Dear Salim,
I am sorry I have not responded to your new letter sooner, but my day job here at PJM keeps me a bit busy. Moreover, to be completely honest, I was not really sure what I wanted to say. I have been rendered relatively speechless by events, violent and otherwise, in the Islamic world, trying to make heads or tails of them. By that I mean largely the Arab Islamic world — Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Bahrain, etc. — but also the always popular Islamic Republic of Iran, whose hideous government is close to the greatest misuse of religion in the history of the world.
But it is those events that are prompting me now to write back in our ongoing discussion of Islam and the West and I hope you will bear with me as I try to connect them up. I am not happy and I am not optimistic.
Of course, at the beginning of the events in Egypt I was trying to be, optimistic that is. Democracy is generally a good thing and Mubarak a bad thing — simple (almost simple-minded) as those statements are. I picked up my Skype phone and made a call to an acquaintance of mine, the estimable blogger Sandmonkey (Mahmoud Salem), who was in the thick of things in Cairo. The interview I recorded with him made the rounds of the Internet and contained such information as the Muslim Brotherhood was not that heavily involved in the demonstrations and that both sides in Egypt were accusing the other of being under the influence of The Jews.
The latter did not surprise me. The former proved to be dead wrong. Several days later the Islamist al-Qaradawi was able to muster two million supporters in Tahrir Square, the largest demonstration, I believe, so far. The Al-Jazeera commentator banned Google-activist Wael Ghonim from the stage, as I imagine you know.
Since that time, I have been trying to reach Sandmonkey because I was disappointed to learn he too has now appeared to have joined the rabid pack seeking a rapid renegotiation of the Egyptian peace treaty with Israel. I thought my friend Mahmoud would have had the maturity and sophistication to realize that the Jews are the least of Egypt’s problems. In fact, it is obviously the reverse — the more Egyptians fixate on Israel, the less they fix themselves. Indeed I suspect Mahmoud knows that. But you have to go along to get along — or something like that.
Not that the Europeans are any better. Indeed, they may be worse. The recent revelations of corruption at the vaunted London School of Economics — administrators enriching themselves from Gaddafi, who has always been nothing more or less than a mass-murdering sociopath — is again, like the obsession of both sides of the Egypt crisis with the Jews, as totally unsurprising as it is typical of the European intellectual classes. Also typical is the etiology of the LSE affair. It is not just greed and a cozying up to another tyrannical dictator/energy source; it is also, once again, a covert attack on the Jews under the guise of anti-Zionism, for it was nowhere more than at LSE that endless chastisement of Israel, accompanied by calls for economic sanctions and educational boycotts, was and is a constant drumbeat.
Although you will never see it on the pages of the Guardian or the Independent, the cause of that drumbeat, that need to hold Israel to a higher standard than any other nation, could also not be more obvious. It is titanic (and justifiable) guilt over the Holocaust. What Europe did to the Jews, marching innocent human beings into gas chambers, is arguably the most monstrous crime in recorded history. Europeans desperately want something to be wrong with the Jews to exonerate themselves, to some degree anyway, for that unconscionably reprehensible act.
Which leads me back to your recent letter. You would like us to be patient with the Islamic world because it took the West so long to reach even a modicum of civilized maturity.
Well, you’ve got a point there. We are, after all, not so many years from Robespierre and the Reign of Terror, not to mention that Holocaust and the Gulag and other similar atrocities. We should give the Islamic world another couple of centuries to right itself.
The questions are: Can we and Will it?
Excuse me if I am skeptical on both counts.
How can you reform a CULT whose holy Book contains huge amounts of virulent antisemitism, misogyny, violence, nonsense, self contradiction, Racism, Arab Supremacism and turgid repetition and which also claims ITSELF to be the ‘ACTUAL and UNALTERABLE” words of its satanic God. Does not seem there is much wriggle room for reform there. Muslims are also told to ‘emulate’ Mohammad yet this is Man who is revealed in Islams OWN Sahih (trusted) writings as being an incestuous (he married his SON’s wife) paedophilic, polygamist, misogynistic, anti semitic, thief, murderer, racist and Warlord and they are just his good points.
Other religions managed it.
Care to name one? With citations from the relevant holy scriptures to establish your point?
Francis – Read to your heart’s content. http://www.evilbible.com/ (Both Judaism and Christianity did go through a reformation.)
The Muslim Reformation began in the 18th Century with Wahhabism. Just like the Protestant Reformers, the Wahhabis and their offshoots (Muslim Brotherhood, the Iranian Revolutionaire, Hamas, etc…) desire to live in accordance to their holy scriptures. All preach Islamic puritanism. Unfortunately, their Gospels were written by a violent pedophile.
So tell us Dikehopper do CHRISTIANS follow the Bible or the New Testament??? I think you are just playing the Mohammedans moral equivalence game for them.
The Judaic religion, Dikehopper, is not the same as the Bible. The Old Testament is largely the history of the Jews before the coming of Christ. (It is most definitely not the Christian religion.)
Neither is the New Testament, in toto, the Christian religion. The teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, which are set forth in the Gospels, constitute the Christian religion. The New Testament, except for the Gospels themselves, chronicles the lives and thoughts of the Apostles, who were human, and therefore fallible.
Christianity did not go through a reformation. The teachings of Jesus of Nazareth remain exactly as they have always been. The Church experienced schism and reformation.
The distinction between a religion and the deeds of its hierarchs and followers should be respected. For example, there are many Muslims who would never raise a hand against us “infidels.” Their religion, which is expressed in the Qur’an (and to a somewhat less authoritative degree the Sunnah and the ahadith), commands them to convert, subjugate, or kill the lot of us, and impose their Khalifah on the entire human race, by any means necessary, including fraud, subversion, and all degrees of violence.
So you see, a religion can be wholesome while some of its followers are not…and the reverse can also be true. Of course, militant atheists will attempt to efface that distinction, but militants of any sort will always have an agenda of victory in preference to, and at the expense of, truth.
I wonder how many of those adjectives the Pragmatist used, apply to the Christian and/or Jewish Bible?
Neither modern-day Christians nor Jews, follow their Bibles quite as closely as the modern day Muslims follow the Koran.
As Mr. Simon was discussing in this very letter, the Christians and Jews had a couple hundred years of almost constant warfare and hardship in order to finally come to peace, and a couple hundred years since that to realize that science shows that a lot of what the Bible says is wrong. We’ve learned, the hard way, largely through trial and error, what things in the Bible work and what doesn’t work in a modern society.
The Muslims, maybe due to a more strict religion, a more strict adherence to that religion, maybe due to a long history of being colonized, over and over again, and when they were finally free to lead themselves, they were subjected to one really nasty dictator after another. Dictators and strong men who often used, and continue to use, the Koran to justify their power and murderous ways. The rulers made themselves rich while the people starved and died, accomplishing nothing!
These people don’t know what freedom is. These people are still stuck in 15th century. Yes, they drive cars and build modern houses, they have electricity and indoor plumbing, but they still see God/Allah and their leaders the same way Europeans saw God and their kings back during the Dark Ages. They still believe women are lesser beings, they think anyone outside their religion is a barbarian and that the ultimate sacrifice is to be a missionary for their God.
The Muslims see us just like those Christian missionaries of three hundred years ago, who went to Africa and South America and the American west, to spread the word of God saw the “savages” who were there. No, our missionaries didn’t kill, but the soldiers who followed close behind them did.
There is a proverb that “history repeats itself” and it is repeating itself here and now. The similarities between the spread of Christianity 200-400 years ago and the spread of Islam today is an amazing thing to see.
The only problem, as Mr. Simon pointed out, is that when Christianity was fighting for its place in Europe, the most dangerous weapon in the world was a sword or a musket that could kill only one person at a time. Today, we have bombs that can level entire cities and make patches of Earth uninhabitable for decades to come.
The existence of nuclear weapons, and the desire of certain mad men to obtain such a weapon, is why the Muslim “Enlightenment,” which is what we are seeing the beginning of here, don’t fool yourselves into thinking otherwise, must come about quickly. They have got to be dragged, kicking and screaming, if necessary, into the modern age.
If they fail to reach this “enlightenment,” then there is only one possible outcome. The nearly complete destruction or subjugation of Islam to the rest of the world or the rest of the world being subjugated to Islam.
Allowing for the usual disclaimers about large populations and variations therein, this is a valid statement. However, with regard to Christianity, the tenets of our faith, which are set forth in the New Testament, contain no — zero — exhortations to violence. Widely known and irrationally respected blowhard Sam Harris, one of the most virulent enemies Christianity has, has strained to find a scriptural command that Christians wield violence in the name of God, and has failed to find one. He had to “make do” with a clearly allegorical verse from the Gospel according to John.
So even if Christians were absolutely faithful to our scriptures, the world would be safe from us. Indeed, it would be safer if we were.
Huh? What was that? AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!
“NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!!!”
- Monty Python
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSe38dzJYkY
And let’s not forget “the CRUSADES”… centuries of mass murder by organized Christianity. Oh, you say they didn’t really understand the Gospel? Isn’t it just a little bit more likely that generations of Popes, priests, and pastors (both Catholic and Protestant) understood Christianity a little better than you?
Wes,
The Crusades were an abomination, and totally un-Christian. In fact, the Western Crusaders killed more Christians than Muslims. The sack of Constantinople, and the seizure of the Christian city of Edessa are but two examples of Western Catholic Christian violence against Eastern Orthodox, Monophysite, and Armenian Christians. The Crusades were a land grab wrapped in a religious fig leaf.
Anyone who reads the actual Bible will realize that Christs teachings were intensely non-violent. it is not His fault his teachings were perverted.
You are completely and utterly WRONG Aaron. The Crusades were a very belated European response to 400 YEARS of Mohammedan war and aggression. Charles Martel only stopped the Islamic hordes at the Gates of Vienna and of course Mohammedans OCCUPIED Spain or Andalusa as they STILL call it for 400 years and The Holy Land was OCCUPIED, and still largely is, by Mohammedan ARAB Invaders in the 7th Century. So please get your facts straight and learn some HISTORY.
We also should not forget the Turkish invasions of anatolia beginning in the 11th century which eventually subducated Greece and the Balkins. It is estimated that over a million europian slaves where abducted from Croatia and Serbia during this time.
It was the disruption of the pligrim routes through Anatolia to the holy land that was one of the triggers for the Crusades.
It is also recorded that after the Arabs conquered Egypt they killed most of the christain clergy and exported about 1.5 million children to the slave markets in Damascus. Great stuff. I don’t remember this type of brutality from any of my studies in Europian history
Wes, your issue is in the wording.
The Koran states that Muslims are to convert or kill everyone. That’s probably not an exact quote but it’s pretty close. Their holy book states they have a responsibility to Allah to commit violence.
