You can always and in every case be sure: whenever a mainstream media outlet asks whether or not Islam is violent, you can be absolutely sure that the answer will be no. That is particularly true when the mainstream media outlet in question is the New York Times. This piece by David D. Kirkpatrick is more frustrating than most, as he raises several important questions but then flatly asserts the answer that it was inevitable he would prefer, mostly without any argument or supporting evidence at all.
Some comments below:
“Raising Questions Within Islam After France Shooting,” by David D. Kirkpatrick, New York Times, January 8, 2015:
…The rash of horrific attacks in the name of Islam is spurring an anguished debate among Muslims here in the heart of the Islamic world about why their religion appears cited so often as a cause for violence and bloodshed.
The majority of scholars and the faithful say Islam is no more inherently violent than other religions. But some Muslims — most notably the president of Egypt — argue that the contemporary understanding of their religion is infected with justifications for violence, requiring the government and its official clerics to correct the teaching of Islam.
Kirkpatrick opens and shuts the key question in a single sentence: “The majority of scholars and the faithful say Islam is no more inherently violent than other religions.” He dismisses the possibility that Islam might be more inherently violent than other religions — an assertion for which all too many Muslims make the case on a more or less daily basis nowadays — without any examination of Islamic texts and teachings, or those of any other religion. “The majority of scholars” — who? — “and faithful” think it, so it must be true. He only grants the possibility that “contemporary understanding” of Islam justifies violence. How did the “contemporary understanding” of the religion get so far from the genuine article? David Kirkpatrick didn’t say.
“It is unbelievable that the thought we hold holy pushes the Muslim community to be a source of worry, fear, danger, murder and destruction to all the world,” President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi of Egypt lamented last week in a speech to the clerics of the official religious establishment. “You need to stand sternly,” he told them, calling for no less than “a religious revolution.”
Others, though, insist that the sources of the violence are alienation and resentment, not theology.
One would think that that would call for at least some cursory reference to the actual contents of Islamic theology, but no such luck.
They argue that the authoritarian rulers of Arab states — who have tried for decades to control Muslim teaching and the application of Islamic law — have set off a violent backlash expressed in religious ideas and language. Promoted by groups like the Islamic State or Al Qaeda, that discourse echoes through Muslim communities as far away as New York or Paris, whose influence and culture still loom over much of the Muslim world.
“Some people who feel crushed or ignored will go toward extremism, and they use religion because that is what they have at hand,” said Said Ferjani, an official of Tunisia’s mainstream Islamist party, Ennahda, speaking about the broader phenomenon of violence in the name of Islam. “If you are attacked and you have a fork in your hand, you will fight back with a fork.”
Khaled Fahmy, an Egyptian historian, was teaching at New York University on Sept. 11, 2001, after which American sales of the Quran spiked because readers sought religious explanations for the attack on New York.
“We try to explain that they are asking the wrong question,” he said. Religion, he argued, was “just a veneer” for anger at the dysfunctional Arab states left behind by colonial powers and the “Orientalist” condescension many Arabs still feel from the West.
So what explains all the jihad attacks before the colonial era?
“The Arab states have not delivered what they are supposed to deliver and it can only lead to a deep sense of resentment and frustration, or to revolution,” he said. “It is the nonviolence that needs to be explained, not the violence.”
Only a very small number of Muslims pin the blame directly on the religion itself.
“What has ISIS done that Muhammad did not do?” an outspoken atheist, Ahmed Harqan, recently asked on a popular television talk show here, using common shorthand for the Islamic State to argue that the problem of violence is inherent to Islam.
Harqan’s question is not answered. Kirkpatrick doesn’t even bother to trot out Karen Armstrong or some other apologist for Islam to explain that Muhammad was actually a proto-Gandhi whose jihad was delivering candygrams to Infidels.
Considered almost blasphemous by most Egyptian Muslims, his challenge provoked weeks of outcry from Islamic religious broadcasters and prompted much-watched follow-up shows. In subsequent debates on the same program, Salem Abdel-Gelil, a scholar from the state-sponsored Al Azhar institute and former official of the ministry overseeing mosques, fired back with Islamic verses about tolerance, peace and freedom.
