The row over a Danish newspaper publishing twelve images of Mohammed is getting more heated. People are chanting “Death to Denmark” in Pakistan. Ambassadors are being recalled. Scandanavians are being told to evacuate the Middle East. A French news paper, France Soir, republished the images as a statement of solidarity… and the editor got fired as a result.
Time for another Mohammed Comic, then.
It should be noted that not all, not even a majority, not even a large minority of Muslims are engaged in threats against non-Muslims who create images of Mohammed. Indeed, an independent Jordanian newspaper chastised extremists, asking “What brings more prejudice against Islam, these caricatures or pictures of a hostage-taker slashing the throat of his victim in front of the cameras or a suicide bomber who blows himself up during a wedding ceremony in Amman?”
Nevertheless, this reactive movement is speaking for Islam, is being buoyed by large crowds, has resulted in broad boycott compliance, and has been promoted by the official actions of a number of governments. That makes the movement a serious threat, not only to the individuals who publish an image of Mohammed, but to free expression itself. The only non-violent defense against such a movement is the continued exercise of the variety of free expression being threatened, without apology.
Speaking as someone with no religion looking from the outside in, this all looks really embarrassing. Is it really a good idea for a religion to treat its prophet as a weak, coddled baby in need of a ferocious mama bear? Is it really?
you said it
AmeriMick and/or Mickette,
On the subject of decreasing sectarian violence, there is an interesting editorial about the ‘rabble’ portion of the rabblerouser equation in the Arab press. Pritam Singh argues two different types of suicide bomber: nationalistic and those who want to destroy Moslems and non-Mosems alike “in the name of a nebulous Dar Al Islam, a utopian entity that will supposedly solve all of life’s problems.”
Singh talks mainly about Palestine, but mentions Iraq. “As long as no distinction is made between nationalist extremists and fanatical terrorists like Al Qaeda, the latter will be able to masquerade as the defenders of Muslims who are seen as “driven†to resort to suicide bombing because of military weakness.”
An interesting argument based on intention…the legitimacy of targeting civilians is not even considered.
Here’s the link, I expect it to only be active until 3/7/05 or less:
http://www.jordantimes.com/wed/opinion/opinion5.htm
That’s an good analysis, Layla. Thanks for that link.
I was immersed in Middle East issues in the early ’80s, when Yasir Arafat was still considered one of the world’s worst international terrorists, and NOT a Nobel Peace Prize candidate.
A lot of people think the US is ineffective in dealing with terrorism because we don’t understand it. Probably, to some extent. I’d say it’s more of a steadfast refusal to legitimize terrorism by rewarding it with results.
I’ve always supported the creation of an independent Palestinian state (and have been accused of anti-Semitism for it here), not to stop suicide bombings, but because it’s the right thing to do for the Palestinians. But Western governments don’t want to appear that they support a solution because they fear terrorism. Therefore, terrorist acts tend to delay the solution.
A militarily weak but passionate nationalistic group, such as the IRA or Hamas, may see suicide bombings are their own version of the atom bomb – inflicting massive, indiscriminate civilian casualties with the goal of shocking the world into dealing with them seriously. The IRA’s own analysis has been that suicide bombings, while notorious, were ineffective in furthering their goals. A sense of futility, and a growing realization that civilian deaths eroded popular support, drove them to abandon the tactic.
In that light, it makes sense to consider that if the IRA’s goals were religious, such as the elimination of Protestants, they might have employed terrorism indefinitely. If Islamists want primarily to terrorize and destroy the West, as opposed to forcing a Palestinian solution, that’s a whole different ball game.
The creation of a Palestinian state could end nationalism-induced terrorism, isolating Islamist terrorism, and beginning the erosion of popular support for terrorism in the Mid East. Perhaps that’s the missing key to gaining the vocal Moslem condemnation of terrorism in general. I’d agree with the analysis that the vast majority of Moslems really only want an equitable solution to the Palestinian problem, and wouldn’t support the fanatical Islamist jihad against the West. To disavow terrorism now would be to disavow the only thing they feel empowers them at all – their own little atomic bomb – before they’ve accomplished their nationalistic goal.
It also occurs to me that the recent re-emergence of sectarianism in Iraq, which is uncharacteristic of Iraqis, could be the result of the current leadership vacuum, and feelings of vulnerability because of it.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1167736,00.html
Mick, yes but the tequila was good, the mariachis were bad, and I wish I could see. Part 1 Palestine in the morning, then sectarian violence, that one’s tough. I’m thinking the Brits were there before, failed, and just pulled out, but what really happened? I have Judith Miller’s old Saddam biography that got her kicked out of Iraq for 30 years and someone loaned me Robert Fisk’s “The Great War for Civilisation”, the $40 one with 1071 pages.
I sense power struggles among people who have lived without a political process for too long. Shia death squads, my god, like Saddam started out. Balkans, I’m planning a trip there in the fall, just starting to research, Yugoslavia fell apart, held together by Tito strong man, until he died and everything fell apart into ethnic and language groups. I take it Balkans is not the solution we are looking for right now.
