Tale of the camps: Guantanamo, al Qaeda, and Saudi re-education
It should come as no surprise that one of the released Guantanamo prisoners has set up camp as deputy head of al Qaeda operations in Yemen. How these people must laugh at our delicate—and self-destructive—sensibilities!
One of the things in the article that caught my eye was that Said Ali al-Shihri, the “militant” in question, passed through a Saudi re-education/rehabilitation program on his way from Guantanamo to Yemen. Suffice to say he is not their most successful graduate, at least according to Saudi lights.
I became curious as to how these operations work, and found this description. It seems they are run by psychologists (good luck, folks) and religious teachers. They feature attempts to counter the incorrect religious notions of terrorists with passages from the Koran that challenge their beliefs and replace them with a kinder, gentler form of Islam and jihad.
Not a bad idea, actually. The Saudis report great success. Wonder if it’s true.
I pray to Jesus it’s true. 🙂
Count me among those who think that the radical violent form IS real Islam. Just look at their early wave of conquests.
“Wonder if it’s true.”
How many lashes for the incurable?
Can’t the CIA do some kind of leak about their squealing? ” Gee, we thought he was a good rehab candidate because he told us all about…. Without his info we couldn’t have closed down the … network.” I would try to use this anyway I could to sow distrust.
Unless the extremist in question actually wants to change his ways, the chance of success with these programs is minimal. Face it, radical Islam fills a need for these guys, they’re sold on it, and they’re not going to give it up because some government-sponsored mullah (a hypocrite, in the view of the extremists) tells them that there’s a better way. Those who’ve grown sick of living on the run, of losing friends, of never having any sort of stability in their lives, yes, they’re probably amenable to rehabilitation. But others truly believe they’re doing Allah’s work, and a few dozen sessions with a government shrink and a government imam aren’t going to do much. That’s especially true if there’s little or no post-rehab monitoring. The subjects may appear to go along just to get released, then go back to their old ways. If I can figure this out, I’m sure the extremists have also.
For every surah and verse from the Qur’an which the terrorists use to justify their actions, show me the theological sleight of hand that is used to abrogate the words of Allah. If they use the Meccan verses, they stand on shaky ground theologically, because the later Medinan verses cancel (abrogate) the early “revelations” from Muhammad’s sock puppet.
Ditto with ahadith. Ahadith Bukhari and Muslim are considered the most authoritative. Also, “The Reliance of the Traveler” is the Muslim biography of the deeds and words of Muhammad, who is considered The Perfect Man, the one all Muslims are expected to emulate.
Who are the dopes who really believe the terrorists pervert Islam? Clearly, they have not gone into the primary sources.
Call me a skeptic of this alleged “reprogramming.”
“It should come as no surprise that one of the released Guantanamo prisoners has set up camp as deputy head of al Qaeda operations in Yemen.”
Good luck in pointing this out to leftists these days and commenting that maybe we oughtn’t let them out if this is what is going to happen.
There is nothing we can point out that will dissuade the Leftists of their religious faith in their silly notions. Let’s not go there. Moreover, I highly doubt that painful experience will change their minds. Look at their thinking and rationalizing after 3,000 people died on 9/11. They blamed their government and found all manner of excuses to get the jihadis off the hook.
We shouldn’t waste our time with them.
“There is nothing we can point out that will dissuade the Leftists of their religious faith in their silly notions.”
I went and saw the WW2 movie “Defiance”. It is supposedly based on the story of Jews in Belurussia (sp?) trying to avoid the Nazi’s. NEO could come up with all kinds of things to say about the movie. I keep wondering now as I think back, maybe the Jews in that part of the World did not see it coming, but what about the Jews in Germany? Was it a case of mass denial of reading the signs? A false belief in “It can’t happen to us”? The registrations? The “Star of David” thing you had to wear? Why did they not run in the 1930’s?
The Saudis report great success. Wonder if it’s true. No need to wonder. No need at all.
jon baker: I’ve written something that might address your questions. See the part of this comment in which I address “abde.” In it I deal with many of the reasons it was hard for Jews to escape even if they wanted to.
A few further words on the subject: many Jews did leave Germany. But many more wanted to and could not. It was difficult to find a country that would accept them.
Remember Anne Frank’s family? They lived in Amsterdam, right? But Anne was born in Germany; the family had emigrated to the Netherlands in the early 30’s in an effort to escape the Nazis. They got trapped there with the Nazi occupation.
The Frank family was not at all atypical. There was a lot of movement, and attempts at movement, that became futile as the Nazi net tightened. Here are some details of the Franks’ attempts to flee:
As the tide of Nazism rose in Germany and anti-Jewish decrees encouraged attacks on Jewish individuals and families, Frank decided to evacuate his family to the safer western nations of Europe. In the summer of 1933 he moved his family to Aachen, where his wife’s mother resided, in preparation for a subsequent and final move to Amsterdam in the Netherlands. In 1938 and in 1941 he attempted to obtain visas for his family to emigrate to the United States or Cuba. He was granted a single visa for himself to Cuba on December 1, 1941, but no one knows if it ever reached him. Ten days later, when Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy declared war on the United States, the visa was canceled by Havana.
And you must remember that the Frank family had resources many other families lacked.
I suspect theres a chance many european jews were demoralized by propoganda campaigns and perhaps even thought they deserved punishment in the 30’s. Look at how many whites are demoralised into total inaction by PC propoganda right now.
Psychologists and religious teachers — what a frightening mix.
“How these people must laugh at our delicate–and self-destructive–sensibilities!”
Indeed, terrorists believe democracy is weakness. They scoff at jurisprudence as if it were some absurd nicety, rather than source of lasting power we know it to be.
But that, of course, is why they are terrorists and we are freedom-loving democrats. And, more important, that is why they are losing their struggle and always will.
They mistake the power of democracy and human rights for weakness and the weakness of totalitarianism for power.
Neoneocon,
Even Jews who did escape Europe and went to Israel before and during the war were not safe from the Nazis and their allies. You surely have heard of the Grand Mufti of the Jerusalem mosque, Hajj Amin al Husseini? He was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, who was one of Hitler’s biggest allies in the Middle East and even in Europe (the Balkans). The Jewish settlements were raided during that time by MB members. al Husseini was urging Hitler to give more tanks and troops to the Afrika Corps so that they could get over the hump and into British Palestine. A planned extermination of the Jews was on the menu there. Fortunately, the British navy and Royal Air Force owned the Med and it was very difficult for Germany and Italy to get troops and supplies into Africa.
al Husseini spent most of his time in Europe. He got Himmler to allow him to raise and SS Division called Handschar, which was never employed in actual combat: it’s role was to exterminate Jews, Catholics, and Communists in Yugoslavia. And they did that job with gusto.
Thanks Neo,
You make good points. If you have not already seen ” Defiance” I highly recommend it. There are all kinds of themes running through the movie. The conflict between two brothers, one who wants agressive action against the NAZIS and the other who just wants to help some of his fellow Jews survive. The locals who work with the NAZIS and those locals who oppose them. The “intellectuals” yammering on, including the Socialist and the uneducated smugglers who basically come to their aid. The Communist Russian Partisians vs the NAZIS- though the NAZIS characters are basically never developed in any detail- though there is one scene where you are made to feel maybe a little sorry for one young German soldier.
Saw this on ABC:
“In what is being touted as ‘jihadi rehab,’ al Qaeda terrorists newly released from Guantanamo prison or caught on the streets of Iraq before their suicide bombs could explode are putting finger paints and crayons to paper in order to secure their freedom.
Terror suspect released from Guantanamo is now fronts Yemen al-Qaeda group.
“The Saudi government, which is running the rehabilitation program on a former royal family retreat outside Riyadh, claims that some 700 former al Qaeda terrorists have been reprogrammed.
“The coloring, said program founder Dr. Awad Alyami to his terrorists-turned-art-students, gets “negative energy out on paper.” “It’s safe here,” Alyami said. “It’s on the paper, it’s not outside.” The men also get religious re-education and are promised a new home and car if they behave.” # # #
Are they effin’ kidding me??? Reports are that the terrorists just go along with this crap, collect the goodies and the get-out-of-jail-free card, and get right back to killing people, laughing all the while.
It sounds like they are trying Regression to Infancy Lite. (Read Alfred Bester’s The Demolished Man.)
The real larger question ought to be: What kind of people among us are being so legally and politically solicitous of the jihadi prisoners?
For seven years these people have been imputing evil to President Bush and those who support the policy of interrogation and detention. There is plenty of evidence of the true evil of these jihadis and what they have done. And what some of them have done after being released. And yet still the same type of people who have been working for the release of these animals continue to preen and hold themselves up as the righteous ones.
Are things so inverted in our culture now that we cannot put the onus on THESE people?
We’re a nation of laws, Fred. No one here is being solicitous of the jihadis (your, chosen term, not mine, as I wouldn’t want to help aggrandize the fake religious gangsters who use jihad as a cover for murder.)
We are being solicitous of American values and the rule of law, not of any particular group affected by them.
Totalitarians always seek to obliterate that distinction and, in that, they are often aided by people who don’t understand it.
Bogey,
By rights, our military could have shot them on the battlefield, since they do not wear uniforms and belong to no state. The Muslim nations do not acknowledge the Geneva Conventions.
And I think we should have executed them on the battlefield, since all but the leaders had any informational value.
And you are waging political war against your opponents for eight years. You won the political war. Why are you so jumpy about our grousing about your victory?
You don’t stand for the lives of the people who are in jihad’s crosshairs. This is a war, not a law-enforcement matter. You are against life, because lawful killing can only happen to prevent the innocent from being murdered. But you people also are unfaithful to life on the abortion issue too. The only thing sacrosanct to you people is your smug sense of superiority over us. And when you defend the jihadis you sink down to reprobation with the damned.
God have mercy on you. Because you’ve used up our patience.
Enjoy your four years to lord it over us.
Saudi re-education
I read many stories and articles how Al-Saud has achieved in their rehabbing programs for Saudi fanatics and terrorists.
For most western people and academics they see and touched by what Al-Saud official telling them and let them to see and hear, of course this “lunatic” family have long history of using deform version of Islam to rule their kingdom and their nation in this part of Islamic word to the east the faced by another side of deformed version of Islam ruled by lunatic Mullah in Teheran.
