refugee camps and battle fronts until Allah the Exalted helps us to bring about our expected aims. We need scholars and tutors more than any other professionals or specialists. May Allah assist us and you in serving Islam and the Muslims."

Posted by: Hugh at January 6, 2008 12:26 AM

To hell with it all: anyone interested in learning about Islam should read the Koran/Quran/Qu'ran or however else you want to transliterate it. It is the most damning book against Islam that was ever written.

Posted by: Wimbledon Womble at January 6, 2008 1:13 AM

Xavier,

The Weimar Republic gave way to facism which gave way to the complete restructuring of Europe. Part of that restructuring was in the form of Communism which itself could not hold back the tide of the human need for freedom.

Your point about Weimar does not at all counter my point that the trend of history and humanity is towards freedom and no tyranny can stand in its way. The internet is a tool of this world and historical force.

Tyrannies will win battles for sure, along the way and make terrible gains at times.

Your point about Weimar reminds me of that of a friend of mine who keeps his money under his mattress because he lost money on a stock once.

Posted by: tokyobk at January 6, 2008 1:53 AM

Xavier:

19 hijackers can bring down 4 jumbo jets in a day. But that is just terror. The real threat is jihad by out breeding: It took 30 years to bring the numbers from 15.000 to one million Muslims in Holland. Its worse in France. It took 70 years to make Lebanon Islamic. Australia had 10.000 Muslims 30 years ago and now has 350.000. Sowdi Arabia has ploughed hundreds of millions of dollars into the global jihad, in the last 10 years alone.

Everywhere in Africa, Asia, America Europe you see mosques shooting up like mushrooms, da'awa centers and madrassah's, and everywhere in the western world you see violent demonstrations at the drop of a hat, if you say something about Islam or draw a cartoon about Muhammad. We have heard your 'moderate Muslim' story ad nauseam here, and we still haven't found one, not one Muslim willing to face the music without making fake excuses and the inevitable taqiyya in defence of the cult.

Educate yourself and come back when you have something to say.

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at January 6, 2008 2:53 AM

'david xavier' -

do you realize just how much you revealed, by your ad hominem sneer which implied that it was just too, too funny that I should attempt 'highbrow mirth' through an allusion from Voltaire's Candide, given that my internet handle is drawn from J K Rowlings?

I am not ashamed of enjoying Rowlings' novels. They are clever and fun. They are full of all those very things that Ayaan Hirsi Ali found so attractive when she began to explore the English childrens books in the school library in Kenya. Ayaan writes (Infidel, p. 64): "We [she and her sister] began with Nancy Drew - stories of pluck and independence. There was Enid Blighton [sic], the Secret Seven, the Famous Five: tales of freedom, adventure, of equality between girls and boys, trust, and friendship."

Do not despise J K Rowling. You argue that the Muslim world is opening up - the popularity of Rowlings' 'Harry Potter' stories worldwide must surely help that process. You should be pleased by the possibility that in some library somewhere in France, the UK, the USA, Canada, Germany, and, yes, Kenya, the 'Harry Potter' novels may be lighting up the mind of some Muslim child, just as Enid Blyton's adventure stories first opened a door of Enlightenment for Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Sometimes, however, I wonder whether your mantra that the Ummah is getting more and more westernised, better and nicer and freer every day, your hints that all of us here at jihad watch are ill-informed and badly over-reacting, might be in fact mere flim-flam, not seriously believed by yourself but, rather, employed in hopes of putting us back to sleep and thus preventing us from *doing* anything definite to defend ourselves, or our civilisation, that civilisation which has produced people like Voltaire and J K Rowling.

(The examples of, inter alia, Persia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Indonesia, Egypt, the 'Palestinians', Turkey, Northern Nigeria and Lebanon, do not exactly inspire confidence that there is in fact, at present, across dar al Islam, a broad and irreversible trend toward greater and greater modernisation, liberalisation, female equality, or freedom of conscience).

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at January 6, 2008 4:04 AM

LOL, I went to bed last night right after replying to "David Xavier," and find this morning that Hugh et al took up the gauntlet. Allright!

As Hugh said, "...that "terrorism" is "equally" as "abhorrent" to those "millions" (how many "millions" exactly? Two million? Twenty million? Eight hundred million? Give us your best guesstimate, and explain how you arrived at it, will you?) as it is to the intended Infidel victims of such "terrorism."

Right, Mr. Xavier your constant generalizations are out-of-control - you never provide any empirical substantiation for them. Learn to do that, please.