Could it be that some cultures’ priorities are just opposite ours? It seems some cultures are more stable under tyranny, and apparently couldn’t care less about individual freedoms, like freedom of speech.
If so, aren’t we as a nation hopelessly misguided thinking democracy would be better for them? If it were, wouldn’t they choose it on their own, as we did? Sure, Saddam was a bad man. But most of the Iraqis knew peace during most of his reign, and had little to fear from him. As long as they didn’t go around criticizing him or trying to assassinate him, that is.
American Mick,
part 1: legitimizing terrorism?
I was fortunate to attend church in Bethlehem with Yasser Arafat in the front row on 12/24/00. Western Christians saw Arafat’s presence as a sign they were safe attending church that night. I have heard the ‘isn’t he a terrorist’ thing from my dad, but I think it was because of Arafat’s terrorist credentials that he was popularly accepted. If you remember, Menachim Begin was a terrorist tooâ€â€blew up the King David Hotel when it served as the headquarters for the Brits. He was careful to do it on a weekend when the only thing damaged was some milk canisters, but the Brits understood the message–he got inside their secured ‘embassy’ and pulled his punch. This helped establish the reputation of Begin’s para-military faction, which had been unknown before that.
A terrorist joke:
Q: What’s white and flies 300 miles over Ireland?
A: Lord Mountbatten’s sneakers.
I hear the Irish hate that joke. They don’t like to be reminded of a terrorist action widely regarded as a tactical and public opinion failure.
I’m afraid everything I know about Ireland comes from reading Uris’s “Trinity†and also hearing my in-laws talk about how the children had to go out in the hedgerow away from the British to study their language. I did get the idea the conflict in Ireland was not really about religion, but about class and urban/rural differences from the industrial revolution that were never resolved. The Arabs, of course think Ireland is about religion.
An interesting difference between the Arab and Irish situation is role of the U.S. in each. The Arabs seem to take the attitude that ‘the friend of my enemy is my enemy’. So how can the U.S. have both Palestine and Israel as allies. But the U.S. has remained close to both England and Ireland. In fact, a lot of the money raised by the Irish underground came from the American Irish. The mayor of Chicago is Irish and his father before him, but that doesn’t touch our alliance with Britain.
Even several years ago I think there was an Arab realization that the intifada wasn’t working –they just don’t know what else to do.
The Palestinians look to the West for solution to their situation, but America sells weapons to Israel, how are we motivated to help them. Still they say America is the only superpower and the only state that can pressure Israel and make it accept a solution.
The problem with terrorism for Americans is we have an automatic gag reflex for it. Then after the involuntary response we start thinking about concepts like rewards. For us it is the action itself that defines the criminal. But who knows how that would change if we had, say, French soldiers with berets controlling our political institutions.
American Mick,
Part II: Palestinian State Now?
Wouldn’t it be remarkable if the Palestinians declared a state and the U.S. was the first to recognize it?
Continued terrorism creates more deaths, creates more anger and hatred, and creates a reason to continue terrorism as the painful losses in the family circle are remembered and politicians pick at the scab. Every day there is no state, the children are being trained for the next generation of violence. Little 5-year-old boys carry toy guns and perform on stage in uniform. This is how the children are being trained to survive in their future.
In 1930 war swept Palestine. People locked their doors and came back in a few weeks to find everything the same. In 1948 they locked their doors again but this time they didn’t go back. When the old people are dying they ask for the key; and they die with the key in their hand. I don’t understand this connection with the land: if I move, I move. For them it seems an emotional connection.
Young Palestinians who have never seen Palestine speak with bitterness and vehemence about something they have never seen. It is a shocking thing to hear from someone who is usually quiet and reasonable. Not all are like that, of course. One of my students went to Palestine for a family funeral and came back, not angry and blaming, but just sad about how bad the conditions were. His family left in ’67 and he has friends and future elsewhere.
From the Israeli viewpoint, what else is there but a Palestinian state? Left as a part of Israel, how long would it take with the current birthrate to make the Palestinian situation look like South Africa? Israel will probably do it unilaterally with their wall, then use the ‘land grab’ areas as a trade for something else.
Buy the way, have you seen the Israeli website that shows the map of the wall?
http://www.btselem.org/English/Separation_Barrier/Index.asp
I spent a long time looking at it in various magnifications and was shocked at how little knowledge the Palestinians have managed to impart to the world about this. They need a Carl Rove.
Hamas was the reason Arafat couldn’t bargain and the U.S. did not consider him a partner for peace. If Hamas can be pressured into pragmatism, it may yet be a partner. Or it might start a new war that would annihilate Palestine.
The Palestinian state needs to happen regardless, even if it decides to declare war immediately or can’t control its terrorists. Palestine already exists, even as China existed before we recognized it.
Palestine needs economic stability. The U.S. needs an ally. There is also the question of the political stability of neighboring countries trying to solve the problems of Palestinians unable to return. If Palestine is dependent on U.S. for financial stability, as Jordan was on the Brits during the Mandate era, there will be more opportunity for the U.S. to call the tune.