The Spanish Inquisition and the Holy Crusades were both, supposedly, committed in the name Jesus Christ but find where the New Testament states these things should be done. It is this that Francis W. Porretto is talking about.
Just because someone says they are doing something in the name of God, it doesn’t mean it’s actually written into their holy scriptures or whatever. Delusional people often believe they hear God telling them to do all kinds of horrible things, to themselves and to others. The Bible doesn’t say to do it. They may interpret it that way but it doesn’t mean that’s what the Bible says or what it means.
Unlike with Koran which states a Muslim believer has an Allah-given duty to commit violence against all non believers.
The Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition were done in God’s name but not on his orders.
Another person brings up the Crusades. Yet the fact that they were a reaction to the “spread” of Islam into north Africa and Spain by over 100 years of bloody jihad following the example of Islam’s ACTUAL FOUNDER is NEVER mentioned.
In Frace I occasionaly listen to a radio program called “Cultures d’Islam”.
The presenter has no truck with Islamo-fascists or their apologists.
A couple of years ago he interviewed an Arab Moslem historian, who had this to say:-
“When I compare my religion to Christianity, whereas It took almost a thousand years for a pacifist sect cowering in the catacombs of Rome to come up with the idea of the “milites Christi”(soldier of Christ), within one hundred years of the death of Mohammed, moslem armies were laying siege to Toulouse in France.
Secondly, as a moslem, I can understand the indignation of Christendom at the sight of its holy places in infidel hands. I know how I would feel if Mecca and Medina were occupied by Christian armies.”
Oh stop. Both the inquisition and the crusades were the direct result of defending against and expelling islam.
So you have islam to thank – again – for that little foray into our historical past.
Wes, the Crusades were a RESPONSE to an ISLAMIST INVASION!
How come you islamphiles continue to forget this? The Islamists invaded, slaughtered, and the Christians responded by trying to Liberate the Levant from the Islamists. I don’t care how christian or unchristian it may have been. The response was proper and resonable.
You obviously haven’t read the religious texts in question. Yes there is a great deal of violence in the Old Testament. In some specific cases, violence was done on God’s orders. However, those orders are always for very specific circumstances.
What you won’t find anywhere in the Bible is open-ended commands to commit violence in God’s name or to spread his word by force. Nowhere.
The Koran and Hadith on the other hand, repeatedly exhort Muslims to commit violence.
Here are a few: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm
The Muslim reformation you are hoping for can’t happen. The Christian Reformation was based on the Bible. It’s simply impossible to read the New Testament and think violence is the answer. It’s impossible to read the Koran and think it isn’t.
Great comment Old Soldier. Facts are inconvenient things. Obviously, Mr. Simon would be well advised to consult with Robert Spencer before he attempts to engage a Muslim on the topic of Islam.
You might want to examine who Soldier was responding to, it was not Mr. Simon.
Obviously he was responding to Jefferson. My point was that Old Soldier’s response, by referencing Spencer’s invaluable site, puts meat on Roger’s rather bare bones.
Terry; I suspect that Mr. Simon achieved his desired result. He and Mr. Mansur seem to communicate often. Preaching seldom teaches while lecturing is often a bore, but, a dialog perks the interest causing others to dig out information. Information so gained is precious. We may be witnessing team teaching.
Moreover, the Crusades are often held up as examples of “Christian Aggression” to somehow excuse terrorism.
In point of fact, the Crusades were a delayed response to Muslim aggression, an attempt to recover what had been Christian lands conquered by Islam. The Reconquista anyone?
There were horrible things done in the name of Christianity true, but unlike Islam, those things were violations of the scriptures, not commanded by them.
Patrick
Not only that, but they were also a reaction to the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and general lawlessness caused by Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah’s despotic reign and its aftermath. Frankly, anyone who b***hes about the Crusades needs to sit down and read some history.
Actually, I b**ch about the Crusades all the time. Then again I am Greek and you Western Christians dealt the death blow to the greatest Christian empire of all time — Byzantium.
It’s also worth noting that the Crusades were all fought on land conquered by the Muslims from the Christians. If you condemn the Crusades, you must condemn the jihad which preceded and provoked them.
Excellent comment, Old Soldier, you hit the nail on the head.
With respect, the Hebrew Bible contains one, and only one, call for continued future violence – the commandment to destroy Amalek. Amalek has usually been interpreted as those who attack and try to destroy the Jewish people, and thus the Jewish people are commanded to defend themselves. Haman is considered a descendent of Amalek, as is Hitler
“fail to reach this enlightenment”
Not being as intellectual as my fellow responders I will write as the common man. If the Islamic takeover of a large part of Europe in the past is not taught in History, most people in this country do not know the danger. Europe is under attack by Muslims. European society is slowly being dismantled by it’s liberal immigration policies. Islam began as a bloody religion and has continued to be bloody down through history. In many parts of the Islamic world the only education Muslims have is learning the Koran. If you are educated only from the Koran, “enlightenment”or “reformation”
does not seem possible.
Roger Simon great article and #19 Chuck makes most excellent observations.
The Bible is a largely HISTORICAL book written by MEN and is largely DESCRIPTIVE. The Koran on the other hand claims ITSELF to be the ACTUAL and UNALTERABLE words of God as given to Mohammad by Jibril (Angel Gabriel) Mohammad being ILLITERATE (its in the Sahih aHadith) repeated this to various Scribes who wrote it down (what a lot of HEARSAY)and it was only collated years after his death and assembled not in chronological order but by length of the Sura.It contains so much self contradiction ( how can God make so many MISTAKES men can but GOD????)that Muslims had to INVENT Abrogation which says the later verses abrogate earlier ones. All well and good but unfortunately it the earlier verses are the ones which were sort of peaceful and which the Mohammedans love to quote. So what you are left with is the VIOLENCE, ANTISEMITISM, MISOGYNY,ARAB SUPREMACISM and turgid repetitiveness which apparently is what ALLAH wants.
Neither modern-day Christians nor Jews, follow their Bibles quite as closely as the modern day Muslims follow the Koran.
The problem never was Christians who followed their Bibles closely. The problem was, and is, Christians who don’t.
The New Testament — if followed closely — not merely does not call for coercion or oppression of dissenters and doubters, but specifically prohibits it.
Jefferson
“The nearly complete destruction or subjugation of Islam to the rest of the world or the rest of the world being subjugated to Islam”. To see the truth in this statement go to the web site “Gates of Vienna” and Geert Wilders.
The choice for Westerners is advancing civilization or a slow descent into ignorance. Muslim immigration must end if we are to choose civilization. Islam is not just a religion. It is a totalitarian, imperialist, supremacist, fundamentally intolerant and backwards ideology. Islam does not recognize that freedom of religion also means freedom to consciously choose not to believe. There is no separation of church and state in Islam and therefore no freedom.
Most of the strife in the world today lies at the feet of this indefensible, fanatical ideology.
This Catholic says that the fact that Muslims – even after the Holocaust – won’t allow Jews to enjoy a tiny strip of land in the desert is Exhibit A in the failure of this so-called religion. This is a religion which creates passion without love. Islam has abjectly failed to create rational and reasonable people let alone pious and loving people.
Islam’s invocation of Allah to justify their hatred is telling. Allah is not a loving god and is not worthy of belief and adoration. And the prevailing notion that religious beliefs are beyond criticism is moronic. It is an essential weapon in Muslim ambitions to install a world wide caliphate Religious beliefs should be subject to the same scrutiny as any other beliefs.
“The choice for Westerners is advancing civilization or a slow descent into ignorance.”
Does this mean that the nuking the whole Middle East into barren sterility option is totally off the table? It always astounds me that Arabs and Muslims keep assuring us that we *have* to put up with their spirited (and spiritual) hijinks, and never ever consider that there really is a feasible alternative that worked quite nicely with the Japanese, thank you very much. Not even on 9/12 do I recall a single Muslim in the whole entire Universe whimpering so much as a “please, no nukes, Mr & Mrs America” — they were just concerned with dirty looks at the gas station.
So your response is… what? That we dont have the time for “Islam” to reform itself, and since we dont have that time we must do… what? Declare total war? Pogroms? Invade the whole of S.E. Asia? Just deport all US muslims and close the borders for ever? Whats the consequence of your ramblings, man?
Quarantine, wholesale and absolute. The alternatives are too terrible to contemplate.
Quarantine? So you will put 7 million of your fellow americans in camps? Ethnic cleaning of Europe? Thats a … interesting solution. I seem to remember somebody who liked that solution back in the 30s and early 40s.
Wow.
I would support a ban on Muslim Immigration and deportation of any trouble makers.
Either Islam fizzles out (which it shows no sign of doing), or eventually it will be a very nasty us or them war. It’s weird how Europeans knew this a thousand years ago but can’t accept it now. Wishful thinking?
Old Soldier: Us europeans live in the multicultural reality, and we frankly dont have that much of a problem with it. My city, Oslo, has about 8% muslim population and while there of course are some problems the huge majority of them are lawabiding hardworking citizens. The fear you all seem to be feeling and feeding is not based on any real problems. What problems there are , are mostly based on socioeconomic factors, not religious.
Good luck in the Caliphate.
to Fnord “mostly based on socioeconomic factors, not religious”. What part of Sharia LAW don’t you understand.
fnord, evidently you did not get the memo. The leaders of the UK, France and Germany have all stated the multiculturalism is a failure. They were speaking directly about our Muslim friends. This realization is coming to a town near you, possibly, Oslo!
On Norwegian news today: The crownprince and his princess participates in the muslim Tea Party Movement: muslims invite norwegians home for tea and conversation. Its a muslim outreach program. Seriously, how many muslims fight alongside US forces in Af/Pak and Iraq? I served my time and have many friends who serve in Afghanistan.
Old soldier, you cant name them all enemy. Its just not doable. (Unles youre a apocalyptic, of course.) We have no ability to go to ethnic war.
Kumbaya my Lord, Kumbaya…
Old Soldier reading the moonbat Fnord responses isn’t it easy to see why Europe is in the state its in, Its attitudes like his and his refusal to face reality which allows Mohammedans to win the propaganda battle as he obviously swallows all the Taqqiya hook line and sinker.
Calling muslim-Americans (I refuse to ‘cap’ for a piss-ant religion) ‘fellow Americans’ is a stretch by any marker. When they can rise and place their hand over their heart during the Pledge – or during the presenting of colors of this country I might begin to see them as ‘fellow Americans’ – but not just yet – not when there are too many of them that hold us in contempt – looking at us as they mentally thumb their scimitars for an edge as they eye our collective necks.
There are too few muslim-Americans who cherish this country for what it is – instead they see it as new territory for conversion for their god alla.
If they wish to live in a sharia compliant country they have many choices – and options are opening up every day in Europe and elsewhere – just not here – not yet anyway. And never if I have anything to say about it.