The mainstream Islamic theological idea that the verses of intolerance, war and authoritarianism supersede verses about tolerance, peace and freedom is, of course, not addressed.
But then he warned that, under Egypt’s religion-infused legal system, the public espousal of atheism might land his opponents in jail.
Odd. Egypt’s legal system is “religion-infused,” and yet it is not suffused with “tolerance, peace and freedom”?
“When a person comes out and promotes his heresy, promotes his debauchery, and justifies his apostasy on the basis that ‘Islam is not good,’ then there is the judiciary,” Sheikh Abdel-Gelil said. “The judiciary will get him.”
M. Steven Fish, a political scientist at the University of California, Berkeley, sought to quantify the correlation between Islam and violence. In his book, “Are Muslims Distinctive?,” he found that murder rates were substantially lower in Muslim-majority countries and instances of political violence were no more frequent.
Irrelevant. If the Qur’an teaches warfare against and subjugation of non-Muslims (cf. 9:29, etc.), this would have no necessary relationship to murder rates or instances of political violence. I doubt that Fish considered in his book the fact that the rates of believers in the majority religion killing or brutalizing believers in minority religions are much, much higher in Muslim countries than in non-Muslim countries.
Over a 15-year period ending in 2008, Islamist militants were responsible for 60 percent of high-casualty terrorist bombings, his study found, but almost all were concentrated in just a handful of Muslim-majority countries in the context of larger conflicts that were occurring — places like Afghanistan after the American invasion or Algeria after the military takeover.
“Is Islam violent? I would say absolutely not,” Mr. Fish said in an interview. “There is very little empirical evidence that Islam is violent.”
The mind reels. Even one instance of someone being violently attacked by a Muslim who invoked the texts and teachings of Islam to justify his action would cast Fish’s statement into doubt — but there are now nearly 25,000 such 9/11. In the same span, there are virtually no attacks by Christians or Jews who quoted their scriptures to justify their actions. How many attacks does Fish need for there to be more than “very little empirical evidence”?
…A handful of non-Muslim researchers in the West — typically outside the academic mainstream —
That’s Kirkpatrick semaphoring, “Don’t take these guys seriously.”
seek to build a case that Islam is inherently more violent than Judaism or Christianity by highlighting certain Quranic verses. But they struggle to explain away approving passages about violence in other religious texts, such as the book of Joshua in the Old Testament, the Book of Revelation in the New Testament, or the statement attributed to Jesus by the Gospel writer Matthew that “I come not to bring peace, but a sword.”
Do people like David D. Kirkpatrick ever get embarrassed writing things like this? Do they never look around the world and notice that there are Muslims quoting the Qur’an to justify violence all over the world and not a single Jew invoking Joshua or Christian invoking “I have not come to bring peace, but a sword” to justify violence? And in fact, these “non-Muslim researchers” don’t “struggle to explain away” such passages. It’s really quite simple. As I have explained many times, both Judaism and Christianity have developed interpretative traditions that for various reasons reject the literal understanding of verses appearing to enjoin violence. Mainstream Islam has not. Nor is there actually any open-ended and universal command in the Jewish or Christian scriptures for all believers to wage war against and subjugate unbelievers; in the Qur’an, there is.
Raymond Ibrahim, the author of “Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians,” argued in an interview that the passages in the Bible are descriptive but the Quranic ones are prescriptive. But most scholars say such distinctions are matters of interpretation.
Actually I argued the descriptive/prescriptive distinction back in 2007, in my book Religion of Peace?. And it is a valid distinction — indeed, it goes a long way to explaining why there are no armed Jewish and Christian terrorists quoting scripture to justify violence, while there are so many Muslims quoting the Qur’an to incite and justify violence.
Mainstream Muslim scholars in the Arab world or the West emphasize the Prophet Muhammad’s injunctions to mercy and forgiveness, his forbidding of “coercion in matters of religion,” or his exhortation to restraint even in self-defense. “Fight in the cause of God against those who fight you, but do not transgress limits,” reads one verse. “God does not love transgressors.”
This paragraph illustrates Kirkpatrick’s ignorance of his subject, as these passages are from the Qur’an, whereas Kirkpatrick gives the impression that they’re sayings of Muhammad. Muslims believe the Qur’an is the word of Allah, not Muhammad. Anyway, as for sayings of Muhammad, how about these?