Sorry but something is being missed in this ‘discussion’.as i know n m reading many of the non-Muslims know about Islam only whatever is depicted to them by “the independent media”.one such misconception is that many of the christians were forced to embrace Islam.My question:’the fastest growing relegion in nearly all countries is Islam, including USA and Franc.who is forcing them to convert?which muslim army recently went to europe?why so many people want to become ‘terrorists’?if Islam suppresses women’s rights, why more women are embracing Islam ?’
There is a reality my freinds that is being hidden very carefully by your ‘free media’.there is a truth every individual looks for but many of us are consistently being mislead.moreover, there are blacksheep in every community .and the criteria to judge a relegion is through its authentic books not by the Followers .there is an advice:Islamic Research Foundation is a known organisation trying to clear many such misconceptions .its president Dr. Zakir Naik is yet unbeated in debate by many renown scholars of diverse relegions,including Dr. William Campbel of christianity.
Please consider,as an advice from a freind.www.irf.net is site!may you find the truth
American Mick,
Part Last: Iraq–The Unanswerable Questions
Such short questions, and such long responses; but I don’t know how to edit this any further. It’s fun to talk to someone who’s actually interested in this.
“It also occurs to me that the recent re-emergence of sectarianism in Iraq, which is uncharacteristic of Iraqis, could be the result of the current leadership vacuum, and feelings of vulnerability because of itâ€Â.
Okay, I read the Time article, and the tribal thing is totally within my experience. If somebody needs something, say someone strays across the border and gets in a foreign jail, or someone loses a passport, which is a jailable offense, they need someone in the family to get them out of it. So they go to the person with Wasta in their family, a senator or something, and the right political strings are pulled. If you tell a Jordanian someone’s family name, they can tell you what city that person is from and whether they are Christian or Muslim.
In Jordan King Abdullah has been trying to introduce political parties, besides the Islamic ones, that is. In Jordan votes are always cast by tribal affiliation; the idea of voting for a political philosophy is unknown. Abdullah is an incredibly intelligent and politically savvy guy. I hope it works.
The senate is appointed by the king and is the most liberal, for example more likely to oppose honor killings. The lower house is elected; they had to fasten the ashtrays to the desks to keep them from throwing ashtrays at each other. In one argument a rep bit off the ear of another rep and put him in the hospital. Another guy said they couldn’t have a female legislator because everyone would be too busy staring at her chest to get any work done. The paper printed the remark on several occasions, but they didn’t say who made the statement.
“Could it be that some cultures’ priorities are just opposite ours? It seems some cultures are more stable under tyranny, and apparently couldn’t care less about individual freedoms, like freedom of speech.â€Â
We manage to have free speech and elections too without deaths. Have you noticed how every time there is an election in a foreign country, they also announce the death toll? It’s more noticeable when you live abroad and have better access to international news.
I heard that up in the hills the tribal mayoral elections are so emotional people are killed over them. I once dated a Lebanese consul who told me how important stability was for Lebanon, how the government strictly assigns positions for each ethnic and religious group to maintain political balance. If you read Judith Miller’s “God has Ninety-Nine Names†it would also seem that popular elections automatically mean the election of Islamists, and the way to ensure freedom is to prevent elections. Then there’s the press that demonizes America and Jews to take scrutiny off their own government’s actions…
I think they want what the west has to offer, but the bubblegum culture stuff like music, Hollywood, sexual freedom, and not democracy, rule of law, individual rights, …
“If so, aren’t we as a nation hopelessly misguided thinking democracy would be better for them? If it were, wouldn’t they choose it on their own, as we did?â€Â
It’s a value judgment; what do you believe in? It’s probably an improvement over ‘he’s an SOB, but he’s our SOB’. Eventually the world sees when we support oppression to get allies and resents it. I think ‘rights’ are more important, many times those rights are protected by the extended family and tribal structure rather than by law, and so are invisible to the western eye.
One thing that strikes me forcibly—we don’t choose democracy, we learn it from childhood. While I was teaching one English lesson on colours, I suddenly got a wild hair and asked my 7th graders to vote for their favourite color. THEY DIDN’T KNOW HOW TO VOTE. When I was in 7th grade, we knew how to nominate candidates, tear up notebook paper for secret ballots, and get someone we trusted to tally the votes on the blackboard. We participated in an endless number of boring elections for meaningless offices and we could organize an election in any classroom or extracurricular organization hands down. No wonder Americans don’t die in elections. We’re bored with it. My class of 58 students had 35 votes for the colour orange, 30 for pink, 25 for red, 25 for yellow, 15 for blue, you get the idea, somebody voted twice.
“Sure, Saddam was a bad man. But most of the Iraqis knew peace during most of his reign, and had little to fear from him. As long as they didn’t go around criticizing him or trying to assassinate him, that is.â€Â
Baghdad has been described to me as an economic engine for the entire region. Iraq could buy everything the rest of the region could manufacture. Bush Senior disrupted the region’s economy with the sanctions and flyovers (no mention of the economically debilitating 10 year war with Iran), and it was thought that Bush’s son should be elected to finish what his father started and bring back economic well-being.
