it's not their silence that angers me, it's their laziness. Millions of Muslims spend their entire life quietly going about their business. They never strap on a suicide vest, fire a weapon, launch a rocket, cut off a head, or build a nuke. Don't these people know there's a war going on! They'd better get off their lazy asses and get with the program!

Did you count the "We're sorry" guys? I rolled over each of your links but I don't think you linked to them.

For many years, we've heard from various leftists complaining about our relationship with Saudi Arabia . The Saudis, we are told, are not our friends. They say they are our friends , but we are told their actions give lie to this. Misdirection has been a classic ploy , we're told.

So explain to me Bill, how is it a couple of press releases and a couple of thousand people holding signs is evidence of a groundswell against the kind of violence we're seeing?

Before you answer that I want you to consider this; While we are arguing about this all important question of cartoons...while our attentions are being diverted thus, while these public statements of the anger about all this violence are coming from the usual suspects, the much larger issue of Iranian nuclear capability goes far less reported, and far less noticed. So the question becomes; is this another case of misdirection?

Dorkafork wrote the post, so it's only fair that I let him take the first question.

(But on the last question, check out the post below: "You Sure It's the Religion?")

Well, Dorakafork, I'm going to play the same game you played yesterday. All those links and all those protests are .01% of the Muslim population and therefore should be discarded as an aberration, right? Or is it when the message is one you agree with, then small numbers show big trends?

It's not a numbers game, it's an intensity of those numbers that are important. I'm glad to see moderates stepping up to the plate. Hell, I'm willing to bet there are a lot more who would love to speak up but fear for their lives (non-believers are one thing, apostates are a whole 'nuther game).

No, Islam itself is not the problem. Nuking Mecca isn't the solution. But we've got to find and destroy that .05% of fanatics because of the intensity of their reactions. Piss of Pat Roberts and his followers and you'll get a stupid statement issued against you on live TV. Even the .00001% of Christian fanatics who kill abortion clinic workers are shunned by the majority of Christians. Then again, I can publicly speak out against Christianity, Buddhists, Jews, Agnostics, and pretty much every other religion and not live in fear for my life.

Speak out against Islam, and well..... .05% or not, you don't get that luxury.

I agree with much of what you and Bill say. I don't equate Muslim with Terrorism. But I do equate Terrorism with Muslims (i.e. not all Muslims are terrorists, but pretty large percentage of all terrorists are Muslim). I want to eradicate the terrorism and one tool for doing so is focusing on the group from which they mostly come. If you want to stop abortion clinic bombings, you'd pretty much want to scope out all the First Baptist Churches in the area, even though we're only talking a micro-percentage of Christians. With a few exceptions, that's where they come from.

And if you did so, I would not say you were waging a war against Christianity, but rather Christian Extremists.

In your personal view am I being too broad in my assumptions here? I'm not the best writer so I might not be clear enough with what I'm trying to say, but hopefully you understand my point.

All those links and all those protests are .01% of the Muslim population and therefore should be discarded as an aberration, right?

Yeah, except

A. Dorkafork is not making the argument that the condemnations of violence above are representative of the Islamic World, merely pointing out that they occurred. Which refutes the concept that they haven't or don't.

B. Dorkafork never said that the negative elements "should be discarded as an aberration." In fact, he specifically said (and meant unironically) almost the OPPOSITE: "Wow, that gives us 5 million Muslims who feel that way. That is very disturbing, and a serious problem."

I'd address the rest of your comment,* Rob, but I stopped reading it after the word "aberration."

* It very likely was quite reasonable, as you're a very reasonable guy, but you can't begin by framing the debate with false premises.

Nicely put, Dorka. There's not enough outcry in the Muslim world, but good on ya for giving props to those who have, at least.

Sorry Bill, but the whole That is very disturbing, and a serious problem is followed immediately by But 5 million Muslims is only which is like saying "I support the troops but...."

You know what comes next.

So I don't think I started off with a false premise. Give me a little wiggle room there. The rest of the comment should be in line with your thought patterns and, had you read it, you'd understand that, while a bright and devilishly handsome guy, I'm not an eloquent writer by any means and can't always get my thoughts out clearly in a 2"x3" box.

The post raises a straw man and knocks it over. The real question is whether the Islamic world has done, can do or plans to do anything effective about their wackos threatening free speech throughout the world by using violence. Or about Iran getting nukes. Or about Palestinians firing rockets into Israel. Or about suicide bombers killing innocent civilians. I don't think the answer to those questions is unclear at all.

Hilarious...I mean really you post a quote from a "Muslim" scholar in support of your ridiculous argument that Islam is just another religion. Apparently you didn't check too deeply into the "scholar" you quoted. See he says one thing in English and another in Arabic...ooops who knew.

The governments must be pressured to demand that the UN adopt a clear resolution or law that categorically prohibits affronts to prophets – to the prophets of the Lord and His messengers, to His holy books, and the religious holy places. This is so that nobody could cause them harm. They enacted such laws in order to protect the Jews and Judaism. Like some Danes have said: “We can mock Jesus and his mother.” They were asked: “Can you mock the Jews?” Here they stopped. The Jews are protected by laws - the laws that protect Semitism, and nobody can say even one word about the number [of victims] in the alleged Holocaust. Nobody can do so, even if he is writing an M.A. or Ph.D. thesis, and discussing it scientifically. Such claims are not acceptable. When Roger Garaudy talked about it, he was sentenced to jail, according to the laws. We want laws protecting the holy places, the prophets, and Allah’s messengers.

How many of your "witnesses" for Islam lead such double lives? Or are you going to stick with him as a representative of that thing you call MODERATE Islam...you may at your leisure define such an absurdity.

Pierre

The speaking out by a few does not make up for the silence of a billion.

Time and time again the terrorists have acted in the name of Islam. And every time the vast peaceful, nobel majority did and said nothing.

Sorry Bill, but the whole That is very disturbing, and a serious problem is followed immediately by But 5 million Muslims is only which is like saying "I support the troops but...."

I don't think so at all. The entire premise of this blog's argument over the past week (and I think that I speak for Dorka on this), is that "Islamism" or "Islamofascism" is a major problem, while Islam as an ostensibly homogenous religious structure and entity is not the true cause.

This post helps illustrate this distinction by revealing that Islam is not an unadaptable, deterministic force for bad.

So both posts - the "number of protestors not representing a majority" post AND the "some Muslims speak up against the violence" post REINFORCE each other, as long as we don't attach sweeping generalizations to their meaning ("all Muslims BAD, all Muslims GOOD)

I understand how people take implications of caveats, but it's not within your authority too pooh-pooh or divine our underlying message, as our real message is exactly what we say it is.

No wiggle-room granted.

Pierre -

Back up your point with a name and link. There is no identifier in your comment.

You are infuriating in both your nasty tone and your sloppy, sloppy argumentation. Do you have your weapon locked and loaded, Pierre? You know, to kill or convert all of them at gunpoint?

Well, then my point of

No, Islam itself is not the problem. Nuking Mecca isn't the solution. But we've got to find and destroy that .05% of fanatics because of the intensity of their reactions.

, while missed, is still pertinent.

Again, my writing skills, bestowed upon me by the Great Publik Edjucashyn Sistem, probably are clouding the issue. It just appeared to me that Dorka was saying a small percentage doesn't equal the whole in one post but trying to assert that it does here. I am wrong in that regard. Estoy apesadumbrado.

Well, then my point of

Well, I did warn you that I stopped reading the comment ...

(shrug)

Sheik Yousef Al-Qaradhawi Responds to Prophet Muhammad's Caricature: Whoever Is Angered and Does Not Rage in Anger Is a Jackass; We Are Not a Nation of Jackasses

Thank goodness for moderate Imams...sheesh next thing you know those fanatic muslims will be calling for peoples heads because of cartoons.

Unless you are prepared to say that all oppression being felt by the News Media and others in Europe is being caused by Bin Laden you have to face the fact that the Dutch paper was responding to moderate Islam.