“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: “None has the right to be worshipped but Allah”. And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally.'” — Bukhari 8.387
“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords.'” — Bukhari 52.73
“When the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him… He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war…When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them… If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them.” — Muslim 4294
And of course there are many more like these. When will there be an honest discussion of them in the New York Times?
Jaladhi says
Oh yeah, Islam is the most peaceful religion. You moron, you won’t see Muslims violence even when they will be chopping your head off. How many beheadings you have seen lately done by Christians, Jews,and Hindus,..
mortimer says
Danish researcher Tina Magaard, Ph.D. concluded that Islam is the most warlike religion. After three years analyzing the original texts of ten different religions, Tina Magaard concluded that the Islamic texts stand out by encouraging terror and violence to a larger degree than other religions do. She stated that ‘Islamic texts encourage terror and fighting to a far larger degree than the original texts of other religions. The texts in Islam distinguish themselves from the texts of other religions by encouraging violence and aggression against people with other religious beliefs to a larger degree.’
Kirkpatrick makes claims without evidence. He shows no knowledge of Islam’s source documents the Sira, hadiths and Koran. This is irresponsible, shallow journalism: trying to understand a religious motivation through politics alone.
Canadian Patriot says
Extremely interesting bit of information. Thanks for sharing.
R White says
All one has to do, is look at history, christians drew first blood against muslims in the crusades, kings told their knights that all their atrosities would be forgiven by god just because the king said so. It’s all bad, and we’re all so full of crap
profitsbeard says
The Islam “Crescades” (the Crescent form of “Crusade”) began in 622 A.D. and laid waste to country after country for centuries, from Persia to India, Egypt to Spain..
The Christian Crusades were a late response to the imperialistic Death Cult of Mohammad.
Sadly, Islam was not destroyed and it began it conquest and horrors again, slaughtering their way to Constantinople and extending their annihilating dogmas to the (now non-existent) Buddhists in Afghanistan and the extermination of tens of millions of Hindus in India.
The cult of the mass-murdering Muslim warlord is the greatest disaster to ever befall this planet.
SpiritOf1683 says
Muslims started their murdering spree in 623 AD. Muslim armies invaded the Cghristian Iberian peninsular in 711 and conquered all but a tiny fraction of it by 718, invaded France and were only defeasted at Tours in 732. Had Martel lost, all of the Christianit world would have been conquered within 50 or so years. And this was over 350 years before the Crusades. And had the Crusades never taken place, the Saracens would have swallowed up the Byzantine Empire and Central Europe before the 12th Century was out. The Jihadis besieged Vienna and almost took it – twice – in 1529 and 1683, and tried to take Malta in 1565. Had that fallen, it would have been Italy and Rome next.
Obviously, you don’t know any history.
Angemon says
R White posted:
“All one has to do, is look at history, christians drew first blood against muslims in the crusades”
Ah, I see R White graduated from Slick Will’s School of Made Up History. Do you know how the world was back at the time the first crusade was called? In a nutshell: Muhammad died in 632. In 637, the muslim armies captured Jerusalem and by 711 they had captured the north of Africa (which was, at the time, mostly christian). Then they invaded the Iberian Peninsula and moved on to France, where they were stopped in 732. The muslims were driven back of France and the Christian kingdoms in the Iberian Peninsula were gaining momentum until the almoravid brought their armies from Africa. Meanwhile, more muslims were attacking the Byzantine empire in the East. What the Pope at the tie saw was this: a pincer move from muslims threatening to capture Europe. So, when the Byzantine emperor called for help, the Pope acquiesced.
“ we’re all so full of crap”
No, just you. Either you’re deliberately lying or you’re so deep in leftists brainwashing mantra that you loathe yourself and the civilization you live in (the greatest civilization ever, I might add) because of a delayed, small scale, self-defense action that took place almost 1000 years ago.
LaDonna says
Gotta love revisionist history. CHRISTIANS drew first blood? So, the Moslems did not take over the Arab world and start creeping into Europe?
Jaladhi says
We really don’t need anybody’s research to tell us that Islam is warlike or so. Just look at the history of Islam from seventh century onwards when they started jihad(holy war) to spread Islam – going East towards India and going to Africa and Europe .
