From Andy McCarthy:
I have long argued that: (1) Islam is not a moderate doctrine; (2) Islamists who practice terror and are otherwise aggressive toward non-Muslims (and toward Muslims who disagree with them) are not twisting or perverting Islam; (3) this does not mean that the Islamist interpretation of Islam is the only possible viable interpretation; but (4) a concrete theology of “moderate Islam” does not exist (even though there are plenty of moderate Muslims) and therefore it will have to be created; and (5) because it will have to be non-literal and reformist, it will have a tough time competing with Islamist ideology which, however noxious it may be, has the advantage of being firmly rooted in Islamic scripture. Nevertheless, (6) Islamist ideology is anti-constitutional and anti-freedom in many of its core particulars, so that (7) if, instead of letting them pretend to be “moderates,” we force Islamists to defend their beliefs, we will marginalize them — at least in our society, which (8) will empower true moderate Muslim reformers and — maybe — give them the space they need to solidify a coherent, moderate Islam that embraces the West, and in particular the separation of secular public life from privately held religious beliefs.
It’s not a phobia if the fear is rational.
Wikipedia quoting a source on general Patton:
After reading the Koran and observing North Africans, he wrote to his wife, “Just finished reading the Koran—a good book and interesting.” Patton had a keen eye for native customs and methods, wrote knowingly of local architecture, even rated the progress of word-of-mouth rumor in Arab country at 40–60 miles a day. In spite of his regard for the Koran, he concluded, “To me it seems certain that the fatalistic teachings of Mohammad and the utter degradation of women is the outstanding cause for the arrested development of the Arab. . . . Here, I think, is a text for some eloquent sermon on the virtues of Christianity.”
“To me it seems certain that the fatalistic teachings of Mohammad and the utter degradation of women is the outstanding cause for the arrested development of the Arab. . .”
He completed that with “He is exactly as he was around the year 700, while we have been developing.”
The General was an astute observer.
Islamaphobia is an inappropriate term. It’s a slur. After 9-11 people assumed Americans would be quaking in fear. I didn’t see much of that (except perhaps a few talking heads.) What I saw was what I expected to see. Righteous anger.
For most people that may have faded. I’m still angry. Put a gun in my hand today, show me the people cheering in the streets on that day and I’d start shooting. 9-11 is vividly in my memory which is strange for me. My anger will not fade until we have effectively dealt with the threat. That threat will persist as long as Islam holds its current teachings.
I am angry, leaving no room for fear, but I do have room for compassion for the decent people in Islam that suffer under a satanic religion. Humanity and decency demand we deal with the threat and not pretend it is what it isn’t.
There was of course a time when Arab culture was ahead of where it had been in 700 and ahead of the rest of the world, when perhaps it could look at the world with a benign superiority whereas now it has to deal with a sense of economic and scientific inferiority, which may be hard to bear in a honour-shame culture.
A friend of mine who has studied the rise of modern “extreme” Islamism in the context of “mainstream” Islam, says: “The modern Jihadists aren’t ‘extreme.’ They’re just following the doctrine. It’s that the non-Jihadists are just slackers.”
“…ahead of the rest of the world”
That may turn out to be just another lie we’ve been told. Look at this article.
Jihadodium rather than Islamophobia.
Sorry, Ken, but anyone who thinks that the money economy of Western Europe was still functioning in the 7th century CE is somewhere between a liar and an idiot.
ken anthony; I thoroughly approve but think that “starting shooting” might be an inadequate response – unless, of course, you are a USAF general who doesn’t mind being cashiered.
I rather like Jerry Pournelle’s idea of appropriate response to jihad. Every city in the dar-al-Islam which had crowds cheering the 9/11 attacks gets an instant monument – in the form of a field of rubble a couple of blocks square. Said monument to be maintained as necessary. The Riyadh monument should of course include the former site of the palace of the Lord of Mordor.
Sorry, Ken, but anyone who thinks that the money economy of Western Europe was still functioning in the 7th century CE is somewhere between a liar and an idiot.
Historians and archeologists with have to answer that.
What part of the article is untrue?
“starting shooting” might be an inadequate response
It was just to emphasize my mindset. I’m actually for rational and effective behavior most of the time.
I’ve got your back, Ken.