I think there are too few fellow Americans who agree with me – but those numbers are changing and the tide may yet turn against the political tyranny called islam and disguised as religion.
“Calling muslim-Americans (I refuse to ‘cap’ for a piss-ant religion) ‘fellow Americans’ is a stretch by any marker. ”
Wow. replace “muslim-American” with “jewish- American” and you perfectly mirror the 30s. So you deny the courage of all muslims who fight in the US armed forces? Seriously, fk you sir. With alld ue respect.
I agree with you K.T. but I think there are actually very few if any muslim-Americans; there are, however a good many Muslims who have no intention of becoming Americans living in America.
Not “seven million” muslims in the US, dearie. TWO million, tops.
Thank you for playing. And for tipping your hand!
You went from camps to death camps to Hitler without even blinking an eye. More and more it is becoming obvious that islam and the west are like oil and water – they can not mix. I’m not at all opposed to relocating them to a place where they will do no harm.
I believe that Antarctica would be a nice place for them, they could convert all the penguins. wait they would need to eat something! Oh well wonder how long they would last it dropped off there?
As an alternative to the destruction of our civilisation it is the preferred option for me.
Roger,
There was a time that I held your writing in high regard, some of it brilliant. And I still do as long as the subject stays secular.
But I have noticed that you always seem to relish the fact of not only announcing you’re agnostic, but the tacit hint that Christianity is but one step removed from Islam – a figment of the imagined, with all of us glorified apes by a random change of lucky events. It’s cleverly disguised, but still apparent with you positioned as one of the enlightened few.
So let me make my point in return of a man who calls himself agnostic, and then in the same sentence calls himself Jewish. To call yourself agnostic and a Jew is a lie. I don’t care what your mom was, or what some of your rabbis tell you to provide that warm feeling to be included as part of the “group” and celebrate the religious events. Because Judaism is a faith and a belief in the one true God, a covenant with one man promised an incredible legacy, it’s fulfillment in crossing the Jordan which continues thru thick and thin to this day.
You really should just start calling yourself a humanist, possibly related by blood to many Jews, and leave it at that. Because anybody calling themselves Jewish, then denying the basic tenets taught by Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and Moses and the Exodus, Joshua, King David, Solomon, and the prophets, is a contradiction in terms.
That may not be the comfortable position to hold on this board, or the popular whim of our day, but it is the truth. And just as the lie of Islam being a religion of peace must be challenged, so must the claim “I’m agnostic and Jewish.” That plays well in secular circles, but I can assure will be condemned by the only One that matters.
“a figment of the imagined” as are all religions.
Surely you do not have the gall to tell Roger what to call himself. And yes I know -don’t call you Shirley.
Tex Taylor – Keep in mind that Judaism is a religion of deed while Christianity is a religion of creed. In Judaism you are “judged” by what you do, not what you think. If Roger were to observe the commandments, his beliefs would count for nought. As God said to Israel (in the Aggadatha): “Othi ta’azovu, aval Torathi tishmoru,” meaning, you (Israel) may abandom Me, but [always] observe my Torah.
Just a note: Andy McCarthy has well thought out piece today in National Review on the impossibility of bringing democracy to Muslim countries, given the current state of Islam. I recommend going there and reading it.
I read McCarthy’s article and it was indeed well thought out. I agreed with everything – especially the last paragraph.
“We should be having as little to do with Islamic countries as practicality allows, not getting ourselves ever more entangled — at least absent compelling national-security reasons. Such reasons are not evident in Libya.”
Elsewhere in these comments, someone brought who would have the courage to bring up the idea of muslim immigration being banned. I have been in favor of that for some time but you’ll never see it by a politician short of a dirty nuclear device being detonated in the U.S. and maybe not even then. Half the country doesn’t even want the probe on radical muslims in the U.S. going forward in Washington. Asking questions is light years from a ban.
I am currently reading Andy McCarthy’s book, “The Grand Jihad.” I strongly recommend it. It is not Islamist terrorism that we need to fear. It is the Muslim’s goal of spreading Sharia law world-wide that should have us shaking in our boots. And they are making incredible headway in achieving that goal. Did you know that there are currently 85 Sharia courts in England? How can a country survive with parallel legal systems, each antithetical to the other?
Leftists like to blame America for the Muslim problem. It’s our foreign policy they say, our war-mongering ways. It’s because of poverty, high unemployment of young Muslims in Muslim countries, blah, blah, blah, and on they go with their apologist rantings. Why, then, in 1928, when he founded the Muslim Brotherhood, did Hassan al-Banna lay out, in writing, a multi-step plan to spread Sharia through “dawa,” the stealth jihad of infiltrating governments, media, education, and other cultural institutions in non-Muslim western countries? What had America done to precipitate this? Nothing. The Muslims have been plotting for almost a century now to spread Sharia everywhere on the planet, and it has nothing to do with America. They want to destroy Western Civilization. Period.
“Islamist terrorism that we need to fear. It is the Muslim’s goal of spreading Sharia law world-wide”. Look to EU for what happens to countries over run by Middle Eastern immigrants. Politicians make concessions, are politically correct and change laws to suit the Sharia way of thinking.
In the past immigrants seeking citizenship learned the language and laws in host countries. Not any more, they bring their country with them and demand to be accomidated. Look at the politicians who sacrificed their own people and cultures for money and careers. USA is next.
It would be hard to deny the good works of Christianity for anybody honest. I could match our deeds today with any group and be confident in its favor. Using your standard of deed, Christianity is also a religion of good works. And we do most of it in God’s name because He commanded us to. Faith without works is dead.
As Christians, grace may cover our sins and is required for salvation, but it no more excuses sin than it does for Jews. The Law is the Law and we are judged accordingly. To say otherwise perverts the need for grace. I think it worth remembering Isaiah told us our self-righteous acts are as filthy rags, making it abundantly clear we can not depend on our own righteousness for salvation.
I like Roger Simon. I wish I was as talented as Roger Simon, and I am grateful we are on the same cultural side. So my original post is not to condemn Roger as that is not my place, but to simply point out calling oneself agnostic is wholly inconsistent with calling themselves a Jew. Roger does not observe the Torah, starting with the most obvious denial of the very First Commandment given to Moses.
When your Levitical priests of antiquity walked into the temple, they were not there to establish or record good deeds, but for an atonement of sin with that acknowledgment to the Living God.
TexTaylor, there is a wonderful irony in what you wrote. You said that Roger should not call himself a Jew because Jewishness is a religion and Roger does not accept the beliefs of that religion. Yet that very religion says that Roger is a Jew, whether Roger believes in the religion or not.
You are trying to engraft Christian standards onto the Jewish religion. That’s not a productive exercise. In fact, it is destructive, and has caused the Jewish people untold misery over the last two millennia. Friends don’t try to rewrite their friends’ religions.
The current flavor of the day would say Roger is a Jew – it makes all of us comfortable. Your patriarchs would reject that supposition.
My standards are strictly derived from your Torah. And destruction and misery as in the liberation of Auschwitz by mostly Christians, my relatives included? Your memory is very selective, and your insinuation lumps me in with your real enemies when no malicious intent is intended by my statements. In fact, I have been a good friend to Israel – one of their few true friends, and will continue to be no matter what transpires here.
Real friends tell the truth, even if it makes one uncomfortable or angry. It’s nonsensical to call yourself a Jew, but completely reject the very tenets of which Judaism is founded. Many here treat Judaism as a fraternity, when it actually something much deeper and more meaningful.
To my friend Tex,
Observing the Mitzvot ( Commandments ) of Judaism is a difficult thing. When someone is born into an observant family it is easier because they are trained from childhood. When someone comes from a secular family it is very very hard. Many think that living as a Jew is an all or nothing choice. It is and it isn’t.
When someone wants to get in shape through exercise they can’t just drop and do 100 push ups. They must begin where they can. Even if its only 1. If we demand someone do 100 when they can only do 1 the end result is that they do none. They become discouraged because the task seems insurmountable.
Building spiritual ” muscles ” is no different. It gets easier with time as long as once continues to work at it. Every good deed makes the next easier. Doing good deeds produces a better human being regardless of that persons religion.
In Rogers case ( forgive me Roger for getting personal ) the work that he does, his attempts to make the world better by bringing honest news coverage and exposing the venal and corrupt in society, is a profoundly Jewish endeavor.
I can think of few things that would be nicer than to have both you and Roger as guests at my upcoming Passover Seder. Maybe one day- who knows?
Be well my friend.
May the Lord hold you gently in the palm of His hand.
Menachem
Thank you Menachem,
I would be honored to be your guest some day, as I would be honored to meet Roger. Many here immediately assume I am attacking the messenger, and you know me well enough by now to know nothing could be further from the truth.
I don’t disagree with a thing you said. But I would add, it is not only difficult thing to follow the Commandments completely. It is an impossible thing, even for the most diligent of us. If we were to be judged strictly by the law, all of us fail.
Can one be moral without faith? Sure, if you are to judge by man’s standards, many agnostics and atheists I’ve met, and I’m ashamed to admit this, are a whole lot better people than many people of faith I’ve worshiped with. I don’t question why they doubt, because they mistakenly measure not by an infallible God, but by fallible man. Could they come to any other conclusion using that methodology?
I believe some of the people here immediately mistook my comments as an attack on the Jewish faith, as it is almost a reflex and predictable in these circles. I said as much in the original comment. But the reality Menachem is that it is me defending the holiness, the beauty and righteousness of the Jewish faith. And unless someone here has been fortunate enough to have divine intervention, and I have not, then it is correct to call Judaism a faith. I don’t believe in the sovereignty of man and neither did the Jewish patriarchs. Abraham walked faithfully with God.
Always a pleasure.
Judaism does have required beliefs in addition to required actions. But, even a Jewish sinner remains a Jew, and there is always the hope and possibility of repentance and return.
“As you know they attempt to discredit him [Rep. King] as an Islamophobe.”
Islamophobia: A term coined to mean “anyone not cowed by islamic-threats”
So yes, he is one, as am I and an increasing number of people.
They are now also using “ignorance of Islam” to mean “knows too much about islam to continue to fall for our lies” and “anti-fascist” to mean “pro-oppressive dictatorships”.
Are the MSM really that stupid?
With all due respect, let me put forth my owns views on some of your topics against which you may wish to do further research. The Muslim Brotherhood openly declared in the days before Jan.25 that they would NOT be participating in the protests and right now are siding with the army that the protesters should stop with their demands. I think the MB is seeing the same thing about a potential democracy in Egypt as they saw before the protests – failure; if so, this second failure of vision by the MB probably doesn’t see their own relegation to the backwoods once again. The army is being cagey and there is no guarantee that the uprising has achieved anything in real terms. The old regime is lying quiet but becoming bolder as they have learned a thing or two since Feb.11. A cultural war has begun in Egypt with educated progressives against conservative muslims against fundamentalist muslims and with the army having by no means shown their true hand.