So whoever say Al-Saud rehab program in progress and fruiting I say you fool yourself man.
Saudis for decades or century established their Madrrasa “Wahabism” that they designed for their benefits and used Islam to cover it they abused the Islam from the Woman treatments ad rights to all aspect of life.
Any visitor to Saudi who have right to move freely in cities and town will see those ugly faces and fanatics who are just like Al-Saud Mujahideen who have paid to control the nation by their sticks hitting and prosecuting people in the street of the kingdom and humiliate them.
There are many voices inside and outside the kingdom of fear asking to dismantling this Religious Police just as same as Paul Bremer did with Iraqi Military and police but Al-Saud refusing any talk about it and they just hold them because simply they are like those Tyrant Saddam’s Republican Guards are well militarised and trained to kill and fight their people but not the real enemy, so Al-Saud have their version of republican guards to hold their Kingdome of fear.
Any talks of change just a jock with this lunatic prices and kings who enjoying friendships and nights in US camps on the land of Al-Saud or most of the time touring Lebanon Egypt, US, Praise and Swiss land follow them and see what they doing those who telling you are Muslims and saving Islam as same as telling the rehabilitating Al-Qaeda fighters the creator of them.
The Muslim nations do not acknowledge the Geneva Conventions.
This is simply hatful statement and lie.
Most “Islamic” countries they signed the Geneva Conventions, but how governments/ leaders implementing them that different story have nothing to do with Islam.
Just like you country (presuming your US citizen) US did singed the Geneva Conventions, but what done in Iraq is far from the Geneva Conventions, and we can not blame Christianity for the acts that US military did in Iraq. Or may be Judaism what Israelis doing in recent Gaza 22 days war
Fred asserts:
“By rights, our military could have shot them on the battlefield, since they do not wear uniforms and belong to no state.”
No, there is no such right. I don’t know where you’re getting that, but it’s telling that you’d believe it. More important, perhaps, many detainees at Gitmo, including, apparently, the Chinese Huigers who were never implicated in any terrorist acts, were turned over to the U.S. by Northern Alliance fighters to collect bounties.
The fact that you believe these people should have been executed shows how deeply anti-American and fundamentally inhumane your values really are.
If there were any possible doubt about your totalitarian leanings, it would be erased by your thought that people who disagree with you politically will be punished by god.
Get the mote out of your own eye, Fred.
Oh great, we have a Hajji and a Marxist tag teaming up here on this thread.
Look, our side lost the war. You won. Be happy with your victory. Just don’t come crying to us when these mutts we’ll be releasing come back to kill again. Oh, I forgot, “Truth” would be very, very happy about that.
The rules of war that apply to us say that if you are on the battlefield facing our troops or you are terrorists and we catch you, by rights we can shoot you. No questions asked. Johnny Jihad is not entitled to Geneva Conventions rights nor our Constitutional protections.
The U.S. Constitution is not a universal document. It is a contract that American citizens have with each other and which limits how far government can go. But, the internationalists want to achieve two things.
1. They want to inject international laws into our land.
2. They want to make the Constitutional subject to revision and international norms.
I reject those. At some point people like you are, if you push it far enough, going to be looking down the barrels of guns from people like me. You won’t get any quarter from us and we ask for none. We ask for no quarter because we have a high opinion of certain words spoken by Patrick Henry in the House of Burgesses.
Wait till you see the outrage in the land when the changes in how we deal with Islamic terrorism trigger a butcher’s bill of our blood.
As I say, enjoy your four years of power. I know how this is going to end.
As usual change and high jacked the discussion for personal attack.
What the looser have more than that?
You live in you bubls like those you put in Iraq after five yeras when it’s come what they done to Iraq and Iraqi the put all the blames on Ba’athists an Saddamisits.
So you are not far from what the claims by putting “a Hajji and a Marxist “
“The rules of war that apply to us say that if you are on the battlefield facing our troops or you are terrorists and we catch you, by rights we can shoot you.”
Where are you getting this, Fred?
There are no such rules, anywhere.
The Geneva conventions are clear that persons can only be classified as non-combatants, thus excluded form POW rights — after a hearing by a competent panel.
Just as clearly, combatants are protected by the conventions, whether or not the counter-parties have signed it, under U.S. law.
America has a long, proud tradition of military restraint and of adhering to the rules of war. And we’ve done so not because were are soft or nice, necessarily, but because we act on the basis of democratic principles, recognizing those principles as a source of strength, not weakness.
Sure, America isn’t perfect. There have been times when those principles have been ignored — such as in the decision by the Bush administration to use torture and unlawfully detain people. But those are the exceptions, not the rule.
“There are no such rules, anywhere.”
In that, you are correct – there are no rules governing said situation and, therefore, you are as much correct as Fred.
“The Geneva conventions are clear that persons can only be classified as non-combatants, thus excluded form POW rights – after a hearing by a competent panel.”
Ah yes, they are – but then again one has to agree by them before the are part of what one should do – this is part of what very very very few countries have signed on to (and those that have do so for their own self protection). We can have the Rules Of Strcpy that say all leftist should hang themselves come sun up when arguing on a website, but then unless you sign on to it it’s just me carping around an pretending to be important.
The Geneva Convention also has rules that few have signed and also states things along the lines of uniformed soldiers and non-uniformed (your rules are for those uniformed). But then, those are simply details.
“Just as clearly, combatants are protected by the conventions, whether or not the counter-parties have signed it, under U.S. law.”
Clearly so – a group of people got together and passed a bunch of laws they had no authority to do and no one (except where it coincides with their main motive) follows. Since such a thing is now valid and must be followed I expect you to hang yourself tomorrow morning as that is the rule (and, you having agreed to it is irrelevant to if it is a rule or not).
“America has a long, proud tradition of military restraint and of adhering to the rules of war. And we’ve done so not because were are soft or nice, necessarily, but because we act on the basis of democratic principles, recognizing those principles as a source of strength, not weakness.”
That is very true and is why they are detained, not simply killed out of hand. It would be easier if they simply killed them – indeed none but the parties involved would even know about it and the loosing side wouldn’t be around to fuss about it. The fact that they are is a testament to your statement.
“Sure, America isn’t perfect. There have been times when those principles have been ignored – such as in the decision by the Bush administration to use torture and unlawfully detain people. But those are the exceptions, not the rule.”
Hmm, you may want to go over your history again. Or at least talk to someone from Vietnam on back about how they handled most “Prisoners of War” (especially non-uniformed ones).
Of course, the anointed one sees that too – it is amusing that he will most likely close Guantanamo Bay and move them elsewhere, just as torture (even the real kind, not the version Bush endorsed) will only be used when there is information to be had (which is even further against those parts of the precious conventions we never signed than the Evil(TM) Bush ever did). It will then cause lefties to do one of three things – ignore it, rationalize it as the “proper way”, or become truly disillusioned.
Bogey, I would argue that the US has indeed practiced military restraint in the present conflict, often to our detriment. We let Muqtada al-Sadr off the hook more than once, when we had more than sufficient justification to flatten his militia’s strongholds. Fortunately, Mookie overplayed his hand and the Iraqi Shia themselves got sick of him. But that was by no means clear early on. We also had to do Fallujah twice, the first time after letting the local Sunnis take a crack–and fail miserably–at cleaning out the bad guys. What we eventually did in November 2004 against a dug-in and thoroughly-prepared enemy we could have done more easily the previous April, except for our desire to be seen as liberators rather than conquerors. So no, we’re not perfect, but there hasn’t been any equivalent whatsoever of the firebombing of Tokyo or Dresden.
Exactly how are the prisoners at Gitmo “unlawfully” detained? Enemies captured on the battlefield may be detained as prisoners of war until the end of hostilities. And those who are not prisoners of war–i.e., al-Qaeda–a “competent panel” as defined by FM 27-10 only needs to consist of three officers in order to make this determination. Surely the detainees haven’t been transported thousands of miles and stuck into Gitmo without anybody in the USG inquiring as to why they’re there. And once they are determined to not be protected persons (see FM 27-10, Chapter 3, Section II; Paragraphs 80 and 81 pertain especially to groups like AQ), it is very clear that they may in fact be sentenced to death, or other punishment as a court may decide. The composition of that court is up to the detaining power, that is, the US. Why not the same kind of drumhead military commission that sentenced the Nazi saboteurs to death in 1942, essentially on FDR’s orders? Does that meet your standard for American jurisprudence? Or how about the quick-n-dirty courts-martial that ordered the SS troops caught in American uniforms during the Battle of the Bulge to be shot? Not a lot of due process or lengthy appeals there, bro. But justice? As with the saboteurs, yes.
Regarding the Uigurs, it took us a while to see that the Northern Alliance sold us a bill of goods about who these guys were, but the US, while still under Bush, recognized that it had made a mistake. The US has been reluctant to return them to China because of the high probability that they would be persecuted upon their return. There are also other potential former detainees that have been cleared of involvement in terrorist activities, but their home countries don’t seem to want them back. If these were truly the innocents abroad as various human rights advocates like to claim, then their native countries should be happy to repatriate them. Or, maybe they know a bit more about them than they’ve let on. Ya think?
“kinder gentler form of jihad”
= go ahead and kill those dirty infidels, but do it in a way that doesn’t embarrass us so much.
You will note the Chinese Uighurs were never shown to have committed a terrorist act. Etc.
This is the BS the left peddles. The Uighurs were a long way from home fighting in a war. If they were actual soldiers, they’d be POWs. That’s not a crime. You don’t have to be shown to be a criminal to be a POW.
So not showing they were involved in terrorist acts against us is a sleight of hand. If they were soldiers, they’d be POWs. They weren’t soldiers so that makes them bandits or other less-protected classes. In either case, showing up to fight is the issue. Nothing else is necessary.
“”America has a long, proud tradition of military restraint and of adhering to the rules of war.””
I don’t except that premise, and am frankly tired of putting my loved ones lives at risk so liberals can stand on this pompous soapbox of feminised feelings and holier than thou rhetoric. Common sense reveals the only nations in existence today are the ones who didn’t foolishly place image and concerns over how they might be viewed over their very survival.
Not too long ago i watched a History Channel show i think called Color of War. It showed a shot down Japanese pilot bobbing in the Pacific. Almost in passing it mentioned that he was subsequently beaten to death by American sailors with wrenches.
