When you write "extraordinarily sensible Norwegian," what exactly do you mean?

BTW, the notion that this site doesn't condone irrational prejudice against certain nationalities is absurd.

If you want to sway the readers of LGF, refute the post "why Islam should be banned in America", point by point. Labelling these discussions as "hate" really adds nothing to the debate.

"When you write 'extraordinarily sensible Norwegian,' what exactly do you mean?"

I mean that he happens to be Norwegian, and he's extraordinarily sensible, based upon my nearly three years of reading him on and off.

"BTW, the notion that this site doesn't condone irrational prejudice against certain nationalities is absurd."

Which site? Winds of Change? The site doesn't condone anything; only posters to it can do that, and they're individuals, with wildly divergent points of view in many cases.

"If you want to sway the readers of LGF...."

Doesn't strike me as a productive use of my time, thanks.

Gary, I think I agree with everything you've written in this post but there's something in its penumbra, so to speak, that makes me uneasy. I think that Islam is going to be a tremendous challenge to our values as Americans and post-Enlightenment Westerners. On the one hand, if we fail to criticize the vile behavior of some Muslims for reasons of cultural sensitivity it smacks of "What can you expect of the wogs?" paternalism. On the other hand, if we attribute vile behavior to all Muslims because of the acts of a few or even because of the acts of the majority of Muslims we've thrown our values overboard wholesale.

We are at war and those with whom we are at war are Muslims. We're going to have to deal with that somehow.

BTW I neglected to mention that for quite a bit of this nation's history criticism of the government was sedition. That doesn't make it right but it is food for thought.

Does freedom of religion extend to religions that instruct there adherents to destroy those of other religions?

>> Anti-Muslim hate is hate. And hate in blogs is hate. Both need to be fought. Neither should be tolerated.

Substitute "Al Queda" for Muslim above. Do you tolerate that? Or is hate bad in all cases?

The proper response, Gary, is: "when moderate Muslims crash planes into buildings, then you may have a point."

Gary
There is always what once was referred to as the 10%. You know, those who don't aspire to your beliefs or your particular way of life. Here in the U.S. we pride our selves on being tolerant of others and their beliefs The 10% however refers to activists who see no other way (terrorism / force) of achieving their goals what ever they might be. This is what this war is being waged against. The 10% who would show no quarter and ask for none. Identifying that 10% is a matter of profiling. This war is not being waged against Islam. It is however being waged against people of Islamic Muslim faith. You can argue the outside circumstance of those who sympathize with the people of Islamic Muslim faith that are in that 10%. Some even become members for the cause of that 10%. Some even change faiths for the cause of that 10%. What can be said and what I am saying is this 10% uses their faith as the dividing factor. Does it mean eradicate the Islamic Muslim faith? Not at all. In as much as it doesn’t mean eradicate Christianity because all members of the Ku Klux Klan are Christian. Or eradicate all of Jewish faith for what ever reasons you choose. What is more ironic is our constitution states that the government on any level will not intervene in matters of the peoples faith yet we do it on a continual basis (separation of church and state yet another a hot topic). Our government is for the people, by the people and of the people. None of which shall be put to a religious test. I for one do not condone religious persecution of any kind. What Bjørn Stærk has identified is 10% of a different kind with a different profile which is not the entire populace view.

Dave, who said anything to the effect that we must "fail to criticize the vile behavior of some Muslims for reasons of cultural sensitivity"?

Or that we mustn't criticize or talk about or fight Islamism (or "Islamofascism" if one prefers)?

"Does freedom of religion extend to religions that instruct there adherents to destroy those of other religions?"

If we look at all, we can find plenty to denounce in any religion. Christianity preaches that either I need to convert or I'll burn in hell, according to many adherents; it's not much done now, but there's plenty of history of Christians engaging in mass slaughter of heretics and nonbelievers. Judaism, well, if you read the Torah, God is commanding the Jews left and right to smite and slaughter. Hinduism is has plenty of conquest and slaughter in its past (and not a little in India in the past century). Shintoism.... And so on.

The point is that most Moslems are demonstrably not running around slaughtering, or terrorizing, despite all the hysterical claims about All Moslems and What Islam Commands.

"The proper response, Gary, is: 'when moderate Muslims crash planes into buildings, then you may have a point.'"

Good formulation, praktike.

"This is what this war is being waged against. The 10% who would show no quarter and ask for none."

I don't know what the precise percentage is, but generally speaking, yes. It's, again, demonstrable that we've not had a significant number of American Muslims running around conspiring to kill people; the number caught or believed involved are measurable in quite small numbers. The number caught outright are literally measurable by handfuls, though it's reasonable to assume that at least hundreds may ultimately be involved, or perhaps even a few thousand. But given that there are several million American Muslims....

Hi praktike,

How do you define a 'moderate Muslim'?

My definition is 'apostate Muslim'

Gary,

Why don't you also employ your moral superiority to cajole Muslim dominated countries into allowing freedom of worship and religion to non-Muslims? And allow Muslims to choose not to be a Muslim anymore and become Christians?

You see, I really believe my moral superiority is greater than yours because my moral superiority endorses all non-Muslim dominated countries to ban Islam until all Muslim dominated countries lift their ban on freedom of religion.

Why isn't this article showing up on the Main page anymore? Is it only my browser? Everything else seem fine...

Lurker:

No, its the same for me.

#27108 Gary,

How many people did Christ kill/murder? How many swords does he say are sufficient for usage by the sum total of all Christians? Do you know why he counted the swords?

Be careful how you define 'Christian'. Christ was very clear that many will come to deceive in his name but are not of his thinking or teachings.

Gary

"I don't know what the precise percentage is, but generally speaking, yes. It's, again, demonstrable that we've not had a significant number of American Muslims running around conspiring to kill people; the number caught or believed involved are measurable in quite small numbers. The number caught outright are literally measurable by handfuls, though it's reasonable to assume that at least hundreds may ultimately be involved, or perhaps even a few thousand. But given that there are several million American Muslims...."

This is how it starts Gary the presumption that there are or could be or we could create by our own actions several million. The fall out of trying to be politically correct in my opinion. All we need do is look at the facts to determine at this point that this is not the case. When and if it comes to the millions point then I would say the globe and the Islamic Muslim faith will have a very huge problem. Not only in regards to the global war on terror but in regards to a global genocide which will be one directed from both sides of the fence.

I believe I have argued my points clearly throughout all of the postings that a directed discrimination of those of Islamic Muslim faith is not necessary or required at this point. However; that does not mean that it should be ignored concerning the profile of those that commit acts of terror. Any more than it means ignore the current profile in all cases in favor of some utopian non-discriminatory waste of actions. The more pieces of the puzzle that can be added to the profile the better off we will all be.

The question by papijoe

"Does freedom of religion extend to religions that instruct there adherents to destroy those of other religions?"

has not yet been answered. I'm still waiting...

"Substitute 'Al Queda' for Muslim above. Do you tolerate that?"

Sure, that's fine, unless perhaps you're a Christian. I'm not qualified to speak to that.

"This is how it starts Gary the presumption that there are or could be or we could create by our own actions several million."

Um, what? My point was that there are several million American Muslims, and only a handful are acting wrongly.

>>Substitute "Al Queda" for Muslim above. Do you tolerate that? Or is hate bad in all cases?

This is a very important question. IMHO, it is not useful to hate members of Al-Qaeda. It is very important to STOP Al-Qaeda, and it's probably going to be necessary to KILL some of the people in it, but HATING them isn't a wise move.

Again I'd recommend reading the following interesting essay by Roderick T. Long:

http://libertariannation.org/a/n030l2.html

Excerpt:

"Our topic tonight is hate. Yet so far I’ve spoken about anger rather than hate. One might suppose that what I’ve said about one will apply mutatis mutandis to the other; but I think there is an important difference. Anger is often justified; but hate, I think, is never justified, at least against a person.