The result was more than 8o million Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and other non-Muslims murdered (genocide) in India with similarly high murders for Europe and Africa. Historians estimate more than 300 million non-Muslims have been brutally murdered by Muslims in last 1400 years and the carnage still continues. And we and our politicians quibble about how Islam is peaceful. This shows utter stupidity of worldwide non-Muslims who give Muslims a free pass for their atrocities and continue doing that by citing any number of reasons for their murderous behavior except the only reason – the religion itself!! Quran, Hadith and Sira teach Muslims to murder, rape, invade, loot, etc all non-Muslims. These people only know to invade loot andmurder and then call the invaded land as their own which the infidels can never get it back.
Until 19th century they were coming here with invading forces and now, thanks to our politicians they come as immigrants and demand and get everything from us butthe murdering of infidels still continues!!!
particolor says
GO ON !! Who would believe it ??..
None has the right to be worshipped as Allah !! I have been Ordered to fight the people till they say ….. Well That REEKS OF TAKE OVER My Little Barbarians !!
And says there is no other Religion ! Well I’m OFFENDED and want Jihad on them for Writing that !! That’s worse than ANY Cartoon I’ve seen !!
WCM says
Breathtakingly and willfully ignorant in the truest sense of the word.
jihad3tracker says
THIS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WHITE PRIVILEGE GUILT —–
A $$$ comfortable journalist feels compelled to write about the Leftist-embarrassing slaughter by Muslims of dozens / hundreds / thousands of INFIDELS . . .
As Mr. Spencer points out so clearly — KIRKPATRICK CANNOT KEEP UP A STRAIGHT-LINE OF LOGIC . . . He defaults to misdirection and lies.
SO IT GOES WITH THE “ELITE” LEFTISTS WHO HAVE THEIR FANTASIES BLOWN UP BY DAILY REALITY.
saturnine says
Ahmad Harqan “ISIS is a physical manifestation of [Islam]”
Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4y5a7VJhrZA
King Dave says
Islam “no more inherently violent than other religions”
If that was even remotely true, we would see a proportionally equivalent amount of sectarian violence everywhere on Earth from the other religions.
We don’t.
So that’s the end of that argument.
It is true however, the majority of religions are non violent, just one “lone wolf.”
You guessed it: Islam
Salah says
“This piece by David D. Kirkpatrick is more frustrating than most,…”
Even Mr Kirkpatrick himself was unable to deny this historic event. He wrote:
“Egyptian Leader Visits Coptic Christmas Eve Service
“The cathedral erupted in applause, and Copts, who make up about 10 percent of the roughly 85 million Egyptians, heralded Mr. Sisi’s appearance there as a milestone.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/07/world/middleeast/egyptian-leader-visits-coptic-christmas-eve-service.html?_r=0
You can watch and listen to al-Sisi’s historic 5 mn speech here:
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2015/01/historic-christmas-day-in-egypt.html
Paul says
“Others, though, insist that the sources of the violence are alienation and resentment, not theology.”
This begs the question: why are alienation and resentment so pervasive throughout the Islamic world? Might that itself have something to do with Islam itself? So this is just circularity, not an explanation.
Moreover, there is alienation and resentment among subpopulations within many countries. Nowhere do we see the level of violence, brutality, and destructiveness that we see among Islamic extremists. So the facts on the ground do not support this explanation.
BW022 says
What a joke! You mean to tell me that Aztec religions are no more violent than Janists? Norse religions were no less violent than the Amish? Buddhism and African Headhunters… equally non-violent?
I wonder if there might be a way to objectively measure violence in religious people? Say… how about the number of times murder, rape, death, killing, etc. is mentioned in their holy books? How about the rate of terrorism in a population? How about the number of offensive cartoons you have to publish before you get death threats?
Come-on Mr. Kirkpatrick… why not put your journalistic investigative skills to work and find out? Why don’t you take a poster of some of the Danish Mohammed cartoons to Mecca and hold it up? I’ll take some offensive Jesus cartoons to Lancaster Pennsylvania and hold them up in front of an Amish barn raising. We can measure violence by either life expectancy, number of punches per minute, death threats per second, number of people killed, total medical costs, etc.