Qaradawi did not muster 2 million people in Tahrir Square; I would be surprised if it numbered 200,000 and it is an absolute fact there were other days with more people, at least 2 – I know, I was there for all 3 – it was a large but average crowd. Also, the day Qaradawi spoke, in my opinion, did not draw any significant numbers of people who would not have been there in the first place – in this sense, Qaradawi’s presence was a non-event – in a different sense, it revealed an underlying conservatism that will not go away when it comes to Copts, women and Israel. The Egyptians need no leader to dislike Israel or relegate women and Copts to the background.
As far as Sandmonkey and Israel, I have mentioned several times that even the most educated and reasonable Egyptians eyes glaze over when the subject of Israel comes up. They in fact have no way to get at Israel and if they lose the Sinai once again they may never get it back since the world will say they asked for it after disdaining the stamp of peace since Camp David – they are risking the Suez as well; close the Straights of Tiran and you will have war once again as Israel will simply not allow it. No surprise dams are being built to the south of Egypt which may be a checkmate to Tiran as I do not know who is behind these dams.
Islam has a double standard towards the West that is delusional. In more philosophical terms they consider Islam to be occupying moral high ground the West cannot compete with – in real terms they hold the West and not themselves to this moral standard when it comes to such things as the no-fly for Libya since the calls for the West to do something outnumber the calls for Islam to unilaterally do something 10 to 1. We got burned with 9/11 for this and I say not one dollar or plane should be sent to Libya. Libya has a primitive air force that middle eastern countries would easily deal with.
I don’t think the middle east has figured out that, even with Egypt and Iran having nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, at best they would only have a stalemate that could result in a mini-cold war scenario where weapons that can never be used could be and might result in Tel Aviv, Damascus, Tehran, Cairo and Mecca disappearing forever while affecting the balance of power not one whit. In the case of the middle east however and with modern subversive technologies like Stuxnet, could Islamic countries ever be sure the coordinates for Tel Aviv wouldn’t in fact be their own capitals?
The middle eastern obsession with Israel is not about the Palestinian Arabs but about repeated failure to exert itself against a rather small populace that outwits Islam at every turn. In an area of the world where failure is not a cultural option against outside forces but something the middle east has to bite off every day, humiliation and jealousy have reduced them to acting like madmen and throwing rocks at tanks and blowing up civilians since to put on their own national uniform is suicide.
Overweening arrogance is the most apt term in an area of the world where all the muslim countries combined are reputed to be out-exported by Finland. In that area of the world, the idea of having a Jewish gay pride parade goes even beyond a wild science fiction novel and yet it is common in the West although the events in Spain this past summer show Spain to once again have been sent running my muslim threats.
Until the day comes when Islam sees it has hobbled its own legs rather than the West having done so, the idea of peaceful co-existence is unlikely. If I become convinced people from the future are following me around and doing my dishes, what chance do I have of a normal life for myself or anyone around me?
James May – Excellent!!
“…with modern subversive technologies like Stuxnet, could Islamic countries ever be sure the coordinates for Tel Aviv wouldn’t in fact be their own capitals?”
What a happy thought!
I’m sure when the time comes this too will be ‘integrated’ into their weapons systems. And who knows – maybe their tanks missiles and other high tech war making machinery have already programmed. A tank can’t shoot itself – but can shoot one of it’s own.
And likely as not the first country to nuke itself will win the Darwin Award for the 21st century.
Posthumously of course.
Conservative Muslims vs fundamentalist Muslims? Is there a difference? The purpose of conservatism is to conserve. In Islam’s case the fundamentals of the faith.
Moreover, the Qawadawi rally was a non-event for those who deny the Islamist tendencies of roughly 2/3rds of the Egyptian people (Zogby). A rally for Qaradawi in the largely secular city of Cairo is ominous and nothing to sneeze at.
WHat it all boils down to is that it’s a matter of faith. There is no empirical evidence that supports any religion. If there was, that religion would supplant all other religions.
Instead, what occurs is that various individuals interpret “God’s word” for their own purposes. Sometimes it’s just for personal feel-good, sometimes it’s for power and sometimes it’s to justify killing non-believers.
I care not a whit for what diety others pray to. That’s their own, personal business. When they want to decapitate me (for whatever reason!), then it becomes MY business.
ROGER you have been played.
I could see all kinds of evidence of the muslim brotherhood on the news events during the egypt uprising. if not an islamist himself the monkey is an apologist for them or at best a useless idiot.
the sandmonkey used you.
Having read Sandmonkey’s tweet I believe Mr. Simon has not been played and is overreacting and you are congratulating yourself on an insight you never had access to during the uprising and also overreacting.
Israel is not going to really care about the peace treaty being revisited since it will change nothing in real terms with one exception and that is the Straits of Tiran. Egypt better think twice about attempting to go back on the internationalization of the Straits of Tiran.
That in itself will put the Israeli military on alert and any attempt to close that strait to Israeli shipping will result in the same thing as 1967, a military strike against Egypt.
Excellent points, as always. The clash of civilizations intensifies. Will anyone have the courage to declare Muslim immigration off limits? It’s about time.
Roger, with all due respect, allow me a rhetorical question: why, when folks at PJM want to bring up examples of European anti-Americanism and anti-Zionism, all what they can come up with are examples from London? (Actually, there are exceptions, eg from John Rosenthal, Soeren Kern, and Bruce Bawer.)
That leads me to my main point. It is almost always a mistake to try to infer the motivations of your opponents, but this is no ordinary mistake:
“Although you will never see it on the pages of the Guardian or the Independent, the cause of that drumbeat, that need to hold Israel to a higher standard than any other nation, could also not be more obvious. It is titanic (and justifiable) guilt over the Holocaust.”
Roger, if we in Europe (outside Germany) felt the need to assuage our guilt (which I never felt), we would blame the Germans, not the Jews. Even in Germany, I do not think it justifiable for people who were under 18 in 1944 to feel much guilt, if any. If I were German, I would wonder what about German culture made the Holocaust possible, but that is not the same as feeling guilt.
Besides, didn’t you notice a strange pattern? Germans are possibly the least likely people in Europe to criticize Israel. In fact, there seems to be more anti-Zionism coming from British Jews than from all the Germans put together. Now, if you wanted, you could rationalize this by imputing survivor guilt to European Jews, but that just goes to show how pointless it is to impute motives to your opponents.
“Germans are possibly the least likely people in Europe to criticize Israel.” Yes, Germany constantly references its “special responsibility” toward Israel. So please explain the following:
Netanyahu recently talked with Angela Merkel and expressed Israel’s disappointment over Germany’s vote in the UN to condemn Israel. (Only the US voted against.) In response, Merkel said: “How dare you? You are the one who has disappointed us. You haven’t made a single step to advance peace.” Sounds pretty critical to me, not to mention rather arrogant on Merkel’s part.
all what they can come up with are examples from London?
Well for one I suppose the ongoing anti-Jewish actions of the Foreign Office could be put down their complicit behaviour in the destruction of European Jewry by bolting the door to escape to Palestine in the late 1930s.
All the Nazis then had to do was round them up.
And of course the conniving of the allied forces to get the Mufti of Jerusalem back to Egypt after the War when he should have stood trial at Nuremberg also makes one wonder.
You cannot overloook that element of the German intelligencia that prides itself on having learned THE lessons from the Holocaust. Said lessons then provide the perfect foundation for criticizing warmongers such as the US and the Israeli conservatives. Perhaps it is guilt that underlies such thinking, but I detect a bit of a superiority complex in the mix.
“You cannot overloook that element of the German intelligencia that prides itself on having learned THE lessons from the Holocaust.”
Good point. First, if you read carefully my comment, nowhere did I say that nobody in Germany criticizes Israel.
Second, the German “left-wing” intelligentsia is certainly not alone in thinking that THE lesson of the Holocaust is that the “right” is racist, where “right” = capitalism (if that is what you meant). In fact, the most influential work that advanced this fraud is probably Social Darwinism in American Thought … which was written by an American Jew. I could speculate about the reasons why an American Jew would want to whitewash a century of European socialist antisemitism, but this is just the kind of speculation about motives for which I criticized Roger Simon.
“Said lessons then provide the perfect foundation for criticizing warmongers such as the US and the Israeli conservatives.”
I certainly agree that both the Germans (for obvious reasons) and the rest of Western Europe (because of their appeasement in the 1930s) should take a hard look in the mirror before criticizing the US and Israel.
“Perhaps it is guilt that underlies such thinking, but I detect a bit of a superiority complex in the mix.”
People who think they have learned THE lesson of the Holocaust have no reason to feel guilty; so I suppose you agree with me that it is wrong to say that Londoners are anti-Zionists because “Europeans” feel guilty about what Nazis (and collaborators) did.
I think that the focus of change has to be economic and political. These two are the basic infrastructures of a society. Not the ideology; the ideology is the expression of the first two, not the cause.
It is impossible to start ‘from the top down’, from the ideas, and assume that this will cause an infrastructural change ..a change in how people interact with others.
Islam is, as we all know, not so much a religion as it is an ‘expression’ of a particular economic and political mode of life. Primitive tribalism. This economic and political mode is ‘two-class’; that is, there are the small set of authoritative Rulers..and the Ruled. There is no middle class, understood as an independent free-to-act and think set of the population.
The Middle East nations ought to have moved out of the tribal two-class infrastructure generations ago. They didn’t. Because the west’s finding of oil on their lands brought in revenue such that the Ruler Class could redistribute the wealth to the Ruled..and keep the status quo. This economic mode has reached a critical threshold because the ME populations have exponentially increased beyond the carrying capacity of such a redistributive economy.
They need capitalism, understood as small to medium PRIVATE businesses engaged in the production of goods and services for the private internal and external markets. This is the domain of the middle class. And this type of economy requires constitutional democracy..i.e., a governing system that puts political power in the hands of the most productive class: the middle class.
This transformation, and it is a tectonic shift, cannot happen overnight. But it will happen and is happening. There is no choice. You cannot support that size population within a one-resource statist redistributive economy. You must have a private wealth-producing economy.
The LAST thing that changes, always, is the rhetoric. The ideology. It changes when the ‘level where words are spoken’ becomes incompatible with the ‘level of actions’. If the actions in the society, the actions of ‘how we make a living’ require individual entrepreneurship, risk-taking, freedom to innovate, collaboration with Others etc..then, the ‘words’ or ideology will have to change to consciously allow and approve and empower such actions.
So, to think that one must first change the ‘words’ and ‘ideas’ and that the actions follow – is incorrect. It’s the unspoken and even unanalyzed actions that must first come into existence. Then..the ideology changes to acknowledge these new actions.