ROSE: This is exactly what this debate is about, does a religion have the right to impose its religious taboos, its religious rules on to the public domain? Should I as a non-Muslim submit myself to their taboos in the public domain?

I mean, I respect Islam. When I go to a mosque, I do behave in accordance with all their rules. I do not draw a cartoon of the prophet in a mosque. If I bring my daughter, she will be dressed in accordance with Islamic rules.

But I do think when they ask me to submit myself to their rules outside the mosque, they're not asking my respect. They are asking my submission.

Even though I do recognize that a lot of Muslims have been offended by these cartoons, and I apologize for that, I'm really sorry if people have been offended. That was not my intention. My focus was on the question of self censorship.

There was a story out there and we had to cover it. And we just chose to cover it in a different way. According to the principle, don't tell it, show it.

And I would like to say here to your viewers that, you know, even though we have maybe a tense discussion about these things, there has been no anti-Muslim riots. Not a single Muslim that I know of have left the country because of these cartoons. It's the other way around.

We have never had so many Muslims participating in public debates in Denmark on the pages of my newspaper, on television and radio shows. So I think we, in fact, have had a very good and constructive debate about this.

You know, this was not a stereotyping or demonizing of Muslims. And, in fact, that cartoon is not -- it is not saying that the prophet was a terrorist or that all Muslims are terrorists.

It is just saying that some individuals have taken the peaceful religion of Islam hostage in order to commit terrorist acts. And thereby, giving their religion a bad name.

If you make a religious cartoon, we do that with Jesus Christ, with the royal family, with public politicians. But that does not mean that you thereby denigrate their religion, you humiliate it, you make fun of them. In fact, by that you are saying, you are part of Denmark, you are treated as everybody else in our society. You are not strangers and outsiders.

So how many protesters does it take before one can say for certain a particular culture is behind a protest? 10%? 51%? If you seriously contend that you can't conclude that Islam is compatible with genocide and tyranny until 150 million (or is it 500 million?) Muslims get out into their streets and start demonstrating, you're never going to be able to draw any conclusions about anything. Most Muslims have to work and take care of their families.

If you seriously contend that you can't conclude that Islam is compatible with genocide and tyranny until 150 million (or is it 500 million?) Muslims get out into their streets and start demonstrating, you're never going to be able to draw any conclusions about anything.

MANY belief systems - including and especially religions - are "compatible with genocide and tyranny." the question is whether they COMPEL "genocide and tyranny." And whether they are INCOMPATIBLE with Democracy, which is in turn mostly imcompatible with "genocide and tyranny."

Again, you're framing the debate on different terms than the ones presented on this blog.

As much as it pains me to admit, Pierre has a point on the Islamic scholar cited, though I'd stress:

1. While I don't support restriction of speech, many European countries do have speech laws against insulting certain beliefs. Thus, the premise doesn't come out of merely Islamic la-la land.

2. The cleric tip-toes around endorsing violence, basically spouting something similar to leftist false moral equivalence boilerplate. But yeah, he's talking out of both sides of his mouth, and only stopping just short of endorsing violence itself.

This does not validate a thesis that moderate Muslims do not exist, however.

Unless you are prepared to say that all oppression being felt by the News Media and others in Europe is being caused by Bin Laden you have to face the fact that the Dutch paper was responding to moderate Islam.

A BS generalization. illogical. Violence (burning down embassies )does not equal all oppression "being felt by the News Media and others in Europe." Those stoking religious violence for political ends are different players from those accepting the prod and running with it. Puppetmasters, puppets.

In the West, to the extent that you excitedly agitate for a war of civilizations, you are one of the puppets, Pierre.

I'm planning on making a longer post about my feelings on this, but I will say:

1) Sarcasm aside, I really wasn't trying to argue that all is well with Islam today.
2) I don't believe the statements above reflect the views of the majority of Muslims.
3) I will stand with the minority that has made statements like that, because they are worth supporting.

I particularly liked Orin's quote in the Brothers Judd link: "The promise of Realism is that we can join with dictators to oppress the other forever. But it's a false promise and an un-American/un-Christian desire. Arabs aren't going to prove anymore immutably antidemocratic than blacks, Catholics, Slavs, Asians, Africans, etc. before them did." and I also think Jim Geraghty's quote in the previous post hits the nail on the head.

Yehudit, I meant to add that one, even had it open in a tab, but I must've skipped it somehow.

Let me paraphrase:

"The scales have fallen off of my eyes. COMMUNISM is bad. It is by nature incompatible with the West. The 99.9% of COMMUNISTS not protesting are not coming out against COMMUNIST AGGRESSION. They are the silent majority and their silence is damning."

What 99.9% do is irrelevant. The vast majority of Communists and subjects of communists states, had no interest in the Cold War. Yet, the Cold War happened and at its core was Marxist doctrine.

To claim that Islam has nothing to do with the actions of Muslim extremists is like claiming Marxism had nothing to do with Bolshevik actions.

There may be some, or many, factions that reject the extremes of an ideology, but to deny that the ideology is not responsible for the extremes seems kind of lame.

Rusty -

Let me paraphrase:

Political interpretation of a religion does not equal a religion.

In turn, a religion does not equal a political ideology.

Or, to put it in metaphorical terms that perhaps you might understand more betterer:

"The scales have fallen off of my eyes. CATHOLICISM is bad. It is by nature incompatible with the West. The 99.9% of CATHOLICS not protesting are not coming out against CATHOLIC AGGRESSION. They are the silent majority and their silence is damning."

The problem, as you state it in your posts, is almost a perfect definition of "Islamism" or "Islamofascism," which should be distinguished from "Islam," in that the strategy to diminish "Islamism" as a poisonous political force does not include pissing on the relevant portions of a billion people that might reject and ultimately defeat it, by instead choosing secular government.

Secular governments such as in Iran? Or Hamas? I'm waiting for those billions to start rejecting Islamofascism.

When will Muslims wake up and realize that their intolerance of opposing opinions is keeping them in the dark ages? When will Muslims realize that respect must be earned and not forced through violence and coercion? When will Muslims realize that individual liberty and freedom of expression are fundamental human rights? When will American Muslim organization provide solutions to Muslims rather than instigate problems?

Your argument, if I am reading it correctly, is that most critics of Islam as a whole do not make enough pains to separate Islamism from Islam. Therefore, these people are probably guilty of a low-grade racism and perhaps are as extreme as the Islamists themselves.

Rubbish.

The whole of Islam may not be gathering in these so-called "spontaneous" demonstrations in "Palestine", Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Iran-but the silence against it is deafening. Religions, just like any other organization, pay the most attention to the people who are loudest.

My main problem with Islam vs. Islamism is that they are not loud enough in their denouncements of the fanatics in their midst.

IF Islam is a religion of peace, why is it the "Arab Street" looks like a video for for "Dancing in the street" whenever the radical factions of their religion manages to pull off some homicidal stunt?

What really concerns me here is that so many Muslims find Islamism seductive because the more moderate voices cannot find a way to resonate with the volk. It is seductive because most of the Muslim world still wallows in its own filth, while they see their neighbors succeed and thrive.

The reason for this is because of the nature of how the mad mullahs are selected. Basically, any tool in a turban who has memorized the Koran sufficiently is able to pronounce himself a mullah.

There are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world today. Say there are 10 million Imams (I have no idea, but the number looks about right). Given that figure, say 2 million of the imams are actively or passively supportive of the Islamist dickweeds. What do you have then?

A big problem. One that has to be corrected, if Islam ever expects to pull itself out of the sewer of hate and into the 21st century-in the perception of many kaffirs.

That is why I say they should be allowed their caliphate. The islamist factions believe that a caliph would automatically support their desire to war on the modern world. I am not so sure.

Personally, I do not want to make war on the entire Muslim world. But something has to be done, and Islam just ain't doing enough.

I do not hate Islam, I do not hate Muslims, but I am alarmed at the meteoric rise of Islamism in the last few decades. And equally alarmed at the inability for the moderates in Islam to combat the idiocy with strong anti-propoganda.

We cannot make war on all of Islam-but we also cannot ignore the actions of terrorism forever.