But we know what will happen. The Amish will be offended and react non-violently. Muslims will be offended and react with as much violence as possible.
mortimer says
Kirkpatrick’s ‘religious indifferentism’ is the same as the ‘religious illiteracy’ of all those who inconsiderately toss off: ‘Nothing to do with Islam.’
HOW DO THEY KNOW THAT? They never say. Post-moderns are not concerned with ‘truth’, but with ‘TRUTHINESS’. They simply make up what they’d prefer the truth to be and believe THAT and insist on it without proof.
Myxlplik says
Robert,
I have a close friend like this, who is absolutely brilliant. These aren’t dumb people, their mindset is fixed upon a scientific premise, which is that all cultures are equal, the bedrock of philosophical multiculturalism. No matter what evidence you bring their mind is made up, they may be intelligent but their minds are linear, rigid, and unimaginative. It’s possible that there might be a strong genetic component that you are up against, in human nature…. it’s this “Method of Tenacity” insanity which causes people to reinforce what “they” already know, which is that due to philosophical multiculturalism, all cultures are always equal & they will alway search for data to support what the already “know”, which is Islam is no different than any other philosophy.
Philosophical Multiculturalism is mind rot.
umbra says
Some of these people are delusional (their world views do no match reality) with pride (they cannot be wrong since they are so smart) and perhaps a dose of vanity mixed in to reinforce their delusions. Then there are those who are opportunistic, spewing garbage for personal gains.
Myxlplik says
Yes, look at the way Robert, point by point, picks apart this article. This type of analysis flys in the established philosophical meme of Multiculturalism, due to the fact that it supports what most people want to hear, and what people have to say in order to survive in academic circles, with as little work as possible. I guarantee 99.9% of these people have never read any part of the Quran and probably never even heard of the Hadith, nor do they want to hear or analyse it, because it’s way easier just “knowing” by philosophical fiat.
umbra says
Agreed. Many individuals hear what they want to hear and filter out information that they find inconvenient. In this regard, there are those who have read the koran and/or hadiths, but are unable (or refuse) to see/understand the inherent theologically sanctioned violence within it. These people have hardwired minds and are, as you have said, quite likely incapable of original thought. Sadly, western higher educational systems are plagued by many of these individuals now – who supposedly “educate” future generations.
jay says
Of course it is the most peaceful. The same reason it is the most spiritual, the most peaceful the most loving, rational no different from any other religion. They’ll kill or fire him if he says otherwise.
Joe Shmo says
They should rename it the Newspeak Times.
You have my sympathy Robert. For you it must be like being inside the bad horror movie where the protgonist is trying to warn everybody else of the killer on the loose and nobody else believes them when you see this kind of “journalism”.
dlbrand says
Waqidi, in his Kitab al-Maghazi, provides the following narrative of events that happened in the wake of the murder of Jewish leader, Kab Al-Ashraf:
Hear again, the revered Qadi Iyad on the “proof of the necessity of killing anyone who curses the Prophet or finds fault with him” (as allegedly did Kab ibn Al-Ashraf, as spoken to above, because he put voice and sentences to his thoughts of disapproval of many of the actions of Muhammad):
Again from Ash-Shifa, speaking directly the assassination of Kab ibn al-Ashraf, and that of other “offenders” of the so-called prophet:
DeusLoVult says
Lucifer’s deception is incredible. Truly, “Allah is the best of deceivers” Surah Âl ‘Imran (3:54).
bobm says
“inherently”.. from inherent … inheritance… you sir shall inherit the wind .. you mock the Gift of God ; God be Merciful to your ignorance and dark heart.
Arthur says
Hard to believe people pay money to subscribe to such fiction. Perhaps the “angel” Gabriel appeared to David Kirkpatrick and dictated the story for him. I would have an easier time believing that!
On the other hand, this would be a great story to clip out of the newspaper and give as an assignment to a high school class, along with a copy of the Koran, Hadiths, Sira, and Bible. The point of the lesson being, of course, that you can’t believe everything that you read. Any one of Robert’s books would make a good study guide.
profitsbeard says
Even if this bogus claim were true, it;s meaningless because its believers’ actions NOW as sure as hell more violent than any other religion on the planet.