Where does the difference lie? Well, we can be angry with a person and still wish that person well; after all, we are often angry with those we love, and we do not stop loving them while we are angry with them. But we cannot hate a person and still wish that person well. I think this makes hate morally problematic in a way that anger is not. For I accept Aristotle’s conception of happiness as a life of virtuous rational activity. Surely we should wish our enemies to be more virtuous and more rational; after all, if they were more virtuous and more rational, they wouldn’t have hijacked two airplanes and sent them crashing into the World Trade Center. Any move, by anybody, in the direction of greater virtue and greater rationality should always be met with approval. But if Aristotle is right about happiness, then to wish for our enemies to be more virtuous and more rational is ipso facto to wish for them to be happier.

I think this must be what such moral teachers as Socrates, Jesus, and the Buddha mean when they advise us to wish our enemies well. Obviously we should not wish success to our enemies’ projects; for those projects are evil, and they could not cease to be evil without ceasing to be the projects they are. Hence hatred for those projects is quite in order. But people can always cease to be evil without ceasing to be. If they refuse to cease being evil, we may find it necessary, in self-defense, to make them cease to be; but we should always prefer that our enemies cease being evil. But what is that, but to prefer that our enemies become better people—that they live better, more worthwhile, less destructive, hate-filled lives? And if that is what we ought to prefer, then we ought to wish our enemies well. And while that is compatible with being angry at them, and with killing them if necessary, it is not compatible with hating them."

#27127 T.J. Madison,
It's just sounds strange to wish a member of Al Queda well even though you are 'angry' with them.

STOP Al-Qaeda? Isn't that in this case the same as KILL Al-Qaeda?

We should also keep in mind Joe's Maxim (different Joe): "Nice people can use any religion to justify their niceness. Mean people can use any religion to justify their meanness."

There are nice Christians, Muslims, Atheists, Satanists, etc. just as there are mean members of the above groups. What crazy crap happens to have been in which holy books doesn't seem to adjust the percentages much AFAIK.

Most people are hypocrites, and thank goodness for that! If people went around acting on the basis of the tenets of their religions, there'd be much less niceness.

(I periodically razz my Jewish friends, accusing them of being heretics for their refusal to enthusiastically embrace the mass murder and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians as their LORD commands. These friends demonstrate their tolerance and niceness, as well as their heresy, by refraining from throttling me.)

#27130 Posted by T. J. Madison, "If people went around acting on the basis of the tenets of their religions, there'd be much less niceness"

Please explain where this is true according to Christ and his teachings. In what way would a Christian following the basis(Christ's teachings) by less nice?

>>It's just sounds strange to wish a member of Al Queda well even though you are 'angry' with them.

Indeed is is strange. That's why people like Jesus are considered "radical." I suspect it's a necessary component of any strategy to defeat the enemy without becoming the enemy.

>>STOP Al-Qaeda? Isn't that in this case the same as KILL Al-Qaeda?

Clearly not. Some of those guys in Gitmo may, by random chance, actually be part of Al-Qaeda -- and they aren't dead. They have been neutralized without being destroyed.

It's possible most of the Al-Qaeda guys are puppets, pawns like the human missiles launched from the West Bank. If intercepted, maybe they can be flipped. Perhaps some sane clerics could work on these people, use the very same Koran to convince them the path they had chosen was wrong.

Gary
"Um, what? My point was that there are several million American Muslims, and only a handful are acting wrongly."

I understood your point and expanded on it. Yes we know there are millions of American Muslims. Yes we know there are a handful of terrorists that are Muslim. It's when the two are married that things get out of hand. We both know the two are tied at the hip as the current profile indicates. Muslim / terrorist / young teens to mid-twenties/ ME / male. This is in response to your policing the blogs by silencing and discrediting those that believe terrorist and Muslim are all inclusive. I don’t believe that is the way to proceed because the seeds have already been planted. The way to proceed is to add to the profile to direct the attention to where it should ultimately be placed. If they were distinguished somehow by other than those attributes it would be much simpler. The question before us now is how to do that.

Juding by conditions in the Muslim world, I'd say that either they've had an absolutely amazingly bad run of luck, or Islam adjusts those percentages more than you'd like to admit. But I agree we're not at war with Islam. Perhaps one or two sects of it are at war with us, though.

>>Please explain where this is true according to Christ and his teachings. In what way would a Christian following the basis(Christ's teachings) by less nice?

The tricky bit here is where Jesus is said to endorse the Old Testament Jehovah. (Maybe that part was jive added by bureaucrats later.) Most Christians cheerfully read out of the Old Testament and assume Jesus was fine with all that stuff. I wonder what Jesus thought about this bit from Numbers 33:

"Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye are passed over Jordan into the land of Canaan;

Then ye shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy all their pictures, and destroy all their molten images, and quite pluck down all their high places:

And ye shall dispossess the inhabitants of the land, and dwell therein: for I have given you the land to possess it.

...

But if ye will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you; then it shall come to pass, that those which ye let remain of them shall be pricks in your eyes, and thorns in your sides, and shall vex you in the land wherein ye dwell.

Moreover it shall come to pass, that I shall do unto you, as I thought to do unto them."

This is the sort of stuff that makes Sharon look like a hippie peacenik. After all, he has failed to fully cleanse Israel proper of non-Jews. Fundamentalist Christians and Orthodox Jews should logically endorse ethnic cleansing and genocide in Palestine, since it's in accordance with God's will, as revealed in His holy word. (This is why I find it particularly amusing when Orthodox Jews complain about the Holocaust.)

Since everyone here at Winds of Change is a heretic, hypocrite, or infidel, we don't stand for the ickiness like that in Numbers 33. We don't feel the need for spot executions of homosexuals, witches, people who work on the Sabbath, etc. Those of us who are Christian or Jewish can just say, "Well, those were the bad old days, those rules don't apply anymore." Somehow God must have changed his mind.

>>Judging by conditions in the Muslim world, I'd say that either they've had an absolutely amazingly bad run of luck, or Islam adjusts those percentages more than you'd like to admit.

Let's just look at statistics. "Uncle Joe" Stalin, a fellow atheist, killed 40 million of his own people. Mao killed 60. Hitler was Christian, no?

The Islamofascists have a LOOONG way to go to rack up those kind of numbers. The closest so far is probably Saddam (not really like Al-Q at all) with maybe 1.5 million. The stuff in Sudan is pretty bad too.

Al Qaeda & Co. still likely have a much lower score than the Enola Gay crew. Yes they're bad guys, but their power just isn't that impressive on a historical scale. IMHO it's just the propaganda system: they're the Demons of the Week.

My social circle includes ten or twelve Muslims, and all of them practise their religion in a manner not unlike the Jews, Prostestants, Catholics, etc. that I know. They follow the many "good" parts of the Koran and more or less ignore the "bad" parts (i.e., kill the infidels). They've simply matured beyond that stuff.

I firmly believe that as the Muslim culture continues to evolve, so to will it continue to moderate. How or when will the Muslim reformation come about? Wish I knew -- but it WILL come. Part of that will be in doing a better job integrating those who come to the West more fully into our societies.

In the meantime, however, I for one at least remain perfectly happy to hate USMC's 10%-ish (I think the percentage is much, much lower) who would happily behead me just because I'm an agnostic.

Thank goodness! I thought I was hallucinating. First it was there. Then it was gone.

Gary:

Dave, who said anything to the effect that we must "fail to criticize the vile behavior of some Muslims for reasons of cultural sensitivity"?

Or that we mustn't criticize or talk about or fight Islamism (or "Islamofascism" if one prefers)?

I didn't mean to imply that you had said anything of the kind. If you took it that way, I apologize.

Western society has spent considerable parts of the last seventy years (or more) making excuses for the vile behavior of some Muslims. I don't know whether it's been due to paternalism, or pragmatism, or post-modernism, or what. But it's obvious it's been happening. I don't think we can afford to do that anymore.