It will happen. It is not simple; societies and people are not machines where you can flick a switch into ‘New Mode’. The words and rhetoric are still being expressed from the old infrastructure. The new infrastructure isn’t strong enough to be heard in words and ideas. But it has to, and will, come. The population size and the influence of the electronic information has moved the way of life beyond the capacity for the old infrastructure.
…no it doesn’t have to. you keep thinking that people and societies will do the “right thing”.
generally speaking there is little evidence in the present or past of this and lots to the contrary.
people in leadership are generally not nice to others and that they usually only think of themselves.
the freedom in the west is the anomaly not the norm. and the freedom in the west is failing. you should worry more about the totalitarian direction being taken by obama and most of the democrats and a bunch of the republicans.
egypt libya tunsia will all be hard islamist until and they throw islam out they will be living in the past. they are growing in number an influence. it may be a long time before it is stopped let alone reversed.
people do not gravitate to freedom of the individual in most societies (whether they want it or not). you only know about the concept because you were born in it ..the rest of the world including europe there is not the freedom of the individual.
No, I disagree. The error I suggest that you are making is to assume that freedom or democracy are ‘right’ – when you say that they might do ‘the right thing’. This movement into democracy and capitalism is not a moral, ethical issue. It’s an economic issue. Period.
The situation is: you have X-number of people. How are they to be maintained and continued into the future? The answer is – what type of economy do you have. If your economy is not wealth-producing and is a ‘no-growth’ economy than, you cannot support the population explosion that has occurred in the ME…using a statist redistributive economy. That’s the facts. That’s the problem.
An Islamic ideology operates only within a no-growth, medium size population. It cannot enable a growth, capitalist economy – because that type of economy rests on individual freedom. That means that the radical Islamism cannot move into those ME areas – and support the population. Nothing to do with the ideological desires of anyone; it’s all about the economy.
it is islamist will take over …I will bet you a case of beer or coffee.
not that your points aren’t valid. I very much agree that the middle east cannot support their population ..capitalism is the only hope but it will not get the chance. there are just too many players who don’t want it and it is obvious they have sufficient support inside egypt.
redistrubtion of wealth as obama is doing in the USA just makes the problem worse …class warfare …it will get ugly in the USA as it will in egypt. I am actually coming to the opinion that one might have more opportunities in egypt in a very short time.
to many people for the resources …and that problem grows faster then any solution.
regards
OK- so, let’s play it your way. You say ‘the Islamists take over’. Then what?
As I said, Islamism as an ideology prohibits individual freedom and as a political system, sets up a two-class system of Ruler/Ruled. So, the same result – the population cannot be sustained within a nation where Islamism is the authority. Then what? Famine and mass, and I mean mass, starvation?
Or, another revolt – against Islamism?
I agree with you – there might well be more opportunities in Egypt soon than in the US! So – that means that Egypt would be moving into a free market capitalist economy…while Obama, that corrupt thug, is focused on moving the US into a two-class statist economy and destroying the middle class.
Thanks for the beer//coffee offer. I drink neither. Red wine will do, or, I used to bet my students: a ‘bar of chocolate’.
the islamists aren’t going to leave without a fight so I don’t think a revolution will get started against them nearly as easily. …like Iran the religious peoples purged those they thought might give them grief (read THEY KILLED THEM)
there doesn’t need to be a massive die off due to starvation, north korea has proven people can live with very little food.
they will chase out the christians they don’t kill. they will kill anyone who gives them grief (pro democracy types) and they will stay in power for some time. the brotherhood are very brutal so I don’t see another revolution for some time.
look at the KING congressional hearings …who do you think is pushing back against King ? it is the brotherhood. you are even subsidizing them.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/261793/no-intervention-libya-andrew-c-mccarthy
Interesting way of looking at it. I’m trying to remember my history classes – I seem to recall learning how economic and social changes in Northern European countries affected the rise of Protestant Christianity. At the very least, I have the impression that fat, middle-class burghers and Protestantism go hand-in-hand. Sometimes a religion sweeps in and turns society upside down. But sometimes society (and economics) turns religion upside down.
So I’m wondering: Where are the changes occurring within the “Muslim world’s” economies that might be bringing about a reform of Islam? I guess it’s not oil, which as you say gave the old guard the means to hold onto power. I guess the question is, what do these Arab/Islamic countries have that could enable them to build a prosperous middle class?
I think I answered your question. It isn’t the the ME countries ‘have’ anything positive to enable them to develop a middle class capitalist economy. It is that they have no choice – because their population has moved beyond the carrying capacities of a statist redistributive economy.
No, an ideology doesn’t ‘sweep in’ first. What happens first, is an imbalance between population size and economic structure. Does the economy support the population? If there is an imbalance, either one has to change. In Europe – they ‘tried’ (of course unconsciously) to reduce the population by famines, plagues, low nutrition and early death. Didn’t work. They tried wars to access more resources. Didn’t work. Finally – they had to change from a two-class statist no-growth economy into a growth economy that allowed a middle class market economy.
The ideological holders – namely the Rulers, both aristocracy and above all the Church – fought this change. After all it meant their total loss of power. They fought it ideologically – by declaring any individual thought and action a heresy; they fought it financially, they fought it intellectually by forbidding free thought; they fought it politically. Useless. The pressures of population growth could not be constrained by any of these measures.
Same thing in the ME and Islamism. Of course the Rulers don’t want to release power and wealth! Of course they don’t want a whole set of ‘ordinary people’ to move into power as the wealth-producing part of the society! They’ll fight it. But – that population pressure is stronger than any ideology.
Again – this has nothing to do with morality or ethics. Nothing to do with ‘the right thing to do’. It’s essentially a biological fact. Can you support the population? Can you get rid of 1/2 the population and keep it down? Since the answer is – no..well….no choice but to change the organizational infrastructure of the society. The rhetoric, the ideology that justifies this deep infrastructure, follows the tectonic shift.
OK, I think I get what you’re saying. A useful way of thinking about the situation.
Very interesting theory. Is there a timeline attached to this theory?
Aren’t there some similarities between the effects of the printing press and the effects of the internet? The first led to literacy and diminished the reliance on the priestly class to interpret the Bible. The second diminishes the reliance on state-controlled media and imams for information about the world.
Do you think the English feel guilt about the holocaust because they could have done more (accepted refugees) not because they actively participated in the holocaust? Could it be that the open anti-semitism at the university was really just another example of the left having aligned itself with Islamic radicals? You can find that here too.
This is related to Roger’s subject. A false charge by leftist propagandists is refuted. Speaks for itself, assuming the population numbers are anywhere near correct:
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/206731.php
Well, Mr. Simon. Maybe you ought to think Omar Sheikh. I wouldn’t accept any invitations to vist Pakistan with your dear, sweet friend.
And as long as people like Bill O’Reilly are going around in their infinite wisdom saying stuff like “We all know that American Muslims are not the problem,” in this terrible pickle we will remain.
By definition, what we call “moderate” Muslims are apostate by Muslim standards as spelled out in the Koran. Islam and Western (Judeo/Christian) culture are immiscible, like oil and water. And no amount of making believe otherwise will suffice to change this.
Thanks for the belated and sincere self-criticism over Sand Monkey. His real role – his objective role – screamed out to some of us at the time. Yes, as another wrote, you were played. So now it causes distress. Next time, listen to us fascist types, the kind that get banned by some of your bloggers. Less stress all around, and you won’t expect of ‘SandMonkey’ any more than he is.
When ‘the monkey’ was challenged by Pamela Geller (defending her, I believe, got me banned by Radosh), based on HIS tweets, he ran off and told Geller and AtlasShrugs posters to ‘have a nice life.’ And he lied about what he had tweeted.
As for your characterization of all monotheisms as outmoded and basically absurd, it’s alright, Roger. Maybe one day you will see that Judaism has more riches than all the brittle-edged California humanism on the cusp of the Pacific, and that this little country (with all its trials) speaks to us precisely because of that heritage (which is much more than a belief in ‘the world is flat’ or something).
I agree with Sandmonkey as far as the uprising goes; it had absolutely nothing to do with the goals of the Muslim Brotherhood – nothing.
I challenge you to come up with a single shred of proof that would show otherwise and please don’t come back with Qaradawi in Tahrir which took place after Mubarak was out. I’m talking about the actual uprising.
The MB jumped on board when they surprisingly saw the uprising had teeth and joined because they didn’t want to be left behind – there is no way the MB could have pulled off such an uprising unilaterally.
Whether the MB will take advantage by using their own maneuvering and organization now that Mubarak is gone is another story entirely. The MB is now trying to sidle up to the army because the power vacuum they imagined might be there simply is not; the army is in control, not the MB.
As for this talk of sharia in Egypt, it has been the basis of their laws for decades; it’s a matter of getting rid of them and not a fear of them being put in place because they already are.
I recommend to everyone to keep going back to
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com
There you will find the horrifying information and numbers that you need to see the present situation for what it is.
Islam is engaged in a war of conquest in Africa, in Central Asia, in the South East Asia, and the attacks against Europe and America are nothing else than the advanced movements of islam special forces.
There is no possible discussion about islam if we forget that this is the true background of any discussion about islam: a world war that IS going on.
Any muslim who tries to make us forget this context of the discussion cannot be taken seriously.
Don’t just read the numbers at
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com
put the numbers, the attacks, on a map of the world.
Go back to the archives of the last three or four years and keep putting the attacks on a map of the world.
Soon you will see the front lines appear.
Listing all the atrocities of Islam is a task that could not be accomplished in a lifetime, and in itself accomplishes nothing. It is time to take some action.
First we need to define our terms. What is a radical Muslim and what is a moderate Muslim? Are there different creeds, one radical one moderate? Can some one point to a book that outlines the beliefs of “Moderate Islam?”
There is no book of Moderate Islam. There is no alternate creed of “Moderate Islam”. A so called moderate Muslim is more accurately described as a secular Muslim who pays little attention to his “religion.” A radical Muslim is one who follows his religion.
It is then, an inescapable conclusion that “Reformed Islam” is a fictional religion that will never exist in the real world.
That leads to another question: what need is there for ANY Islam? The answer to this question is clear: none. Islam not only threatens the non-Muslim world it hideously oppresses its followers. Eliminating Islam would not only spare infidels from persecution it would liberate Muslims to pursue goals other than world domination.
What we must do is stop trying to accommodate Islam and start opposing it.
Here are some ideas for opposing Islam.
1. Stop ALL Muslim immigration.
2. Enact a law that requires any religion to allow its members to freely leave it, as per the First Amendment, in order to practice in America.
3. Require Mosques to recognize the U.S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land, and for those which advocate sharia law, they should be closed and their property confiscated, and demolished, and their Imams deported.
4. Require all Muslims to take an oath of allegiance to America first and deport all those who refuse.
5. Monitor the content of sermons in all mosques. Close,confiscate and demolish any mosque that preaches death to members of any other religion.