Or does that make me a "hater"?

Bill was Mohammed a moderate? Was he a moderating influence on Islam? Or are you hoping that people within Islam change his message? Are you hoping for a wave of Jack Muslims? (Jack Mormons I was aware of Jack Mormons, (non-practicing), wishy-washy Mormons (practicing but unenthusiastic), devout Mormons, and fundamentalist extremists.)

Was Mohammed being moderate when he sliced off the heads of all the males in a tribe?

A BS generalization. illogical. Violence (burning down embassies )does not equal all oppression "being felt by the News Media and others in Europe." Those stoking religious violence for political ends are different players from those accepting the prod and running with it.

Oh yeah, I believe that supporting the moderate elements of Islam is a worthy goal-which is why I do not want to make war on Turkey for putting out a vile anti-semitic/western movie or having one of its citizens murder a Catholic priest.

But I would like to see these dickweeds ostracized by their own people more. That's all.

Mohammed was no moderate-and Islam is not a moderate religion as it currently exists. All that can change, but the change has to come from within.

but the silence against it is deafening.

I used to favor this argument, till I realized it doesn't really hold water when you step out of the Westocentric view of such things.

What's hard for Westerners to realize is that much of the Islamic world has no freedom of speech. While the majority may be inclined to believe such things are wrong, they have two problems with expressing it:

1) The "groupthink" that prevails under conditions where both speech and access to information is limited; if you only hear one side of an argument, you lack much basis to form opposite opinions. Many North Korean defectors, for instance, report that they honestly believed North Korea was the greatest country in the world for a long time, because there was no basis on which to know any different.

2) Even if you do manage to form such an opinion despite the above restrictions, expressing it in such a society is likely to have negative consequences.

Notice Iraq, with its blooming fields of satellite dishes and internet cafes, is conspicuously absent from the list of countries with violent protests over the Mohammed cartoons; anyone think that would have been the case under Saddam?

Bill was Mohammed a moderate? Was he a moderating influence on Islam? Or are you hoping that people within Islam change his message? ...

Was Mohammed being moderate when he sliced off the heads of all the males in a tribe?

And in the Bible, is GOD a moderate? Check Deuteronomy 7:16.

Such sweeping, literalist condemnations of a religion or religious figures mean little to me, as literal interpretation is lost to chosen interpretation through the changed sensibilities of culture and era.

Peter Bland:

I will reiterate my argument:

the strategy to diminish "Islamism" as a poisonous political force does not include pissing on the relevant portions of a billion people that might reject and ultimately defeat it (Islamism), by instead choosing secular government.

My goal is not to call you a "hater," as much a it is to advocate a practical path to address the problems in the Islamic world. Declaring Islam an immutable problem immune to adaptation addresses NOTHING, except the need to bitch. ANd it alienates our allies that will destroy or marginalize RADICALS.

My advocated approach has already borne fruit in Iraq, where tribes have turned on and started killing the radical Al Qaeda in their midst, because they don't particularly like living under their strict interpretation of Sharia. If Pierre and you get your war against Islam (if that is YOUR position), you will have a war against these types of people, as well as drive them towards the radicals. It's very simple.

In the meantime, stop spouting "rubbish" about my position, which is quite clear, despite your distortions.

All that is true TallDave, but how do you explain the 100,000 Muslims of England protesting with signs calling for "butchering" and "slaughtering" anyone who would dare to mock Mohammed?

True, it was an organized protest-notice the handwriting is the same on the signs-but England can hardly be described as a bastion of totalitarianism.

What is truly offensive to me is how the "Arab street" is demanding that I accept and follow THEIR codes of conduct.

Excuse me, but I happen to live in a society that allows freedom of expression and I should be allowed to say what I wish in any way I wish even if someone is offended. If you do not like what I have to say, absolutely explain to me why I should stop doing or saying something.

But no one has the right to threaten death, kidnap, murder, and riot over what are relatively tame cartoons. But I am game for this.

When the Islamic world self-censors its vile anti-semitic cartoons, when they wholeheartedly renounce violence and terror, when they accept that there is a world separate from Islam then I will be happy to accept the censorship these people wish to impose on us.

Quid pro quo.

Sticks and stones.

Hey, Islam, censor this!

but how do you explain the 100,000 Muslims of England protesting with signs calling for "butchering" and "slaughtering" anyone who would dare to mock Mohammed?

Really? TEN THOUSAND had those signs calling for "butchering" and "slaughtering"?

Oh trusting consumer of media, how naive.

When the Islamic world self-censors its vile anti-semitic cartoons,

Tell me, Peter: who is the governor of "the Islamic world?"

Your lack of proportion in all of this is silly.

carin:

Secular governments such as in Iran? Or Hamas? I'm waiting for those billions to start rejecting Islamofascism.

That comment doesn't even make any sense.
Iran does not have even have free elections - moderates, though popular, were expunged from the government. The Palestinian system:

A. isn't yet a Democracy via one election and B. does not establish a rule about Muslims opting for radical choices

Please try to rephrase.

I'm with you there Bill. I was part of that effort to give the Iraqis the ability to choose their own destiny. And I laugh my ass off when I see incidents of Iraqis killing the Al Queda types in their midst.

But any honest discussion of Islamism needs to address the fact that the roots of Islam are not particularly peaceful. It needs to be acknowledged that Mohammed was not a particularly nice guy. It needs to be admitted that Islam is NOT a religion of peace. If you read the Koran, this would be clear.

I am not saying that Islam is not capable of being peaceful or reforming to suit the modern world, just that its roots are bathed in blood. Stating facts should never be a hateful thing, even if the facts themselves are uncomfortable to face.

But why should Western countries restrict their press to suit the needs of the mad mullahs? Isn't that giving them legitimacy that they should not have?

I know from my own dealings with Muslims that most would shrug their shoulders and wonder what the fuss is about.

how do you explain the 100,000 Muslims of England protesting with signs calling for "butchering" and "slaughtering" anyone who would dare to mock Mohammed?

Cynically rabble-rousing and self-interested imams, seeking to gain attention and power via identity politics. It's an expression of the same dynamic that has Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Farrakhan, etc., constantly flailing about to find some way to keep American blacks (who, interestingly, are on average 20% genetically European by ancestry) from joining America.

Tell me, Peter: who is the governor of "the Islamic world?"

Your lack of proportion in all of this is childlike.

Excuse me whilst I beat my fists on the floor-WAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!

That's better.

I have to trust the media to a certain degree-I have to be able to gather facts, and the media is often the best way to do that. But your assertion that I trust the media implicitly based on ONE COMMENT is equally childlike.

I refuse to kowtow to anyone demanding that my speech be restricted to suit their notions of "offense". Everything you and I say could be potentially offensive to someone. And it needs to be reiterated that the original cartoons were rather tame, especially if you hold them up against the political cartoons found in the Muslim press.

Why is it so scary for you to admit that there are differences between Islam, Christianity and Judaism? They are not the same. Their holy books are not the same. READ the farking thing. You can get a free one from CAIR. Or perhaps buy one from your local bookstore. They are different, and that is fine.

How many times must I state that I do not want to make war on all of the Islamic world?

Tehran, Iran, Jan. 07 – An Iranian court has sentenced a teenage rape victim to death by hanging after she weepingly confessed that she had unintentionally killed a man who had tried to rape both her and her niece.

The state-run daily Etemaad reported on Saturday that 18-year-old Nazanin confessed to stabbing one of three men who had attacked the pair along with their boyfriends while they were spending some time in a park west of the Iranian capital in March 2005.

Nazanin, who was 17 years old at the time of the incident, said that after the three men started to throw stones at them, the two girls’ boyfriends quickly escaped on their motorbikes leaving the pair helpless.

She described how the three men pushed her and her 16-year-old niece Somayeh onto the ground and tried to rape them, and said that she took out a knife from her pocket and stabbed one of the men in the hand.

As the girls tried to escape, the men once again attacked them, and at this point, Nazanin said, she stabbed one of the men in the chest. The teenage girl, however, broke down in tears in court as she explained that she had no intention of killing the man but was merely defending herself and her younger niece from rape, the report said.