The point is that most Moslems are demonstrably not running around slaughtering, or terrorizing, despite all the hysterical claims about All Moslems and What Islam Commands.

All Japanese were demonstrably not running around slaughtering during World War II. But we interned thousands of innocent Japanese-Americans (wrongly in my opinion) and killed hundreds of thousands of other innocent Japanese (correctly in my opinion). Would acting differently have brought the war to a conclusion more quickly? I don't want to take this analogy too far because I think it has serious flaws.

IMO Arab-Americans and Muslims in the U. S. have responded in a very human fashion—with indignation and outrage at being singled out. But there are circumstances that call for more than a natural human reaction. Under significantly more severe conditions Japanese-Americans responded heroically and put the lie to the fears about them.

I believe that sites that are full of hate for white people, for black people, for red people, for yellow people, for Christians, for Jews, for Moslems, for Hindus, for animists, for atheists, for religious people, for short people, for tall people, for whatever kind of people, are hate sites.

I boycott hate sites, regardless of whatever value might be attached to them.

I hate Nazis. I wuz gonna tell you about my anti-Nazi site, but, well, nevermind.

I'd hate to paint all Nazis with a broad brush or anything. Diversity makes us stronger and all that. Maybe our "big tent" has room enough for teh Nazis too, eh?

Good post Gary.

There is one problem that gets lost in all the words, however. We are at a point in history where a major world religion is going to be changed internally by the actions of outsiders more than its believers. This will not be fun for anyone, but the alternatives seem worse. I suspect that the nature of what constitutes a religion will be argued about in highly inflatory words for years to come.

Deal with it, it ain't going away.

"(This is why I find it particularly amusing when Orthodox Jews complain about the Holocaust.)"

Quite a knee-slapper, indeed.

"Maybe our 'big tent' has room enough for teh Nazis too, eh?"

In case anyone hasn't read my site or writings over the years, I'll provide the news flash that I'm anti-Nazi.

"All Japanese were demonstrably not running around slaughtering during World War II."

No, but the nation had declared war upon us, and most subjects of the Emperor didn't dissent in their own minds, let alone vocally. And, as you note, we mistakenly locked up about 120,000 innocent people because of their ethnicity, and our fearful, angry, generalizations. Some people would repeat that mistake today, having learned nothing. And, last I looked, there were about 4000 Muslims bravely serving in the U.S. armed forces, Dave.

>>IMO Arab-Americans and Muslims in the U. S. have responded in a very human fashion—with indignation and outrage at being singled out. But there are circumstances that call for more than a natural human reaction. Under significantly more severe conditions Japanese-Americans responded heroically and put the lie to the fears about them.

Heroic, or pathetic? These Japanese-Americans were sold out by their own government, and they just went along with it?

When the Jews were first transported to the camps, did they know they were being sent to their deaths? How did the Japanese know they were not being sent to their deaths?

IMHO the Japanese-Americans got lucky. In forensics, there's often Crime Scene A, where people are kidnapped, and Crime Scene B, where the remains are found. Your best bet is always to resist at Crime Scene A, and that's true with the State as well.

>>I hate Nazis. I wuz gonna tell you about my anti-Nazi site, but, well, nevermind.

>>I'd hate to paint all Nazis with a broad brush or anything. Diversity makes us stronger and all that. Maybe our "big tent" has room enough for teh Nazis too, eh?

John Rabe, the Living Buddha of Nanking, saved 300,000 Chinese civilians through chutzpah. He's probably the greatest paladin in recorded history.

He was a Nazi.

And, last I looked, there were about 4000 Muslims bravely serving in the U.S. armed forces, Dave.

And I am grateful for their service. But, unfortunately, that illustrates my point. In 1940 there were roughly 130,000 Japanese-Americans. Approximately 18,000 served in the U. S. military during World War II. And, as you say, there are several million Muslim Americans. There is simply no comparison.

In case anyone hasn't read my site or writings over the years, I'll provide the news flash that I'm anti-Nazi.

But, of course, you'd loudly denounce a website with an anti-Nazi theme, though. Hate the Nazis? Perish the thought. Hatred is wrong.

Look: just as there are people who I love, there are people who I hate. My loves and hatreds - both - tell a lot about who I am as a person.

Show me someone who doesn't hate anything, and I'll show you someone who doesn't have a strong enough moral position to love anything either.

I'm secure in my Nazi hatred; just as I'm secure in my Islamofascist hatred.

Perhaps you just need to give hate a chance.

Hating Islamofascists will interfere with your efforts to defeat Islamofascism. Likely it will lead to your adoption of tactics that will inadvertantly advance fascism locally. Hating the philosophy is quite reasonable. Hating the people themselves is not useful.

#27139 Posted by T. J. Madison,

I didn't ask for the 'tricky bit' answer. But it shows that your in the mode that you can make an answer that avoids the original question no matter what lengths it takes.

On the one hand you attribute Jesus to being a radical who wishes Al-Qaeda members well but on the other hand hint that Jesus endorsed Numbers 33 for all time. Which is it?

Remember when they brought the adultress woman in front of Jesus to trap him with a question? You know what he said and it was contrary to Leviticus law. Right?

How many people did Christ kill/murder? How many swords does he say are sufficient for usage by the sum total of all Christians? Do you know why he counted the swords?

There is also Scripture that indicates that Jesus would not be wishing the believers of Islam well because they knowingly commit an unpardonable sin.

What are the fundamental foundation blocks of Islam?

P.S. You need not answer every question I pose; I do it to provoke thought even when we are not in dialog. And also to make a point without telling other people what to think. But let them if they want search and find more answers than I have.

Cheers,

Roger

Hmm, the discussion here has gone in a much more interesting direction than I would have predicted.

T.J. Madison, I'd like to hear more about this John Rabe guy. Sounds like a very complex character, and/or a really great story.

With respect to the responsibility of blogs for their comments sections and the direction of HateWatch here on Winds, Lewy and I have commented. Start here and read, in order, Lewy, Gary & myself for the key exchange.

Roger, I don't mean to rag on Jesus, who by all accounts was a good guy. Jesus's way of handling the adulteress is evidence of his considerable wisdom in these matters. I'm quite willing to buy that any NT passages that could be directly or indirectly quoted as Jesus's support for theft, murder, etc. are jive. But they are there, for the benefit of any assholes who wish to use them to support their wretchedness. Since we aren't assholes, we can safely dismiss any such (mis)interpretations.

>>There is also Scripture that indicates that Jesus would not be wishing the believers of Islam well because they knowingly commit an unpardonable sin.

Hmm. This is the same Jesus who forgave the people who nailed him up, right? I can certainly see Jesus believing that followers of Islam were making a horrible mistake that would damn them. I can't see Jesus WANTING Muslims to be damned for their sins. Surely Jesus would prefer that Muslims abandon their sins and be saved, right?

>>How many people did Christ kill/murder? How many swords does he say are sufficient for usage by the sum total of all Christians? Do you know why he counted the swords?

Does it not follow that Jesus would not advocate resisting Islam with violence at all? This would certainly be a controversial point of view around here. Would Jesus qualify as an idiotarian?

>>What are the fundamental foundation blocks of Islam?

It strikes me that the main advance by Islam is the refocusing of worship on the Creator and away from the messengers. The 99 Names of God in particular strikes me as a useful exercise. Maybe Osama & Co. could stand to spend some more time contemplating Ar-Rahman, Ar-Rahim, and Al-Ghaffar in particular.

The big problem with Team Jesus these days seems to be too much hero worship and not enough contemplation of his philosophy, goals, and methodology. The WWJD notion, corny as it is, seems like a step back in the right direction.

Hitler was Christian, no?

>>T.J. Madison, I'd like to hear more about this John Rabe guy.

I think I've ranted about him before. He was an executive for the Siemens Corporation who was assigned to Nanking, and a member of the Nazi party.

When the Japanese were approaching Nanking in 1937, Rabe headed up the 15 member Nanking Safety Zone committee. Their intent was to provide some island of stability near the embassies where the locals could find shelter amid the expected mayhem.