6. Allow employers to refuse to make ANY accommodations for Muslim employees.
7. Allow pastor terry Jones to burn as many Korans as he wants. Allow him to roast a pig over burning Korans if he wants to.
8. Perhaps most important drill, drill ,drill, and build nuclear plants and do whatever it takes be become independent of Arab oil, thereby removing any leverage they might have to oppose these measures.
If these measures sound somewhat severe, consider that are extremely mild compared to the beheadings, rapes, murders, dismemberments, and torture that await us infidels if Islam is not stopped.
And who knows, with these incentives we might actually get a few moderate Muslims.
Yes, I think your measures are extreme. Let’s just take a few of them.
‘pass a law that allows any member to freely leave a religion’. Isn’t that already in existence, under ‘freedom of association’? The fact that Islam, defined as a religion, denies such a freedom would have to go to a Supreme Court, as the freedom of religion, and obviously of religious beliefs, would contradict the ‘freedom of association’.
‘have all mosques recognize the supremacy of the US Constitution’? Only mosques? What about churches and synagogues? What about unions? The US constitution IS supreme – over individuals. It has nothing to say about institutions for these are abstract entities and the individuals in them, all fall under the US Constitution.
‘have all Muslims take an oath of allegiance’? Only Muslims? Why not every one who wants to become a citizen? Don’t they do this already?
‘monitor the sermons’? Only in mosques? What about the sermons in Obama’s old ‘church’ where the Rev. Wright preaches anti-Americanism and racism? And what about freedom of speech?
I can understand challenging and outlawing speech that encourages one group to carry out acts of violence against another. After all, we’ve got such an example, currently, in the union rants in Wisconsin, encouraging violence against the Governor and Senate and GOP there.
Australia has a great idea, which they set up a few years ago, called their ‘Australian values’ statement.
http://www.immi.gov.au/living-in-australia/values/statement/long/
You have to sign it if you are entering on a visa, or as a permanent resident.
Essentially, you have to acknowledge the supremacy of Australian law, language (English), values – such as equality, freedom of the individual, etc. Don’t sign it and you don’t get in. Break it once you are in, and they deport you.
I’d suggest the same thing in all countries of the West. And, get rid of multiculturalism and its isolate ‘identity politics’ and ‘special interest groups’.
I think we are in agreement that something needs to be done about Islam but I think we disagree on how serious the problem is.
We are talking about the survival of civilization itself against an adversary that has NO respect for the rules as we know them. To bring any group other than Islam into the discussion is irrelevant. Regarding freedom of religion I was only saying that Muslims should play by the same rules as everybody else. Muslims should have the freedom to relieve their religion without fear of violent retribution. Other religions don’t kill their members if they leave and Islam shouldn’t be allowed to either, or to kill their wives and daughters at will. Islam is the only group that calls for death to Israel and openly admits its desire to replace the constitution with sharia law. Islam is in a class by itself when it comes to evil.
I was only trying to move beyond listing Islam’s evils to search for a solution. We have already done enough hand wringing.
The suggestions I made were not intended to go beyond the constitution but to require Islam to respect the constitution rather hiding behind the absurd claim that it is really a religion in order to ignore the constitution.
As near as I can tell Australia still has problems dealing with Muslim demands. A signed piece of paper is nice but Neville Chamberlain had a signed piece of paper too.
If you have a better idea than requiring Muslims to follow the constitution without special exceptions I would have no problem with that.
My ideas are not to define any group as targeted – i.e., to only monitor the speech in mosques etc, but to insist:
1) The constitution is supreme; the US rule of law is supreme. There are no other laws. Period. Don’t try to bring in religion, as you note, as a justification for behavior. Don’t even suggest ‘sharia’ or judaic or catholic or other laws, even in family matters (as has been done elsewhere).
2) Speech that promotes violent actions against other groups is not protected by the ‘freedom of speech’. The key phrase is ‘promotion of violence against’…that’s illegal.
3) End multiculturalism. No special identity groups, no dispensation from the norm for any group for any reason.
Australia’s Values Statement is not a scrap piece of paper. It’s a public affirmation of the values of Australian society – something missing in other western nations including the US (though Canada has started to follow the Australian idea). And, since it is signed, this makes it legal. So, if the signer starts up some action that is in violation of these values – i.e., preaches gender non-equality – they can be deported for violating their signed commitment.
4) And do what is going on now, via Rep. King. Talk in public about the reality of Islamism, its fanaticism, its violence, its primitiveness. Don’t hesitate to confront and critique. The false charges of ‘Islamophobia’ are just that: false. Any and all belief systems and that includes religions are open to critique. And – one that openly advocates harm to others, MUST be publicly and openly challenged and criticized.
Emphasize this: Ask openly – why do you promote violence against others? Why do you insist that all others must follow your religion? Why are you so hostile? Don’t let up. Keep asking and confronting. Muslims will try, as they do, to deny it; there’s too much evidence of their violence. Fling the evidence back.
THEY have to confront this themselves. Don’t let them hide and not confront it. That’s why such actions as King’s – are so very important. That’s why blogs that ask and confront – are so very important. The world must react to them..and not, as they’ve done, in the name of ‘tolerance’ and ‘multiculturalism’…refuse to confront.
5) That’s in the West. In the Islamic nations, I suggest encouraging and promoting capitalism and its concomitant constitutional democracy. How? The first – by setting up economic links with ..not the Rulers..but the common people. Openly tell the public and Rulers that you want to set up economic trade with small to medium size PRIVATE businesses.
When there are revolts in favor of freedom – openly and publicly support freedom. Don’t do, as Obama does, waffle and dither and support the status quo Rulers..and then…when the rebels seems to be winning, support them. And then, support….Be firm and principled. Always. In favor of freedom and democracy.
You need to stop bringing Christians and Jews into this mix. They are not advocating world domination. I also believe Australia may have made a good start but it is only a start. The end will be either only Islam or no Islam, we must face this fact. We are not the ones who made it this way but we ignore the facts at our own peril. Whether we like or want it this way doesn’t matter.
Roger,
Jews never believed the Earth to be flat. In fact just the opposite-
” It is He that sitteth above the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in. ”
Prayer is you speaking to G-d. Study is G-d speaking to you.
” Fear of G-d is the beginning of Wisdom. ”
Is one justified in fearing Divine retribution? Yes. However what greater fear is there for a a parent than losing a child? There is none. So was it ” fear ” that motivated Abraham to sacrifice Isaac? What greater pain could the Almighty inflict upon Abraham than that he murder his own child? None.
So what is the ” fear ” we speak of?
http://www.aish.com/sp/f/48964236.html
As several have posted, the question is what can we in the US do about it? Given our own politics, not much. Individually we add a new risk assessment to life, and go on.
The violence in the Koran is frequently expressed in action, and clearly identified with Islam. A comparison is made to the Old Testament, which does contain violent language, but how often do Jews act out violently, particularly in relation to the Jewish faith? I can’t think of any specifically Jewish violence, suppose it may have happened.
Muslims see Islam as inextricably interwoven with every aspect of life, an alien concept to most of us, with regards to government and law, etc. Also alien to most of us is tribalism and its associated political mechanisms, and other cultural patterns.
We can want change, but expecting numerous societies to suddenly discard not only their religious views, but their cultural, societal, political and historic norms is not realistic. If you have ever tried to change any of your own basic attitudes about life (I had to do so as an alcoholic) you know how difficult it is. Expecting millions of Muslims to do so is not sane, it’s not going to happen any time soon.
Not to belabor the obvious but not all religions are equal. Mohammed’s crimes stretch from slavery, to murder, to compulsion, to brigandry etc… These are all crimes he admitted to committing personally. Christ’s life on the other hand is one a civilized person can emulate. As an atheist I do not have an invisible man in the fight but it is pretty clear for Islam to be reformed they will have to disavow their prophet or come up with some BS excuse about why such behavior can no longer be countenanced. I don’t really care which it is but they had better do it fast.
Christianity is probably on version 3.0 in the revision cycle now. Islam never got out of beta testing. Frankly, it seems pretty clear to me that it can never be turned into something even remotely useful or civilized. Churchill was right about that. The only things unique to Islam are barbaric.
The solution, as all solutions always have been, is technological, rather than political — once we can get *off this rock,* the “muslim world” can make as much or as little progress as it wants, and since my security will no longer depend on that function, neither I nor mine will no longer need to care.
To those who claim Christianity is inherently as violent as Islam.
1. The old testement has a lot of violence and conquest, but the new testament is exclusively peaceful (with commands to love our enemies and be peacemakers, and statements that those who live by the sword wil die by it), and in christian doctrine the peaceful new testement takes precedence. By contrast, in Islam, the most violent language is in the newer books, and their doctrine states that those newer, more violent and intolerant passeges, take precedence.
2. True, in the past christians practiced violence and intolerance in the name of their religion, but that violence was never explicitly sanctioned in their scriptures. In Islam it is. Also, that violence streak in christianity is largly gone now, the last example being northern ireland. Modern violence by christians was mainly due to idealogies that denied christianity, like marxism and fascism. Nowdays, most christian nations seperate religion from government, and practice religious pluralism. Again, Islam does not.
3. Christianity allows christians to convert to other sects, and even to other religions, without penalty, other than possibly losing contact with their former religious group. In Islam, converting from Islam to another religion is apostacy, and officially punishable by death in many muslim countries. Christianity also allows other minority faiths to practice freely in christian majority countries. Many muslim nations do not allow other religions to practice, and even when they do, those other religions are subject to very bad discrimination, and often violence.
4. Muslims routinely respond to perceived slights against mohammed or the koran with instant, extreme, and widespread violence. In western countries, even very gross insults against christianity is rarely met with violence, and in many western countries is even funded with gov arts grants.
Summing up, at its best, Islam is as bad, as far as violence and intolerance, as christianity was several hundred years ago. At its worste, it is far worse, similar to the worste excesses of marxism and fascism. Islam badly needs an equavelent to the European enlightenment, combined with a seperation of mosque and state, if they are to ever live peacably with the rest of humanity, and even have peace within their own nations. Until then, the west cannot to afford to give them the same tolerance we routinely give to other religions, like judaism, buddhism, or hinduism, which like christianity do not presently have a heritage of violence.