IOW, Sharia law is anathema to the Constitution.
The commenting around here is starting to get a bit too rambunctous.
One remark I want to make about 9-11 is that we think this is “about us” in “why would people hate us that much to this to us”? I am beginning to believe that it never was about us or the 9-11 was in any way an attempt, however goofball, to bring America to Islamic submission.
Rather, there is a civil war going on in the Islamic world, essentially a civil war for the hearts and minds, or perhaps for the hearts and souls of the Islamic world, and we in the U.S. got into the crossfire.
I mean, what was the motive for the 9-11 attacks, did “they” really think they could strike us that we would simply surrender to Mr. Bin Laden? Hardly, the attacks were meant to provoke us to engage in a ham-fisted counter attack that would bring what ever internal conflict is happening “over there” to a boil. Think of Manson and his “Helter Skelter” plot that his wanton killings would somehow foment a general race war.
I am not saying that the enemy is simply some narrow fringe faction unreprentative of Islam, especially not the broader range of people sympathetic to this enemy, witnessing the street demonstrations cheering on the 9-11 attacks. What I am saying, to the extent that the 9-11 enemy is Islam, that enemy represents a faction waging civil war within Islam. Again, if we in the U.S. are guilty of anything, it is that we think that every dispute in the world is “about us”, and I am saying this conflict is not “about us.”
A second remark is with respect to something that is personal with me. How is a loyal U.S. citizen to feel and act when that citizen is of an ethnicity or religion of that of a foreign enemy of the United States. Yes I am talking ethnic Germans during WW-I and WW-II, Japanese during WW-II, and Serbs during the Bosnia War. I can tell you it is hard when the “foreign other” is demonized, even in the absence of overt discrimination, harassment, or other persecution. The “foreign other” being ground down by sanctions keeping him without medicine and by bombardment of the power plant keeping him cold could be your aged uncle dying of peripheral vascular disease, long separated from you by the Iron Curtain of the Cold War.
What you do as a loyal and patriotic U.S. citizen or as a resident or visiting alien respectful of your host is that you bear that burden, quietly and stoically. Playing the “victim card”, to me, is unseemly, and from my peculiar perspective, offensive. This reflexive use of the victim card, for themselves and anyone they can think of, is what I find so obnoxious about the absolutely predictable responses on such topics as the Usual Suspects around here.
As to the Cordoba House, let’s say that after 9-11 we are at war with an enemy that is “Islam”, and that enemy is not a mere “fringe group of mis-interpreters” but substantial in numbers, popular support, and doctrinal backing. But that enemy is waging a civil war within Islam, and who is not to say that Cordoba House represents our ally? But make that case, don’t come at me with the “I am the victim and I am so righteous” — I am not saying Mr. Rauf is doing this, but the Usual Suspects are doing this, and I find this line or reasoning thoroughly unpersuasive.
Paul, thanks for your thoughtful post. Personally, I have seen too much of the “death to America”, the labeling as the “great Satan”, and the burning in effigy to be persuaded by your argument. I am not saying the US has acted altruistically throughout its history. We have made mistakes, but none of those mistakes warranted the deliberate killing of innocents.
And I am willing to say that in my opinion, based upon the sum total of what I read and listen to coming from the Islamic world, that the Cordoba House represents the camel’s nose under the tent flap.
That’s a rare thing JD and I do appreciate it.
We think this is “about us”… Paul, it could be about a lot of things, but one of those things is us.
People are fractious, but when they have a common enemy (the great satan, us) they have no problem working together or for common cause.
what was the motive for the 9-11 attacks
It is the only way to guarantee a reward in the afterlife according to Islam. That was one of the reason Bill Mahers comment right in the aftermath was so stupid. It wasn’t courage, it was a fanatics desire for reward. Something they are taught on their mothers knee.
In Saudi Arabia, and other Islamic countries I’m sure, you see lines of people at traffic accidents talking to the injured person to take messages to relatives in the afterlife. The EMTs will stand around waiting for the guy to die or not while this is going on. It’s the will of Allah you see, if the guy dies or not.
Trying to figure out the motives of people like that is probably a lost cause and a waste of effort. Sometimes, why? has no answer. We need to concentrate on *what* they’re up to.