The pre-invasion population of Nanking was around 1M. Roughly 300K people ran for their lives when the Japanese arrived. Some KMT military units were foolish enough to surrender -- the nearby river literally ran red with blood and body parts. The Japanese then went about slaughtering the civilians, rounding up people and using them for bayonet practice. It's called the Rape of Nanking because it's the single largest incident of mass rape in recorded history, at least 20,000.

Essentially everybody who wasn't inside the 7 square kilometer safety zone got killed. (~300K fatalities.) John Rabe housed 650 refugees on his own estate. He personally patrolled the edge of the safety zone, encouraging random civilians to get inside and using his diplomatic status as a German and a Nazi to stop atrocities. He repeatedly had to hold off rifle-toting Japanese soldiers (demons?) by using his swastika armband as a badge of authority -- as a holy symbol, if you will.

300K people survived the multi-week rampage by packing themselves in the safety zone under the protection of Rabe and the rest of the Zone committee. Without Rabe's chutzpah and insane bravery, it's quite likely the rest of them would have been killed as well.

After the rampage ended, Rabe went back to Germany, armed with movies, pictures, and other documentation of the massacre. The Fuhrer had be informed of the atrocious behavior of these Japanese barbarians masquerading as "allies." He wrote a long letter to Hitler, detailing what had happened.

Naturally he was arrested and worked over by the Gestapo.

Afterwards Siemens transferred him out of the country to the safety of Afghanistan (!) After the war he was arrested and harrassed by the Allies for his Nazi affiliation. Thereafter Rabe lived in poverty and died of a stroke in 1950.

And that is the tale of the great paladin John Rabe, the Living Buddha of Nanking -- may it never be forgotten.

Lest it be thought that all who participated in the massacre are beyond redemption, it should be noted that there is an elderly physician in Japan who to this day has in his waiting room videotape and other evidence detailing the horrible crimes he was a part of. This is some small measure of penance.

>>>Hitler was Christian, no?

>>Ah, no.

Well, I'm pretty sure Jesus wouldn't take kindly to actions taken by Uncle Adolph in His name. That said, Hitler seems sincere enough here:

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited."
-Adolf Hitler, in his speech on 12 April 1922

Let's not forget good old Martin Luther either. He was a Christian, right?

I'm not a big fan of collective punishment -- it would be foolish to judge Jesus, Mohammed, or any other person by the actions of the most insane of their followers.

"Hatred is wrong."

Didn't actually say that, did I?

I'm not going to philosophize on the pros and cons of various forms of hatred. But if you can't see any difference between Nazism, and the religion of Islam, and lump all Muslims in with the terrorists, I believe you are missing vital distinctions.

"But, of course, you'd loudly denounce a website with an anti-Nazi theme, though."

By all means, Google the millions of words I've written that are on the net, and find me doing that.

"Perhaps you just need to give hate a chance."

So I've been informed.

Just for the record, Joe, since I'd not seen your response on the Hatewatch thread until just now, regarding this: "I would suggest, however, that you contemplate walking a mile in Charles' shoes (or Calpundit's, or any other blogger with major traffic and a comments section) before issuing that proclamation."

Sure. I'd shut comments down in a second if I couldn't police them (or have people I trust police them). I thought I'd indicated that, but just to be clear.

I think comments are very nice, but I don't -- speaking purely for myself, obviously -- regard myself as under obligation to provide them as a service to people.

No one is obliged to agree with me on this, of ocurse.

T.J. Madison

But if ye will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you; then it shall come to pass, that those which ye let remain of them shall be pricks in your eyes, and thorns in your sides, and shall vex you in the land wherein ye dwell.

As any good Zionist knows, the 'palestinians' are not the inhabitants of the Land.

Sadly, I missed all the fun today. Mostly working on the next Hatewatch update, ironically.

Rather than recapitulate todays discourse, let me throw out what I think would be an interestig topic for discussion.

My position is that “Islam” is not the problem. I argue for this position not because the negation of this position is politically incorrect, insensitive, or hateful. I argue for this position because I believe the negation is wrong.

Robert Spencer has a thesis which I find interesting: that the radical, violent, hateful Islamists who are our enemies have a religious and political philosophy which is well founded both in Islamic cannon and tradition. (My words). It’s a thesis I would like to examine more closely. But if we stipulate Spencer’s thesis, does this necessarily entail that “Islam is the problem”? I don’t think so, (and neither does Spencer), but the articulation of the distinction is a useful exercise. Further, is Spencer’s thesis hateful on it’s face? Again, I don’t think so – I think we have to be able to discuss ideas such as his without facing accusations of hatred and racism.

Gary: Quote as much as you like from my post. And thanks for picking up on this - I was beginning to worry it would be ignored. One thing I've begun to notice is how much easier it is to get links by taking another cheap shot at left-wing idiots than by criticizing people on your own side. (Bush, right-wing bloggers.) Here's another example of an important story many people don't want to hear. This was how much of the left went rotten. It wasn't because they started out with fully rotten ideas, but because they didn't protect those ideas from corruption and didn't work hard enough to keep them alive. Everyone should learn from that, and don't be afraid of taking shots in both directions, wherever we stand.

I think what bothers me most here is seeing all these right-wing Islam critics fall into exactly the same logical fallacies many of us bloggers have been targetting on the far left for three years. A lot of people should ask themselves: Are we for a particular, rational method of thinking, which we'll follow wherever it leads us, or are we for a particular point of view, which we'll use any argument to support? Is it okay to use a bad argument in a good cause, or should the cause follow the good arguments, whatever they are?

I agree with your point about similarities to antisemitism. In the 90's I once debated a neo-nazi at a Norwegian BBS. He could present all this evidence that the Jews were evil and powerful - secret quotes from Jewish scriptures, examples of evil Jews had done. This wasn't a vague fear, it was concrete and detailed, with lots of "evidence" to back it up. The main difference between him and the Islamophobes is that his examples were usually false, (the Islamists actually exist), but there's a similarity in style, in willingness to believe the worst, to overgeneralize, and to think selectively.

Hope more bloggers pick up on this trend. It's early enough to kill it, but it won't happen if everybody gives these people the benefit of the doubt, or tolerate them as over-zealous but harmless and well-intended Islam critics. Not suggesting anyone should moderate away these views, of course, the point is to stop implicitly approving of them by saying nothing.

#27167 Posted by T. J. Madison
"The big problem with Team Jesus these days seems to be too much hero worship and not enough contemplation of his philosophy, goals, and methodology."
I couldn't agree with you more on this point. There are too many that inject mysticsm back into it. Completely unnecessary and actually opposes Christ's teachings. However, that is a whole other topic and really is for a different thread or readers/posters.

"What are the fundamental foundation blocks of Islam?" Your discussion on this question needs a little work. I got to go to work right now but after I'll make an attempt at a cogent answer. It pertains to what Bjørn Stærk wants to discuss which he handles in a lopsided fashion.

I'll also discuss the notion 'that all religions are evolving toward your views; it's just the 'progress' of Islam lags behind all the others'. This is a modern fallacy and a poor solution. It even shows or is based on a fundamental missunderstanding of evolution. We need words like deevolution and bifurcation(stability/instability mathematical machines) to become understood by the 'intellectuals'.

Is it just me Gary, or did you change the references to LGF except for the link?
I've never understood the mentality of those who claim to support the war on terror but slam other sites that do an effective job of exposing facts about the same terrorists. You can't seem to distinguish between anger and what you call hate. Your test of replacing the word "Jew" for Muslim is moral equivalency. Statements that I would make about Muslims would never apply to Jews, there is a fundamental difference in the cultures. I don't believe in referring to Muslims by epithets, but this is what soldiers do. The way soldiers feel about their enemies is more complex than simple hatred. You say we are abandoning our democratic values. How? By realizing we cannot apply them to Islam?
You are woefully ignorant of the values that Islam is based on. You claim to value democracy, yet you ignore despotism, claim to value honesty yet you ignore taqqiya, you claim to value tolerance, yet you ignore the fact that war has been declared on us by the most intolerant society on the face of the earth.
And you never answered my question.
What ever the reason you have for attacking LGF, please don't justify it by your bogus crusade against hate and intolerance.