Saddam’s sons were not benign. Kusai in particular was known for picking up women at random, raping them, and having them killed later. If Saddam was tolerable, Uday and Kusai would not have been. The Iraqis I knew had fled Iraq, so of course they were afraid, but I also heard about poverty and the devaluation of the currency. Some refugees left when someone in their family had been killed or disappeared.
Sadam also tried to ‘Arabize’ certain towns in Kurdish areas by financial incentives for Arab populations to move there, not quite ethnic cleansing, but forcing other populations out, same as Israelis are accused of with Palestinians. I talked to Kurds who witnessed the use of chemical weapons against civilians.
We are who we are. I used to believe in respect for other cultures until my friends and I witnessed children being beaten with sticks and rubber hoses in 35 different institutional settings. There is a mental gag reflex, like with terrorism. If we say ‘I respect your culture but…’ it weakens the argument we are making and makes us more vulnerable to political and personal damage. But if we say ‘I don’t like it when that child gets hit’ then the child will not get hit, at least not while we are looking.
Perhaps Arabs have lived with violence so long they have become desensitized, and if it is not too patronizing and arrogant, it is up to us to, as one poster here said, “keep the child from running out into the street”.
So people in other cultures are little children, and America needs to be their Daddy and Mommy and make sure they don’t “run out into the street?” Other cultures are not little children for you to control! You do not respect other cultures. You say so yourself. That is why you treat them like little children. You act like bad parents who demand respect but do not respect their own children. That is why you pay money and sell weapons to dictators and kings and generals to control people from other cultures like parents control little children. Then you shake your finger at them saying naughty little boys and girls, you should be democratic! But you never stop the money to the kings and dictators. You think other cultures are little children and you can spank them whenever you want but they should never, ever spank you back. Then you ask, why do people hate us?
Imran,
Thank you for that reference. I’ll read it through. There seems to be a lot of good information there. However, please don’t make the erroneous assumption that there is a knowledge vacuum here regarding Islam. There’s not.
On the subject of terrorism, the site only says that there are two perspectives on the same thing: one that the perpetrators are terrorists, and the other that they are ‘patriots’.
One quick question: Are Osama bin Laden and the people who carried out the World Trade Center attacks, the London subway bombings, and the Bali nightclub bombings ‘terrorists’ or ‘patriots’?
Layla,
I’m absorbing your posts. I’ll reply tomorrow. You wrote a lot.
Imran,
Thank you for showing us this website. I like the explanations about the Islamic traditions.
Many Islamic websites are insulting to Christians. They say things like “Christians have three gods,” which I find very disrespectful. I thought your website was respectful to Christians. I hope it helps you grow closer to God.
I would also like to know why so many Moslems become terrorists.
American Mick,
I know. I edited out half of it before posting, but there it is. Sometimes I read a 300 page book and find one detail that makes everything else fit.
I finished looking at Fisk’s just-published “The Great War for Civilization” and Miller and Mylroie’s 1990 “Saddam Hussein and the Crisis in the Gulf.” Nothing really useful for this discussion. Fisk does refer to “anti-British nationalism” in 1919 and both Fisk and Miller/Mylroie describe Saddam’s Stalinesque purges and confessions obtained under torture in detail. Not good bedtime reading.
Raoul,
I have to agree with you, and I think a lot of other Americans agree with you too. The US government has no business engineering the governments of other sovereign nations. It’s one thing to go to the aid of a nation that has been invaded by another; it’s quite another to invade a sovereign nation for any of the ‘reasons’ we’ve been given for the invasion of Iraq. This is not the will of the American people. Americans who support the invasion of Iraq do so, I think, because they erroneously equate Saddam Hussein with international terrorism and the World Trade Center attacks. George Bush made it look like that, and in post-9/11 America, a lot of people didn’t question him.
Attacking the American people, unfortunately, tends to make them support a militaristic President like Bush. Conducting open and frank discussions and arguments with American people has the opposite effect. It makes them think. When we think openly about things, Presidents like Bush lose support.
Raoul,
I did not support the action in Iraq and I don’t want to give anyone the impression that I did. I had hoped for incremental changes and I do not believe America has the right to intervene in another country like that. But we can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube. We can’t change the past, we can only protect the future.
Iraq was once the economic engine of the Middle East, until it started attacking its neighbors and destroying its own economy with a 10-year war with Iran. Saddam used hatred against Jews to justify mass killings, then went on to purge countless potential political opponents after obtaining confessions under torture that they were “working for Israel and the U.S.”
Many Middle Eastern leaders have demonized America to distract their people from local problems. But the ordinary people don’t understand it is just a tactic to stay in power. Remember the photo of the blackboard of the imam convicted of the Bali bombings? A lot of writing in another language, then in English the words ‘America’ and ‘Israel’. These leaders set America up as the all-powerful mommy and daddy that has to be destroyed instead of, say, actually GOVERNING their countries.