I’m sure there is something to your ‘helter skelter’ analogy but how does that help us? How does that change how we need to deal with it? If their motives for attacking us are irrational, they aren’t going to be talked out of it.
I’m not a victim and I’m not guilty. America, with all her faults, is the first to act with humanity whenever there’s a need. I’m very proud of the American people and I’m not going to be doing any wasteful hand wringing. When something entirely preventable like the Ft. Hood shooting happens, I’m not too proud of our PC culture that allowed it to happen.
The guy behind the Cordoba house is no moderate and no ally. Making excuses for them just makes it easier for them to hit us the next time.
I followed Robert Spencer’s entire “Blogging the Qur’an” series. One of the conclusions I reached is that for Islam to be compatible with civilization, scholars will have to cogently argue that Mohammed’s military commands applied only to the war(s) of the time, and were not calls for perpetual warfare against all unconquered infidels.
One might ask why Mohammed’s successor Abu Bakr would have engaged in his imperialist ventures if the Koran and whichever collection of Suras he followed didn’t command him to do so. The answer to that should be obvious: ALL heads of state back then were imperialists. The monarch job attracts that sort of person.
I just finished watching a Fox program about honor killing of two daughters by a Iraqi taxi driver in America. Two things struck me. The killer father was completely deceitful regarding motives and actions at all times for YEARS and his family, not his american wifes family, was seemed completely supportive of his actions.
Honor killing is not just the act of an individual, it’s a family thing.
Then the guy disappears. How can he do that without help?
The Cordoba house is nothing less than an attempt to construct an enemy outpost on American soil in time of war. Permitting its construction is pure insanity.
If the “center” is built, I wonder how long it will be before we read, “The suicide bomber regularly attended services at the Cordoba House Mosque.”
Paul
If you don’t like the comments here, and you want to understand the motives on 9-11, perhaps you should review this site. Check the strategies page, and read up on jihad. There is a good article answering the question as to whether or not martyrdom is legitmate islamic activity.
As for Cordoba House, we know that Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf works with the same organization funding the Gaza blockade running flotillas. An organization that was caught saying of the blockade runners: “we’re helping Arabs go against the US, don’t forget 9/11”
Are you sure you want to claim Cordoba House is a representative of our allies in the Muslim world?
There’s a difference between “striking a mighty blow” against someone, and expecting complete victory.
I seem to remember the Japanese thinking a they were synonymous also. At least Chamberlain had an excuse.
I take issue with this just a little. Call it a quibble: Who’s to say that a reform movement can’t be just as well rooted in scripture as the fundie opposition? It was in Christianity — it was a difference of interpretation and hermaneutic, not in adherence.
Islam needs a Reformation. Who will be their Martin Luther?
Islam needs a Reformation. Who will be their Martin Luther?
Agreed. However, we may easily have to wait another 500 years before such a reformation occurs.
The problem with hoping for an Islamic reformation (beyond the fact we don’t have 500 years to wait) is obvious if you consider the seed they grow from… Mo.ham.mad vs. Jesus.
(does ham make him mo’ mad?)
You can reform when a group has left the original teachings. Islam hasn’t.
Rome’s economy can be tracked by measuring the lead content of peat bogs in Spain. Those bogs show that Rome’s GDP (and probably other measures of its power) was well down from its peak even before the Christian takeover, long before the Gothic takeover and long long before the Arab takeover.
I usually make this point in defending Christians (or Goths).
Since empires can’t last forever, and Europe had only one technologically advanced nation, the Dark Ages were inevitable.
“Islamophobia” is one of those words our enemies use to demonize people who disagree with them.
Next they’ll be accusing us of “scatophobia” and “thanatophobia” because we don’t want to eat shit and die.
Paul Milenkovic – you are correct in your assessment of an Islamic civil war. We saw that very clearly in the Sunni vs. Shia violence in Iraq, for example, and now see that in the Taliban (“fundamentalist”) vs. everybody else (“moderate”) Islam in Afghanistan.
You are also correct in saying that Bin Laden’s goal was to provoke an over-reaction in the West. This is classic “stage 1” guerrilla warfare, where the goal is to harass and provoke the enemy so as to gain recruits. In Northern Ireland, the cycle is “IRA sets off car bomb, cops hassle Catholic hoodlums, hoods go see IRA recruiter.” The difference between the IRA and Bin Laden is the scale of their ambition.