This mythical America only exist in the minds of liberals and political feel good speeches. The grunt in the field never had the luxury of any doubts he could cut a mans arm off and beat him to death with it if push came to shove.
Even Obama in the probing 7 year old girl’s question last fall shows hes also succumed to this same delusion with his answer…” “America is, is no longer, uh, what it could be, what it, it once was,” Obama said haltingly. “And I say to myself, I don’t want that future for my children.”
Just what period exactly are Obama and liberals refering to? If 2009’s feminised sensibilities are the benchmark, i’ll suggest the remarkable observation that each sequential year you retreat in history gets you farther away from that benchmark….Duhhh.
The answer is this mythology is inside their own imaginations and part and parcel of their retreat from reality.
“America has a long, proud tradition of military restraint”
Yes, but let’s not make a fetish of it. American soldiers summarily executed guards when they liberated concentration camps, and they routinely practiced a “take no prisoners” policy toward the SS. Sounds good to me. Our islamist enemies operate so far outside the Geneva Conventions that I wonder why anyone cares about them at all.
“You don’t have to be shown to be a criminal to be a POW.”
But many liberals strongly object to keeping POW’s for the duration of the war. That would be unacceptably cruel in their eyes. (The cruelty of muslims killing infidels escapes their attention.) Some feel that we should treat all POW’s as part of the justice system, with some sort of parole process to release them after a period of time.
One decent marksman is worth any number of psychologists.
314
Yeah. The libs have this quaint notion that other wars had a predetermined end date.
That the GWOT does not seems to be kind of a Bushian atrocity. “How can we hold them until the war is over? When is it going to end? Tell me that. Huh? Huh? It could be years.” Years, I suppose, if their coreligionists don’t knock it off sooner.
Damn, they’re STUPID.
Not naturally stupid. Willfully, deliberately, purposely devoid of knowledge they once knew, of knowledge that is so common they can’t miss it even by accident, of any sense of logic or even reasonable thought processes.
“The only nations in existence today are the ones who didn’t foolishly place image and concerns over how they might be viewed over their very survival.”
Remember the Soviet Union? Imperial Japan? The Roman Empire?
History shows again and again that unchecked militarism leads to self-destruction.
The U.S. survives and thrives not because a few soldiers lose control and beat a prisoner to death, but because we faithfully exercise civilian control of the military and because civilians, by and large, adhere to American principles of democracy and humanity.
We refrain from torture and prisoner executions less out of concern for the victims than out of concern for ourselves as perpetrators.
Pst writes: “Our islamist enemies operate so far outside the Geneva Conventions that I wonder why anyone cares about them at all.”
Thanks, Pst, for pointing out yet another reason America chooses to adhere to the conventions.
Apparently Boog Boy talks out of both sides of his keyboard, when it suits him. On the one hand, he decries our violations of the Geneva Conventions, then claims we’re better than most in the world because we adhere to the Conventions. Well, Boogs, which one is it?
Once you violate the law, you have a criminal record. So, are we adherents, or violators? Or, after crying like babies about Bush’s alleged violations, you think The Obamessiah can put all the ills back in Pandora’s Box and pretend it never happened?
“”History shows again and again that unchecked militarism leads to self-destruction.
Bogey Man””
Unchecked militarism? C’mon now. I’m betting you would say today’s step ladders are unchecked for thorough warning labels, and i counted 17 on one i recently purchased. I’m almost afraid to ask what you think a checked military would look like.
Thanks to PC liberalism we may be seeing the first military in the history of the world to employ reverse propoganda. Whats that you ask? Thats where things have gotten so out of hand because of liberalism that you actually go out of your way to make sure the enemy has confidence and hope. Where you simultaneously kill groups of people while convincing them its hurting you more than it is them.
All of us left with a tinge of common sense have about had our fill of this willing stupidity. I don’t know why you do it or what you get out of it, but most Americans aren’t ready to become a banana republic by continuing to pacify your venture down a rabbit hole.
Bogey, are you saying that these has been “unchecked militarism” at any time in US history? Or even militarism under check?
I remind you, we have been down this road before about loose talk of “militarism.”
You need to go back and read your rules from this morning. http://neoneocon.com/2009/01/23/obamaphiles-its-only-love-and-that-is-all/#comment-99866
OB: I wrote that the U.S. has a history of military restraint.
The U.S. did undertake what might be called unchecked militarism in the war against Native Americans. We very nearly succeeded in genocide.
The Civil War also came close to that by some measure.
But certainly in overseas wars, U.S. involvement has been characterized by restraint, within the context of being the biggest superpower.
Sure, we’ve killed many, many times more people than Islamic terrorists have, but we also have a far more powerful military and a much wider array of alliances, or entanglements, that have drawn us into military action.
Americans have been smart enough and moral enough to recognize that unchecked militarism is unnecessary and unwise. Of course we’ve had episodes of excessive militarism, but we’ve always recovered and returned to the norm, just as we are now doing as regards Iraq and the Middle East.
Lee: it’s perfectly reasonable to criticize the U.S. for violating Geneva and, at the same time, acknowledge that, overall, we have a very good record of adhering to it. I don’t understand why you can’t see that.
Wow, Bogey, that’s a reading of history that I’ve never seen before. In fact, the Indian Wars were conducted by a very small, professional (and heavily Black) US Army that generally enjoyed superior firepower over its adversaries (Little Big Horn being a notable exception). The Army was also able to divide and conquer by playing the major tribes off against each other, and by exterminating their primary resource, the Plains Bison. The “genocide” you refer was a political, rather than military policy, and was not done to glorify military virtues per se, but to ensure that the Indian threat to western settlements was eliminated. The folks “back east” really didn’t care that much about what the Army was doing.
The Civil War also is noteworthy for its lack of militarism, despite the huge numbers of men in uniform. Civilians controlled the armies on both sides from start to finish, although Jeff Davis tended to meddle more. More than one foreign observer, including the Prussian Helmut von Moltke, who knew a thing or two about militarism, commented on the “amateur” nature of both armies. This didn’t mean they didn’t fight hard. On the contrary, they gave and accepted battle in places and under circumstances that “professionals” would not have. Hence one factor in the horrendous casualties. Probably the most “militaristic” senior commander on either side was McClellan, and even he stood down when Lincoln dismissed him. As evidence of this lack of militarism, notice how quickly the North demobilized once it was over. By the end of 1866, less than two years after the war ended, the US Army consisted of 58,000 troops–far fewer than Meade had commanded at Gettysburg 2 1/2 years before.
Bogey, I read you as saying that the US has episodes of “excessive militarism” and that the war in Iraq and other, unspecified, parts of the Middle East. This is a step down from the “unchecked militarism” you warned about, so we have that going for us.
And it seems that you do not consider “militarism” as the normal condition for the US, because there are and have been political constraints and civilian control over the actions of the military from the very beginning.
I, of course, agree with you on that, but I must point out the continual presence and influence of such constraint is the very definition of a non-militaristic regime. Do you understand this?
(Keep rule number 3 in mind as you answer.)
Bogey,
The point is it is unreasonable to criticize the US for violating Genvea when it has been pointed out again and again that there have been no such violations (your baseless assertions to the contrary notwithstanding). Guantanamo prisoners have been treated according to the Conventions. If you have proof to the contrary, take the violators to court, where they belong. But you have no such proof, so you whine and cry around here.
I just don’t know how I can be any clearer, Oblio.
As I’ve said repeatedly, history shows the U.S. has a tradition of exercising military restraint, relative to its superpower status.
This means that the Cheney-Bush departures from that tradition are not only dangerous and unwise, they are fundamentally unAmerican.
Bogey Man: do you have any idea what lack of military restraint would have looked like, had Bush and Cheney chosen to exercise it?
Bogey, that is lame. You could make what you mean a lot clearer. I object to your unwillingness to take responsibility for defending your position.
First it was “unchecked militarism,” then “excessive militarism,” now it is a “departure” from “a tradition of exercising military restraint, relative to its superpower status.” These are not synonyms. The fact that the Republic goes to war does not make it militaristic.
There is no evidence of US “militarism” at all. There is plenty of evidence of military restraint in Iraq, as well as multilateral diplomacy in the cases of Iran, North Korea, Russia, and even Darfur. We have been over this ground before.
You may very think, though you don’t say, that acting on longstanding national policy by militarily removing the Saddam regime was a bad idea and you are still against it. You haven’t come close to connecting that to “unchecked militarism” that is going to somehow cause the fall of the Republic.
Feeling that way doesn’t make it so, no matter how strongly you feel it.
I can’t believe you don’t understand the point. One is tempted to think that you employ sloppy and emotional rhetoric as a tactic: you never say exactly what you mean, so you can always claim to be misunderstood, and change the focus of the debate. I have known Leftists to do that.
“do you have any idea what lack of military restraint would have looked like, had Bush and Cheney chosen to exercise it?”
No one is suggesting there was a total lack of restraint. Even the Soviet Union exercised some restraint in Afghanistan and Ghengis Khan chose to let some live — yet we clearly associate those regimes with militarism.
Cheney-Bush ratcheted up American militarism to new levels by invading a country that had neither attacked the U.S. nor threatened to.
Moreover, they sought to make militarism its own justification by asserting that once a war had start, the press and public had a duty not to criticize it.
The obvious fact that it could have been worse doesn’t mean it wasn’t bad and certainly doesn’t mean it was good.
Since Oblio requires more semantic precision, I’m happy to provide it: Cheney and Bush SOUGHT unchecked militarism, but were smart enough to know it could only be achieved in stages. More important, they were unable to realize it, in the end, because it soon enough became apparent to the American public that the strategy was counterproductive.
When I say unchecked in the context of American militarism, I mean not as checked at has historically been across our two centuries of existence. When I say excessive, I mean excessive as regards our self-defense requirements as a superpower.
If you don’t like the word militarism, come up with a better one.
Fred asks: “Who are the dopes who really believe the terrorists pervert Islam?”
Let’s start with Bernard Lewis. He is the Cleveland E. Dodge Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University. He specializes in the history of Islam and the interaction between Islam and the West.
His advice has been frequently sought by policymakers, including both former Bush administrations. In the Encyclopedia of Historians and Historical Writing Martin Kramer, whose Ph.D. thesis was directed by Lewis, considered that, over a 60-year career, he has emerged as “the most influential postwar historian of Islam and the Middle East.”