Whatever the cause, Muslims are dangerously homicidal all around the globe.
Maybe it’s itchy underwear, maybe its lack of wifi access.
But, whatever the reason, Mohammadens are behaving like zombie psychopathic monsters, and need to be expunged from the world.
The deader they are, the safer we are.
Mo says
I tried to send the following message, but it wouldn’t go through. Twice. Aggravators!
“But they struggle to explain away approving passages about violence in other religious texts, such as the book of Joshua in the Old Testament, the Book of Revelation in the New Testament, or the statement attributed to Jesus by the Gospel writer Matthew that “I come not to bring peace, but a sword.”
How disgraceful.
Show me where the Bible has open-ended commands for Jews or Christians to commit violence against unbelievers.
When you’re done with that show me where Jews or Christians are committing such acts on a regular basis, all over the world, in obedience to those open-ended commands.
If you find you cannot find either then I hope you will be printing a retraction of your vile, false accusations in your newspaper.
SpiritOf1683 says
Our press and media will be the death of us, and are amongst the main reasons why Western civilization is in such dire trouble.
Champ says
New York Times: Islam “no more inherently violent than other religions”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wow what an ignoramus!!!! …jeeeeez
Dracula says
I’ll never get used to this obsession that apologists for Islam have with living in a theoretical alternate reality based on mental exercises alone.
Let’s say it were a sound argument that proper Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Zoroastrian, or whatever faith use violence to abuse, subjugate, and diminish the unbeliever. In the real world they aren’t doing it to any measurable extent comparable with Muslim violence and there are abundant valid schools of thought out there to deny those hypothetical Dominionist terrorists and Mahayana suicide bombers.
We live in a world where the share of religiously inspired violence is disproportionate to one peculiar faith. Why should I care if some egghead academic can write me a book on how other religions can be potentially made violent when the issue at hand in reality is one specific religion’s adherents!? They’ll repeat “Timothy McVeigh” like a mantra even as a vice officer saws through their necks.
Kasey says
While these Muslim scholars base their theology and ideology on the abrogating “Medina” verses of the Koran, which advocate lethal violence against all Jews, Christians, Infidels and others,, nothing will change for the better an the concept that “Islam Is As Islam Does” will accentuated. Is there any other religion or ideology which advocates the same? That answer is so obviously NO!
Anthony says
There is an equally inane article today in the Guardian Australian by a so-called ‘academic expert on terrorism’ who claims Islam is not the motivating factor in these acts of violent jihadism. Apparently it is caused by alienation.
See http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/14/the-role-of-islam-in-radicalisation-is-grossly-overestimated#comment-46109566
zanka says
IDIOCY KILLS MORE THAN BOKO HARAM!
josepxicot says
In mine region,we call to the people like you,”you have a lot od wool in the neck,wek-up and try to be se
rious,the situation is not for making jokes.is not so fanny really.j
Kepha says
Look, NYTimes, I can recite my creed, too:
I believe in God the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth;.
and I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, crucified, dead, and was buried.
He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again.
He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
The holy catholic Church, the communion of saints,
The forgiveness of sins,
The resurrection of the body,
And the life everlasting.
Amen.
Had the NYTimes said that Muslims are not more inherently violent than members of other religions, I’d nod in assent. But the issue is that when you have jihad (and the necessity of revolution as a component of human evolution) as a pillar of the faith, it’s considerably more volatile as a faith than a faith that instructs you to seek peace with all men as much as it is up to you (Rom. 14:19) or to seek the peace of that city wherever you might be, even if carried thither captive (Jer. 29:7).
Perhaps the silver lining in this cloud of Islamicist resurgence is that a few more people will wake up to the folly of moral relativism and the fatuity of our “value free” post-modernity. However, the NYTmes does not appear to be among that group.
duh_swami says
Frankly my dear, I’m sick of kuffar Imams telling me what’s what about Islam…
We have a White House, an international elite, and a media full of kuffar Imams spouting off one lie after another is support of Allah. Few of these crackpots have ever cracked a book, but feel qualified to tell those that have done their homework, how wrong they are. What??? ‘Go away boy you bother me’…
Kepha says
duh_swami, I’m also sick and tired of these self-proclaimed “enlightened” types pontificating about how they know Islam better than people who’ve lived their entire lives steeped in Islam.