Robert Spencer's thesis is key to understanding Islamist terrorism. Islamists are not "a group of fanatics which have hijacked a religion", as President Bush has characterized them. Their interpretation of Islam is well supported by the Quran, Hadith, etc. If you don't believe this, read Onward Muslim Soldiers.

So why isn't Islam the problem? How can one defend a religion that instructs its followers to "slay infidels wherever you find them"?

And where do we draw the line between the religion and totalitarian political philosophy that is inherent in Islam? And what is a "religion" that is protected by the First Amendment? Does any system of beliefs that include the concept of God qualify as a protected religion, even if those views also include a political philosophy that is entirely incompatible with liberal democracy.

Does my asking these questions qualify as "hate"?

Roger:

What are the fundamental foundation blocks of Islam?

1. There is no god but God and Muhammed is the messenger of God.
2. The five-times daily prayer.
3. Tithing.
4. The Ramadan Fast.
5. The Pilgrimage to Mecca

There is nothing intrinsically oppressive or (IMO) intolerant about these. But the devil is in the details as they say.

papijoe: "I've never understood the mentality of those who claim to support the war on terror but slam other sites that do an effective job of exposing facts about the same terrorists."

You mean: don't be so hard on them - they're on our side? Another far left fallacy. But it's the other way around. If Noam Chomsky adds yet another dangerous or irrational idea to his worldview, it's not like you and I have much reason to care. But when people who support the war on terror, and who believe that Islamism is a threat, begin turning to dangerous or irrational ideas about Islam, that's our worldview they're corrupting. So we should focus just as much on what people on "our side" are saying, and work to make sure that it's rational and moral. If they're wrong, say it. If they're dangerously wrong, say it loud. There's nothing inherently rational about being critical of Islam or being against Islamism. We have to work to keep it rational. And part of that is to criticize people who may in other ways do good work. That's not backstabbing, that's avoiding the mistakes of others.

"Your test of replacing the word "Jew" for Muslim is moral equivalency."

Depends on the original message. The point of Gary's test is to highlight disturbing similarities in rhetoric, similarities that first become apparent when you take a step back and apply a consistent standard. It's too easy to become so captivated by all the perceived evils of Islam that you begin making all kinds of exceptions for it, allowing yourself language that stands out as paranoid or extremist when you see it an a different context. Such as calling for a ban on Islam without considering the democratic implications, or the more pragmatic but just as disturbing "we can't ban Islam but it would be nice if we could".

And since Christianity has been bandied about a bit in this thread as well and in the interests of equal time here are the fundamental foundation blocks of Christianity:

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

And FWIW blood has been shed over each and every clause.

If this is thread-jacking, please delete this comment.

T. J. Madison:

It strikes me that the main advance by Islam is the refocusing of worship on the Creator and away from the messengers. The 99 Names of God in particular strikes me as a useful exercise. Maybe Osama & Co. could stand to spend some more time contemplating Ar-Rahman, Ar-Rahim, and Al-Ghaffar in particular.

Unfortunately, I don't think that this will do it. Didn't the murderers in Iraq before beheading their victims call out to Allah, Ar-Rahman, Ar-Rahim, Al-Ghaffar? (the beneficent, the merciful, the forgiving) Either these mean different things to them or they are now merely empty forms.

Hi praktike,

My definition is 'apostate Muslim'

What you are essentially declaring here is: Osama Bin Laden is right.

#27191 Posted by praktike,

Well it lunch time. So quickly.

You are correct. "Osama Bin Laden is right" is what I am essentially declaring. Osama knows what I know. Therefore he and his are my enemies as they are the enemies of Christ. The apostate Muslims who do not follow their originator(makes them nicer as following mine makes me a nicer person:-) are more amenable to sharing this earth with me and mine. Sunday evening I ate dinner with an apostate Muslim and we had good conversation. Women's volleyball, soccer, etc. I don't think it would go as well eating with Osama. There might be a little hatred displayed.

More later, gotta grab some food and get back to work:-)

#27188 Posted by Bjørn Stærk,

Why don't you work also on lifting the ban on all other religions in Muslim dominated countries? That problem is here today. Immediate problem. Right now.

"apply a consistent standard" And you are the judge of what is consistent?
Why is it alarming that some of us say that all non-Muslim dominated countries should ban Islam until all Muslim dominated countries lift their ban on freedom of religion? Their ban enforced with extreme cruelity has been around for a very long, long time. Yet you are not alarmed until there is talk of banning Islam. You cannot see how irrational your position is?

Roger:

Why is it alarming that some of us say that all non-Muslim dominated countries should ban Islam until all Muslim dominated countries lift their ban on freedom of religion?

Because it's inconsistent with our post-Enlightenment values. However I'm no post-modernist. I believe that we should hold Muslim countries to the same standard to which we hold ourselves in this regard. E.g. to me this means that we need to raise the issue of religious intolerance in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia at every opportunity. They're in obvious violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 18. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Are we in perfect compliance with the Declaration? Undoubtedly not but it shouldn't dissuade us from pointing out grievous deficiencies in the behavior of other countries.

"Is it just me Gary, or did you change the references to LGF except for the link?"

Haven't changed anything.

"I've never understood the mentality of those who claim to support the war on terror but slam other sites that do an effective job of exposing facts about the same terrorists."

It's great to do a good job of exposing facts aboout the terrorists. It's not necessary to tolerate bigotry to do so.

"You can't seem to distinguish between anger and what you call hate. Your test of replacing the word 'Jew' for Muslim is moral equivalency."

Yes, quite. Worshippers of God are morally equivalent until their behavior morally diverges. When it diverges into terrorism or support for it, they are not equivalent. Mere worship, however, is.

"Statements that I would make about Muslims would never apply to Jews, there is a fundamental difference in the cultures."

And the same is said by anti-Semites of Jews and Christians.

See, there's the thing: all these statements about the Muslims have been said before about the Jews. Rationalizations for bigotry against an entire religion or people are always available when one doesn't want to distinguish between individuals and a group.

"I don't believe in referring to Muslims by epithets, but this is what soldiers do. The way soldiers feel about their enemies is more complex than simple hatred."

I wasn't aware that posting blog comments qualifies one as a "soldier."

"You are woefully ignorant of the values that Islam is based on."

I know a moderate amount. Enough to know better than to believe that the harsh interpretations shared by both terrorists and many rhetorically-anti-terrorists is not, in fact, held by a vast number of Muslims. I have Muslim friends; do you?

Have you studied shura's for years? If not, please don't claim vast expertise you don't actually possess.

"...yet you ignore despotism...."

Oh, please. My record of thousands of posts on the topic over the past decade rather belies that, I think.

American opinion of Islam is driven as much or more than the actions of Muslim nut-balls as by the failure of non-nutball Muslims to denounce the nutballs. This is not confined to actions by Al Qaeda - in particular it includes attacks on Israeli civilians.

The real cause of all this is the failure of the Arabs' tribal culture. It has become psychotic. Arab oil income has let them propagate their version of Islam elsewhere, and promote it as the only version.

There will be a reckoning.

"How can one defend a religion that instructs its followers to "slay infidels wherever you find them"?"

Are you familiar with the Old Testament? How can one defend two religions that instruct its followers to stone to death people for adultury, for wearing clothing with wool and cotton mixed together, or for eating shellfish?

"Yet you are not alarmed until there is talk of banning Islam. "

Clue: Bjorn has been one of the most respected warbloggers and bloggers on the Islamic terror threat since September 11th.

In my own small way, when I started posting in December of 2001, I've consistently posted over a thousand posts on the terror threat and the specifics of Islamic terrorism.