“In this new century, his wisdom is sought daily by policymakers, diplomats, fellow academics, and the news media.” Dick Cheney, former vice president.
In his recent book, “The Crisis of Islam,” Lewis describes at length how radical Islamists have hijacked the Koran for their own aggrandizement and gangsterism. He also delivers a litany of criticisms of Islam’s weaknesses, while still making clear that none of the religions tenets can be used to justify terrorism. Then there’s the entire neo-conservative foreign policy establishment, which has insisted for nearly a decade now that Iraq and other Muslim countries are fully capable of functioning as democracies.
Our illustrious host, even, along with many others have argued not only that we have won the war in Iraq, but that we fought the war primarily to bring democracy to that country and, eventually, the region. Given that we know the government of Iraq is today far more Islamic than at any time in the past century, it’s safe to assume that people who believe that government is a success story for U.S. policy and democracy, also believe that Islam doesn’t justify terrorism. Then there’s former president Bush.
He’s made clear his belief that Islam is a religion of peace. But really, the only authorities that truly matter on this subject are Muslim scholars themselves. On that score, we can find virtually none among major theological and academic leaders who support a version of Islam that justifies terrorism, or any kind of murder.
This isn’t to say there are not an alarming number of Muslim clerics who do support terrorism, but simply to point out the unassailable fact that these are fringe characters small in number and very far removed from the mainstream of Islam.
A list of hundreds of Islamic religious leaders and scholars who oppose terrorism can be found here:
http://www.unc.edu/~kurzman/terror.htm
Bogey,
No one disputes there are peaceful muslims. It’s Islam itself that’s the problem. The vast majority of Germans were peaceful, too. That didn’t mean National Socialism wasn’t a violent doctrine of global domination.
Have you yourself ever read the Qur’an or Hadith? Their words speak as clearly as “Mein Kampf”.
Qur’an 8:39 “So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world).
From The Noble translation by Mushin Khan; words in parenthesis added by the translators.
More to follow.
Here’s another:
Qur’an 9:5 “When the sacred forbidden months for fighting are past, fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, beleaguer them, and lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war. But if they relent, performing their devotional obligations and paying the zakat tax, then open the way. Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. I created Islam to start fights that will kill, enslave, and torture people by way of deceptive ambush. Surrender, or I will have Muslims terrorize you.”
Remember, the Qur’an is Allah’s own words. He even tells us why Islam was created. So who are these clerics and scholars that contradict their own god?
I can go on. There are hundreds of scripture to prove Islam is the corruptor, rather than the corrupted.
It’s the “good” Muslims we need to worry about, because they are faithful to the Prophet, the commands in the Qur’an, and the injunctions and interpretations in ahadith. The terrorists are the most faithful to Muhammad and his sock puppet deity.
The “bad” Muslims are the ones we need to protect and to make sure we keep on our side. The more descriptive word that applies to them would be “cultural” Muslims. They do the Five Pillars, but otherwise have not read their scriptures. They don’t know what’s in there. Muslims are not encouraged to do this, and it is all the more a state of entropy that this is the case since the vast majority of Muslims do not know classical Arabic.
Most kafir do not know that classical Arabic is considered the language of prayer, since “Allah” spoke to Muhammad in this language. That is why it is considered impure and haram to translate the Qur’an into the languages of most Muslims. The primary reason is that the Qur’an is only intended to be recited as prayer. The imams and clerics will convey to their flocks what is contained in it. Most Muslims do not know what’s in it. The certainly are not aware of the doctrine of abrogation, which is why, to quote Bill Warner, the Qur’an and Islam are considered exceedingly dualistic.
Lee is citing these things correctly. I could go on over to the web sites that have the Qur’an and pull this stuff up in defense of my original points, but I have a feeling that our interlocutor is not really interested in that. And what is the point if that is so? We could append a bibliography of books and articles for that person to peruse and digest, and it would make not one difference, because I doubt they would even be opened. A total waste of time, IMHO.
I’m sure you understand, Fred, why so many people like me prefer the views of the hundreds of Islamic scholars, from Princeton University to Cairo, Tehran, Tel Aviv and Frankfurt, over Bin Laden’s and your’s.
You choose to label radical, orthodox Muslims who use a selective, literal interpretation of the Koran as “good” and those who interpret the book non-selectively and in the context of ancient spiritual literature as “bad.” What is your rationale for that choice?
Do you make the same distinction among Christians and Jews? Are Jews who do not believe that they are literally God’s chosen people “bad” Jews? Are Christians who chose not to vow poverty, given Jesus’ views on wealth, “bad” Christians?
Bogey,
As is the usual tactic of yours (baiting), you impute to me a malign motive for what I posted above. It is not MY interpretation of Islam and its traditional views. You will NOT find any Muslim clerics or scholars make a statement that says that the Qur’an is not the divine dictation of Allah. You just won’t, because to make such a statement would put them under threat of blasphemy and even apostasy. I am not imposing a hermeneutic of selective literalism on them.
The scholars you refer to in general terms as residing in our institutions of learning are very careful to not run afoul of orthodox positions. They are masters of parsing their words in such a way as to fool kafirs and remain faithful to Islam. Plus, they would never receive Saudi funding, or their programs receive Saudi funding, if what they are doing is perceived as running counter to the Ummah’s mission.
You are not fit to render an honest or competent judgment of anything I’ve written here on this subject. I have done many hundreds of hours of reading about Islam over many years.
Your baiting is a bad faith tactic. The rest of your above post is a cobbled together collection of neural flatulence. There is a very large difference between the texts of the Jewish people, regardless of the interpretive traditions that make use of them, and the texts of the Islamic tradition. Had you ever delved into the Islamic scriptures and traditions these differences would be rather obvious. What’s obvious to everyone on neo’s site is that this is a subject you have not the competence to contribute anything worthwhile towards.
And this was a polite response from me, as your above comment put my blood pressure up a few notches. I could call you an insolent little prick, and that would be understandable, given that you would test the patience of a saint. And I am no saint.
Again, for the dull of mind, let me reiterate a point that should be obvious. “Good” Muslims are those who follow the Prophet’s example and who obey Allah’s will, as dictated to them in the Qur’an. The “good” Muslim, then, hews to the kinds of things that you find in the Qur’anic quotes that Lee has posted above (and I have seen these elsewhere, in my own readings and also quoted in other discussions over at jihadwatch.org). The “good” Muslim wages jihad against the unbelievers. The “good” Muslim lies to the kafir in order to disguise his intent and to camouflage the jihad.
The “bad” Muslims are the ones who either through ignorance, cowardice, or torpor will not hew to “fight in the way of Allah.” The “bad” Muslim wants to make some kind of compromise with the modern world, and even find ways to not be fighting the kafirs who live around and amongst them.
We want to have as many “bad” Muslims on our side as possible and yet this is difficult to pull off because the “good” Muslims are always lurking, taking their numbers, and where possible actually killing the cultural/apostate Muslims.
Islam is not a religion. It’s a cult – one that is founded upon the protection racket: extortion and murder in order to impose domination over the unbelievers. The person who cannot see what a vile, evil ideology it is can only be an intellectually lazy moral reprobate who does not possess enough humanistic values to grasp what a threat Muhammad’s cult of the moon god sock puppet really is.
And that’s you, Bogey. You’re a dullard. You are intellectually lazy, because you refuse to read the primary sources and become informed.
Insult me all you like, Fred, but you’re beef is not with me, but with the vast majority of Islamic scholars, both secular and religious.
I am merely presenting what they say and noting that it contradicts your views.
If you think I’m misrepresenting what, for example, Bernard Lewis, a widely respected conservative scholar, says on the subject, then bring on the evidence.
If there are any scholars, secular or religious, who agree with you, please note them and explain why you think they are more qualified to render judgments than the scholars I’ve mentioned: many of whom get no funding from the Saudis and have no truck with any form of radical Islam.
Bogey, what exactly are you trying to prove?
And your best argument is to Appeal to Authority? To make this work, you would really need to bring out the exact quote from Lewis, show that is is directly on FredHjr’s point, and discuss the context in which he wrote it. You might be right, but you didn’t show it. Exact quote and page, please.
Your use of Appeal to Authority is clearly fallacious when you cite former President Bush as an authority on Islam. Linking to a long list of selected quotes produced after 9/11 doesn’t have a lot of weight, either, because we don’t know the context, we don’t know their exact qualifications, and we don’t know what else they say when there is no one from an anti-war group around. Many of them are potentially impeachable for bias, whether or not they take Saudi funding. I was charmed to see you relying on the opinions of Cat Stevens. I liked his music when I was in high school.
Are you trying to prove that FredHjr doesn’t know what he’s talking about? Fred’s posts suggest he knows a lot more about it than you do.
For good order’s sake, I would argue that Fred is suggesting too simple an explanation for Islamic terrorism: some of its roots are relatively new, some are a few hundred years old, others go back to founding of Islam, and others are even older than that. Beyond that, I would like to see a strong proof of the comment about the cult of the moon god, as that is a very strong claim.
But I can wait for another day. This thread is too long as it is.
“Your use of Appeal to Authority is clearly fallacious when you cite former President Bush as an authority on Islam.”
No dice, OB. I cited him as one of very many examples. He’s relevant not because of his intellectual or academic credentials, but because of his political position. You’re not only fallacious, but of dubious intent here, as you’re clearly, if feebly, misrepresenting what I wrote.
And I don’t need to quote Lewis unless and until Fred says he thinks I’m misrepresenting him. If you want to challenge my representation of Lewis, go ahead, but then you’ve got some burden to bear as well. Until then, you’re just generating fog.
You say the extensive quotes “don’t have a lot of weight.” Relative to what? Fred’s selective, totally decontextualized, quotes from the Koran and risible boasting about how much time he’s spent learning them?
Indeed, I’m saying Fred’s claims about Islam are wildly inaccurate. I’m flattered, OB, that you would view me as the benchmark for knowledge of Islam, but I think I’ve already explained how silly that is.
“Wahabism dates back to the 18th century. It is an extreme, intolerant, violent interpretation of Islam, which is just about as far as you can get from the Islamic mainstream. It was always something very remote and very marginal with very limited impact.
It has about as much to do with Islam as the doctrines of the Ku Klux Klan have to do with Christianity.” –Bernard Lewis, July 1, 2003.
