Another perspective

[Aaron Brachowitz]

Everyone from local religious leaders to President Bush has been telling us that we have no quarrel with the peaceful religion that is Islam. Our multi-culturalist tendencies make us very hesitant to criticize anyone's religion. But we shouldn't be looking at Islam through rose-colored glasses. These articles provide a different perspective.

http://www.nationalreview.com/15oct01/johnson101501.shtml
http://www.nationalreview.com/15oct01/pj101501.shtml

An excerpt:
"Koranic teaching that the faith can be, and in suitable circumstances must be, imposed by force, has never been ignored. On the contrary, the history of Islam has essentially been a history of conquest and reconquest. The 7th-century "breakout" of Islam from Arabia was followed by the rapid conquest of North Africa, the invasion and virtual conquest of Spain, and a thrust into France that carried the crescent to the gates of Paris. It took half a millennium of reconquest to expel the Moslems from Western Europe. The Crusades, far from being an outrageous prototype of Western imperialism, as is taught in most of our schools, were a mere episode in a struggle that has lasted 1,400 years, and were one of the few occasions when Christians took the offensive to regain the "occupied territories" of the Holy Land."

[Guerilla poster]

Yes, christianity and Judaism are the only peaceful religions.

[golgo13]

A bunch of spaniards land in South America.

The natives are given a choice: accept Christianity or die. An example of a religion whose adherents don't want to use "force" to spread their beliefs?

[Guerilla poster]

By AB's point, we should all become Buddhist or Hindu.

I don't recall anyone using these religions as a justification for warfare.

[Enough Exams Already]

Do you not allow for the possibility that imposing Islam by force is a political action that rationalizes itself by appealing to Koranic scripture rather than something commanded by Islam?

[Laocoön]

It is, I think, irrefutably true that Islam is not the religion of peace that it is being made out to be by both Islamic and Western political leaders. The Johnson article is not entirely fair in some of what it points out -- Sura 9, verse 5, "Then fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them. And seize them, beleaguer them and lie in wait for them, in every strategem [of war]," is closely followed by "If any of the pagans ask an asylum of thee, grant him an asylum that he may hear the word of God, and then let him reach his place of safety." (Unclear what is to happen if, having heard the word of God, he remains a pagan.) But the underlying sense is pretty clearly correct: Islam is an intolerant, brutal faith. An oft-repeated theme in the Quran is that "civil discord is worse than carnage."

The Pryce-Jones article is rubbish.

[Enough Exams Already]

golgo: The Spaniards didn't land in order to spread Catholicism. They landed to find more eceonomic wealth. Catholicism was just an excuse to do it.

[E. Blackadder]

Didn't like that, L? Try this!

http://www.nationalreview.com/contributors/kurtz100301.shtml



Given what we know about Rahman and Abouhalima, what are we to make of the claim that America's support for Israel is the root cause of the bombing (and the accompanying implication that a slackening of our support for Israel will bring an end to the terror)? Before assessing that claim, the craven and self-defeating nature of this whole line of thinking deserves comment. Everyone knows, yet too many forget, that it is foolish to negotiate with terrorists — that giving in to terrorist blackmail leads only to greater violence.
_________________
Man is the only animal that blushes -- or needs to. Mark Twain

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: E. Blackadder on 2001-10-03 13:02 ]</font>

[Laocoön]

But what do you think, Grasshopper? I'm already aware of how much the conservative press protests the linking of the terrorist attack to US policies -- too much, some would say. What do you think? Does suffering a terrorist attack absolve a nation of any obligation to do what was right all along?

Do not be confused by that false Master Po, Grasshopper, but think for yourself.

[Anonymous]

I love EB and AB.

[Rockhound]

AB: I agree. This "be nice, every culture is just as good as every other one" is absurd. And to those who throw out the strawmen arguments of "AB said Christianity and Judism are perfect" I suggest you re-read his comment.

On the other hand, it may be a useful expedient for our government to take that tack in order to gain other countries support to go after the terrorists. It won't hurt having Pakistani bases and Saudi intellegence for example.

[Guerilla poster]

Sorry, I just don't get the point of criticizing Islam.

You may view your religion and culture as superior but is it important that the whole world knows this.