The attitude of the British after the disintegration of the Ottoman empire was to keep a ‘strong hold’ on Mesopotamia. They believed the inhabitants “can’t conceive an Independent Arab government.” The U.S. is basically isolationist and only wants allies in this region. Until someone can think of a better approach, or until Middle Eastern govenments decide to get a life, I’m willing to go along with “play nice now” and “don’t hit mommy and daddy.”
Imran wrote: “Please consider,as an advice from a freind.www.irf.net is site!may you find the truth”.
Now, I happen to know that site very well. I have it bookmarked on my Mac. In my humble view, it’s full of irrational statements which are often rather worse than just intellectual and historical rubbish. Some of them appear to be open invitations to coercion and violence against those who do not share the rather crude belief system of their authors. Have a look, for instance, at an article currently published there by the title: “The Media Attacks the Final Prophet”. Read it all, including paragraph 7 “Those who attempt to harm the Prophets are promised with Allah’s revenge”. The principles exposed here – including an appeal to the “secular arm” – appear to be basically the same as those that have guided for centuries the so-called Holy Inquisition of the Christian Catholic Church. Someone should explain Imran how and why the Europeans – during the latest three centuries – have won their liberty against precisely such medieval barbarism, at the price of much blood and suffering. We have met with it already, Imran. It’s no news to us. And, if it comes against us once more, we know what to do.
Finally, I must hasten to add that the obscurantist and intrinsically violent bigotry promoted by Imran and those whom he admires are luckily and most certainly *not* the whole of modern Islam. There are saner Islamic scholars and web sites around. Try for instance Google with “ijtihad” (which appears to be the Arabic for reason applied to religious matters).
Mario,
I don’t see it.
I’m looking at biography of Zakir Naik then scroll all the way down to books, then #4 ‘Islam and terrorism’
http://www.irf.net/irf/drzakirnaik/index.htm
The file doesn’t open for me.
I remember listening to a speech by Louis Farrakan. He started out very reasonably with things everybody could agree about…justice, economic development in African-American neighborhoods…then slowly worked up to hate speech.
From last week’s sermon about Ruwanda “It only takes one influential person to whip up a crowd into madness.”
Layla, the article I mentioned is now at
http://www.islamhouse.com/en/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=170
I thought I had found it in the irf site, but I am now unable to re-trace it that way. Maybe I’ve messed up things. Sorry.
Mario,
Thanks for the link. It’s a Saudi website with several articles by different authors; the link is to the most virulent one.
Of particular interest is point #7 “Those who attempt to harm the Prophets are promised with Allah’s revenge” which includes the statements:
“Those who harm Allah’s Messenger will deserve a severe punishment.”
“when Muslims are not capable of punishing those who ridicule and harm Allah’s Messenger SAAW, Allah, the Almighty Himself will take care of that”
“if a person wages war against Allah’s Prophets PBUT, his punishment is much too strict”
“previous nations were destroyed when they hurt their prophets”
They seem to start with revenge and work backward, looking for an excuse for vigilatism. It is implied that prophet has somehow been harmed, but that isn’t examined too carefully. The Prophet was dead before and he’s still dead.
The following is pasted from a different website of the same Zakir Naik guy in India:
I suggest that you inform as many people as possible about http://www.drzakirnaik.com . Doing this you can Insha’ALLAH share the rewards in the Hereafter for trying to spread Islam. Each person should try to recommend atleast 10 more people to visit http://www.drzakirnaik.com, these in turn can recommend 10 more and in this way the number of users utilizing the free resources here and linked resources can increase quickly and significantly 10, 100, 1000 ,10000… One Dr. Zakir Naik can make a difference by the Permission and Help of ALLAH Almighty. Imagine what will happen if 1000′s of Muslims learn his skills and become Dr. Zakir Naiks. Actually Dawah is your duty just remember Surah Al Asr (4 necessary requirements for saving yourself from destruction) and also know that its either Dawah or destruction.
The salient portion of the above is “share the rewards in the Hereafter”. Imran posted his message to get rewards in Heaven and not because of a burning desire for dialogue. Kinda reminds me of the messages that used to be printed on those bottles of peppermint soap.
Dear Sir / Madam,
You are doing good job. Draw a new cartoon of Mosque with Minaret as Penis of Muhammad and Dooms as Breast of his multiple wives. All evil of Muhammad which you show in cartoon is a real life of wicked Muhammad the dead in sin, which Mohammedans fear to hear or see. But please highlight the evil life of wicked Muhammad to us in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for we do the same evil what you are showing in cartoons of our wicked Muhammad. I am ashamed of being part of this system in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia – Mr. Muhammad Abd Allah Al-Sheikh from Mecca al-Makarma
Muhammed Abdullah al-Sheik,
Are you more ashamed of Osama bin Laden and the people who carried out the World Trade Center attacks, the London subway bombings, or the Bali nightclub bombings?
Are these people ‘terrorists’ or ‘patriots’?
The Americans who write here speak like akhi, but you speak mish quais. I think you are very mish quais.