The court, however, issued on Tuesday a sentence for Nazanin to be hanged to death.

I have to trust the media to a certain degree-I have to be able to gather facts, and the media is often the best way to do that. But your assertion that I trust the media implicitly based on ONE COMMENT is equally childlike.

Your comments about 10,000 people holding butchery signs seemed fairly earnest.

Why is it so scary for you to admit that there are differences between Islam, Christianity and Judaism? They are not the same. Their holy books are not the same. READ the farking thing.

READ MY POSTS AND COMMENTS OVER THE PAST WEEK. I CONTEXTUALLY ARGUE THE OPPOSITE. HERE:

http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/002293.php

I don't disagree with most of the rest of your argument, in fact have made similar statements ("I refuse to kowtow to anyone demanding that my speech be restricted to suit their notions of "offense" - well, NO SHIT, SO DO I!).

Thus, you are arguing against almost nothing on this blog. I think we're done debating.

Nice post Dorkafork. I'm an occasional lurker here (much more liberal than this site) but it is refreshing to see a rational conservative viewpoint that doesn't rely on the total subjugation of brown people as an end point.

Such sweeping, literalist condemnations of a religion or religious figures mean little to me, as literal interpretation is lost to chosen interpretation through the changed sensibilities of culture and era

No it goes to the heart of this debate. Mohammed was a warrior this is attested to by virtually single person to have written about him it follows that a religion he was the father of will be warlike. This does not mean that all Muslims are warlike for the same reasons that all Christians do not turn the other cheek as Jesus taught.

But it does mean that when Muslims become fundementalists they become violent because that is what the Koran teaches them. We can thank god that most Muslims are Jack Muslims but trying to delude our selves by claiming Islam at its heart is not violent is simply burying your head in the ground.

You complain about someone misrepresenting your arguments then you proceed to put words into my mouth. I do not advocate bombing all the muslims in the world...nor is starting a war a good idea.

But it is also plainly dangerous to misunderstand Islam to miss that Islam intends on creating Dar Islam. So whether we will or not Islam is at war with us. We can fight Islam with education, we cannot fight Islam by saying that Islam is like any other religion and that all the nonsense about having Bloody Borders is bigoted. We can fight Islam by providing sanctuary for those who flee it, we cannot fight Islam by allowing Sharia within our very borders and by allowing the Muslims rights we don't allow anyone else.

But to fight Islam we must have a free press that is allowed to criticize Islam without fear of reprisals. We certainly cannot fight Islam by burying our heads in the sand and covering our ears and declaring its all good.

Pierre

Such sweeping, literalist condemnations of a religion or religious figures mean little to me, as literal interpretation is lost to chosen interpretation through the changed sensibilities of culture and era.

You cited Deuteronomy, but I don't think anyone could argue that Judaism or Christianity hasn't changed since Biblical times. There's the difference: Islam does not accept the adaptation of the Q'uran or hadiths to "modern times." It's considered the "final word," immutable, etc.

Declaring Islam an immutable problem immune to adaptation addresses NOTHING, except the need to bitch. And it alienates our allies that will destroy or marginalize RADICALS.

Our allies shouldn't be alienated by saying such a thing, because that's what their imams and their scripture tells them as well. If anything, they are probably alienated by their own religion telling them that, and that may be why they're not virulently anti-West. Sort of like the alienated Catholic, who is "Catholic" but is pro-choice and for female priests (among other things). You know how you usually hear about said alienated Catholics or "liberal Catholics" being allied with the political left? I don't think leftist anti-Catholicism alienates the already-alienated Catholic or liberal one. Blah blah blah, I know, too many words. I'm sure you get the point. Catholic doctrine isn't going to change either, just because of a minority of dissenters (although Catholicism is not immutable--see Vatican II), and there are a whole lot more VOCAL dissenters in Catholicism and Christianity in general than there are in Islam.

I don't think it addresses a "need to bitch," either. It comes from studying their words.

See he says one thing in English and another in Arabic...ooops who knew.
...
How many of your "witnesses" for Islam lead such double lives?

That's exactly right; it's the Islamic concept of taqiyya.

“Let not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers …
except by way of precaution (taqiyya), that ye may guard yourselves from them.
But Allah cautions you to remember Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.” (3:28)

n Islamic law and tradition, Taqiyya is the dissimulation of one’s religious beliefs to non-Muslims. It is most often used in times of persecution or danger. Often thought as peculiar to the Shi'a Muslims, taqiyya is acknowledged by Sunni Muslims as well.

"In Islamic law and tradition, Taqiyya is the dissimulation of one’s religious beliefs to non-Muslims. It is most often used in times of persecution or danger. Often thought as peculiar to the Shi'a Muslims, taqiyya is acknowledged by Sunni Muslims as well.

Muslims hold that the Islamic version of dissimulation is applied only externally with the tongue and not internally (on the heart, spirit, and soul). In other words, a Muslim is allowed to say untruths to a non-Muslim if in their heart they still respect the truths that they externally deny." link

MUCH more about taqiyya (the Islamists' most effective weapon) HERE. (It's excerpts from fatwas, the Q'uran, and Islamist advocacy groups.) Pierre's not just blowing smoke up your a$$. I don't believe a single lying word that comes from CAIR, MPAC, or any of the other similar groups. FreeMuslims, SorryNorwayDenmark, YES. They are unquestionably our allies. But they are the "alienated Catholics" or the "Jack Muslims" of the Islamic world. The secular Muslims (vs. "moderate" Muslims).

I appreciate the point Dorkafork is making here, but lacking any better way to say this, I think it's a bit of well-meaning wishful thinking. Sorry for the long comment, but I wanted to include the links in there so you could see more for yourself.

But to fight Islam we must have a free press that is allowed to criticize Islam without fear of reprisals. We certainly cannot fight Islam by burying our heads in the sand and covering our ears and declaring its all good.

Which is exactly my complaint with all of these so-called "moderates"--they have freedom to criticize in Western countries, but the silence in proportion to the Muslim population IS deafening. Then again, if I were a member of a religion that would declare war on me personally with death threats and murder, I might be afraid to speak up too. Doesn't say much for the Religion of Peace™, does it? ;-)

It's considered the "final word," immutable, etc.

Standard argument, addressed here:

http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/002293.php

Can't wait for the rioting Christians to start torching buildings after this provocation.

I mean, all religions have their extremists, right? We can expect, out of 2 billion or so Christians worldwide, .01% to call for the editor's beheading and for lots of protests in many nations, right?

Well, I just use the words of the imams. I don't say it to proselytize for Christianity (nor does the Pope, IMHO, but that's just my opinion).

"Debate" between traditional ("immutable") Muslim and a revisionist

The Scope of Freedom in Islam

Loosely related, from a pro-secularist Islamic group. (More of our "allies.")

Anyway, I know where you're coming from--that to say it's "immutable" is akin to giving up, because they're not going to all convert to whatever. Of course they aren't (although I would welcome it). But right NOW there is a struggle between pro-democracy, Western values and fundamentalist Islam, which has all the power in the Islamic world. To be sure, there are many different interpretations of Islamic scripture WHERE IT CAN BE interpreted differently (usually regarding the hadith). To the Muslim fundies, there is absolutely no room for "reform." Even within more relaxed societies, i.e. the US or Europe, there are still certain values that are central to Islam - Dar al Islam being one that's in direct conflict with our way of life. Also, the Islamic concept of "freedom" isn't our idea of freedom, it's "freedom" as in a life of (cough) peace (cough) living in Islamic society.

Anyway, I'm not going to duplicate the stuff in Feisty's comment thread. If we agree to disagree, so be it. I'm just saying I'm not just using standard talking points. If democracy and freedom works in Iraq, then maybe it'll work elsewhere. I'm betting it will, because I do believe that most people would rather live in a democracy with some basic rights than in a repressive Islamic society. With that I know you agree. I do think though, that living in a free, "liberal" society sort of invalidates a huge chunk of what Islam teaches, and only THEN will there be any hope of the Mo-fundies losing influence on common Islamic thought and interpretation.