That’s why opposing the “9/11 Mosque” is a bad idea. We over-react and discredit a moderate Imam, allowing the more radical Imams to say “see, I told you so!”
If Rauf was really a “moderate” Imam, he would have had some sensitivity to the location of the mosque.
Rand – he’s already got a mosque 11 blocks away. How close is too close?
Mr. Gerrib – Objecting to the building of a Muslim “cultural centre” with an obviously and deliberately inflammatory name, not very far at all from the grave of 3000 victims of jihad, is not over-reacting at all.
Bulldozing every mosque in the USA (preferably with the congregation in them), banning all Muslim cultural practices such as five-times-per-day prayers and halal slaughter, and kicking out every single non-citizen Muslim in the USA might be a slight over-reaction.
Turning every city of over 50,000 in every nation that calls itself Islamic into a glowing, smoking, glass-lined hole would be over-reacting – at the moment. That can, and probably will, change too.
Bin Laden’s goal was to provoke an over-reaction in the West.
This is classic stage 1 denial, where the goal is to encourage appeasement at every opportunity.
It’s not courage Chris, its cowardice.
Curt Thomson – ignorance is apparently bliss. When I said “stage 1” I was using a technical term for guerrilla warfare invented by Mao Tse-tung in his 1937 book On Guerrilla War. You can go here for brief primer intended for junior officers. I can’t swear that it’s the exact thing I read during my officer training, but it’s similar. Once you’re up to speed perhaps you can rejoin the conversation with something intelligent to offer.
And when I said stage 1 I was referring to your willful ignorance of history’s lessons regarding appeasement. I can’t speak to your state of bliss, but I can infer from your selective knowledge of history that if that’s what it is, it’s certainly of the ignorant variety.
In Northern Ireland, the cycle is “IRA sets off car bomb, cops hassle Catholic hoodlums, hoods go see IRA recruiter.”
Soooo… Don’t hassle islamic hoodlums. Got it. Thank-you.
Oh, you added something else: The difference between the IRA and Bin Laden is the scale of their ambition.
Soooo… REALLY don’t hassle islamic hoodlums.
I’m looking forward to your rejoining the conversation with something intelligent to offer.
Curt – no, don’t overreact. Especially don’t overreact by banning churches! Imagine the recruiting windfall the IRA would have gotten if the British had banned new churches or Catholic community centers.
The British didn’t overreact. Now the “Troubles” are over. Funny how that worked.
If we were banning churches!© you might have a germ of a possibility of a point. Or even if you started down the dead end road of “don’t restrict anybody’s freedom to practice their religion”. But you’re not. You’re bringing up the IRA, an analogy so incandescently stoopid that parody is the only thing I’ve got.
The IRA is not a terrorist organization? They aren’t following the same playbook that all 20th century insurgencies have followed, the one written by Mao in 1937? A playbook that all successful insurgencies prior to it (the American Revolution, for instance) followed?
How is denying somebody the right to build a mosque despite getting local approval not restricting their right to practice religion?
I’ll ask the same question I asked (to no avail) of Rand – how close is acceptable?
How is denying somebody the right to build a mosque despite getting local approval not restricting their right to practice religion?
When nobody is denying the right.
How close is acceptable? The landing gear of one of the 9/11 airliners went through the roof of the Burlington Coat Factory building and did significant structural damage, to the point that the building has been unoccupied since then. In my book, that’s not NEAR Ground zero, that’s PART OF Ground Zero.
Imam Rauf deliberately selected this site BECAUSE it was at Ground Zero. If he wants to build bridges to the non-Islamic community and demonstrate that he’s moderate and tolerant and isn’t an Islamic triumphalist, he’s sure going about it in an odd way.
Murgatroyd – or maybe, since it was a Burlington Coat Factory before 9/11, it was a cheap building in a high-rent area.
You’re bringing up the IRA, an analogy so incandescently stoopid that parody is the only thing I’ve got.
What’s stupid about it?
They planted bombs in city centers pretty much throughout my childhood and though until I was, well, in my early 30s. Hundreds of civilians killed, thousands of police officers and soldiers.