Several items from the Arab world:
1) Hostage Tom Fox of Clear Brook confirmed dead. Fox, a Quaker, was a member of Christian Peacemaker Teams. Their statement: “We mourn the loss of Tom Fox, who combined a lightness of spirit, a firm opposition to all oppression, and the recognition of God in everyone. In response to Tom’s passing, we ask that everyone set aside inclinations to vilify or demonize others, no matter what they have done.”
2) Today I received by snailmail excerpts of a speech 2/17/06 by Brigitte Gabriel at the Intelligence Summit in DC.
“America cannot effectively defend itself in this war unless and until the American people understand the nature of the enemy that we face. Even after 9/11 there are those who say that we must “engage†our terrorist enemies, that we must “address their grievancesâ€. Their grievance is our freedom of religion. Their grievance is our freedom of speech. Their grievance is our democratic process where the rule of law comes from the voices of many not that of just one prophet. It is the respect we instill in our children towards all religions. It is the equality we grant each other as human beings sharing a planet and striving to make the world a better place for all humanity. Their grievance is the kindness and respect a man shows a woman, the justice we practice as equals under the law, and the mercy we grant our enemy. Their grievance cannot be answered by an apology for who or what we are.â€
Excerpts from speech:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21364
Some stirring prose, but what’s this about “the nature of the enemy?†Gabriel’s website shows her organization is called “American Congress for Truth†Holy jihad, Batman, the words ‘American’ and ‘Truth’ all in the name of one three-word organization? Their vision? “protecting the United States and its only democratic ally in the Middle East the State of Israel.†In case anybody is thinking of signing their petition against ‘Islamic totalitarianism’, see #1 above.
http://americancongressfortruth.com/aboutus.html
3) “Islam’s Fanatical 1%â€, by Muhammad Habash “A recent study published in Damascus by the Center of Islamic Studies pointed out that conservatives make up about 80% of the population of the Middle East’s Islamic societies. Reformers make up most of the other 20%. Radicals can count on support from no more than 1% of the population. In my view, these rough proportions have been stable throughout ten centuries of Islamic history, with slight differences.â€
About democracy: “Thus, conservatives reject democracy, because it subjects the will of God to popular opinion. For them, the ultimate authority within a society is God’s revelation to the people…. Finally, reformists see no contradiction between democracy and Islamic teaching, though democracy does conflict with centuries of tradition governing how Muslims actually have been ruled.â€
About other religions: “However, conservatives do not support the use of violence against non-Muslims. On the contrary, the jurisprudential traditions of Islamic conservatism obligate Muslims to be just in their treatment of non-Muslims. Thus, conservatives and reformists agree that the rights of others should be observed and preserved.â€
http://www.project-syndicate.org/contributor/850
4) Rami G. Khouri’s “The unspoken Israeli-Palestinian agreementâ€: “The unarticulated but vital operative core of this silent agreement is that both sides stop shooting and killing each other for some years, Israel steadily vacates more land, and the Palestinians enjoy more substantial sovereign rights and proceed more diligently than before with their nation-building priorities…. Sharon’s long-term interim agreement and Hamas’ long-term truce sound intriguingly similar. In the best ways of the Orient, they are being implemented without being formally articulated or agreed….. Wink. Nod. Pass the ploughshare.â€
http://www.jordantimes.com/fri/opinion/opinion2.htm
should be good until 3/17
Jim is willing to insult Buddhists as much as Muslims…..
take a look at this URL and see how it goes for a Buddhist student
http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2006/03/21/ram-bomjon-video/
James,
As I’ve already said when you cut and pasted this unoriginal and unsubstantial comment elsewhere:
No shit, Sherlock.
When I find religious ideas or behaviors worthy of criticism, I criticize them.
You “caught me.” No, actually, you didn’t catch me at all. I’ve been open about this for years. So ladeeda: what’s your point? That questioning, criticizing, lampooning a religion is some kind of offense? What kind of off-kilter notion is that? It certainly isn’t a freedom-loving notion.
Why do you think an idea or behavior should be above criticism, just because it is labeled “religious”?
And who appointed you grand high poohbah to decide it’s inappropriate for people to say things because you don’t like them?
Did you know that Mohammed started the Muslim faith from a heresy of the Catholic church? Check it out.
Study your history.
The Crusades were primarily a conflict to run off the Muslims agressors out of Europe. The Muslims nearly took over
all of Europe by force. These are the facts. CHECK IT OUT.
The BBC News feed to NPR is today reporting an end to the boycott of Danish company Arla.
A spokesman from Arla expects Arla products to be back on supermarket shelves later in the week. One of the Danish Imams who went to Gaza and Egypt (didn’t catch the name) denied that bringing the cartoons to the Middle East had anything to do with the riots. A key factor in ending the boycott was Arla’s purchase of multiple advertisements in Arab papers and the Arab recognition that Arla foods is a separate entity from the newspaper that published the cartoons.
Sorry I can’t provide a link: BBC doesn’t even have it on their site, and no one else seems to be reporting it.
I noticed a month ago somebody wrote that persians no longer exist like the romans ..etc.well im here to tell you iran was the heart of persia 52%of irans population is persian farsi is the main persian dialect dari persian is also spoken widely in afghanistan ,theres still zoroastrians the old persian religion prior to the islamic conquest in these 2 countries as well. thought i would clear that up.