Um, must it be a straight forward fight between Christians and Muslims? last I checked, it’s Muslims vs everyone else. The Mongolian hordes were trying to wipe out the Muslims as dishonest, violent, thieving weasels worthy only of complete destruction. The communists aren’t fans of muslims, either. Islam has bloody borders- all the way around- animists, Christians, Mongolian hordes, Buddhists……
Roger, you, like most everyone else that reaches your stage of enlightenment, are coming late to the table but, sit down, pay attention and keep your eyes, ears and mind open because what is transpiring has been decades, some would say centuries, in the making and has rooted itself in what is generally considered the West (modern, “enlightened” civilization) by shrouding itself in the cloak of religion, one of the three dominant religions of the ages, Christianity, Judaism and Islam. This religious posture effectively protects Muslims from all negative criticism and open discussion because of the West’s well entrenched and cherished views on freedom of religion and religious tolerance. Ironically the West has no problem being critical of Christianity and Judaism whether justified or not but Islam has been elevated above these largely, and wisely from their perspective, through their own efforts, ever at the ready to vigorously defend their faith at the smallest perceived threat.
This fits perfectly with the Muslim Brotherhood creed written in 1928, in part, “a grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization FROM WITHIN and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by THEIR HANDS AND THE HANDS OF THE BELIEVERS [Christians].” (emphasis added)
What is deliberately and vigorously omitted about Islam is that it is a complete social system that controls every aspect of devout Muslim behavior not unlike Communism, Socialism, Progressivism, etc. in which the collective is controlled and ruled by an Intellectual elite. In the Muslim world it’s the Imams that are the ruling authority, a global Caliphate. According to a dictionary definition; “A Caliph: A ‘Muslim ruler: a title taken by Islamic rulers such as the Turkish sultans that asserts religious authority to rule, derived from that of Muhammad.’ A theocracy perpetually ordained by the ‘divine’ direction of Allah as set forth in the Qur’an.”
Islam has NOT been hijacked by a bunch of radical extremists, a fringe group of terrorist nut jobs. What the world is experiencing and what Congressman King is beginning to find out is that any and all threats to the Muslim community in general are met with vociferous, powerful opposition that is absolutely silent about the daily atrocities and outrageous acts endorsed and sanctioned by Sharia law, the immutable law of Allah, that the majority of Muslims in the Middle East and in other dominantly Islamic nations overwhelmingly support. These attacks on Congressman King will continue and may become violent unless he folds his tent, declares Islam is indeed “a religion of peace” with no connection to domestic terrorism and the Muslim problem in America will, once again take up its fervently desired place, well hidden under the rug of religious tolerance, freedom, diversity and political correctness that the West dramatically clings to no matter what is blatantly obvious to anyone with their eyes and minds open.
This will continue until Muslims have acquired sufficient clout in terms of weapons, numbers and political and military authority to openly declare their true intentions.
There is no need to constantly defend Muslims in order to prove to ourselves that we are indeed worthy of the mantle of compassion and religious tolerance. Our inculcated propensity for this behavior is, in this particular case, self defeating. Are all Muslims of this dangerous, revolutionary mind set? Most probably not but were most Japanese and Germans anxious to shed their blood for Hirohito and Hitler’s violent ambitions leading up to WWII? Also, probably not. What should one conclude from this? Stop agonizing over the ambitions of the entire Muslim community here in the U.S. and around the world and recognize that a war as deadly and probably more violent and destructive than WWII is looming and will occur unless the West wakes up, stops the self flagellation, alters its views on diversity and recognizes that Islam is not “a religion of peace” but a global, international entity determined to fulfill a centuries old dream of a global Caliphate. Call it a religious war if you like, call it anything you want but wake up and stop letting the clueless media and equally clueless politicians and pundits push this demon cockroach back under the rug!
ドクターリセラスーパーホワイトです。
ブログがんばってくださいね。
1. The old testement has a lot of violence and conquest, but the new testament is exclusively peaceful (with commands to love our enemies and be peacemakers, and statements that those who live by the sword wil die by it), and in christian doctrine the peaceful new testement takes precedence.
This is a canard. If you think there is nothing about peace and justice and how to build a good society in the Hebrew Scriptures, you haven’t read them. The story of the Exodus has been an inspiration to millions of slaves and oppressed peoples worldwide, including our founding fathers and Martin Luther King. How many preachers like to quote the Hebrew prophets as inspirations for crying out against injustice? 80% of Christianity is taken from Judaism, including most of the good parts.
As for peace – no, Judaism isn’t pacifist. We believe in defending oneself against attack and injustice, punishing wrongdoers, rather than turning the other cheek. I think that is a more moral position to take, and increases the amount of justice and peace in the world. Yet the God of our scriptures shows mercy constantly. Read it before making these stupid stereotypes.
I would also like to remind you that Christianity – a universalist proselytizing religion – practiced bloody murder for generations, precisely because it the desired result is the the whole world become Christian. Islam is the same. Kudos to Christianity for gradually divorcing itself from worldly power and forced conversion to achieve its goals.
However, all us violent vengeful Jews (according to your idea of our scriptures) want is to be left alone. We don’t want to convert anyone by force or take over the world, and that is why there are only 14 million of us worldwide.
“Muslims have always coveted their neighbors goods, wives and property. It is no different today. Palestinians covet Israel which was Deeded to the Jews by God. Arabs have always coveted Israel, and in the Christian Gospel, they will never get their way there.
India, and many other countries around the world, were raped, pillaged, and plundered by Islam. And today it is the Islamic nations which threaten world peace.
Muslims do not hesitate to criticize ‘non-believers’, but then become very upset when non-believers criticize Islam. Religious freedom and freedom of speech is a two-edged sword which cuts both ways. The American freedom of speech (to criticize) and freedom of religion are deeply cherished and exercised by Americans, but such concepts of freedom are unknown and incomprehensible in Islamic societies. From 1970-2000, there were 43,721 terrorist attacks worldwide. 113, 425 people were killed. Over 82,126 injured. Over 90% of these barbaric acts were committed by Muslims.” (bibleprobe.com)
I question how many Americans would (comvert) become (Beliver of Islam) Muslim of “their own free will” if it came down to it?
Bob Dylan nailed it.
http://videos.sapo.pt/t2j5nbGZeNZUWGnrzFJV
Roger, your muslim correspondents insist that fairness grants Muslims the length of time to achieve civility that was taken by Christianity. That’s a strange assertion. Where were Muslims while Christians were sorting out their issues? They existed as they still exist for the same duration. They chose not to seek civility. What impetus would now compel them to a course of development that did not exist then? What has changed? Is there an international outcry for their reform that would drive them to change? You say you fear there is not enough time for their reformation before nuclear violence. I say there is not enough time left to the universe. Their religion drives their behaviour. They cannot continue to be faithful adherents and change to our concept of civility.
I’ve read Andrew McCarthy’s comment in the NR – and disagree with his analysis.
1) He sets up an Either-Or situation, where it’s either the dictators or the Islamic radicals. In Egypt, he says that the main opposition is the Muslim Brotherhood, In Libya, he says that the main opposition to Ghadaffi are the Islamic radicals. I disagree. In both countries, the most public image of the opposition is indeed the Islamic radicals but I suggest that they are functionally, the minority.
2) And then he goes into the same ‘take-no-risk’ scenario of ‘better the devil we know than the one we don’t know’. Better the dictators than the other dictators, the Islamists. I disagree.
3)The reason is, sigh, and yet again: economic. The people are the ME do not want to get rid of their current infrastructure of repression and poverty to replace it with a SIMILAR infrastructure of repression and poverty. There is no proof of such, no evidence that the people in any of these areas are demonstrating and chanting slogans of: More fundamentalism! We want Islam!
To the contrary – they want more freedom, both in their economic lives and their political lives.
Furthermore, I’ve yet to see that the ME dictators are using theocracy to appease the demonstrators. If the demonstrators wanted More Islam, then, a reasonable ‘cool them down’ response would be to, well, give them more fundamentalism.
But instead, the ME dictators are offering: money. Money. In Bahrain, they offered $3,500.00 to each citizen. How’s that for radical Islam? In Saudi Arabia, the king was offering interest free loans, more money for this and that. In Libya, Ghadaffi was offering $400.00 per citizen. Not a whisper about Islamism. And the people didn’t rant for More Islam. No, they wanted freedom.
4) McCarthy suggests that an Islamist regime, which he suggests would inevitably take over IF the dictators lost power, would be ‘anti-West, anti-American, anti-Israel’. But first, he has to show that an Islamist regime is inevitable.
I’m saying that it isn’t. The reason is because the Islamist infrastructure is the same as the dictatorial infrastructure – two-class of Rulers/Ruled, no middle class – and, furthermore, as a closed ideology, it has no capacity to deal with the basic problem of the ME – which is the imbalance between the population size and the economic mode.
5) As I’ve noted, the key problem is that imbalance and the only way out of it is to enable the majority of the population to move into a capitalist private market based economy: a middle class. This destroys both the dictatorial and the Islamic infrastructure – for neither one can allow a free individual.
6) Then, McCarthy suggests that democracy is a choice. No, no, no. Democracy isn’t something found on the supermarket shelves that you can choose or reject. It is a specific political mode of organization, found only in a capitalist market economy. The reason is – because, all political modes, must empower their most economically productive class. Democracy empowers the middle class.
In small populations, no-growth, non-industrial, a tribal or two-class political system is perfect. Democracy wouldn’t work and would destabilize such a society. But in multi-million populations, growth populations, industrial – then, there is NO CHOICE but to enable democracy. Because you must politically empower your most economically productive class: the middle class.
So – I reject McCarthy’s analysis as bereft of an understanding of population dynamics, history, economic and political infrastructures. These systems are not free choices; they are all interlocked and entangled – and are necessary not chosen modes.
you may want to reject MCCarthy’s analysis ..but there are many other good pundits who say similar things.
James Lewis has (in my opinion) excellent insight.
http://www.americanthinker.com/james_lewis/
I think youmake an error in the wording of your response. an example is when the word “choice” is used. no ome is referring to individual choice. it will be a collective choice of the masses ..good bad or indifferent.
I guess what it comes down to is that I see your take on the ME as a wish thinking view. ….I too wish that the outcome would be as you propose …just isn’t going to happen. The people in those regions are not educated in the manner you think, they are culturally at a disadvantage and their belief in islam proof of lack of critical thinking. since the two are not compatible.
I think the west should stand back and see what happens. no support no intervention.
what level did you teach school at ….
It is not a matter of choice. Individual or collective. Moving into democracy is not a ‘rational’, analytic act, where one, either as an individual or collectively, decides between ‘this form’ or ‘that form’ of government.
It is economic necessity. The ‘given variables’ are, first, population size. You must support this population. Tactics of reducing it, such as by famine, disease, genocide, war and even migration, do not work.
The TYPE of economy is directly related to its capacity-to-produce-wealth. A statist, redistributive economy, where the wealth-producing capacity is FIXED, and where the assets are exploited only once (oil) or cyclic (land, cattle, local agriculture that produces the same amount each year) cannot, I repeat, cannot, increase its wealth production. That means that it has a fixed limit to its capacity to support a population size.