What do you want as the ultimate outcome? Islam declared an illegal religion

[E. Blackadder]

1: I decided over lunch that (implicitly) terming your suggestions craven was excessive -- because your opinion is that Israel is, in fact, a detrement. So your response is much like the person who was confronted by the robber demanding "Your money or your wife." Sorry I didn't get back before your response.

2: Glad you noticed the disinformation re the meaning of Islam. (But perhaps submission means peace to those who make the statement. That could make sense...)

Don't you love black propaganda?

3: The mainstream conservative press is in fact very much at odds with itself. There is support for your views regarding Israel within it. Jeff Jacoby is an exponent of such.

The nice thing about the conservative "establishment" is that disagreement is generally thoughtful and in a spirit of civility.

4: Were that I were a professional commentator, reviewing source documents, studying history, interviewing, synthesizing. Alas, as I work in another field, I rely on others to bring their offerings, which I then attempt to evaluate. Through the years I have looked for intelligent left-wing commentary, and have found a couple of interesting sources.

It is amazing to me that The New Republic is now considered by some to be "conservative." but there you have it.

It would also be appropriate for me to verify first-hand the atrocities that bedevil the women of Afghanistan. And the Christians of southern Sudan. And the Christians of Indonesia, some of whom are being forcibly converted to Islam. You'll appreciate that at the moment that would be dangerous. For me.

Thanks for the invitation to say what I think. Here goes.

What I think is that Israel is a legitimate state, founded properly by the rules then existing in 1948. And recognized by the UN.

I also think that Israel has legitimate right to the 1967 postwar boundaries plus the part of Egypt taken during the 1973 attack on Yom Kippur. Perhaps international law disagrees.

I think that those Palestinians who vacated their property (in order to help the multinational attempt to drive Israel into the sea) have forfeited their rights to that property, forever.

What I think is that some of the leaders of Islam (or Islamic nations) have in effect made the choice to forsake comfort in return for spiritual gain. If they war upon themselves, then at least one side effect of war is that material comforts do not present themselves to tempt the faithful. And if only the Koran is taught to the students (a three-year process of memorization, if Tuesday's WSG is to be believed -- see the article!) then the followers will not be tempted by other worldly thoughts.

I also think that while the Faithful are to be commended for believing in their religion (why else have one?), a side effect is that their sense of self-importance is unbelievable. For instance, complaining about the name "Operation Infinite Justice."

I think that the Faithful built a mosque on top of the ruins of the Temple. And I think that was naughty. Bad! Bad!!

I also think that Israel is a useful trading partner, from which trade we profit. (otherwise we wouldn't trade.) I also think that if the Arabic nations "Normalized" relations with Israel in a meaningful way, soon the entire Middle East would benefit. Economically, if not (by their lights) spiritually.

And I think this war is going to take a long time. In essence, the Faithful will have to convince themselves that they should not harm anyone, nor should they aid those who do.

Have you been reading the Koran? In Arabic? :smile: or is there a translation that you recommend? My book club always needs new material.

Some months ago they turned down my recommendation: The Arabian Nights (Haddaway, trans.) because they like short books.

Way late follow-up: We did eventually read The Arabian Nights. There were complaints. What an ill-tempered bunch!

[Rockhound]

The point is not to criticize Islam, or to ban it, but to not be foolishly PC.

If I'm walking down the street with my child, and we see some obviously dangerous people coming toward us, I have an obligation to cross the street to protect my child, and when she asks me why, I have an obligation to teach her that there are some people in the world that are dangerous. I also have an obligation to help her to learn how to spot those dangerous people, but do it in a way that does not disparage the non-dangerous people that may have some of the same charactoristics.

Similarly, it's one thing for the US government to say publicly that we are not at war with Islam, but it would be irresponsible if in private we were not preparing for an attack from many fronts.

[Laocoön]

1&2. Thank you for noticing.

3. Have you seen the Harold Pinter letter that has people's knickers in such a wad? I've seen at least a half dozen references to it, but cannot myself find it.

4. The only person I trust is Dr. Emanuel Bronner, Holocaust survivor, lunatic, and maker of 18-in-1 soap: "Always dilute!"

Do you think that the US has an obligation to guarantee the survival of Israel? Corollary question (you at least understand why, even if you don't agree with the corollary, don't you?): Do you think that people have a right to health care?

Do you think that all Palestinians who vacated their property in 1948 and 1967 did so "in order to help the multinational attempt to drive Israel into the sea?" Does it matter to you? If not, then why did you add the comment?