What wasn’t terrorist about the Hyde Park bombing, or how about Eniskillen – that was a nice one, blowing up a Rememberance Day service without warning, or what about Warrington City Centre? – that one they gave a 15 minute warning without actually giving an accurate location or time to evacuate… hey, or better still Omagh … that’s a really good one because the warning was given in such a way as to make sure that it got the police sent in to try and clear the area.
Sure, they were all cuddly freedom fighters, nothing terrorist there….
Although to disagree somewhat with Chris, the history of the Troubles and to a lesser extent British involvement in Ireland is one of over reaction. Part of the reason that a move to protect Catholics from idiot bigoted protestants in 1968 turned into a 30 year long terrorism campaign is precisely the kind of idiotic rhetoric that people are touting here.
But hey, don’t let history get in the way.
Aggressive military actions against terrorists and ingrained bigotry always work…
NOTE: I included links to the various sites remembering the dead but it tripped the spam trap. You can Google for them. Go to them, comment, let them know that they mean less than the dead of other terrorists.
What’s stupid about it?
Go look up what IRA stands for.
Aggressive military actions against terrorists and ingrained bigotry always work…
Which is, of course, what building the Ground Zero Victory Mosque is all about. If it is built, it will teach everyone a lesson about agressive military action. If it’s not built, we’ll all be shown to suffer from ingrained bigotry.
But hey, don’t let history get in the way.
Hey, don’t let me keep you from your medicine.
Curt – you do realize that Daveon (aka Dave O’Neil) is British, with an Irish father, and lived through the Troubles?
Why the Irish Republican Army (actually, Provos or “Provisional” IRA – they got kicked out of the “real” one) is “stoopid” you have yet to explain.
you do realize that Daveon (aka Dave O’Neil) is British
That’s been painfully plain here for awhile. Just mention “Death Panels” for a (usually entertaining) display.
Murgatroyd – or maybe, since it was a Burlington Coat Factory before 9/11, it was a cheap building in a high-rent area.
No maybes about it. The building was hit by part of the aircraft. It’s PART OF Ground Zero.
“Cheap rent”? Then why do the plans call for the BCF building to be demolished and a 15-story structure put up in its place?
And according to those unreliable right-wing stooges at Newsweek the imam and his wife wanted it close to Ground Zero:
I have to wonder just who it was that didn’t “allow” the Mohammedans to mourn their own who died in the attack? Perhaps if they had, and had joined with the infidels mourning their own dead, the gap between the two camps now would be easier to bridge.
And I have to wonder why the people behind the proposed Islamic Center are so unwilling to compromise even a little bit, considering that they’re supposedly trying to build trust and understanding?
Given that Imam Rauf is claimed to be a Sufi, I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt at the start of the controversy. But the Islamic Center’s backers have behaved like such smug assholes that the patience and tolerance of many of us are wearing a little thin these days.
The right to practice religion has absolutely nothing to do with this mosque. Why not? Because Islam is not a religion – or at least that is not all it is. Islam is all one piece, and no part can be discarded, and contains a legal system completely different from that of any civilised Western country.
Try a gedankenexperiment. Imagine that Islam has won in the USA and the government and legal system are Sharia. What price the First Amendment then?
Mr. Gerrib, the Troubles are over because the flow of money and arms from idiotic Americans (such as NORAID) dried up overnight, on 9/12/01, when Americans learned what terrorism is about. Were it not for 9/11, there would still be numerous bombs going off in Northern Ireland. There still are a few, in fact.
I also get rather exercised about the fact that two people who ought to be either in jail for life or preferably six feet under (Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness) were elected as British MPs despite the fact that both of them said in advance they would not swear the Oath of Allegiance – which disqualifies them both from sitting in Parliament and disenfranchises their constituencies’ voters.
It ought not to be forgotten, either, that the IRA was quite heavily financed for a while by such beacons of freedom as Libya. All people who have ever been members of the IRA are traitors, and should have been treated as such. Appropriate treatment?
‘The sentence of the Court upon you is, that you be taken from this place to a lawful prison and thence to a place of execution and that you be hanged by the neck until you are dead; and that your body be afterwards buried within the precincts of the prison in which you shall been confined before your execution. And may the Lord have mercy on your soul. Amen.’
Bush, of course. Don’t you remember when he went house-to-house sending mourners to Gitmo?