Lewis goes on to explain that Saudi oil money has given Wahabism an affect far beyond its actual footprint within Islam. Without the oil money and Saudi monarchy, “it would have been a lunatic fringe in a marginal country.”
There is a lot Lewis has to say that I disagree with, but on this point, he’s consistent with a very wide consensus of religious, academic and political figures. I bring him up primarily because his political position is unassailably conservative.
I’ve read one of Bernard Lewis’ books on Islam, and he tends to fall into the pattern that so many Ivy League elites who are “orientalists” fall into: they don’t study the primary sources of Islam.
I’ve followed over the last few years, a few of the blog discussions and debates between Lewis and Robert Spencer. Spencer is much more versant about Islamic primary sources and theology. Lewis never has been able to defend in the discussion by reference to Islamic sources. He relies on the templates from political science, sociology, and history (and some of that history, inaccurately).
Again, let me reiterate: the jihadists correctly cite the Qur’an, ahadith, and Sira as justifications for fighting against the infidels. The controversy really comes down to this: the Muslim Brotherhood is trying to wage a stealth jihad against the unbelievers, and the military jihad has been very unsuccessful and threatens to undo everything the Brotherhood is trying to accomplish. Therefore, if there is any way they can discredit the jihadists by saying that they pervert Islam, they will do it. They are employing the tactic called “taqiyya.”
There really is no way for me to establish myself as a credible opinion on this topic, despite all the hard work I’ve put into this arduous journey of over eight years delving into Islam’s primary sources and the 1,400 years of jihad history. I have read over eighteen books besides the Qur’an. Literally dozens of lengthy articles, many of them of academic quality. I have passionately gone full bore into this topic because I see how monumental this is. As a citizen of the United States I believe it’s important that I do this. I am not going to rely on what some politicians say or what some people in a think tank have to say to the media. I don’t ape politically correct views. How I think in this matter is the product of hard work.
You think it’s EASY to read the Qur’an? Took me three years. It’s a very difficult book, because of its disorganized thought, archaic expressions, and the sheer shocking violence and sordidness found within it.
I will not be told by someone who does not have the competence to judge my thoughts when I’ve put so much work into it. I will not go quietly when someone who is not my equal in this topic insists on wishing away uncomfortable facts. I will not yield. This is too important a development in our historical moment to surrender my ground.
Lewis has studied the Q’uran in ancient Arabic, a language he has understood for four decades.
Do you, or have you read the English translations?
More important, perhaps, you are in denial of the distinction between what may be an accurate, literal interpretation of a spiritual text and how the vast majority of devotees of the text have chosen to interpret it. Even if you, and not the vast majority of Muslims, are correct about what it means to be a Muslim, you still have no choice but to acknowledge that Muslim society operates based on their interpretations, not yours.
So, Bogey, your avenue of attack now is to say that reading an English translation of the Qur’an is an inaccurate rendering of the words of Allah?
Apparently you are a closet Islamist. Many of the Brotherhood’s attacks on Spencer tried this approach, but it didn’t work for two reasons (the first of which does not apply to me because I do not know classical Arabic).
One, they say that he does not know classical Arabic, but he does. In fact, I’ve read these exchanges between his Arabic/Muslim critics, where it is obvious that Spencer actually studied these texts in the language of Allah. And he finally was able to get them to refuse to openly declare that the Qur’an is NOT the LITERAL, UNCREATED, ETERNAL, AND PERFECT WORD OF ALLAH. They couldn’t do this, because it would put them in an untenable position.
The second point – that reading an English translation (this applies to me) renders in inaccurate “interpretation” of Islam. This is not so. If it were, then we could have no reliable translations of any text from any language. Classical Arabic IS a language, and as such can be translated to render very accurately the sense of what is being communicated. In order to completely render innocuous the many surahs which enjoin jihad and various other barbarities a severe mangling of the language would have to occur in this kind of hand off. But that is improbable.
This is one more brick in the wall, Bogey, that you are building for yourself. If you had overcome your sloth and bias you would just pick up a good English translation of the Qur’an and go at it. But you won’t, and you try to find any excuse possible to not confront your biases. You want to continue to try to have the last word on this, employing a very thin stable of excuses. If I were you, I truly would be ashamed of myself.
The orthodox, traditional scholars of Islam admit only one interpretation of the Qur’an: that it is the uncreated, literal, perfect, and eternal words of Allah. They are Allah’s very words. There is no contextualizing this text. The usual methods of critical analysis applied to the Bible by much of mainstream Catholic and Protestant scholars – historical, literary, form, anthropological, and sociological – which seem to condition most modern people’s way of seeing religious texts, do not apply to the Qur’an. And yet we keep going round and round about this very point, kind of like the dog chasing its tail. And I’m not the dog chasing the tail, but merely the one who wants the ridiculous game to stop.
Again, Spencer never found any evidence that Lewis has the same familiarity with these texts that Spencer cites and which the jihadis accurately cite as justification for their actions. It is just too frightening to the liberal elites to contemplate the fact that the enemy truly does have it right. And so they think that imitating the ostrich and publicly mocking those who say that the emperor has no clothes will make it all go away.
I am not a scholar of Islam, therefore I impose no new “interpretation” on it. The people you have attached your opinion to apparently think that one can just go through the Qur’an and ahadith with white out and simply will away words in the texts, or explain them away in a manner that is unacceptable to the orthodox scholars of Sunni and Shia Islam.
The citations that “Lee” above posted are accurate and are considered “perfect” as is. Again, if you would but deign to embrace a more humble attitude and go and read this stuff for yourself, it would go a long way in clearing out the fog of misunderstanding that you stubbornly cling to.
Pride and sloth are two of the Seven Deadly Sins.
One final point, which bears repeating and which I stated earlier in this exchange.
The “vast majority of Muslims” you make reference to do not read the Qur’an. Some of them recite surahs that they have memorized, but they do not even know what the words mean. The vast majority of Muslims do not speak or know classical Arabic. Hell, most Arabs do not know classical Arabic. These Muslims do not “interpret” the Qur’an, because they don’t even know much about what’s in it.
As I stated earlier, they learn what they know from the preaching of the imams and clerics in the mosques. This is the actual way in which their devotional life is shaped.
In closing, my roomate at the University of New Hampshire, for the years 1981-82, during my undergrad years, was a devout Iranian Shia Muslim. A supporter of the Ayatollah Khomeini. “Ali” never knew what the parts of the Qur’an he would recite meant. On Fridays at mosque he would hear the sermons of the imam, and on his short wave radio he would listen to the speeches of Iranian officials and clerics. This is what is typical of the devotional life of your average Muslim.
The jihadists are devotees who decided they wanted to go the extra mile in their zeal and devotion, and so the imams and clerics obliged, giving them the full skinny as they say.
Again, Bogey, stop being lazy and actually go and get some real knowledge about these texts. Prove to everyone here that you truly are the liberal man of letters you insinuate yourself as being. Then we can revisit this conversation at some point in the future.
Fred: Your claim that only a literal interpretation of the Koran can apply has no substance. Your rationale is that because some orthodox Muslims say it must be literal, it can therefore only be liberal.
You don’t even bother to address the simple question of why most Muslim clerics and scholars do not consider literal interpretation valid.
You write:
“The orthodox, traditional scholars of Islam admit only one interpretation of the Qur’an: that it is the uncreated, literal, perfect, and eternal words of Allah.”
Why would you have the time to bother with an interpretation that makes rather obviously contradictory claims? If the words are “uncreated” how did they find their way into the Koran you read?
If Islam is a cult of the Venus sock puppet, as you claim, why do you accept at face value the obviously narrow, supernatural explanations of its most ideologically invested devotees?
You write:
“They are Allah’s very words. There is no contextualizing this text.”
That’s a non-sequiter. Language IS context, period, whether it is used by the lunar stocking deity, the Dalai Lama or Jesus Christ.
It isn’t flattering that you’ve set me up as the benchmark for your knowledge of Islam, given that whatever lengthy studies you’ve made have been so severely retarded by poor logic.
I think you’ve pretty much closed the case on yourself here by claiming that you, not Muslims themselves, are in a position to decide what it means to be a Muslim.
Bogey,
I invite you to go over to jihadwatch.org and partake of the discussions over there. Bring your views there and on many threads you can actually ask Robert Spencer and Hugh Fitzgerald for their take on what you think. I think they will even answer your questions.
Tell them that you think the majority of Muslims reject a literal interpretation of the Qur’an, and because of that view you think it means that the jihadists are incorrectly using the Qur’an.
That is the KEY point you need to bring to those guys. Because everything else you’ve posted on this thread really comes down to that view that you stubbornly will not move from. Tell them where you get your reasoning from.
Warning: Some of the members WILL react far more hostilely than I have, but you will find many who will attempt to patiently field your questions.
At this point, I fully understand the game that is being played here. I think I know your modus operandi and, at this point, I will consent to letting you have the last word on the subject. Your dogging me on this tells me that you have one – and only one – objective in mind, and that is to win an argument by whatever means necessary. I’m not interested in that (winning) because I’m the one who has been responding to your lawyerly baiting. I’ve always been interested in the truth. You are more interested in winning, and so I let you win. But I think you really do need to obtain much more deep knowledge about this subject than you have demonstrated here.
I have a feeling you won’t take my advice, because I don’t think your abiding care is to know the truth. You are here only to be a pest and to hook us in to ridiculous arguments with you. And I’ve seen you twist people’s words, including mine, in thread after thread here on neo’s blog.
The only way you and I could have a good faith conversation about Islam would be if you suspend your schtick and go on over to jihadwatch.org and get up to speed.
Bogey Man, can you read? I’m starting to wonder….
Among the problems with interpreting an ancient spiritual text literally is that it contradicts itself.
I wonder how Fred interprets this part of the Koran, literally:
Chapter 5, Verse 32: “If anyone slew a person–unless it be for murder or spreading mischief in the land–it would be as if he slew the whole people. And if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people.”
E: is that really the best you’ve got?
FredHjr, thanks for some fine writing under trying circumstances.
You are right that Bogey is only here to be a pest.
He makes a little ritual of provoking us and posing as a pundit, although anyone who says something as ridiculous as “Cheney and Bush SOUGHT unchecked militarism, but were smart enough to know it could only be achieved in stages” will never be taken for a deep thinker.