In other words, you have no idea what you are talking about, and you are making baseless accusations without bothering to have checked your facts. I'm sorry for being blunt, but it's not as if Bjorn is unknown or as if we don't have records checkable with a few clicks if you've not been reading terrorist-war blogs since September 11th.

Ask Glenn Reynolds, say, if we're crazed lefties who cut the terrorists slack.

Thanks Bjørn Stærk for commenting so extensively on the comments to your original post. No Hall of Mirrors, I hope!

Regarding the "Moderate Muslim" meme, Daniel Pipes' article "Do You Believe in Modernity?" usefully poses seven questions one may consider to address this point.

Damn Gary, you beat me to it. I had a draft post on Bjørn Stærk's post but it didn't feel right yet. :)

Roger (#27203),

You're making Bjorn's point. A tit-for-tat ban meets the virtue test of reciprocity - but fails others. Against it, one must set the Western principle of non-interference with conscience, and freedom of religion as an outgrowth of that.

Strip those away from the West, and what you're left with is, well, the Left - who see the Dominion of Souls as their proper political purview. Or totalitarianism in various forms, where there's no place to hide from the state's prying gaze.

When people start talking about bans on the free exercise of religion, I have to stand with Bjorn. That's Medieval talk, the kind of thing our civilization mercifully dragged itself out of a few hundred years ago - and a key bastion against Western civilization's most recent nightmares, too. People who want to turn that clock back or collapse that bastion are not my friends, or my allies.

RE: banning Islam in America, I can only ask... exactly what part of their Constitution are we not understanding here? That's UN-American. Period.

And if the EU-crats saw a successful precedent of banning a religion because it is deemed hostile, I believe it would soon be extended to other religions - either entire or by forcing them to adopt statements of principle that were "friendly" to EUcrat views. Given what we've seen of the EU and its organizational worldview, that's not a vast stretch. American evangelicals would be my prediction for the "next in line" lottery.

Bjorn Staerk, with front row seats to EU idiocies, probably sees that future pretty clearly. And he's appalled when he looks around the blogosphere and sees that some of the folks on "his side" may not be defending the same things he is.

But there's another issue here, one that goes deeper than the obvious foolishness of giving the state the power to ban religions.

When people say "Islam is the problem," like Lewy14 I think that's a topic for debate. Like Lewy, I also think it's wrong. Beyond the issue of flawed analysis that Lewy raises, that characterization insults some very brave people in Iraq, in the U.S. Army, and in other locations who are serving proudly in the war and/or struggling to reform their faith. I think those people deserve our respect and a helping hand. Others may disagree. Fine. At the very least, however, I don't want to hear derogatory crap like "Muzzies" used to refer to them. There's no excuse for that.

"Islam has a problem"? I think so. "Wahhabist Islam is a problem"? Hard to argue. The silence of many (but not all) Muslims in the face of hate and evil is a problem, too. But there are things we can do to address that, strong things, that don't require us to rip up the fabric of Western civilization.

Now, if we were having a debate about immigration, I'd be willing to listen to arguments about variable treatment for Muslim immigrants or visa applicants on grounds of security concerns. I.E. proposing to deny a Pakistani Islamist admission to Norway (Bjorn's own post, FYI, which also rips the weak response of Norway's Islamic community to this man's hate). Entry into another state's borders is a privilege, and privileges can be denied if the polity wishes. I'd want a good case on the immigration front because I think we have smarter alternatives, but I'd be willing to listen.

Germany will even ban some parties from running for office, on the grounds that they do not accept the fundamental premise of the state's existence. This principle may be extensible to Islamist political parties and organizations, and we could talk about that in jurisdictions where such action is constitutional.

The bottom line is that if necessary, we can take aggressive action on several fronts in fighting this war. I'm all for that. But we're also fighting FOR something here.

LGF is a good blog. I respect Charles, and I learn a lot from it. But there's little question that some of the commenters have let their fears overtake them, and forgotten what we're fighting for (as I point out above, a blog admin. may legitimately choose different responses to this behaviour - but the character of the behaviour itself remains).

The fear that I feel from some people is that our civilization cannot remain true to itself and win. I disagree.

Furthermore, I believe that unless we defend our civilization from a base of understanding re: what made us strong and great, we will diminish both the rewards of our victory and our odds of same.

#27212 Posted by Gary Farber

See #27160 and #27167 Posted by T. J. Madison.

I thought we had some agreement on this thread concerning the penalty of adultery? You don't agree? If you don't agree that Jesus never stoned anybody to death for adultery, quoting you, "In other words, you have no idea what you are talking about, and you are making baseless accusations without bothering to have checked your facts."

Joe,

Thank you for that excellent post (#27216).

I've only been reading this blog for a couple of months (found it through LGF, by the way) and have come to rely on it a great deal as a starting point for the kinds of information I am interested in reading about. Plus, the discussions which take place in the comments section are often as good as or even better than the post which started it all off.

Something I've noted in quite a number of blogs, however, is lots and lots of problems identified, and plenty of talk about those problems, but typically not much offered in the way of proposed solutions. Maybe its been done elsewhere here at WofC and I've just missed it, or maybe its just not one of your focuses.

Nevertheless, it seems to me like you've got a fair number of people here who've invested a lot of thinking into issues such as those discussed at WoC. I'd be very curious to know what you, or Gary, or Praktike, or others here think we need actually need to do, specifically, to solve the problems western civ is facing.

• How DO we encourage some sort of Islamic reformation (or do we at all, and instead just let them sort it out on their own)?

• How DO we reconcile the tremendous cultural gap between the West and Islam?

• How DO we do a better job encouraging political reform in the Muslim world?

• What can we, as private citizens do, to help all of this along?

I'd love to see some straw men we could all bash around for a while to see where it takes us.

Please accept my apologies if all of that has already been done to death here and I'm just not aware of it, or if my questions are too OT.

>>If Noam Chomsky adds yet another dangerous or irrational idea to his worldview, it's not like you and I have much reason to care. But when people who support the war on terror, and who believe that Islamism is a threat, begin turning to dangerous or irrational ideas about Islam, that's our worldview they're corrupting. So we should focus just as much on what people on "our side" are saying, and work to make sure that it's rational and moral.

How very Chomskyan. (I mean that in a good way.)

>>Why is it alarming that some of us say that all non-Muslim dominated countries should ban Islam until all Muslim dominated countries lift their ban on freedom of religion?

Would Jesus support the use of state coercion (invariably backed by violence) to stop people from worshiping a different religion? Seems unlikely. Not the Jesus strategy.

>>RE: banning Islam in America, I can only ask... exactly what part of their Constitution are we not understanding here? That's UN-American. Period.

Minor technical point: The FEDERAL government doesn't get to establish religion, but the STATE governments can, though amendments to state constitutions might be required. That's assuming that the Constitution is worth the paper it's printed on which, as I've mentioned before, it isn't.

>>Entry into another state's borders is a privilege, and privileges can be denied if the polity wishes.

This is an interesting thought. The assumptions on which it's based lead to real trouble IMHO. More on this later.

>>See, there's the thing: all these statements about the Muslims have been said before about the Jews. Rationalizations for bigotry against an entire religion or people are always available when one doesn't want to distinguish between individuals and a group.

Yes, precisely.

#27188 Bjørn Stærk
#27210 Gary Farber

So we are not allowed to ban a religion that among it's fundamental principles requires it's adherents to kill non believers (and yes Gary, I've read the Koran).
I don't know what Constitutional rights you think are in danger, but the Supreme Court upheld the rulings against Mormon polygamists and peyote practitioners to "express their religion" I find these thinks less threatening than Jihad.
BTW Gary, my Muslim friends have not been the most reliable source of information on Islam. Why do you suppose that is?