By the way, I'm trying to find the fatwas regarding reform (not "fatwa" as in Salman Rushdie, "fatwa" as in pronouncements by imams). It's ridiculously difficult to find them easily because even the English websites use different terminology than we do. Working on it.

OK, at the risk of looking like a PITA, here are some links for whomever is interested:

How Islam Views Secularism

Rejecting Some Q'uran

Q'uran is word of Allah

Had Muslims Lost Some Parts of Q'uran?

The Holy Q'uran - The Final Revealed Text From God

(Belief in Islamic scripture is basic to Islamic faith of all sects. The Q'uran IS considered the "last word" of Allah, and to change it would be antithetical to Islam, to itself.)

Probably the best article I've found (it shrinks the difference in opinion between skeptics like Pierre or me and you (Bill) and Dorkafork, from FMC: The Islamic Reformation?

I just don't see a reformation happening in our lifetime, because like I said, there are so many fundies and fundie Islamofascist states (Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. - but primarily S.A.).

Beth this may be unseemly but those were some terrific links. Thank you. Been missing the action by not participating in the comments sections.

Bill just want to say thank you for your comments section. We may disagree on various subjects but I respect your offering of a comment section on a blog as popular as yours.

Pierre

Dave's point is right on. The silence-is-telling crowd seems to be under the bizarre impression that the average Muslim is perfectly free to go about shouting opinions from the rooftops. The fact that most of these people are living under oppressive governments hostile to Western countries doesn't matter. It also doesn't matter that the Islamists in their back yard are chomping at the bit to murder moderate Muslims that speak out.

I know conservative folks in the blogosphere would never let trifles like being snatched up with their family and tortured by state police or getting themselves and their family blown up by madmen stand in the way of speaking out. But maybe all the brave conservatives out there could find the charity to allow that just maybe a person could be decent and peacefully worship Allah, yet be cowardly enough to feel the safety of their wife and children is a little more important than making Americans feel better about Muslims.

It might be a nice mental excersize to stretch our imagininations for just a bit. Then we can all go back to patting each other on the back about how wonderful our religions and cultures are and cherry-picking the worst aspests of Islam to tar a billion people with.

While it's true that Iran doesn't/didn't have "free" elections, Ahmadinejad did have some strong support. And, he still manages to get a nice crowd at his "Death to Israel" rallies.

Regarding Palestine, I'm not sure I got your point; are you saying there should be restrictions regarding allowing the election of radical movements?

Personally, I worry that in places such as Syria, Iran, Yemen, etc, there simply isn't enough freedom of information for the populous to support Democracy. Given the choice, without knowledge, they are more than likely apt to pick the radical option.

Personally, I worry that in places such as Syria, Iran, Yemen, etc, there simply isn't enough freedom of information for the populous to support Democracy. Given the choice, without knowledge, they are more than likely apt to pick the radical option.

This is precisely why the spread of democracy in the Middle East is so important.

It's interesting to have Iraq pointed out as an exception to the mania of the rest of the Arab world. Iraq - where the US military has enforced a modern, not-totally-Islamic government and made it clear - by force - that people WILL be free to hold to and state opinions contrary to Islam. Apparently that's what it takes to break the hold of Islam over a state - military force. Which is a pretty good indictment of Islam as a religion.

Nice theory there, Robert, but Iraq was run by a secular tyrant.

Hey Dorkfork and Bill sorry to burst your bubbles but this article of yours has a lot more holes in it than just that one mistake I found earlier. Perhaps a bit more research is called for next time into the sources you use to prove that Islam is A-Ok.

Pierre Legrand

Perhaps a bit more research is called for next time into the sources you use to prove that Islam is A-Ok.

Did you miss the part where I said "Sarcasm aside, I really wasn't trying to argue that all is well with Islam today."? Or are you just stupid?

Islam is bad. It is by nature incompatible with the West. The 99.9% of Muslims not protesting are not coming out against the violence.

Ok so then those statements above were true? Sorry I misunderstood, I thought you were being sardonic...pardon the error.

So then Islam IS bad and it IS by its nature incompatible?

Pierre, do you think all members of the Democratic party are traitors, and that the Democratic party is by nature evil? Or do you think there is nothing at all wrong with the Democratic party, and that all Democrats are saints and above reproach?

I think the reason these groups are lost is that condemning the policies doesn't play as well on 24 hour news networks or on the cover of newspapers.

What image will sell better: burning embassies or concerned clerics?

the biggest objection i have to this post, besides repeatedly the incorrect meme that hussein was "secular", is the assumption of good faith and honesty on behalf of the speakers. islamic theology and dialogue is full of reasons why one can lie to infidels to support islam, and there is no reason to think that the behavior below is not exactly that, as are the comments quoted above by the likes of CAIR, who have made similar two faced commentary.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2036538,00.html

British imam praises London Tube bombers
HERE IS THE REALLY IMPORTANT PART:
It contrasts with the public statements of condemnation by community leaders — including Ali — in the immediate aftermath of the July 7 attacks.

Yes tom33, we're aware of the phenomenon and it's been noted above. But assuming good faith is only as bad as assuming bad faith: you address the occurrence of two-faced statements as a default position that all Islamic statements condemning terrorism are two-faced. This is an illogical and lazy default.

And Hussein WAS secular - he merely tried to (often clumsily and to little effect within his OWN country, though to various effects in others) use Islam as a propaganda tool, for example by adding a religious element to the Iraqi flag and spouting Islamic rhetoric to try and whip up other countries against the West and UN. He was more effective in co-opting Arab IDENTITY to rally public opinion against the West. This had less to do with the religion itself.

Note that asserting that "Hussein was secular" is a separate argument from the left's meme that "because Hussein was really secular, he would never work with Islamic terrorists." The first statement is 100% correct, until he cynically tried to co-opt religion as politics; the second is subjective, but something I reject as simplistic leftist biolerplate. There are books that you might crack on the subject, if you are so inclined.

Bill, your response is just as easily applied to YOUR assertion of good faith as MY assertion of bad faith: any generalization about behaviors and motivations of individuals based on group tendencies can be seen as "lazy" or "illogical."
To my mind, the following assertions lead me to believe that my assumption of bad faith is far more logical than your opposite assumption:
1-80% of American mosques are financed and led by Saudis; their Wahabist doctrine is the most extreme version of Islamism and it is difficult for me to reconcile Wahabist doctrines with any statements about the "wrongness" of violence towards infidels.
2-CAIR leaders have emerged from Islamist movements, like Islamic Jihad and the Muslim brotherhood, which are quite similar in doctrine to Wahabism and indeed developed alongside the modern version of Wahab doctrine. They have consistently been part of Islamist doctrines that are extremely anti Western and have no problem justifying violence against infidels; there are many online sources that document their two faced rhetoric and I would be happy to refer some to you.

Bill,
In response to your discussion of Hussein's secularism, I think your assertions about Hussein and Arab identity are correct, but I believe an additional wrinkle , which speaks to my point, is to examine the role of Arab identity in "secular" Ba'ath politics.
Arabs are a diverse group; the main parts of their common identity are language and Islam. The "secular" belief that the diverse Arab populations are united as one nation is difficult to accept without the underlying assertions that Arabs are the nation of Islam and Arabic the true language of God. Thus, while Ba'athism and Hussein might be "nominally" secular and only use Islamist rhetoric "clumsily," the underlying identity they are appealing to is unabashedly and undeniably Islamist. The goal of uniting all Arabs in a secular state is merely the goal of uniting the Islamic world under the caliphate, but with a different name.
So while Hussein himself may or may not have been a true Islamist, the history of the Ba'athist movement suggests his ideology was formed as a secular VERSION of Islamism, not a entire distinct ideology. And I would argue that his belief in this ideology assumes an Arab "chauvinism" or belief in the destiny of the Arab "nation" that makes no sense without Islamist doctrine. So whether he acknowledged it or not, his platform and his party are implicitedly Islamist.
Thanks very much for your kind ofer to suggest further reading. I offer you the following in kind gratitude:
http://www.slate.com/id/2108576/

Bill, your response is just as easily applied to YOUR assertion of good faith as MY assertion of bad faith: any generalization about behaviors and motivations of individuals based on group tendencies can be seen as "lazy" or "illogical."