I have been trying to read a little bit of the Quran, in an English translation. It is a horrible piece of writing, and I can't imagine that all of that is due to the translation.

I recommend "The Orestia," by Aeschylus, especially "The Eumenides," the last play of the trilogy.

[Aaron Brachowitz]

On 2001-10-03 15:01, Guerilla Poster wrote:
Sorry, I just don't get the point of criticizing Islam.

You may view your religion and culture as superior but is it important that the whole world knows this.


I never said anything about my religion or culture being superior. It does seem worthwhile to note, however, that no one from my religion has piloted even one planeload of passengers into a building full of people in the name of my God, much less four planeloads.


What do you want as the ultimate outcome? Islam declared an illegal religion?


What do I want...how about a marked decline in the number of planes crashing into buildings under the direction of crazed Muslims? That would be just swell.

[Guerilla poster]

And I guess promoting the idea that the Muslims religion is unpeaceful and violent will cause less Muslims to want to run planes into buildings.

Seems sort of like telling a certain a race that they are stupid and lazy and expecting this will cause them to go to school and work harder.

[Rockhound]

I know it's hard to believe, but some stereotypes are in fact true. People and cultures at different points in time (note to those that want to hold any sin ever committed by any group against that group forever--culture is time dependant) were not always good e.g.

Nazi's killed people.
Canibals ate people
Aztec's practiced human sacrifice
Roman's killed Christians
Japanese tortured prisoners
Christians tortured heretics
Communists killed millions
American's, British, French, Persians, Egyptian's and just about every other group owned slaves

[E. Blackadder]

I'll take the "right to health care" to another thread.

As for the Palestinians, perhaps some were only fleeing for their lives. Maybe some were just going on holiday. At least they weren't acting as a "fifth column" (to my knowlege to date). But they weren't assisting with the defence. And the defence was a matter of life and death to the defenders.

Let's draw one of my patented, convoluted analogies:

We are the two renters in a house (Palestine). The previous landlord (Turkey) lost the house to the current landlord when the previous supported the Kaiser in WWI. The current landlord (Britain) promised to sell it to you. He changed his mind and actually did sell it to me. In a transaction recognized by law (the UN). Our neighbors (Yada, yada yada), who believe themselves to have something in common with you, take offense and decide to shoot me in the head. They approach the house...

At this time you choose to hide in the dog house.

After some excitement, I drive back the neighbors and take parts of their property.

Now, here's what the neighbors want:

1: I should return the property to the pre-shoot-out boundaries.

2: I should let you back inside the house.

3: I should give you ownership in the house, even though you wish me dead, and have said so, never disavowing those statements. You, by the way, have been throwing Molotov Cocktails at the house from your doghouse.

I... don't... think... so. Stay in the doghouse, or have your neighbors help you out. I find it irksome to be hounded like this, but it would be a desecration of my faith for me to kill you.

Could my attitude be more accomidating? Sure. Would I live? I doubt it.

BTW: I dimly recall a thread regarding a web site www.top??????.??? that was supposed to have an only mildly biased history of the middle east. Can anyone fill in the blanks?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: E. Blackadder on 2001-10-04 01:20 ]</font>

[E. Blackadder]

Re: Harold Pinter's letter, Nationalreview.com mentioned that the letter was dated 9-20-01 and in the Daily telegraph. (there was also a link to haroldpinter.org, but that seems to be out of commission.)

The telegraph web site is tough slogging, and I didn't find an address -- just a pop-up window -- so i did the cut-and paste below. To wit:

From: Maggi Hambling, Lynn Farleigh, Merlin Holland, Bryony Lavery, Jehane Markham, Kika Markham, Roger Lloyd Pack, Harold Pinter, Corin Redgrave, London SW17

Re: We must not imitate terrorists but wage war on poverty Date: 20 September 2001

SIR - For the sake of all who were killed in New York and Washington; for the sake of their families, friends and loved ones; for those who are bereaved or still hoping; for the millions in Afghanistan, Iraq and the world's poorest countries, now threatened with a new world war, we appeal: stop this madness! Stop the war!