James Willis says
Have a look at the facts before judging…Here’s a fact:- Hitler killed 17 Million. In the name of Mohammed the number killed now amounts to 270 million and rising. Argue with that.
Jaladhi says
Posted above in response to responses to my comments:
We really don’t need anybody’s research to tell us that Islam is warlike or so. Just look at the history of Islam from seventh century onwards when they started jihad(holy war) to spread Islam – going East towards India and going to Africa and Europe .
The result was more than 8o million Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and other non-Muslims murdered (genocide) in India with similarly high murders for Europe and Africa. Historians estimate more than 300 million non-Muslims have been brutally murdered by Muslims in last 1400 years and the carnage still continues. And we and our politicians quibble about how Islam is peaceful. This shows utter stupidity of worldwide non-Muslims who give Muslims a free pass for their atrocities and continue doing that by citing any number of reasons for their murderous behavior except the only reason – the religion itself!! Quran, Hadith and Sira teach Muslims to murder, rape, invade, loot, etc all non-Muslims. These people only know to invade loot andmurder and then call the invaded land as their own which the infidels can never get it back.
Until 19th century they were coming here with invading forces and now, thanks to our politicians they come as immigrants and demand and get everything from us butthe murdering of infidels still continues!!!
What Muslims could not do earlier(that take over the entire world) they will do now thanks to our traitorous leaders!!
Jaladhi says
The last line :” ….our traitorous leaders and traitorous media like NYTimes!!”
Craig Belcourt says
Well written response. I couldn’t agree more.
CPH says
The story is not worth reading beyond the headline which sums up the superficiality of the view parroted by New York Times and its contributors. Its a deliberate insult to the non-Islamic community.
It is as overwhelmingly true that most Muslims are not violent people as the fact that Islam is based on ‘voices’ that urged Mohammed to commit violence and murder. That doesn’t make Muslims necessarily violent, murderous people but it sure helps that minority within the religion to justify their actions, before they are killed. Most Muslims understand that you cannot live within a society and practice ‘pure’ Islam. They have adapted to reality.
duh_swami says
If they believe in Allah, then they are obligated by shahada to obey his words, not some of them, all of them, as far as they are able to do so. All Mahoundians are obligated to jihad as a duty to Allah. But not all jihad is violent. There is a jihad method suitable for every Mahoundian. It may be just silent sympathy for those brothers and sisters fighting in Allah’s causes. Or it could be actual material support and direct action. But the goal is the same…To remove obstacles from the spread of Islam.
john spielman says
change the name to the NEW YORK SLIMES
mortimer says
NYT staff are CULTURAL MARXISTS, repeating the disinformation that all Muslims are ‘officially designated victims’ (ODV) so victimized by racist colonialists. This totally obfuscates the reality that Islam is the greatest colonizing ideology, bringing a ‘COMPLETE SYSTEM’ wherever it goes. The ODV status of all Muslims gives them the ‘race-card privilege’ of acting out, committing atrocities, crimes against humanity, crimes against women with IMPUNITY. Cultural Marxists are not nice people…their accomplices of evil.
By ignoring reality, cultural Marxists like Kirkpatrick first delude themselves, then their readers.
mortimer says
correction: Cultural Marxists are not nice people…they are accomplices of evil.
mortimer says
The NYT is “no more inherently credible in its editorial opinions than other inaccurate newspapers”
Arsene Lapin says
Let’s nail this one once and for all: Christ’s remark about not bringing peace but a sword does not constitute a call to violence, only a lunatic could conclude this given the rest of Christ’s life and teachings. What Christ clearly meant was that his teaching would provoke a violent backlash.