Which is why I don't assert good faith in support of a broad generalization; the above links only falsify the assertion that NO Muslims are speaking out against violence, etc. (Dorkafork actually wrote the post, but I agree)

As far as the problems with organizations like CAIR, yes, I'm aware of them. But the problem is systemic within much of the financed political Muslim world. Hardly anyone is clean, as a common attitude has been one of passive enablement of confrontation with the West, writ large within the attitudes specifically surrounding the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Again, these are specifics. The large argument championed on this blog in the past week or so is much simpler:

There are problems within the Islamic world, but they are neither as simple as or constructively addressed by blaming it some ostensible immutable evil from religion itself. To the extent reform must take place within the Muslim world, it will be achieved by enabling moderate elements to turn on extremism. We've seen a good deal of this in Iraq. This strategy is not helped by maligning an entire religion, a primal source of cultural identity.

So while Hussein himself may or may not have been a true Islamist, the history of the Ba'athist movement suggests his ideology was formed as a secular VERSION of Islamism, not a entire distinct ideology. And I would argue that his belief in this ideology assumes an Arab "chauvinism" or belief in the destiny of the Arab "nation" that makes no sense without Islamist doctrine. So whether he acknowledged it or not, his platform and his party are implicitedly Islamist.

This assessment is almost nonsensical in relation to anything argued on this blog.

Of course Islamic identity is a component of "Arab Nationalism" (the specific term for Hussein's political efforts); that does not mean that "Islam" is the cause of all evil in the culture.

In fact, your citation of "Arab Nationalism" supports the OPPOSITE premise. Why? Because you are introducing political elements into the causality, which supports EXACTLY what I've been arguing over the past week, rather than ridiculously blaming a strict structural problem with the RELIGION.

It seems that some of you folks are trying to lump all of this together as one thing. But you can't declare the two (one a largely cultural, political, secular phenomenon tied to religion via cultural identity) the same thing just because you want to. Though one influences the other, they are different, and speak to how Democratization and a diminishment of insular culture may address some of the POLITICAL issues causing problems in the region.

I have to say: I find it amzing how many people come in and argue with phantom opponents regarding this issue.

"Which is why I don't assert good faith in support of a broad generalization; the above links only falsify the assertion that NO Muslims are speaking out against violence, etc. (Dorkafork actually wrote the post, but I agree)"

Bill, I think my point remains that quoting Islamic leaders speaking out against violence to prove that NO muslims are speaking out against violence ASSUMES the leaders in question are speaking in good faith. Your assertion is no different than mine- they are both based on assumptions, albeit diametrically opposed ones, about the honesty and sincerity of the speakers you quoted. The fact that your co-blogger used quotations from CAIR, a group whose sincerity would be among the first called into question upon examination of supporting evidence, suggests to me that the issue of "taqiyya" was not addressed at all in writing the post.
So i believe that you are making the same kind of broad generalization: that we should assume until proven otherwise that these speakers are sincere.
The post proves nothing and falsifies nothing without this assumption. Since clearly no attempt was made to consider the basis of the speakers' sincerity before making this post, it is clear the author made a "broad generaliztion" that rhetoric from Islamic groups which are anti violent should be taken at face value.
That strikes me as really illogical, based upon my knowledge of the Koran, the existence of the concept of "taqiyya" in Islamist doctrine, and the well-documented examples of insincere rhetoric, as well as the relations between radical groups and the speakers in question.
As to the fact that "But the problem is systemic within much of the financed political Muslim world. Hardly anyone is clean...", it seems to me you acknowledge the truth of my point without accepting the obvious conclusion: that if someone accepts money or works for a radical Islamist group, they are likely influenced by its ideology. This is precisely why THEY CANNOT BE TAKEN AT FACE VALUE- and the history of radical Islamism shows that the dramatic expansion of Wahab sourced funding throughout the Islamic world in the last 25 years has DRAMATICALLY contributed to a rise in the virulence and acceptance of these Islamofascist ideologies.

Bill, I think my point remains that quoting Islamic leaders speaking out against violence to prove that NO muslims are speaking out against violence ASSUMES the leaders in question are speaking in good faith. Your assertion is no different than mine- they are both based on assumptions, albeit diametrically opposed ones, about the honesty and sincerity of the speakers you quoted.

It is rational to assume that SOME of the speakers above are speaking in good faith until it is SPECIFICALLY PROVEN OTHERWISE on a CASE-BY-CASE basis. This is pretty logical.

it seems to me you acknowledge the truth of my point without accepting the obvious conclusion: that if someone accepts money or works for a radical Islamist group, they are likely influenced by its ideology.

Well, of course. But not ALL Muslims that speak out above (Sistani?) are influenced by tainted groups, and not all individuals within tainted groups are irredeemably worth being ignored, especially of they moderate their tone. To assume so is pointless; you keep operating in a massive negative generalization.

Listen: my arguments regarding this issue have been made explicitly, painstakingly clear, in about 10 posts and 100 comments over the past week. Please feel free to read through all of them to find relevant rebuttals to probably all of your points.

Suffice it to say, you aren't offering anything that I haven't addressed, nor anything that anyone who's ever read Little Green Footballs or Mark Steyn hasn't been repetitively made aware of over the past 4 years. This in no way falsifies the very simple point made by this post and others, again, clarified about two comments up in bold type.

If you'll excuse, I'm going to enjoy the rest of my Sunday.

"In fact, your citation of "Arab Nationalism" supports the OPPOSITE premise. Why? Because you are introducing political elements into the causality, which supports EXACTLY what I've been arguing over the past week, rather than ridiculously blaming a strict structural problem with the RELIGION."

Bill, you are simply conflating MEANS and ENDS. It is true that these are POLITICAL elements, but my point remains that they are, whether implicitedly or explicitedly, being used to serve Islamist ENDS. This speaks to the degree to which Saddam and the Ba'athists saw the need to win popular support by appealing to widely held ISLAMIST goals. You seem to be focusing on the fact that they upheld ISLAMIST goals within a SECULAR ideology. I would argue that since the goals are ISLAMIST, the split between secular and islamist groups is a distinction without a difference.
You are correct in asserting there is a "democratic" element present in the secular version of these ideologies that is not present in the Islamist version. So what? Democracy is not a virtue without liberty and the existence of democratic institutions. You may feel it is a positive first step just the same.
But I am struck by the narrowness of this distinction. Does anyone argue that Hitler and National Socialism were somehow "secular," and thus not inextricably linked to the history of Christian anti-semitism in Europe?
Of course not, even though he was nomially secular and used "secular," racialized versions of Christian anti semitism to justify his goals. But any dispassionate obsever would find it impossible to see the difference between the two. Although the fact that he made them, as well as won an election, does seem to point to a creeping element of "democratic" and "secular" principles in the history of Europe anti-semitism. Again, so what?

You seem to be focusing on the fact that they upheld ISLAMIST goals within a SECULAR ideology. I would argue that since the goals are ISLAMIST, the split between secular and islamist groups is a distinction without a difference.
you have warped the topic. A commenter above intimated that Saddam Hussein's regime proved that ISLAM - not ISLAMOFASCISM or ISLAMISM AS A POLITICAL IDEOLOGY - was an immutable source of evil.

I pointed out that the previous regime was secular - that ISLAM was not the original source of evil in that country - and you're moving off on a tangent.

Distinguish the difference betteen "Islamist" and "Muslim."

Does anyone argue that Hitler and National Socialism were somehow "secular," and thus not inextricably linked to the history of Christian anti-semitism in Europe?

And thus, using your logic as it relates to the argument proposed on this blog, would it be fair to state that "Christianity is an irredeemable source of anti-semitism?"