Remember, all economies must politically empower the class that produces the wealth. In fixed, no-growth economies, these are the resource owners (oil), the landowners, the property owners. These are necessarily not democratic but authoritarian political modes; they may be ‘benevolent authoritarian’ or dictators. They work well…as long as there is no imbalance between economic wealth production and population size.
IF your population grows beyond the carrying capacity of such a no-growth economic mode…you are in trouble. There is an imbalance.
This is the situation in the ME, where the external introduction of industrialism, via the west’s development of ME oil (the ME had no capacity to develop its own oil resources)..led to exponential increase in population, urbanization, abandonment of the old local village agriculture and to enormous wealth in the hands of the Rulers. This moved into a centralist redistributive economy.
However, the oil wealth has reached its limits to support the size of the population. It MUST, and I mean MUST, move into a different mode of wealth production. The majority cannot, any longer, gain enough income from the govt largesse but must gain it from their own work – in small to medium businesses that produce goods and services for private consumer purchase. This is a capitalist economy. The ME Rulers have been preventing such a middle class; they know it means the loss of their power.
A capitalist economy is focused around the majority of the population engaged in this private production …and the political system MUST give the most economically productive class – full political power. This means democracy.
It is not a choice either by an individual or a collective. I’m a university professor and focus on the sciences and complex adaptive systems – including societies.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/03/obama_the_best_revolutions_are.html
Heh – this isn’t an analysis. The ‘organic mode’ of ‘revolution’ seems to imply an essentialist force, somehow, springing from the ‘soul’, or the essentialist nature of a particular ethnicity or racial group. Rubbish, in my view. Lewis ought to have critiqued it rather than just stating and mocking it.
Societal change isn’t essentialist, which makes it, by the way, deterministic and an act of ‘historicism’ (see Popper’s explanation where historicism means an innate determined path-of-development). Societal change is contextual, and dependent not on some internal abstract force, (eg, Will, Soul, Spirit) but on real situations, people and objects. The key variables are: the material reality (soil, climate, water etc)..that enables the population to produce food, housing; and population size; and economic mode and political mode. Absolutely nothing to do with any a priori abstract Force.
http://frontpagemag.com/2011/03/11/symposium-the-red-arabs/
yes I will accept chocolate
No, the chocolate is for me! And, I don’t find anything of value in this short debate.
Of course Islamism is akin to socialism, communism – and fascism. All of them are two-class, statist, authoritarian political regimes.
To say that it’s Either the current socialist dictators OR the Muslim Brotherhood betrays, in my view, a total ignorance of the causes of social organization and the causes for its change.
These people ignore the fundamental role of population..and..the balance there must be between the population and the economic mode of wealth production and the political mode that empowers the most productive sector of the population. I’ve repeated these three variables and their necessary relation often enough. No need to repeat it – but these guys utterly ignore it..in their seminar-room style talk about and only about: ideology. Bah humbug and I like dark chocolate.
lol
and you forget the fundamental aspect of human nature.
time will tell. so far the event are as I expected they would be and support my contention that it will end up an islamic state. nothing otherwise is even showing on the horizon.
I doubt we will need to wait until september to know.
regards
But is the fundamental aspect of human nature to be enslaved or free? Islamism and dictatorships enslave the people.
Is the fundamental aspect of human nature to live or die? An economic system that cannot support its population…starves the people.
Oh, and I like 64% dark chocolate…that is, not tooooo dark but not milk chocolate. Just plain. No need for the nuts and orange peel and whatever.
Yes, we’ll have to see; it isn’t a mechanical flip-of-the-switch action. Takes time, and the current Rulers don’t give up easily.
Cheers -
Roger, thank you for another beautiful letter in your exchange with Salim. I love the honesty in it and the implied trust in your friendship with him. I love especially the spiritual nakedness of the closing paragraph, the acknowledgment that you have no answers. You feel pain and love and a deep concern for your people. I share – and I’m sure Salim also shares – a great dread concerning Israel’s safety in the coming years. It seems poised to be crushed between the rising barricades of resistance between the Christian West and Islam.
There is – or has been – only one answer to such a terrifying dilemma. All sides, all parties, must abandon their cherished frameworks of understanding. Each must arrive at a great bonfire of beliefs and throw onto it their own. Then we must all wait and hope that the legendary phoenix will arise from the resulting ashes. We can play out this scenario in a literal sense, with blood and fire and a nuclear holocaust. Or we can play it out symbolically by letting go of our own treasured assumptions and biases. In the nakedness of your letter, you seem ready to do this.
As the Persian poet Hafiz put it: Fold up your nets and go – no one hunts the phoenix – the trap’s hand holds nothing but empty mind.
The nets and traps are our frameworks of understanding and these are of no use. In the end our only option is to attain an empty mind and just wait … wait for the phoenix to come in response to our own preparedness.
Anne of Oz writes, “There is – or has been – only one answer to such a terrifying dilemma. All sides, all parties, must abandon their cherished frameworks of understanding. Each must arrive at a great bonfire of beliefs and throw onto it their own. Then we must all wait and hope that the legendary phoenix will arise from the resulting ashes. We can play out this scenario in a literal sense, with blood and fire and a nuclear holocaust. Or we can play it out symbolically by letting go of our own treasured assumptions and biases.”
Surely, you jest. This moral equivalency meme is totally bogus and extremely dangerous. (Are you, perchance, a flower child? Your proposition is pure ’60’s poppycock.) The freedoms of the West are based on the Judeo-Christian dispensation. Just in case you didn’t know, such riches of the West as the rule of law, the separation of church and state, and the Constitution have absolutely nothing to do with Islam. I, for one, have no intention of throwing either my Christian beliefs or the tenets of Judaism, which I honour, into any bonfire. If you think that burning the beliefs of truth, justice, and charity (love)—the basic tenets of Judaism and Christianity—will result in, you HOPE, “the legendary phoenix . . . aris[ing] from the resulting ashes”, I think you’ll be dreaming on for a very long time: that is, if you—and the rest of the West—haven’t been obliterated or subjugated by Muslim jihadists, whose very clear intent is to do just that. (If you really mean what you say, I suggest you start scouting out some nice burqas for your wardrobe.)
I’m not the only one who absolutely rejects your fantasy of moral equivalency. Winston Churchill: “Indeed it is evident that Christianity, however degraded and distorted by cruelty and intolerance, must always exert a modifying influence on men’s passions, and protect them from the more violent forms of fanatical fever, as we are protected from smallpox by vaccination. But the Mahommedan religion increases, instead of lessening, the fury of intolerance. It was originally propagated by the sword, and ever since, its votaries have been subject, above the people of all other creeds, to this form of madness.”
What should be burned in your bonfire is the chaff of Islam, which is there for all with eyes and ears to see and hear: its ignorance, its violence, its intolerance, its imperialist schemes, its practice of taqiyya and kitman (“‘holy hypocrisy’ [which] has been diffused throughout Arabic culture for over fourteen hundred years . . . As the Prophet said: ‘he who keeps secrets shall soon attain his objectives.’”)
On this topic, Winston Churchill, the prophet, over 100 years ago: “How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
“Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytising faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science – the science against which it had vainly struggled – the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.”
Anne, if you really believe what you’ve written here, Oz is a very good description of where your mind is at: make believe.
Oh, for heaven’s sake.
I know this is off-topic, but will folk PLEASE stop repeating the tired old myth that our ancestors, dating back to the origins of the monotheistic faiths, used to believe that the world was flat?
This is simply historically not true. Why are so many people ignorant about this? Why is a smart guy like Roger Simon ignorant of this?
Educated folk did not think the world was flat in the Middle Ages. Educated folk in the first century did not think the world was flat, either. (Uneducated folk probably never considered the question. Do they today?)
Yes, I know, they used terminology like “the four corners of the world” and “follow him to the ends of the earth.” But — hello? — we still do the same thing today. Are *we* all flat-earthers?
Really, any competent history of science will show the truth.
Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the earth (yes, understanding it as a sphere) in the 3rd century B.C., folks.
The standard work on astronomy for the entire Middle Ages was Ptolemy’s “Almagest.” It was written in the 2nd century A.D., and noted that compared to the distance between the earth and the nearest stars, the size “of the orb of the earth” was so small that it could “be considered a mathematical point of no size at all.”
And really, you think that no seagoing race (e.g. the Phonecians) ever noticed that as a ship went over the horizon, it looked like it was going over a hill, so that you could still see the sail after you’d lost sight of the stern?
Yes, our ancestors had a geocentric universe. But this, because of the way the Medieval and Classical minds worked, did not mean that they viewed man as being at the center of everything. On the contrary, they viewed the earth as being a sort of hick rural backwater with the lights of the cosmos being like the lights of a city metropolis seen distantly from the dark wilderness outside. (See C.S.Lewis’ “The Discarded Image” for further information.)
Yes, in the time of Abraham, I suppose folk thought the world flat when they thought that profoundly about the topic at all.
But by the time of Jesus, let alone of Mohammed, anyone who received any serious education on the topic knew the earth was round and tiny in size compared to the cosmos.
So quit pretending our ancestors were cavemen when, in the Roman era, they were a lot more like urbane Manhattan socialites. They were different from us. But the fact that they lacked iPods in no way made them generally stupid.
Roger Simon obviously knows nothing about the Christian past. No one believed the earth was flat, not then, not ever. It’s the same with chastity belts. Everyone believes it but nobody can find evidence for it. As for Christianity’s ‘violent’ past, Simon should be a little more grateful since we wouldn’t have individual rights and science if it weren’t for Christian doctrine promoting these things. Simon seems to think these things happened in totally pacifist, secular ways. We might have to settle for violence in order to restrain Islam.
Islam is a nasty, sectarian movement that isn’t capable of internal reform, in much the same way that the Shinto religion of Imperial Japan was incapable of internal reform.
If they were willing to keep their religion to themselves, it wouldn’t be so bad, but Muslims are not, and they don’t. To make matters worse, Muslims want primacy over other religions and non-Muslims.
They won’t stop until they get pounded, and pounded hard. They have no idea of what an aroused Western populace will do.
I agree. They are both warrior religions. You can include Greek, Roman and Norse mythology in the same category. Religions created by warriors for warriors to justify war.
There must be something rotten going on in the Norsk state: They gave us Quisling, bestowed Nobel Prizes on Yasser Arafat and Husseiin Obama, and now we got fnord above. Since they have oil then naturally they are ripe to be the first seat of the new Caliphate; the King can be the first modern Caliph. Am only hoping Brother fnord will stick to his views and thus have a chance of keeping his head intact.
I also believe we infidels should give some credits to the Muslims: Isn’t that a miracle that despite being exposed to the Divine teaching of Islam most of them still do NOT murder? Do you agree?
My comment may be the last on this thread but I hope all that posted here see the following and disseminate it as widely as possible.
There are no answers when confronted with the barbaric murder of the Fogel family but there are identifiable causes.
http://vimeo.com/16779150