He proves again and again that he isn’t interested in serious discussion. He shows contempt for his readers. His logic is sloppy. His rhetoric is imprecise. He seems to have no self-awareness, nor does he understand that displays of semi-educated insolence are not very impressive.
So why does he do it? What does he gain? Why does he think he’s winning? Because you are right, Fred, “winning” in some weird sense was what this was all about for Bogey. Something strange must be going on in Bogey’s mind for him to spend so much time here making obtuse statements. He needed to win, and so he picked a fight with you where he could proclaim victory by associating himself with the conventional wisdom. Pity he made a hash of it. Perhaps Neo will help us all understand such motivations someday.
It’s a little bit sad.
Bogey,
I did in an earlier post explain that a dualism exists in Islamic scriptures and that their scholars have made an accommodation for it. First, the earliest Sunni scholars promulgated the doctrine of abrogation, whereby the later revelations made to Muhammad in Medina take precedence over the revelations made to him early in his career as a prophet in Mecca. And whenever it suits the Ummah, they may deem the earlier revelations to be more expedient. That is why the surah Bogey quotes is often brought out by some Muslim groups and their Western apologists. It is meant to throw us off the scent of jihad and its ideological intolerance. In fact, the use of the doctrine of taqiyya permits the Muslim to use even Islamic scriptures to deceive kafirs and to provide cover for the Ummah when it is militarily weak.
Also, people like Bogey, being unaware of the Dhimma and what became of non-Muslim groups, gradually over time, in Muslim countries, are easy marks for the dissimmulation.
Surah 9:5 abrogates Surah 5:32, but the latter can be used as a way to gain an advantage against the unbelievers.
Once more, I appeal to Bogey to go to a place like jihadwatch.org if he must strain my every typed word for a possible opening to make an argument. I have already conceded to him this debate, as I have no desire to play this a political battle. At this point all I am trying to do is to answer the latest question and put to rest the latest assault upon my credibility.
One of the ways you win a debate is simply bludgeoning and outlasting your opponent. I’ve already told Bogey I concede the debate with him because I know this will go on interminably. But I will not allow myself to be caricatured, as he has consistently done to me throughout this debate. I am more interested in truth and accuracy than winning.
O.K. Bogey? You win. It’s clear you don’t believe a word I type, but I do have to answer for the sake of establishing to others here that I don’t make shit up. And because you don’t believe a word I type I strongly recommended that you go elsewhere to get second opinions like jihadwatch.org. But you won’t do it. I wonder why that is….
Surah 9:5 was the last one that was ‘revealed’ to Muhammad, and thus abrogates all the nice sounding, peaceful, earlier Meccan ones that some Muslims like quoting, which encourage peace and forgiveness, the ones composed during the time that Muhammad was outnumbered and couldn’t do anything to kill and control his opponents.
oblio,
What people do not seem to understand is that many years ago I too was in thrall to the conventional wisdom in these matters. I just wanted to be straight up with you about that. I did not “go off the rails” of the conventional opinion on a whim. I began to sense that the conventional wisdom was wrong, and so I decided to get another viewpoint. I read Robert Spencer’s first book, and based upon his views, I decided that I had to read the Qur’an and see what was in it. It was horrifying. It truly was, besides which it was a very tedious book to get through. I did not start my journey with a pre-conceived idea and then went in search of stuff to buttress it. I tried to begin with a clean slate.
As an undergraduate student I took a course an intro. course in comparative religions, so I got through the part of the course about Islam. It was thin, and by the standards of what I now know today, full of pap and deviously revised history.
I actually am insulted by Bogey’s treatment of me on this thread, because he has no idea of the length and depth of my quest. All he sees is that I am outside of the norm of opinion in these matters, and therefore I am an unreliable witness. I honestly could give a shit about winning and losing, because there is so much more at stake than a petty weblog debate. On the other hand, I don’t care for my integrity and honesty being impugned. And it was him who lit into me by mocking what I had written earlier on the thread.
It’s just tiring. I’m tired of it all. At this point I am only here communicating with you because I noticed your post here and it was a breath of fresh air. And so, I will take my leave, trusting that in my absence my insolent interlocutor will just have to have the final word in this.
No, Fred, it is obvious to anyone with eyes that you have worked hard and thought deeply about the matter. It matters not at all that you take an unconventional point of view. You argue elegantly, and you show your opponent a respect for the rigorous forms of intellectual discourse that he clearly doesn’t understand. You held yourself to a high standard, with one slip that was understandable in context.
“All he sees is that I am outside of the norm of opinion in these matters, and therefore I am an unreliable witness.”
Fred: You complain again and again and again that your integrity is questioned, yet your argument is based almost exclusively on attempts to belittle mine.
If you presented facts and logic showing why a literal, minority fringe interpretation of the Koran is the only correct one, anyone could assess the strength of your logic and evidence and respond accordingly.
But you haven’t. Instead, the sum of your argument is that you know better because you studied more than me. To that you add that the fiercely conservative Christian critic of Islam, Robert Spencer, is the source of your views and, in your view, held his own in a debate with conservative critic of Islam Bernard Lewis.
For the umpteenth time, I make no comment on the length or depth of your study of the subject. I’m only concerned with what you say here in this forum.
I’m not saying you contradict the Qu’ran but that you contradict yourself.
For example: you say the Koran includes lies designed to throw readers off the trail. Yet the linchpin of your argument is that Muslims have no choice but to believe that it is the “uncreated” word of God. Both of these can’t be true. Either part of the book is lies, and part is true, or it’s all, as we say in the West, “gospel.”
If you’re willing to concede that part of the Qu’ran consists of lies, then you’ll have to explain how you can be sure which part is true. So far, you provide only tautology: your argument is that, any part of the Qu’ran that forswears terror is false, because the Qu’ran doesn’t forswear terror.
I’m sure you can understand why we need a little more than that.
Oblio: Is that really all you have to contribute?
Oblio and FredHjr:
You guys are fighting the good fight. Thanks for your words and wisdom.
I’ve been following your exchanges with the aptly initialed “BM” and, to quote the Bard, “I am amaz’d, and know not what to say.”
I was serious when I asked whether BM can actually read. Given the abysmal level of his discourse, that’s actually a charitable assumption. His post of January 29 at 4:55 is an unparalleled farrago of tortured reasoning, in which he cites previous posts out of context and wilfully misrepresents what others have said in order to push his own confused point. It’s still unclear to me what that point is.
FredHjr is talking about real issues, and has real scholarship to back up his points. BM just seems to want to make other people wrong, with no reference to history or facts. And then there’s the irritating playground trash-talk to me and Oblio – “is that all you got?” It’s tiresome.
I think Oblio’s surmise that there is “something going on in his mind” must be right. Perhaps a mental health professional could be of service . It would be more helpful to BM, and less annoying to those of us who are here for the exchange of actual ideas.
For my part, I’m sending BM to Coventry. ‘Nuff said.
I’m sure an Islamic scholar taught Bogey that one.
The Qur’an says: Qur’an 5:31 “Then Allah sent a raven who scratched the ground to show him how to hide the shame of the dead body of his brother. ‘Woe is me!’ said he; ‘Was I not even able to be as this raven, and to hide the dead body of my brother?’ Then he became full of regrets.” We find a striking parallel in Talmudic sources. The Targum of Jonathan-ben-Uzziah says: “Adam and Eve, sitting by the corpse, wept not knowing what to do, for they had no knowledge of burial. A raven came up, took the dead body of its fellow, and having scratched at the ground, buried it thus before their eyes. Adam said, ‘Let us follow the example of the raven,’ so taking up Abel’s body, he buried it at once.” Apart from the contrast between who buried whom, the two stories are otherwise uncannily similar. We can only conclude that it was from here that Muhammad, or a later compiler, obtained his “scripture.” A Jewish fable came to be repeated as a historical fact in the Qur’an.
Yet that is not all. We find further proof of plagiarism of apocryphal Jewish literature; this time in the Jewish Mishnah Sanhedrin. The Qur’an reads: Qur’an 5:32 “On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone slew a person – unless it be in retaliation for murder or for spreading mischief in the land – it would be as if he slew all mankind: and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all humanity.” The Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5 says: “We find it said in the case of Cain who murdered his brother, the voice of thy brother’s blood cries out [this is a quote from Genesis 4:10, but not the rest…], and he says, it does not say he has blood in the singular, but bloods in the plural. It was singular in order to show that to him who kills a single individual, it should be reckoned that he has slain all humanity. But to him who has preserved the life of a single individual, it is counted that he has preserved all mankind.”
From “Prophet of Doom” by Craig Winn.
So, Allah is a plagerist.
Not to mention, Bogey, you left out some words from your quote:
Forgetting for a moment that the entire quote was pilfered verbatim from Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5, proving that Qur’an 5:32 was plagiarized and not inspired, the Islamic apologist omitted the core of the verse and all of what follows. She misquoted the Qur’an by omitting the exemption for murder from the verse: “except in retaliation or the spread of mischief.” The “spread of mischief” is “non-Islamic behavior” and a “mischief maker” is anyone who does not “submit to and obey Allah and his Apostle.” The caller and President Bush took the verse out of context by not completing the point Allah was making. The next verse flows from the previous one. Qur’an 5:33 is violent, murderous, and intolerant: Qur’an 5:32 “The punishment for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and who do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified, or their hands and their feet shall be cut off on opposite sides, or they shall be exiled. That is their disgrace in this world, and a dreadful torment is theirs in Hell.” Then: Qur’an 5:34 “Except for those who came back (as Muslims) with repentance before they fall into your power.
Turns out your “peaceful” Qur’anic quote is actually the most violent and intolerant in the book.
But please, keep trying. Maybe you’ll actually find one.
Cool research, Lee – it makes for very interesting reading!
Whoops, a retraction:
Bogey actually did include the words I claimed he omitted. But now you have a definition of “mischief”.
There are times when I wish neo would intervene and provide some direction and cautionary words when bad faith arguments are being advanced and then endless spun in every more absurd permutations.
“Bad faith” is a very good term for another fundamental problem with Fred’s claim that he is in a position to determine what all faithful Muslims must believe.
Religion is the realm of faith, not reason. It is self-evident that Islam, like Christianity, demands the acceptance of supernatural claims, i.e. claims that cannot be demonstrated via evidence and/or logic.