I’ve always wondered about Zoroastrians, whether they still have fires on the mountaintops and if they have religious freedom. If 52% is persian, what is the rest?
Zoroastrians are recognized by the ayatollah as a legal religion being considered as one of the (people of the book religion) however there is much prejudice against them there .They are called ghebers which is derogatory. Gheber means fire worshipper, they dont worship fire its a symbol of cleanliness to them. They cremate there dead which is an abomination to islam.Yes they do have a decent sized fire temple near qom.As for the rest of irans population azerbeijanis make up 21% mazandaranis make up 8% luris 7% arabs 3% assyrians 1% kurds 7% other 1%
WE MUST RESPECT THE RELIGION OF OTHERS ALTHOUGH WE HAVE FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
Khalid,
We must have freedom of speech although we respect the religion of others.
I will fight for Danes to freely write cartoons and I will fight for you to freely go to mosque.
This page contains a Googlewhack – “apathetic blasphemism”
Thanks for ruining our future,
Democracy should not hurt somebody’s feeling or other people’s religion vision. According to you its just a comics. But according to somebody else it maybe insult. If you believe democracy you must think when you do something like that. And according to Moslem people Muhammad the most important parts of their religion. If you don’t want to respect somebody’s feeling no matter what i think that your democracy understanding is so wrong. You are wearing horse glasses. I mean you only see your truth no matter what.. Besides Moslem people also love Jesus Christ… And never draw a comic like that.. Please do not talk rudely and draw our prophet. unless you explore it. Even this is hurt moslem’s feeling if you care about…
But you see, TheNoble, your support for censorship hurts MY feelings. So what does that mean, according to your logic? That you need to dismantle your entire religion so my feelings don’t get hurt?
Democracy is about the ability of people who disagree with each other to do so openly, and not destroy their society in the process.
As a matter of fact, Irregular Times DID make cartoons mocking Jesus. Isn’t that little fact just an irritating little pea under your ideological mattress?
Firstly my english is not so good to debate you. I should have said this. Anyway u said to me this ” Isn’t that little fact just an irritating little pea under your ideological mattress? ” I didn’t understand this.
Can you explain please? And would you write to me simple english? In my opinion you are drawing unconsciously Im warning you friendly. don’t take this as a fight or scorn you… But you must search for it when you make your decision to draw something.
The reference is to the story, “The Princess and the Pea,” about a princess who was so sensitive about her needs that she could feel a single pea placed under dozens of mattresses.
You’re warning us friendly? What will happen if we don’t heed the warning?
In a democracy, either someone’s feelings are going to be hurt, or nobody’s talking about anything of consequence.
TheNoble,
Jclifford has very difficult English. He says: you hurt his feelings for free speech. He says: you want him to shut up. He says: will you stop your religion for his feelings?
The democracy way: when people do not agree, they speak and they write. The Moslem way: when people do not agree, they kill and they destroy their country.
Jclifford says: we made a comic about Jesus.
The story about “the princess and the pea” is a book for children.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0823407535?v=glance
A princess went to bed on 24 mattresses. Under the bed was a small pea, like a bean. She did not sleep because of the small pea.
Jclifford is correct. If someone makes a comic about Jesus, this is not a problem. This is normal. We make comics about important people: Bush, Jesus, Moses (prophet Musa), Sharon, Arafat.
The meaning of the comic here is: why do you have to protect Mohammed? Is the Prophet a baby? No, the prophet Mohammed is in heaven and pictures can not hurt him.
you said that The democracy way: when people do not agree, they speak and they write. The Moslem way: when people do not agree, they kill and they destroy their country.
The answer is this you are totally wrong about this subject. And i think you did not search it very carefully. I think you wachted and listen only what the tv says. why do you think that moslem people destroy their country. what is israel doing now ? Is it democracy? what is the usa doing now? is that also part of democracy ? If not these countries are spreading peace and democracy to the world ? killing innocent babies and women in Lebanon Iraq and also Afghanistan is a democracy? Let me explain : Your democracy way: either someone’s feelings are going to be hurt, or conquer some country in any way ( just a nonsense reason enough ) for example you are making nuclear bomb. I can make it but you can’t. Or you captured my two soldiers give them us if not, im going to destroy your country and kill your babies and women ( by the way this is Israel’s reason ) Did they who were died deserve it? And i saw a picture which was so horrible the picture is some of Israel’s little children was writing on a bomb which belonged to a war plane the writing was i hope you all kill with this bomb !! Oh my Allah !! The reaction : A few moron and ignorant moslem men explode themselves among the innocent people. And the Usa had raised Usame Bin Laden everything and sent him Afghanistan and then You destroy your own twin tower in order to conquer another country as a reason… Usame Bin Laden the moron could able to destroy twin towers? of course not… The Usa is making perfect reasons to attack another countries. Bomb men are never ever can be a moslem. I have to cut it short now there are lots of things that have to be mentioned… But my poor english doesn’t let me write…
By the way to protect our prophet is a faith matter. You never comprehend why we protect our prophet. You can understand what the Holly Kur’an says when you believe. To believe you must first seacrh it read the Holly Kur’an very carefully in an unbiased way and unprejudiced.