"Don't we see again and again Muslims who do not participate in terrorist acts who yet are willing to defend, to protect, to send money to support those who do, or the survivors of those who do? Isn't that something? Isn't that "engaging (indirectly) in terrorism? And why, for god's sake, do you focus only on the tactic of terrosim and not on all the other ways that Jihad is being conducted, right now, all over the Bilad al-kufr?"

Right. To me, the Demographic Terrorism is the most frightening because "Majority Rules." Mr. Xavier, here's a little something said back in 1974 by Algerian President Houari Boumedienne in a speech at the UN:

"One day millions of men will leave the southern hemisphere to go to the northern hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory."

The above is happening RIGHT NOW, David Xavier. That is Demographic Terrorism. As Hugh said, there are forms of terrorism other than flying planes into buildings.

"perhaps you can be a little more circumspect in your all-too-frequent, sometimes quite confused, and often for the rest of us unenlightening but time-wasting postings, which other posters feel compelled to waste time answering, or more accurately, attemptiing to set you straight." --Hugh.

LOL!

See ya, David. Hope you have learned some things from all of us who bothered to answer you.

Posted by: darcy at January 6, 2008 8:49 AM

If Brother tariq ramadan really believes that the Qur'an has "differing but noncontradictory elements", then he may have troubles with reading comprehension. The Qur'an says in Sura 5:12 [the usual verse numbers] that Allah made a covenant with the Children of Israel and in 5:20-22 that the Holy Land was assigned to the people of Moses [ie, Israel]. Later verses foretell the return of the Jews to their land.

Now, if these verses are not contradicted by others, then why doesn't ramadan agree to Jewish/Israeli ownership of the Land of Israel and agree to Zionism which is foretold in the Quran?? Either he has reading comprehension problems or is practicing taqiyya or disregards the Quran's "Zionist" teachings.

Posted by: Eliyahu at January 6, 2008 5:26 PM

"or is practicing taqiyya" --posted by Eliyahu

Nail on head. Ignorant PC MoonBat NYT readers won't know.

Posted by: darcy at January 6, 2008 8:18 PM

dumbledoresarmy,

I do not despise J.K.Rowlings. Her novels are indeed clever and fun and I also hope that they infiltrate the Muslim world. Perhaps instead of Jihadwatch we need a Translate-Western-Novels-into-Arabic action group...might actually do some good.

Posted by: David Xavier at January 6, 2008 10:16 PM

Well, it's a shame that Mr. Xavier hasn't learned anything. Esp. to say: "Perhaps instead of Jihadwatch we need a Translate-Western-Novels-into-Arabic action group" Which has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. JW/DW is the most important website on the 'Net. Perhaps instead of David Xzvier JW needs a more intelligent and perspicacious replacement.

Oh, and btw, knowing "Candide" isn't "higbrow." I read "Candide" in French in my French class in oh, say, the 9th grade. Your thinking that allusions to "Candide" are "highbrow" Mr Xavier tells me a lot about your level of education.

Posted by: darcy at January 7, 2008 9:33 AM

"higbrow." LOL, sorry for typo. See "highbrow" in the next sentence.

Posted by: darcy at January 7, 2008 9:39 AM

"Oh, and btw, knowing "Candide" isn't "higbrow." I read "Candide" in French in my French class in oh, say, the 9th grade. Your thinking that allusions to "Candide" are "highbrow" Mr Xavier tells me a lot about your level of education."

LOL , It was the literary reference to Voltaire's character 'Dr Pangloss' that I thought out of place from someone so taken with J.K.Rowlings...maybe I was wrong? I had to look it up, perhaps I should have done French , at least to the 9th grade. You of course have probably used the reference many times.

So little from the West is translated into Arabic. The middle east has a high literacy rate. So great inroads into 'unsetting' the mindset of Muslims could be made by introducing Western thought via the medium of Western literature...

Posted by: David Xavier at January 7, 2008 8:45 PM

The middle east has a high literacy rate. David Xavier

Do tell! Here are some Middle Eastern IQ and literacy rates:

COUNTRY .... LITERACY RATE......AVERAGE IQ

Bahrain................. 85 ................... 83
Egypt ................... 51 ..................83
Iran ..................... 71 ..................84
Iraq ..................... 58 ..................87
Israel ................... 95 ..................94
Jordan .................. 86 .................. 87
Kuwait .................. 79 .................. 83
Lebanon ................ 83................. 86
Oman .................... 64 .................. 83
Qatar .................... 79 ..................78
Saudi Arabia ........... 71 .................. 83
Syria ..................... 70 .................87
Turkey ................... 82 ..................90
United Arab Emirates . 79 .................. 83

Canada has a 97% literacy rate, the USA has a literacy rate of 99%.
Canada has an IQ average of 97 and the USA has an average of 98.