Given the absence of logic and evidence, the believer is left to rely on spiritual revelation. He believes because God tells him to at a spiritual level. He may maintain a litany of more practical reasons for his faith, but they are all negotiable, based on evidence and logic. Faith is not.
So there is no way anyone can decide what, for example, a Christian must believe unless and until they themselves have partaken of divine revelation. No matter how thoroughly and preceptively I read the Bible, unless I have some level of supernatural contact with God, I cannot sincerely embrace its supernatural claims.
Some Christians, for example, believe that a “Trinity” literally exists in which three entities are, simultaneously, one. The rationale for this isn’t that there is another, valid, type of mathematics that allows one to equal three. It is that the spiritual text claims it and the believer takes it on faith.
The same goes for the far more central Christian belief that a dead man was “resurrected.” It can only be taken on faith. A person can only believe this via spiritual revelation or ignorance/denial of rationality and science.
Some Christians, of course, claim their faith is entirely rational, an oxymoron that escapes them, as they fall in the latter category.
The same can be said for Muslims. Ultimately, the Koran’s claims can only be embraced via faith. Does the marytr in heaven receive a bunch of “virgins” or “white raisins of astonishing clarity?” The only credible answer would be resort to divine revelation, even as some Muslims would undoubtedly attempt to reason their way to one or other conclusion — even though both are self-evidently absurd.
Just as a real Christian must have a personal relationship with God that includes, at a minimum, communications with the deity, even if only one-way, so must a Muslim.
Unless Fred has such a relationship with Allah, how can he possibly claim in good faith to know what a Muslim should believe?
There is one other possibility. Perhaps Fred’s knowledge of Islam was obtained via his relationship with the Christian God. He could then be logically consistent, within his own framework of faith, i.e. he knows what Muslims must believe because the Christian God told him so in a revelation. But even then, Fred’s faith is bad, as his claim is that he knows what it means to be a Muslim because he knows what the Koran says, not what God told him.
And, I paid a visit to jihadwatch.org.
I found some interesting, though narrowly conceived, postings there, but no debate about anything in the “comments” section. Just loads of pathetic, hateful cries for help by bigots.
Sites like that are priceless as collection points for evidence that, while increasingly sidelined, the Campaign of Hate against Muslims, lives on.
I didn’t mean that Bogey should seek professional treatment: I’m not competent to make such a suggestion, based on my C in Freshman Psychology 30 years ago.
I was remembering the way that Pauline Kael described some dreadful Abby Mann/Stanley Kramer product (it might have been Ship of Fools or Judgment at Nuremberg) as a “ritual of accusation and denunciation.” Bogey’s pattern of behavior has some ritual characteristics.
I wonder if he is playing out a drama in his head in which he is the Hero, Horatius perhaps, holding the bridge against armies of ignorant and mean conservatives. It must fill him with an enormous sense of superiority. And so you see he simply has to win, even if he has to willfully misconstrue what everyone else is saying to convince himself that people like Fred are bigoted know-nothings who deserve his contempt.
I would like to say this behavior is rare, but I remember it distinctly from 30 years ago, and one can find it any hour of the day at Kos or Firedoglake.
Oblio,
What do you suppose accounts for his particular animus towards me? Is is because I used to be on the Left? Is it because I show a distinct lack of favoritism towards the pet oppressed, now the Muslims? Is it because I’m an easy target?
I rather suspect that what probably set him off on me was that I used the former Muslim cleric, Ali Sina’s, description of the relationship of Muhammad and “Allah.” Muhammad’s sock puppet deity. It’s true that I am hard on Islam, but only because it deserves the disgust of all civilized people, because of its 1,400 year history of aggression against the unbelievers.
Believe me, Oblio, I did not imagine that back in the Nineties that I would have gone on this journey. I simply became curious and something in my gut told me that the consensus opinion about this cult and its culture was not quite right. I did mention early on in the thread that I had an Iranian Shia room mate when I was living off campus in my undergraduate days. I had very good, if not excellent, relations with the guy. We were friends (or so I thought at the time), thus I was never, ever predisposed to hating Muslims. And indeed I do not hate Muslims, even if I do hate Islam, which I believe victimizes its people every bit as much as some of them victimize us today.
Oblio, I was only after the truth. That’s all I ever really wanted. Back in my Leftist days I knew something was not quite right when I was almost alone among my peers defending Israel and Jews against attacks on their right to have a nation in the land that God gave to them. There is a reflexive bias on the part of the Left towards Islam, and I have yet to meet an honest Leftist who overcame intellectual sloth and went right to the sources to find out the truth. Almost without exception, they all fall back on the pap I see repeatedly employed, and the rebuttals of that pap from people far more capable than I have made absolutely no dent whatsoever.
I just do not see myself as an evil bigot. That’s not me as a child, an adolescent, or an adult. It’s not the person that people who know me best see and understand.
Perhaps I should be flattered in being such a target here on neo’s forum. I’ve hit a nerve somewhere and the reflex is to destroy me. But that’s what I learned many years ago: Leftists are very good at destruction.
As Lee demonstrates, Koranic verses, like any literature, can’t be separated from their context. Literal interpretation begets misunderstanding.
To isolate a single sentence or a single phrase or a single chapter from the entire book or from the time, place, culture and language that produced it is to compromise its meaning.
Texts that make spiritual claims, as does the Koran, cannot be fully understood outside that supernatural context. If we what to know what the Koran means to Muslims, we need to know first and foremost what Muslims believe it means, since only they, not non-believers, can interpret the books many contradicting claims in the the spiritual context it was written to be interpreted within.
As Lee also points out, to understand the Koran, we have to compare it with other religious traditions and mythologies emerging around the same time and place.
Lee also helpfully notes that, the Koran is likely plagiarized and, therefore, very unlikely to be the word of God. If the Koran is actually a collection of recycled Jewish and pagan myths, Fred’s claim that “good” Muslims must believe that the book is literally God’s word is even more preposterous. If Lee is correct, “good” Muslims must recognize that the book is more religious myth — including its encomium against nonbelievers (shared by all monotheisms) — than the revealed word of God.
Oblio: I would encourage you to maintain your ad hominem only policy in this debate because feeble as it is, it is most likely less pathetic than any facts or logic you might attempt. I would ask, though, where are your manners?
As to the specific claim Lee makes about the Koranic verse I cited: Where does it say the Koran justifies killing Muslims? By far the vast majority of Muslim terrorist victims have been other Muslims, so, from the start, a bin Ladenist like Fred needs to explain how the Koran justifies that.
Secondly, you claim that the translated phrase, “making mischief in the land” is a reference to “non-Islamic” behavior.” This is yet another tautology, since we are citing exactly the same verse to define Islamic behavior on the question of military tactics.
The verse unambiguously says that killing innocents is not Islamic. So that anyone who killed an innocent would be unIslamic and, therefore, be themselves worthy of killing.
So to interpret the verse in question, we need a direct interpretation of “making mischief” since we know that simply not being a Muslim isn’t enough.
As we can see, there are many layers of context. Literal interpretation gets us nowhere, unless our purpose is to mislead.
make that: “If we want to know what the Koran means to Muslims, we need to know first and foremost what Muslims believe it means, since only they, not non-believers, can interpret the books many contradicting claims in the the spiritual context it was written to be interpreted within.”
Fred, Bogey resents you and a lot of others here, but I think you were just a target of opportunity this time.
If you look back on the thread, he starts with a statement he can wrench out of context to form the basis for his ritual of accusation. The equation and narrative would be something like this: “Negative statements about Islam = bigotry against Muslims = racism = evil stupidity. I oppose this and I have authorities on my side, so I am smart and good, and I win. You, on the other hand, are unworthy of respect, and so I am not under any obligation to deal with you fairly.” Fred, as an old Lefty, you know the drill.
Don’t worry about it so much.
Fred, here is a song to cheer you up, even though it is Canadian:
“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4lWGIlGZCY”
The chorus is usually performed by Mounties. How can you not like that?
Dust off that old saddle.
Oblio,
Nice song, thanks for the link. Video from “Due South” which was a t.v. show my wife and I liked. FYI both of our families are from Quebec originally. French-Canadian Catholics both of us, and our communities here in New England are strong on patriotism and faith.
I like Canada, but never been to the Western Provinces.
The thing about our interlocutor on this thread, besides the dynamic you describe, is that he keeps persisting in this idea that there are significant traditions of Islam that treat their texts the way we contemporary Christians interpret our texts, which is a major fallacy. They don’t bring form, historical, literary, and sociological criticism to their interpretive process. I know this, because, having been a former seminarian in the Society of Jesus, I’ve read reams of books about theology and biblical studies.
The idea that I’m some sort of knuckledragging hayseed is a rip roaring laugh, now that I think about it. By the way, I have met Sufi Muslims and they told me of how vicious the persecution of them has been, historically. Sunni and Shia scholars have declared them apostates and blasphemers because they don’t take the Qur’an literally. I grew up in a neighborhood of mostly Poles and Ukrainians, but there were about four or five Armenian families, whose grandparents were living with them and, because I was their paper route boy, they told me about the genocide the Muslims perpetrated against them back in 1915, which they were lucky to survive. For hundreds of generations going back to the 8th century when they were first conquered by the Muslims, their lives were beset upon by catastrophe after butchery.
Fred: I am elated to apologize for any hint you may have picked up that I think you’re a bigot. You say you’re not and I’m perfectly happy to accept your self-assessment on that. I have no personal beef with you.
I’m delighted to accept your self-description as a devoted amateur scholar interested only in the pursuit of truth. My issue is only with your position as regards what is and is not the correct way for faithful Muslims to live.
Since you’re only interested in truth, I feel safe to assume you won’t be troubled by any questions I raise.
You claim that Muslims “don’t bring form, historical, literary, and sociological criticism to their interpretive process.”
What specific tools do you believe Muslims use for interpreting the Koran? Did you use those same tools?
If not, how were you able to arrive at what a Muslim understanding of the text would be?
Interestingly, your claim here has close parallels to mine that a faithful Muslim will interpret the Koran on the basis of his own divine inspiration. Without that, he can’t really be a faithful Muslim and, therefore, can’t really claim to understand the Koran as it was meant to be understood.
This, of course, heightens the mystery as to how you have arrived at a Muslim understanding of the Koran, given that you’re a Catholic.
You note that among some Muslims, the Meccan verses are denied, given their historical perspective, and that some versus are accepted as lies because they are known to be intentional deception.