http://www.kuran.gen.tr/?x=s_main&y=s_middle&kid=14&sid=112&go.x=6&go.y=6
Please read this very carefully http://www.kuran.gen.tr/?x=s_main&y=s_middle&kid=14&sid=2&go.x=8&go.y=5
You know, I started out reading closely, but to tell you the honest truth after the bit where I’m told that as an unbeliever I should get ready to suffer the stones of men, my eyes started to glaze over. The author is a bit too consistently emphatic for my tastes, you know. Boldface writing should only be used on occasion in order to draw attention to the really important points, but here the author is using simply too many instances of “O,” “Oh,” “Oh Ye” and the favorite “!”. My experience in reading that verse was like drinking 16 Cokes and trying to relax.
And then there’s the 286 paragraphs problem. If you want me to read something carefully, please don’t ask me to read 286 paragraphs. What’s your point, and in what paragraph is it?
I know, I know: it’s a Holy text to you. But recognize that it is not a Holy text to me. It’s a royal pain in the neck to read as a favor to someone I don’t know.
You say I can only understand the Koran when I believe. But I don’t think I should believe it if I don’t understand it. There is a problem here, isn’t there?
Finally, going back a couple of comments of yours:
Your note about how a bomber could never be a true Muslim is really interesting to me, because I have encountered people on this website saying similar things to me about Christians (of which I am not one). When I ask them about the cruelty of the Crusades, or the Spanish Inquisition, or the Puritans, or the Lord’s Army, or the sexually abusing priests, and so on and so on, they respond, “Well! People who act that way are clearly not true Christians!”
The issue for me with this, whether you’re talking about a Muslim or a Christian, is that 1) clearly, these people call themselves Muslims/Christians. 2) clearly, these people have been raised in and surrounded by Muslim/Christian faith traditions. 3) the biggie: if you say anyone who does bad things in the name of your religion is not a member of your religion, then by definition your religion must be good, which means that by definition your religion can be subject to no criticism.
That’s an awfully convenient definition to someone who wouldn’t like to have their religion criticized. And to my eyes, it’s a sign of insecurity about a religion. If you’re strong in your faith, if you really know what you know, why should you care if someone someplace else far away is asking critical questions about it? That seems like the sort of thing that only people who are insecure in their faith worry about.
Say: O unbelievers!
2. I do not serve that which you serve,
3. Nor do you serve Him Whom I serve:
4. Nor am I going to serve that which you serve,
5. Nor are you going to serve Him Whom I serve:
6. You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion.
it is quoted passage from the Holly Kur’an. The conversation is over for me. You are right about wanting you to read 286 paragraphs. Surely don’t understand anything. Do not think that i put the last point and steal away. Have good day my dear.
I saw the picture of Israeli children writing on a bomb. The children were under the ground for 5 days becasue Hizbollah wanted to kill them with bombs. The children did not see the sun for 5 days. If you criticize the children for writing, you must also criticize Hizbollah for shooting bombs at the children.
You criticize killing in Lebanon. You criticize killing in Afghanistan. You do NOT criticize killing in Israel. why? Maybe you want to kill all Jews. Drive them into the sea.
What is better than killing? Talk. Ideas. Drawing cartoons. Cartoons about Moslems with bombs. But you want to stop the talk. You do not want to criticize Moslems with bombs. What problem is this? If it is a wrong idea, then say WHY it is a wrong idea. Do not say ‘shut up’.
When the Moslems want to kill women and children, they say “Allahu al-Akbar”. Then they kill the children. They cut off heads–in the name of Allah. If these are not Moslems, why do you not criticize them? Why do you want to stop the cartoons that criticize them?
I think you only want to kill Jews and kill Israeli women and children and drive them into the sea.
“teacher”,
I notice that you do not condemn the killing by Israelis. Instead, you seem to condone it. Will you practice what you preach? Will you, without equivocation, condemn the killing carried out by Israelis as well?
Israelis justify their killing by reference to their faith, too: they say they’re doing it to defend their religion of Judaism and the chosen Jewish people. Christians justify their killing by reference to faith, too. Just listen to George W. Bush.
What’s the common denominator here? Anyone? Anyone? Ferris?
No, the Israelis only say they want to live. They do not care about killing Arabs.
They say ‘My father was killed because he was a Jew. He is buried in Germany. My son was killed because he was a Jew, but at least he is buried in the Holy Land.’
Of course there are also the settlers, but they don’t even get along with other Jews.
I think there is a lot of money in Israel, and the Israelis would do economic develoment with the Arabs if they could.
How did I get dragged into this? I only wanted to make jclifford’s English easier to understand.
TEK KELIME SEREFSIZLER!! ALLAH ISLAH ETSIN NEDIYM
Thank you for making our religion (Islam) more famous in the world, from this drawings.
Thanks again
Bassem Baroudi
La illah ella allah mohammad rasol el ellah