Bjørn Stærk's points are good ones and well taken, but I'd offer a couple observations:

First, that not all "disturbing similarities in rhetoric" are necessarily damning, and this line of reasoning ("you sound like a bigot") is also used extensively by genuine apologists for Islamist terror, according to whom every Muslim accused of serving in the cause of terror is a victim of bigotry and racism.

Second, Bjørn identifies a phenomena, that of warbloggers turning towards the irrational. I would counter that there is another phenomena, that of pre-existing bigots and paranoids who, in finding a real enemy (radical Islamism), in no way exculpate themselves for their bigotry and paranoia.

papijoe asks: You say we are abandoning our democratic values. How? By realizing we cannot apply them to Islam? Excellent question. My answer to this challenge would begin with the assertion that "Islam" does not exist. (How can this be? Hint: "The Jews" don't exist either). An answer to Foo's challenge would also lie in this direction. You'll have to allow me to be playfully cryptic here, gotta run… but this is an idea I'd like to return to.

And Tom Holsinger touches on a another point that need be made: that the political and social constructs of too many moderate Muslims are a problem, which is many ways is more difficult to grapple with philosophically and practically than the problem posed by the radical Islamists.

Finally, BooPear's questions deserve further treatment, and perhaps their own post.

BTW Gary, my Muslim friends have not been the most reliable source of information on Islam. Why do you suppose that is?

Islam isn't a monolith?

Islam isn't a monolith?

Quite right Dave, and neither is it a megalith, nor an obelisk. Thanks for pointing that out.

You people have a pretty naive view of Islam. Try reading http://www.jihadwatch.org/ every day, to see what Islam is doing to the world. Read the testimonies of ex-Muslims at Ibn Warraq's website, http://www.secularislam.org/testimonies/index.htm , and debate with ex-Muslims at forums such as http://knowislam.info/forum//

#27233 Ali Dashti
I don't think it's naivete. It's PC multi-culti narcissistic breast-beating trying to have it's cake and eat it too. Moral relativism isn't going to see anyone through this fight. It will collapse, just like it's doing in Europe.

Ali,

From what I've seen, I think there is a great deal of realism here about the problems Islam presents to the world.

Nevertheless, Islam CAN change. What do I base that on?

• Church and state in Europe were once thoroughly intertwined, and Catholocism was once practised in a way that many people today would find pretty intolerant. It changed.

• Some Muslim countries, notably Turkey, are moving along what I would consider a pretty hopeful road. So it CAN be done.

• As I noted in an earlier post, I personally know a fair number of Muslims who practise their religion in a way not-to-different from their Catholic, Jewish, etc. contemporaries. I have seen with my own eyes the impact that prolonged, positive exposure to western society can have in moderating Islam.

Just because, in many places and with many people, we still have a long, long way to go, doesn't mean its impossible to get there.

"Damn Gary, you beat me to it. I had a draft post on Bjørn Stærk's post but it didn't feel right yet. :)"

By all means, Sebastian, link to this and original version (I'd appreciate your not neglecting that), and comment away at ObWings; I'd be very much interested in your POV, and the more discussion this issue gets, and the more widespread that discussion and attention is, the better. Please post. Please.

Very well said, Joe.

#27212 Posted by Gary Farber

See #27160 and #27167 Posted by T. J. Madison.

I thought we had some agreement on this thread concerning the penalty of adultery? You don't agree? If you don't agree that Jesus never stoned anybody to death for adultery...

papijoe:

Okay, let's try again. Not all Muslims believe in exactly the same things or practice their religion in exactly the same way.

papijoe:

Here's the dictionary definition of monolith:

1 : a single great stone often in the form of an obelisk or column
2 : a massive structure
3 : an organized whole that acts as a single unified powerful or influential force

I was using the word in the third sense.

"Minor technical point: The FEDERAL government doesn't get to establish religion, but the STATE governments can, though amendments to state constitutions might be required."

The Bill of Rights extends to the States through the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. Old principle of Constitutional Law. See here.See the affirmation in Molloy v. Hogan.

"You people have a pretty naive view of Islam."

Indeed, the major problem with Winds of Change is that not enough attention has been paid to Islam and Islamic terrorism. Bad job, Joe. Shame.

As a tangent, it's remarkable how people can use the rhetorical trope "you people" to mean "you people who disagree with me."

BooPear: quite right.

Gary,

Thank you--and Bjorn--for taking on a thankless task. LGF, Daniel Pipes, Jihadwatch among many others do belong on a hate-watch list. They will inexorably take the worst possible examples and try to make them seem the norm. They differ from Nazi sites only in the group they target.

One need not be an apologist for Islam--or even staunchly Muslim countries--to see that 1.3 billion people are not identical in their beliefs or actions, even if they identify themselves by the same group name.

Muslims must do more to protest the highjacking of their relgion by the zealots (and doesn't that word just have a history!). They cannot sit in silence while others create chaos in their names. But their inability to publicly condemn should not be seen as support of the extremists.

There are efforts toward reform within even fundamentalist Islam. The Middle East journal has an excellent article on current religious reform movements within Saudi Arabia. It's well worth reading.

And I'll ask one (rhetorical) question: how can you hope to defeat an enemy if you're not even clear who that enemy is?

#27235 BooPear (10:52pm):

Your point that a part of the (nonmonolithic) Islamic religious community is changing in a way that accepts modernity is a key part of the answer. Those of us in the Christian cultural tradition should be humbled that it took much of "our" religion plus-or-minus 1400 years to germinate the Enlightenment, and centuries more before its benefits gained widespread acceptance.

Many Western Muslims, the nation-state of Turkey, and the Sufi tradition can tolerate concepts like secularism, apostasy, heresy, and unbelief. Given time, I would expect large parts of dar-al-Islam would evolve in the same direction. As Wretchard (Belmont Club) and others have pointed out, one tragedy is the absence of that time in the presence of technologies easily adaptible to mass destruction. But our Achilles' heel is surely the growing affinity of the Western believers in Western cultural guilt for the Islamists and their war aims, as Staerk and others have written

John:

From your post:

They will inexorably take the worst possible examples and try to make them seem the norm.

How does that differ from cherry-picking the more extreme quotes from LGF and attempting to make them seem like the norm?

#27240 Dave Schuler

Since we're not using rhetorical shorthand anymore, maybe you can elaborate on what the third sense of the word "monolith" has to do with the unreliability of information from Muslim friends.

#27244 John

So if catastrophes like the fail of the Ottoman empire and the creation of Israel didn't lead to reform in Islam, why should it happen now?

#27186 Posted by Dave Schuler, Thanks. These five are the facade.

The foundation stones are quite different.

1. Jesus was never on the cross. G-d deceived the disciples into thinking Jesus was on the cross but it was another man made to look like Jesus.

2. Jesus is another prophet. But don't trust any of his teachings because the Jews altered the writings and everything we know about Jesus.

3. Christianity is a poly-theistic religion because of the concept of the Trinity; therefore it is the responsibility of Islam to destroy Christianity because allah hates(yes hates) polytheism.

4. Mohammad was the Comforter(instead of the Holy Spirit) referred to in the Gospels which you should never trust because of 2 except for this one truth.

5. The Jews did not fullfill their covenant with G-d and Christians have not obeyed the teachings of Jesus even though we do not know what the Jewish covenant with G-d was and what the teachings of Jesus are because of 2. Therefore it is now the time for Islam to fullfill the will of allah and punish the Jews and Christians.

Want a reference? Go ask Muslims with whom you can have some form of dialog and see if they do not agree with these 5 foundation stones of Islam. That is how I came upon these five before studying the koran starting two weeks after 9/11. Some were apostate; others were practicing Islamists. Some were very much intent on convincing me that Jesus was never on the cross and that I should become a Muslim. This in the wake of 9/11. These were of the 'moderate' Islamists spoken of in blogs and the news media; taking the opportunity of 9/11 dialog to try to convince me to join their religion. Many were excited that there was an increase in the distribution of the koran and people like me asking questions. See? 9/11 is helping fulfill the will of allah! Pretty heroic figures those believers willing to sacrifice their lives for the will of allah! But it back fired on them because any one of them that has an ear and wants to learn the truth can find out that their foundation stones are clay. Read the Scriptures banned by Islam for yourselves.