If you don't agree with that statement, and can apply that to the modern paradigm of "ISLAM" as a base RELIGION vs. an overt political ideology, then you are not in disagreement with anything on this blog. (bolded type, comment at 03:48 PM)

Anyone can use a religion - or be influenced by a religion - to whip up a bunch of intolerance and hatred. That doesn't make it fair or wise to assert that the religion itself is an everlasting font of bad stuff.

bill, i have often enjoyed and agreed with your blog, so i will make an effort here to restrain my rhetoric- i hope you can do the same. i am quite aware of the differnce between islamist and muslim, thank you.
I think you are continually missing the point: the ISLAMIST goal of a Caliph uniting the arabs is the same as the BA'ATH goal of a DICTATOR uniting the arabs. what do you think would be the goals of a secular arab dictatorship that covered the entire Arab world?
I would think they would be the same as that of a re-established Caliph: to conquer the rest of the world in pursuit of the most explicit ISLAMIST end goal: a worldwide islamic empire. so the difference between the two doesnt matter.
i think you are being deliberately provocative, but you have again found a point of agreement with me.
"Does anyone argue that Hitler and National Socialism were somehow "secular," and thus not inextricably linked to the history of Christian anti-semitism in Europe?

And thus, using your logic as it relates to the argument proposed on this blog, would it be fair to state that "Christianity is an irredeemable source of anti-semitism?""

this is typical blog arguing: link statement a to absurd statement b, and try to prove your point by knocking over this straw man.

but i agree with you, christianity is NOT an irredeemable source of anti semitism.
so what did christianity do in the post WWII period to establish itself as a distinct entity from pre war christianity which was often suffused with anti semitism.

IT DID A GREAT MANY THINGS, AND ISLAM HAS NOT BEGUN TO DO ANY OF THEM.
VATICAN II.
Constant outreach between members of christian faiths and others.
Public acknowledgement of past sins.
Public repudiation of past sins.
Does anyone from the Wahab infrastructure renounce anti-semitism?
Do they even acknowledge its existence or insist that it is only the result of the Arab-Israeli conflict?
Does anyone within the POWER STRUCTURE of Islam acknowledge these issues?
Do any political leaders IN THESE STRUCTURES AND THESE COUNTRIES acknowledge these issues?
No, they do not. people in CAIR who are NOT IN THESE COUNTRIES and dispossessed intellectuals with no authority might do so, but this is not the same as the attempt of LEGITIMATE and EXISTING CHRISTIAN LEADERSHIP behavior in the post WWII period.
this really goes to the root of our disagreement: you see these statements as the early flowers of democratic reform.
I believe they MAY be this, but they are more likely to be the dishonest statements of the first wave of islamic conquereors attempting to infiltrate america.
whether or not this is the case-and you and I will never know, or at least not until they catch the current leaders of CAIR -remember, they have already caught several PAST leaders of CAIR- supporting violence, I am more concerned about the existence of reform WITHIN THE POWER STRUCTURE OF ISLAMIC INSTITUTIONS AND NATIONS.
and on this front we are going backwards- saudi money is radicalizing mosques and Islamic theology all over the world.
our basic disagreement comes down to this: i think democracy BEFORE the existence of theological and civil reform will lead to violence and aggression, just as it did in pre war Europe. Until civil liberty exists, you cannot except elections in arab states do to anything but elect islamists. Turkey is a great example, they have 80 years of "democracy" but no civil liberty, and having just allowed Islamists onto the polls, we see them winning many elections.
remember, even if 90% of muslims reject Islamist goals, if the leadership of their institutions supports them, and convinces enough violent young men with guns to be led by them, it wont matter what the "majority" think.
Iran is an example of this. And while I hope that it is not a foreshadowing of things to come in places like Saudi Arabia and the PA, i believe that it will serve as the template: democratic reform will lead to the election of Islamists, (or the support of them during revolution, I am aware that Iranians today do not support islamist goals) and until these religious leaders betray their people the way the shahs have betrayed Iran, any support for "democracy" or "tolerenace" from isolated voices in these regions and cultures will be swept away in the frustrations of the masses and their willingness to support fascist leaders who promise to relieve their frustrations.
Islam needs a reformation, not a bunch of Western dwelling speakers who may or may not be islamist practioniners of 'taqiyya.'

the ISLAMIST goal of a Caliph uniting the arabs is the same as the BA'ATH goal of a DICTATOR uniting the arabs.

No, the Islamist goal is a Caliphate uniting the Muslims. Turks are not Arabs. Kurds are not Arabs. Persians (Iranians) are not Arabs. Afghans are not Arabs. That's like saying Spanish communists and fascists were the same because they both wanted to rule Spain. They both were bad, that doesn't mean they were the same.

The Slate article you referenced is a mess, and essentially argues against itself. It makes the conclusion that

"the early Ba'thists argued that to revive the eternal spirit of the Arab world, Arabs had to return to their roots, which 'Aflaq insisted was an Arab Islamic message."

but earlier states

"'Aflaq's conception of Arab nationalism was "secular and modernizing. He believed religion, whether Islamic or Christian, had no place in Arab politics."

'Aflaq was a Christian (although he is rumored to have converted to Islam before his death), but as Joshua Landis, a professor of history at the University of Oklahoma specializing in Syria, explains in his Weblog, 'Aflaq believed that the Baath Party "would never appeal to the broad masses of the Sunni heartland without making it perfectly clear that Baathism was not secular or based on earthly truths.

It is quite clear that the Ba'ath used Islam to as a means to gain popularity for pan-Arabism with a majority Muslim population. I'd say the fact that the founder of the Ba'ath party was a Christian argues against the idea that the ideas of the Ba'ath party derive from Islam. (Tariq Aziz was another famous Christian Ba'athist.)

It's certainly true that they share similar goals, and that both have goals that are anti-democratic. But it's a serious mistake to say that the Ba'ath party was "formed as a secular VERSION of Islamism".

dorkafork,
you make some reasonable points, but i think you are missing the essence of the caliphate. Yes, they would accept persians and kurds-except the biggest proponents of the caliphate are extremist wahab sunnis, who dont really regard shiites, which most persians are, as "true" muslims. So they, like crusaders and zionists, would be subject to conversion or death. Indeed, saudi schools teach that shiites are actually zionist agents. Remember the iran-iraq war?
You are right that the EXACT boundaries of pan arabism and the caliphate are not the same. this is not the point- they roughly coincide to include most arab/muslims, and derive their legitimacy from the view that these populations are one nation, a view which has no social resonance without the reality of islam.
I dont think the contradiction you note in the slate article is anything other than a tension within fascist ideology. both nazi germany, which invoked pagan roots AND modern techonology and modern racialist "science," and Japanese imperial ideology, which contained references to glories past as well as the great need to modernize, contain this contradiction.
It is inherent in any ideology which derives itself from ancient sources but must compete on the battlefield with MODERN technology, and thus must glorify the past and the modern simultaneously.
I would argue the most important part of any ideology is the GOAL. Since, as i said, ba'athism and islamism share SIMILAR but not IDENTICAL goals, i regard them as functionally similar.
In addition, they both derive their legitimacy in the eyes of the rulerss and, when possible, the masses, from the invocation of the "special" status of the arab "nation," a status which only exists as the inventors and native tongue of Islam. It makes no sense otherwise-as a purely racialist ideology it would have to include all Semites. So it can only be legitimate within the worldview of Islam.

One valid point Bill did make was how far afield this discussion has ranged from its original post. If the only point of the post was to demonstrate that not ALL muslims believe in the kind of insanity we are now witnessing with regards to the Danish cartoons, then I suppose that I agree, even if i think most of the quotations, coming from Muslims living in the West are at best aimed at speaking to western audiences and at worst outright deception.
But I have to ask, so what? Are you seriously claiming it matters that, oh, 10 or so quotations can be found from the leaders of 1.5B which are not raving lunacy?