Unfortunately, censorship prevails in every islamic nation so translating Western literature for muslim consumption would not necessarily succeed, even if they were interested in reading it. The qur'an seems to quench their literary thirst, understandable since it is a masterpiece of fantasy; science fiction; folklore; sex; barbaric cruelty; and an abundance of gruesome horror,
exquisitely detailed and meticulously chronicled, a timeless classic. As muslims like to say: "If it's not in the Qur'an, it's haram."

Islam is in the midst of a revival, not a moderating phase, modernization, or enlightenment. Muslims are becoming more devout, more observant of traditional dress and behavior, more fanatical, and more dangerous, including muslims living in the West. In fact, the West seems to radicalize muslims, not the opposite. They segregate themselves in isolated enclaves and refuse to assimilate, and are ministered to by radical, Wahabbi clerics who keep them constantly aware of their duties as muslims. Those duties do not include anything beneficial to non-muslims.
Muslims are unpredictable; even secularized muslims can suddenly become religious zealots and walking timebombs. It happens every day.

FYI, many of the frequent visitors to this website were knowledgeable about islam before discovering jihadwatch. This is not the only source of information about islam that we have been exposed to, but it provides the most accurate, truthful, and honest information available. It's a shame that such an important issue is so widely misrepresented, downplayed, or totally ignored by the mainstream media. I refer JihadWatch to everyone I know and many strangers because I believe it is the most valuable website in existence. I considered islam to be the deadliest threat America has ever faced long before I found JihadWatch. The articles I read here from legitimate news sources only confirm my fears.

Posted by: Susanp at January 8, 2008 1:26 AM

Just adding to susanp's comment:

It isn't just the general literacy rate that matters. It is also - in poorer countries, and in Muslim countries especially - the FEMALE literacy rate as compared to that of males.

Now, a reference work that I have access to, admittedly about nine years old, gives the following, for the countries that susan listed above:

Bahrain - female literacy 79 %, male 89 %
Egypt - female 38.8 - male 63.6
Iran - female 65.8 - male 78.4
Iraq - female 45 - male 70
Israel - no male/female breakdown. Jews 88 % literate 1995, Arabs 70% (1992 figures)
Jordan - female 79.7 male 91.4
Kuwait - female 74.9 male 82.2
Lebanon - female 73 male 88 (1990 estimate - probably changed)
Oman - female 46 male 77
Qatar - 79.9 male 79.2 [this and the UAE are the only Arab countries on the list with more literate females than males!]
Saudi Arabia - female 50 male 71 (so in one of the richest countries in the world, half its women were illiterate!)
Syria - female 55.8 male 85.7
Turkey - female 72.4 male 91.7 (notice the skewing?)
UAE - female 79.8 male 78.9

I'll add figures for some non-Arab Muslim-majority countries:
Bangladesh - female 23.7 male 45.2
Pakistan - female 22 male 47.3
Indonesia - female 78 male 89.6
Malaysia - female 78 male 89
Brunei - female 82 male 92.5 (even in this obscenely rich little sultanate, 10 percent fewer females than males are literate)

For purposes of comparison, some non-Muslim countries of S/SE Asia, comparable in resources and ethnic background -
India - female 37 males 65 (compare with Pak and Bangladesh)
Philippines - female 93.9 males 93 (compare with Indonesia)
Singapore - female 83, male 95 (compare with Malaysia; it would be interesting to find out whether the male/ female literacy ratio differs within the communities, e.g. Chinese Christians and Buddhists/ Taoists, non-Muslim Indians, Muslim Indians, Muslim Malays).

It would be interesting to get the latest male/female literacy figures, especially for Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Iran and Egypt, and see whether the imbalance has lessened or grown worse.

So if one wanted to quickly reach the masses, especially the women, in many Muslim countries, radio and other forms of audio are the only way to go. If translated, books would have to be read and then broadcast or podcast in bite-sized portions.

A couple of other stats worth looking at: the female and male life expectacies, and the infant mortality rates.