Pull these foundation stones out from under Islam and you will have the only reformation possible. Islam cannot reform and stay Islam because there is nothing to turn back to in their writings to build on for good. It was written to oppose Jesus Christ; to elevate Mohammad in his megalomaniacal aspirations. He( and Islamic founders) rewrote the accounts of many Biblical characters and prophets and instructed Muslims not to read the Bible because it cannot be trusted because of the Jewish scribes. Mohammad could not have people around him following the teachings of Christ and get them to follow and elevate him and increase his wealth at the same time. Islam is a violent anti-religion. To survive, Islam needs to keep the Bible out of the hands of as many people as possible.

#27238 Posted by Gary Farber,

I apologies. I thought you were refering to Judaism and Christianity in post #27212.

My mistake.

#27216 Posted by Joe Katzman, I understand your well defined points.

I think Bjørn Stærk's "More on banning Islam" would be stronger if it would say(in better words than mine) something to the effect "Even though Islam bans all other religions, we shouldn't ban Islam". And then state his reasons why. Then the article would have more credible weight for folks like me:-)

#27244 Posted by John

highjacking of their religion
Islam is a highjacking from it's beginning. Maybe they should start there?

Thomas Jefferson did not have to wrestle with the problem of Islam. I wish he could have because I don't think we have a replacement for Jefferson.

#27235 Posted by BooPear,

Hopeful thinking. Relying on evolution again. However politicized Christianity was an usurption of Christ teachings the same as Islam by suppression of the Gospels. Will Islamists ever recognize the truth? It took the Waldensians to break politicized Christianity. It took writing the Gospels by hand in the common folks venacular until Gutenberg came along to help out.

They started in the late 1100's with believes such as:
...
1 The Church of God has failed.
2 The Holy Scriptures alone are sufficient to guide men to Salvation.
3 The blessings and consecrations practiced in the Church do not confer any particular sanctity upon the things or persons blessed or consecrated.
4 Catholic priests. . .have no authority; and the Pope of Rome is the chief of all heresiarchs.
5 Everyone has the right to preach publicly the word of God
6 Every oath is a mortal sin.
7 Purgatory is a dream, an invention of the sixth century.
8 The indulgences of the Church are an invention of covetous Priests.
9 There is no obligation to fast, nor to keep any holy day, Sunday excepted.
10 The invocation of Saints cannot be admitted.
11 Every honor given in the Church to the holy images of paintings, and to the relics of Saints is to be abolished.

...
To this list, he adds doctrines that belong to the period between the Hussite revolt and the Lutheran Revolution:
1. Auricular Confession is useless, and. . .it is enough to confess our sins to God.
2. The definition of the church is, "the whole of the elect from the beginning of the world to its end." and that regarding ministries, "the holy Catholic Church is the congregation of all ministers and people obeying the Divine will, and by obedience united. . ."
3. It is necessary to receive the Eucharist under two kinds.

...

1. The church and the state should remain as separate authorities.
2. The Eucharist is to be viewed as a memorial, not as a sacrifice.

...

When do you think that Islam will ever 'evolve' to this level of understanding? Why do these concepts need evolution to occur in Islam at all when we already have the knowledge? We can share it now and save 'evolution' a laborious and impossible task.

John (#27244)

I can see how that might be the view from Saudi Arabia. But displeasure that Saudi Arabia's ox is being gored does not = an argument. And using this kind of over the top rhetoric just makes you look foolish.

RE: "LGF, Daniel Pipes, Jihadwatch among many others do belong on a hate-watch list. They will inexorably take the worst possible examples and try to make them seem the norm. They differ from Nazi sites only in the group they target."

Daniel Pipes has a long record, and it's a record of seeing both the possibility of coexistence with moderate Islam and the harmful (and usually hateful) influence that Saudi Arabia's financing of Wahhabi ideology has had in the Islamic world. He is not even remotely about hate, unless it's the hate the Saudi Kingdom and the mullahs in Iran have worked so diligently to export for so many years.

I'll say this, too - your criticism of LGF might carry more weight if these "worst possible examples" weren't so distressingly common and reflected at the highest levels of many Muslim states (paging Dr. Mahathir... paging Dr. Mahathir...). Because they are, LGF performs a valuable service. I have a lot of respect for Charles and his efforts, even if some of LGF's commenters are idiots (which unfortunately obscures the fact that LGF's comment section often has very insightful posts too).

I can't speak to Jihadwatch; I don't read it much.

I can say that both Daniel Pipes and Charles Johnson differ in at least one important way from Nazis: both defend and support liberty and free government, and oppose totalitarian ideologies that presume to dictate their adherents' identity and control every facet of their lives. Like Naziism, say. Or, come to think of it, Wahhabism.

Bottom line: I've had a look at your blog, and it has some interesting posts in it. You seem to be following reform in Saudi Arabia very closely, and that's a good thing. I'm sorry if outside pressure has created a race between that reform and less pleasant futures, and taken away the luxury of time. But it's a situation that Saudi Arabia has behaved itself into over many years. Deal with it.

Because, you know, my American friends aren't exactly thrilled that 3,000 of their countrymen are dead, and that 15 of the 19 perpatrators, plus Osmama, were all Saudis. And the more they've lifted the veil on the Saudi kingdom, the less happy they they've become at what they see. Expect less than friendly scrutiny of the USA's relationship with Saudi Arabia, and of the Kingdom's conduct, to increase right across the American political spectrum.

The only way to avoid that is to fix real and serious problems, not cry "hate" whenever people criticize the Saudis or express concerns about American policies vis-a-vis the Kingdom (as you did for Mowbray, too).

When you step into that mode, it's hard for me to take you seriously.

"I thought you were refering to Judaism and Christianity in post #27212."

I was. I am unaware that Christians have disavowed what they call the Old Testament as part of the Word of God, but as I am not a Christian, I am not expert on this.

"Islam is a highjacking from it's beginning. Maybe they should start there?"

It would be just as reasonable to argue that Christianity is a "hijacking" of Judaism (and, of course, the Church of Latter Day Saints is a "hijacking" of Christianity), from this point of view, but, you know, it's a funny thing: these sorts of assertions are what lead to religious wars.

Funny, that.

Building on Gary Farber's post (#27263), the generalizable funny thing is the disagreeable aspect of many religions. We can abstract Religion as a pleasant Meeting of Quakers or Unitarians. And, indeed, some religions are as unobjectionable to tolerant secularists as those two.

Others aren't. Most make claims to exclusivity of enlightenment or salvation, or to superiority, or to greater virtue. Most have a founding history of struggling to overcome long odds and the hostility of predecessor creeds or intolerant authorities.

Jefferson (op. cit. #27254) and the other Founders were neither stupid nor ignorant; they knew all this and yet wrote the First Amendment anyway.

I, for one, could use some guidance from wise political philosophers on the problem of Tolerance for the Intolerant.

Could we afford to break with this tradition to "ban Islam"? Given the vagaries of the human heart and the Law of Unintended Consequences, is there any there there? Once launched on this slippery slope, where would we stop?

#27249 CAM: because I'm not cherry-picking. The tone of LGF is nothing but hatred, snarky or blatant.

#27249 papijoe: The fall of the Califate in Constantinople actually had no effect on Islam as the Ottomans had been seen as weak or false Califs for hundreds of years. Nothing there to shake the religion: they simply gave up on the idea of a Calif (excepting, of course, people like UBL, who quest for the never-existent "golden age".

The foundation of Israel was a purely secular event, whose only religious connotation was the placing of a non-Muslim government over the Muslim population already resident. There was nothing there to cause a religious crisis, but plenty to cause political and military conflict.

9/11, however, has caused a crisis. It's led to a major introspection across the Islamic world.

#27259 Joe Katz