The only relevance this claim would have is to support the notion that the Islamist threat has been overstated, otherwise the claim is nothing more than the existence of statistical outliers.
That is why the conversation has ranged so far afield, because that is the only implicit message that can be drawn from the post.
And the connection between dissent and the scope of the threat only makes sense when built upon democratic assumptions-that if the Islamists do not embody the will of the majority of Muslims, they will simply fade away.
This is a claim in contradiction to historical evidence, which has shown AGAIN AND AGAIN that a SMALL number of ideological extremists can seize control and conduct vast evil. From the Bolsheviks to the Nazis to the Iranian mullahs, history has shown that the will of the majority is only a vague tool of radicals, to be used when convenient and then discarded.
The Islamist radicals have the advantage of conviction, a willingness to use power and violence, and the mute lack of protest from the moderate middle, if they in fact exist.
Compare and contrast:
The teeming hordes of Islamists in Paris complaining of cartoons:
http://www.dailymotion.com/search/islamistes/video/46200

The "lack of teeming hordes" of Muslims demonstrating AGAINST violence:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=15853&only

Pierre, do you think all members of the Democratic party are traitors, and that the Democratic party is by nature evil?

No but I understand why you might hope I did. By and large I look at the Democratic party the same way Iook at Islam. The philosophy is corrupt and many of their leaders as asshats, but the rank and file are by and large ok though some on the fringe can act like moonbats. My mom has been a Democrat since she was small...

Or do you think there is nothing at all wrong with the Democratic party, and that all Democrats are saints and above reproach?

No but I believe you look at life in such black and white terms. In your conceptual model of the world all religions deserve equal respect because among other things the Constitution demands it. You are compltely stumped when you come upon a religious model that is a threat to you since simply that does not computer. And truth is I am having a hard time reconciling my feelings about Islam with my awe of the brilliance of the Constitution. But when push comes to shove the Constitution is not a death pact.

But all of that aside your article was simply flawed by the inclusion of so many questionable sources. That you had to use such questionable sources might be an indication that your dream of a Peaceful Islam might be the result of a pipe not reality.

This would all be so much easier if it were merely Radical Terrorists making this religion up as they go but sadly no. When the Catholic Pope acknowledges that Islam needs to reform and goes even farther to admit it cannot due to its structure alarm bells should ring.

Pierre Legrand

Thom though it must be said that the Nazis did in fact do well in several elections. The excuse that the Germans did not know what Hitler was doing wears a bit thin on me. Not that you are saying such a thing but just an observation.

Pierre

I give up.

dorkafork, before quit respondin, i am curious-was the reason you gave up because you realized how erronous your statements regarding the caliphate and the inclusion of non arab persians in its plans made you realize you are completely out of your depth in discussing radical islam?

I'm going to review this, slowly, perhaps using small words so you can understand, tom33. Here's the relevant part of the earlier comment:

the ISLAMIST goal of a Caliph uniting the arabs is the same as the BA'ATH goal of a DICTATOR uniting the arabs.

No, the Islamist goal is a Caliphate uniting the Muslims. Turks are not Arabs. Kurds are not Arabs. Persians (Iranians) are not Arabs. Afghans are not Arabs. That's like saying Spanish communists and fascists were the same because they both wanted to rule Spain. They both were bad, that doesn't mean they were the same.

I was 1) pointing out that "Arab" is not the same as "Muslim" because your statement was sloppily formed, and 2) pointing out that common goals do not mean common source of ideology. I was not discussing the boundaries of the different groups, I thought the fact that I used a single nation (Spain) in my analogy would have made it clear that I do not believe the boundaries are terribly different. Certainly not from a practical point of view.

You earlier stated

So while Hussein himself may or may not have been a true Islamist, the history of the Ba'athist movement suggests his ideology was formed as a secular VERSION of Islamism, not a [sic] entire distinct ideology.

I have shown this statement is most certainly not true, and yet you say I'm out of my depth in discussing radical Islam?

So yes, I give up. You and Pierre have managed to consistently and staggeringly miss my points. That and the mischaracterization of so many of my statements has convinced me that there is no further purpose in continuing this conversation. (Special thanks to Pierre for telling me what I believe in his 02:15 AM comment. So glad you informed me on that one.)

nice try, but wrong. the boundaries of the caliphate are roughly those areas that coincide with SUNNI ARAB populations, including those areas which SUNNI ARABS used to control, like spain. who do you think would live in spain under the caliphate? spanairds or the northern african arabs who once conquered spain? and you also mentioned persian iran, so there are at least two areas -spain and iran- you misunderstood islamist goals for.
as to your "proof" that the ba'athists are not secularized islamists, it consists of an anecdote (a single christian ba'athist) and your observation that the ba'athists wanted to use modern technology, like every other fascist movement.
to follow your version of rhetoric: does that mean that a single bolshevik jewish supporter of the USSR "proves" that the USSR did not inherit the tradition of russian anti-semitism, and was not functionally equal? because i would say their behavior was more telling.
look, it is exactly the same point: you are emphasizing the RHETORIC of the ba'athists to define them, and i am emphasizing their ACTIONS.
as john dean said, dont listen to what we say. listen to what we DO.

perfect teen tits tits ass galleries

perfect teen tits tits ass galleries

perfect teen tits tits ass galleries

hard sex trans trans sexual/hormones

hard sex trans trans sexual/hormones

hard sex trans trans sexual/hormones

spanking my wife gallery of wives

spanking my wife gallery of wives

rescue me rape manga rape

rescue me rape manga rape

unknown upskirt upskirt panties butts

unknown upskirt upskirt panties butts

unknown upskirt upskirt panties butts

girls hairy legs hairy muscle jocks

girls hairy legs hairy muscle jocks

european pussy lick my pussy

european pussy lick my pussy

zoofilia teen zoo boys porn

trans gender hypnosis post op trans pics

trans gender hypnosis post op trans pics

xksaeoawza

xksaeoawza

ofjurh

ryddn

xgtsrdlexil

xgtsrdlexil

Doctor Who takes three prizes at the National Television Awards in a repeat of its success last year...

The Red Hot Chili Peppers are leading the way at this years MTV Europe music awards with four nominations...

The Red Hot Chili Peppers are leading the way at this years MTV Europe music awards with four nominations...

Classical singer Russell Watson postpones his forthcoming UK tour after undergoing brain surgery...

The Rolling Stones cancel a gig in Hawaii and postpone other tour dates as Mick Jagger suffers throat troubles...

The Rolling Stones cancel a gig in Hawaii and postpone other tour dates as Mick Jagger suffers throat troubles...

Borat creator Sacha Baron Cohen reportedly signs a $42.5m (£22m) film deal starring his character Bruno...

Borat creator Sacha Baron Cohen reportedly signs a $42.5m (£22m) film deal starring his character Bruno...

The Rolling Stones cancel a gig in Hawaii and postpone other tour dates as Mick Jagger suffers throat troubles...

The Rolling Stones cancel a gig in Hawaii and postpone other tour dates as Mick Jagger suffers throat troubles...

viagra .

viagra .

The Red Hot Chili Peppers are leading the way at this years MTV Europe music awards with four nominations...

Singer George Michael lends the piano on which John Lennon wrote Imagine to an anti-war exhibition...

Singer George Michael lends the piano on which John Lennon wrote Imagine to an anti-war exhibition...

The judge who put coded messages in his Da Vinci Code plagiarism trial ruling has written another...

Microsoft and Peter Jackson postpone the making of a film based on the Halo video game after backers pull out...

Microsoft and Peter Jackson postpone the making of a film based on the Halo video game after backers pull out...

buy viagra .

The Rolling Stones cancel a gig in Hawaii and postpone other tour dates as Mick Jagger suffers throat troubles...

The Rolling Stones cancel a gig in Hawaii and postpone other tour dates as Mick Jagger suffers throat troubles...

group sex movie thumbs group sex orgy threesomes The Rolling Stones cancel a gig in Hawaii and postpone other tour dates as Mick Jagger suffers throat troubles...

group sex movie thumbs group sex orgy threesomes The Rolling Stones cancel a gig in Hawaii and postpone other tour dates as Mick Jagger suffers throat troubles...

big boobs movies free xxx full length movie A musical about the witches from The Wizard of Oz breaks West End box office records, its producers say...

Pop trio Atomic Kitten will reform to play a concert in support of jailed Liverpool football fan Michael Shields...