Just a sample comparison, from the non-Arab Muslim world. Women in India live longer than women in Bangladesh or Pakistan, and the infant mortality rate in India is perceptibly lower than in its two Muslim neighbours which started out with the same British raj heritage, are of similar genetic makeup and language, and inhabit magnificently fertile river valleys.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at January 8, 2008 3:35 AM

susanp - you and I both forgot Yemen.

Here it is.

Overall literacy rate - estimated at 43% in 1994; 50 % by 2007.

In 1994 23 % of females were literate, improving to just 30 % in 2007; 68.6 % of males in 1994, improving a bit to 70.5 % in 2007.

In other words: twice as many men as women in Yemen, can read and write.

I've just been checking more up-to-date sources. Haven't checked all the places on the list yet.

Literacy rates appear to have improved somewhat over the past ten years, though still not near the figures for western countries; but women are still lagging well behind men.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at January 8, 2008 8:33 AM

As muslims like to say: "If it's not in the Qur'an, it's haram." --posted by Susanp

That's a good one, Susan, and I'm sure it's completely true. I'm going to remember that saying.

Dickens or Flaubert will not be changing ME minds. However, in throwing a bone to Mr. Xavier, did anyone read "Reading Lolita in Tehran," and if so, what did you think?

Posted by: darcy at January 8, 2008 9:11 AM

Ok , Literacy rate for the middle east was about 70 plus percent (an average from my source)which sounded "high " in a third world context , but I must agree its struggling to be even an average rate in this context. And yes, its worse ( but not surprising) when you seperate the genders. opps!

Nethertherless , Western literature as a way to shine a light into the Quranic cellar is an idea which I dont think is "stupid". The reason the Arab world is so bereft of Western titles is , yes, censorship. There was a story back awhile about the Cario book fair which addressed this very point. Publishing is a business , if there is no (due to it being restricted) market then why translate and print the book. Egypt with some semblence of a middle class was the country i was thinking of when I first said this. And its from this strata of a society that change may come and Western Literature can provide a tranforming influence for some.

I find the "bunkerdown" mentality that dismisses all Muslims as some sort of potential "walking time bombs" who are completely immune to Western Culture is a process of de-humanisation. I dont think you can assume that Muslims in the West are scripture encoded Muslim-bots , that are reasdy to go into Jihad-mode at the appropriate activation trigger. But this is the thesis being handed to me , that all Muslims know their "obligations" and act accordingly as underpinned by scripture...when the easier view would be that the majority of Muslims in the West ( while engaging in some sort of cheer leading, borne of victimhood , for the team-Islam) dont want to "slay the infidel" , dont want 9 year old wives , dont want to chop hands off .... dont read classical arabic , dont carry a quran around with them , and drive cars ( which apparently are " haram " becuase they arent in the Quran) in other words pay lip service to the tenents of their religion. At least this has been my experience.

That islam has some sort of higher collective intelligence , and that all muslims are marching in lock step is silly. There are a minority within the Islamic world that do have a meglomanical vision. Its "tribalism' not doctrinal fidelity that is the key to these "radicals" popularity and shouldnt be seen as acceptance of every pronouncement these nutjobs come up with. So in Pakistan , OBL is popular , but an overwhelming majority of Pakistani citizens also want the Army to get rid of him. Because , humanity isnt easily extinguished by the utterances of zealots quoting lines out of a book most wish to ignore. And Humanity shouldnt be devalued by those whose fear-hatred of those who are nominally of an religion is based on the actions of a few killers.

Posted by: David Xavier at January 8, 2008 11:01 PM

'david xavier'

I have a question for you:

Should Robert Spencer, Andrew Bostom, Robert Redeker, Taslima Nasreen, Salman Rushdie, V S Naipaul, Bat Yeor, Patrick Sookhdeo, Daniel Shayesteh, Brigitte Gabriel, Mark Gabriel, Wafa Sultan, Nonie Darwish, Walid Shoebat, Ibn Warraq, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, all immediately issue a grovelling apology to the OIC, stop talking and writing about Islam altogether, and order that all existing copies of all their writings be sought out and burnt, as false, exaggerated, hate-filled, Islamophobic, fearmongering, insulting, hurtful to the feelings of nice Muslims, and as wicked incitements to Islamophobia?

Because the rate you're going, I'm beginning to think that that's what you think ought to happen.

Oh yes, and another question:

do you think that the Bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali, should lose his job?

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at January 9, 2008 3:56 AM