And he was right! This is clearly what happened and is still happening: from the Roman Empire to the Islamic empire, those whose fervent wish is for earthly power will persecute Christians. Christians have always constituted the largest persecuted religious group – probably larger than the Jews. It is estimated that over two hundred million Christians are at present suffering at the hands of violent and mostly Muslim oppressors. That’s what the “not peace … but a sword” remark meant. Otherwise why would Christ have told Peter to put his sword away, remarking “those who take up the sword will perish by the sword”? (Matt 26:52) Why would he have said, “My kingdom is not of this world, if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight”? (John 18:36)
mortimer says
“not bringing peace but a sword” is called ‘hyperbole’.
john spielman says
also in the New Testament St Paul refers to the ‘SWORD of the SPIRIT which is the Word of GOD”
LaDonna says
The sermon is unnecessary. Islamists are putting you on the defensive, and you are going along for the ride. They know damned good and well the Sword Verse does not compare to anything in Christianity nor in Judaism. Don’t feed them.
Thinking From First Principles says
Touching on the “descriptive” versus “prescriptive” thread, I could be mistaken on this, but I believe the vast majority of the “descriptive” violence in the Old Testament is directed against peoples whose religions included human sacrifice … I haven’t paid close enough attention to those details (something about ‘making your children pass through the fire’ for a god they called ‘Molech’) but you can Google on it. I’m pretty sure that this is stated as casus belli in many of the battles fought by the children of Israel in the conquest of the promised land – it might be interesting to look at the percentage. The point of note here is that the “descriptive” violence is not simply gratuitous violence for conquest and plunder, but rather seems to be about the God of Israel putting and end to child sacrifice. So not only do you have the difference in “descriptive” versus “prescriptive” but you have a difference in essence as to the nature of the violence.
joeblough says
NYT: The Times is no more egregiously dishonest than other traitors.
LaDonna says
At least you admit you are traitors.
KrazyKafir says
“And of course there are many more like these. When will there be an honest discussion of them in the New York Times?”
First, they would have to abandon their most sacred creed that, “all cultures are equal”. The biggest lie ever perpetrated on the human race.
Jack Gordon says
The real question is why anyone bothers to read the NY rag any more. It’s banner slogan should be changed from “All the news that’s fit to print” to “Backing goons and genocide since 1932!” (Holodomor) The Gray Slut should award the Walter Duranty award each year for the article of American journalism containing the most egregious lies and distortions. Only problem is, it would be embarrassing to always have to give it to one of their own reporters or editorial writers.
mach37 says
What will it take to get these supposedly educated writers for the NYT to read and understand the Koran? First and foremost they should understand that following a call for violence, maiming and killing of infidels is not negated by ending a verse in the Koran with “Allah is merciful.”
Ross says
“A god who is insecure enough to be offended by a cartoon, and incompetent to the level that he wants you to avenge for him, is not a god worthy of worship, but a devil who is leading you to your demise.”
Gary Fouse says
Springtime in Germany. Who wrote this for the NYT, Mel Brooks?
Barry K says
Inherent and living evidence are intertwined. You shall know them by their fruits. An inherent good tree produces good fruits. An inherent bad tree, bad fruits. How do you reconcile the worldwide spread of evidence of terrorist acts almost virtually all done by Islamists by your assertion that Islam is no more inherently violent than other religions. Real living evidences don’t lie.
Brian says
guess new York times wants to protect their asses and their heads. so they cave and cater to lies. but jihadis will get them eventually and then they will believe in violence. oh but they will be dead……
R White says
The press may not be reporting, the way we want them to , but the truth is, these nutbars, are going to kill people, all over the world
Lyndon Weggery says
In recent research carried out by a Tennessee scientist of the Islamic books of Quoran,Sura and Hadith he found that 60% of the total content was negative comment against the Kahfa (non muslims including Jews and Gentiles).Islam is not a peaceful religion and you only have to compare the Sermon on the Mount by Jesus Christ with the words in the Islamic literature to see the distinct difference.
Sam says
I laugh a lot when I read articles like David D. Kirkpatrick’s of New York Times .. for sure David is a tiny little puppet who’s been paid by worldwide organisation that supports and funds Islam Terrorism unlimitedly to make up and write convincing statements about peaceful Islam to stupid people .. but not so convincing to intelegent people .. bear in mind that you need to question anything that comes from New York the capital city of Anti-Christ .. the capital city of pro worldwide terrorism ! .. their agenda is more than clear to the Intellegent Community .. import muslims to fight christians and we sit back and enjoy watching them kill each other .. we keep making trillions of dollars while they’re busy killing each other ! .. David is an Evil follower as clearly described in the Bible’s explanation of 666 !