A crusade against countries which are said to harbour terrorists will not rescue any victims of Sept. 11, or make the cities of America and Europe safer. President Bush and Tony Blair speak of a war against evil, of democracy against terrorism. But terrorism cannot be defeated by bombs, bullets or secret intelligence. Terrorism is the language of hatred and despair. Out of the carnage and rubble of a new crusade will come new terrorists, even more desperate and ruthless than before.

In Afghanistan, four million people are homeless and scores of thousands are starving or dying of cholera because of sanctions, imposed by the West in their attempt to force the Taliban government to hand over Osama bin Laden.

Afghan peasant farmers have no postal services, no broadcasts and no newspapers and have little knowledge of where the Pentagon or downtown New York are, or who the hijackers were.

But it is they, the poor and the homeless, in Afghanistan, Iraq, Chechnya and the Palestinian towns and villages, who will bleed in a war against terrorism. Ten years ago, George Bush Sr led a crusade against Saddam Hussein and Iraq but Saddam is still terrorising his opponents and persecuting Iraqi Kurds, Marsh Arabs and Shia. A million children in Iraq are dead or dying because of waterborne diseases and malnutrition caused by sanctions.

Human rights and civil liberties (which Jack Straw calls "19th-century freedoms") are being trampled on around the world as politicians call for tolerance while fanning the flames of intolerance with their preparations for war.

We appeal to MPs, the TUC, Church, mosque and synagogue leaders, youths in schools and universities, and those who protested against global capitalism to stop this war.

We must make war, but on poverty.

[The Daily Telegraph]

Email your letters to The Daily Telegraph Editor: dtletters@telegraph.co.uk

[E. Blackadder]

Do I think the US has an obligation to aid the state of Israel? No. But I think it's the right thing to do. Perhaps I'm a victim of a lifetime of propaganda, but I very much dislike black / gray propaganda, especially "for my own good."

If I regarded the state as a illicitly-formed nation that exists to persecute those whom it has wronged, then I would happily throw it to the wolves.

[Guerilla poster]

Sorry Rockhound, I still do not understand the reason to publicly criticize the Islam religion even if you feel the stereotype fits.

If the criticism comes from within the Islam community then it is fine but I do not understand why some obviously Judeo-Christian writers seeks to bash Islam.

Are the Islamic people going to say, yeah your right I think I will switch religions? Will it temper the violent factions of Islam?

What does this seek to accomplish? If the whole of America and other nations say Islam is a religion that promotes violence, does that get us anywhere?

I just want to understand the reason for such an article. I think some people in the media write such articles in order to be included in the see "we are not the liberal press" crowd.

[Laocoön]

EB: Thanks for the Pinter letter. I can't see what there is to disagree with in it -- they call for restraint: what, they should be calling for excess? They protest the use of "intolerant" words such as "war" -- perhaps "crusade" would have been a better target? All in all, aren't the political leaders doing pretty much what the letter-writers have pleaded for? (Okay -- the "war on poverty" bit is misplaced.)

I think your analogy falls short in a few respects: first, Britain decided to split the "house," and Israel did not claim just that part that had been given to it, but also a big chunk of what had been given to the Palestinians. This was immediately warranted for defensive purposes, but the land was never offered back, and indeed I believe it was settled almost immediately with Israeli immigrants (there is probably a very strong argument to be made -- note that I'm not making it now; I lack enough pieces -- that the Israeli camp planned all along to take most of the Palestinian area. It is also very hard to believe that taking all of Jeruselum was just a coincidence of a defensive war.). And I don't think it was ever a sale -- "grant" would be more accurate. Anyway, the ownership of Britain is questionable.

Most significantly, and back to my point, you are still treating the Palestinians as an indifferentiable mass. It was not unheard of before 1948 nor is it unheard of after 1967 for civilians to flee before an advancing army, nor is it generally a bad idea for them to do so. (And isn't a little preposterous for you to indict the Palestinians for not aiding in the defense of a government imposed upon them against their will??!) But NONE are allowed to return. The real reason for this, I think, is that there is and was no room: Israelis moved into their houses and farms. Should none be allowed to return? Not even those willing to accept Israel as their government?

[Laocoön]

On 2001-10-04 01:00, E. Blackadder wrote:

BTW: I dimly recall a thread regarding a web site www.top??????.??? that was supposed to have an only mildly biased history of the middle east. Can anyone fill in the blanks?


http://www.toptown.com/hp/jaber/palest.htm