You also note the deep rift between some sufi Muslims and some Shia and Sunni Muslims. How could these rifts emerge without reference to historical and/or literary and sociological perspectives on the Koran?
And, I’d also like to apologize for any hint I may have given you that I think you’re “some sort of knuckle-dragging hayseed.” If you construed something I said as suggesting that, please take my word that you misinterpreted it.
Oblio: Nobody likes a bigot, do they?
Bogey asked for a Qur’anic definition of “mischief”:
Qur’an 2:6 “As for the disbelievers, it is the same whether you warn them or not; they will not believe. Allah has set a seal upon their hearts, upon their hearing, and a covering over their eyes. There is a great torment for them.” It’s another Islamic first: a spirit so perverse, so evil, he precludes people from knowing him. And he does it so that he can torture them. The concept is demonic; the words are Satanic.
The next thirteen verses rekindle the never-ending argument; only this time the victims are Jews, not Arabs. Qur’an 2:9 “They deceive Allah and those who believe, but they only deceive themselves, and realize (it) not! In their hearts is a disease; and Allah has increased their disease. Grievous is the painful doom they (incur) because they (lie).” Only in Islam could man deceive God. But that’s child’s play compared to a god who calls men diseased, and then, rather than curing them, makes them sicker. The Qur’an begins as badly as it ends.
Qur’an 2:11 “When it is said to them: ‘Make not mischief on the earth.’ they say: ‘We are peacemakers only.'” Propagandists and political strategists know that the most effective deception is one that projects a doctrine’s or a candidate’s faults onto their rivals. That is precisely what is being done here. The “mischief makers” are Muslims, not Jews. As proof, the Jews were tending to their businesses while the Muslims were out pirating. But it is the last line that haunts us today. In the face of worldwide Islamic terror, Muslims say, “We are peacemakers only.” And we believe them. Shame on us.
Still attacking Jews, the Qur’an says: “They are mischief-mongers, but they realize not. When it is said to them: ‘Believe as the others believe.’ They say: ‘Shall we believe as the fools.’ Nay, surely they are the fools, but they know not. When they meet the faithful, they say: ‘We believe.’ but when they are alone with the devils, they say: ‘We are really with you: We (were) only mocking.'” Obviously, it didn’t take the Jews long to assess the merits of Islam. Knowing who God is helped them recognize who He was not. And therein lies our problem. We have lost sight of Yahweh, having separated ourselves from him. Most don’t even know his name, much less his character and plan. Not knowing Yahweh makes Lucifer more deceptive.
Also from “Prophet of Doom”.
The 2nd surah was the first “revealed” in the Jewish community of Al Yathrib, today called Medina. It was Allah’s attempt to convince the Jews that Muhammed was their sought for Messiah.
So now we have a definition of “mischief” (non-Islamic behavior) and a sanction to kill, crucify, mutilate, and banish those who “spread mischief”.
Lee,
I’ve come to realize that so much of the moral and intellectual confusion pervasive these days, regarding Islam vs. dar al Harb, begins with the ignorance of Yahweh and the Father of Jesus. In fact, not knowing who God truly is, they have no vantage point for a contrast to appear when Islam advances its cause. Hence, the absurdity of the “Three Abrahamic Faiths” – Islam being considered in the same tradition. Very clearly, those of us who have read their book, who are rooted in our Judaism or Christianity, recognize in the Muslim texts the very clear presence of Satan. The one who always justifies what Muhammad does and grants all of his wishes in a very timely fashion.
The Deceiver, in our day, seems to be winning the battle. Precisely by taking advantage of two developments:
1. The fading knowledge of the Creator, and the concurrent disbelief in such.
2. The rejection of the very idea of Evil and Satan.
Fred,
I agree. The last time a plain, clear doctrine of murder and global domination was ignored (Mein Kampf) until too late, 55 million people died.
Islam has been waging war against all mankind for 1400 years. The Qur’an and hadith clearly state their intentions and methods, and yet we still deny it. If this political doctrine of “submission” is not exposed, repudiated, and rejected, billions will die this time.
More Qur’an and hadith for Bogey Man to ponder:
Qur’an 47:4 “When you clash with the unbelieving Infidels in battle (fighting Jihad in Allah’s Cause), smite their necks until you overpower them, killing and wounding many of them. At length, when you have thoroughly subdued them, bind them firmly, making (them) captives. Thereafter either generosity or ransom (them based upon what benefits Islam) until the war lays down its burdens. Thus are you commanded by Allah to continue carrying out Jihad against the unbelieving infidels until they submit to Islam.”
Ishaq:315 “It was so criminal, men could hardly imagine it. Muhammad was ennobled because of the bloody fighting. I swear we shall never lack soldiers nor army leaders. Driving before us infidels until we subdue them with a halter above their noses and a branding iron. We will drive them to the ends of the earth. We will pursue them on horse and on foot. We will never deviate from fighting in our cause. Any people that disobey Muhammad will pay for it. If you do not surrender to Islam, then you will live to regret it. You will be shamed in Hell, forced to wear a garment of molten pitch forever!”
Ishaq:208 “When Allah gave permission to his Apostle to fight, the second Aqaba contained conditions involving war which were not in the first act of submission. Now we bound ourselves to war against all mankind for Allah and His Apostle. He promised us a reward in Paradise for faithful service. We pledged ourselves to war in complete obedience to Muhammad no matter how evil the circumstances.”
Whoops, some clarification:
The hadith sources are Ibn Ishaq’s “Sira”, or biography of the prophet, and page #’s.
Another source is Al Tabari’s history of Islam, or “Ta’rikh”.
Also Al Bukhari’s collection of hadiths, together make up the “Sunnah”, or “example” of the prophet.
The difference is The Qur’an is literally the “word of Allah, spoken by him”, wheras the hadith are the words and deeds of the prophet and his companions. Both are considered “holy scripture”.
Lee,
I thank God for the interjections of you and Oblio in this bleak landscape of a debate that is interminable because a certain irritant will not let go of a bone. For a bone is all that the Ummah will toss to us and that morsel seems perfectly acceptable to the ones who use it to knock us over our noggins.
The reason why I don’t put up much in the way of surahs and quotes from ahadith Bukhari and Muslim, or from the Sira, is that I know this kind of interlocutor. I know the futility of it, because I’ve witnessed these kinds of exchanges before and I know how it ends. That depressing reality should have caused me to never even enter this topic or this thread. My sister is married to a man who works for Raytheon, the big defense contractor. He’s high up in the missile defense program. Normally, we tend to agree across a range of issues, but there is ONE topic we just do not agree on, and this educated man refuses to go to the sources and see for himself what animates the jihad ideology. In truth, I don’t think it’s entirely due to intellectual sloth and pride. Part of it is institutional. Many people are unaware of the influence that the Wahhabi lobby has over our defense establishment. You many recall two years ago a certain Defense Undersecretary had an assistant named Hesham Islam who had a certain Army Reserve major terminated from his Pentagon job because that major had written books and articles about the enemy’s jihad ideology and its supports in the Qur’an, ahadith, and the Sira. Our government and the military are thoroughly penetrated now by those who are waging the stealth jihad against us.
The reality is THAT depressing. The next four years are going to get worse. If we thought President Bush did not understand Islam, President Obama is going to take it to a new level of ignorance.
Right now, Lee, I’m not optimistic about the survival of our Western Civilization. There are so many signs that it isn’t going to survive. You and I are powerless to stop this. I realize nothing is inevitable, but the weight and momentum of certain processes and events is unmistakable.
I’m not optimistic at this point, either, Fred.
But you and I, Neo and others have risen above the indoctrination. I’m just hoping more can do so. It was a terrible price, but eventually Europeans were freed from the doctrine of National Socialism. The more muslims we free from Islam will ultimately free us from the terror it inspires.
But Isaiah and John the Revelator predict we will not. I like to think prophesy is there to guide us away from the inevitable, but mankind always seems to choose poorly.
Tomorrow, I will show Bogey where Islam sanctions muslims killing muslims because of Islamic concepts of “hypocracy” and “fate”, or “predestination”.
Lee and Fred, we have seen darker days than these. Now focus on winning.
Oblio,
It isn’t just recent political events, or even the truculent, aggressive march of Islamic jihad, that have me concerned. Underneath it all is the rot at the core: our education system from the foundations all the way up to the universities. It’s the coarsening of our culture. Our legal system becoming an instrument in the hands of our enemies, internal and external.
Of course, the Great Depression and WWII were darker days. No question about that. So was the Civil War. But in those days we had a foundation underneath our citizenry that molded those people in learning and virtue. We were not in a process of suicide like we are now. Yes, we had overt conflicts and war, but those were conquerable by dint of the fact that our people believed in the values of our civilization and our country. All that is quite eroded now.
I will do what I can, but am realistic enough to understand that the venues where this can be fought against are few. The Gramscians own lock, stock, and barrel the institutions wherein young people receive learning and training to prepare them to be solid citizens.
And yet the indoctrination is incomplete. What percentage do we need to save in order to win? 1 in 3? 1 in 5?
Oblio,
Obama got 68% of the vote of people under the age of 30, and about 75% of single, white females. I think if we get a third to a half of those voters to rethink the worldview they received in school and in the media, by virtue of the next four years of disaster, crisis, and incompetence, then I think Obama’s a four-and-out president.
The long-term problem: how to reverse the trend of the people of the non-Muslim world to believe in the superiority of their values and civilization again.
It’s refreshingly honest of Lee and Fred to admit that their views on Islam are based on their Christian religious faith. The picture becomes much clearer when we know that whatever scholarly investigation they might attempt, their conclusion could never contradict their religious beliefs.
So, we can safely conclude that their quest in reading the Koran, could only be to attempt to verify their pre-existing belief that it must be Satanic, in that it denies the uniqueness of Jesus Christ.
Lee writes: “The concept is demonic; the words are Satanic.” and “We have lost sight of Yahweh, having separated ourselves from him. Most don’t even know his name, much less his character and plan. Not knowing Yahweh makes Lucifer more deceptive.”
Fred parrots: `Those of us who have read their book, who are rooted in our Judaism or Christianity, recognize in the Muslim texts the very clear presence of Satan.”
We can also safely assume that they are not making any exception for Islam. Any religion that claims to represent any god other than “Yaweh” and his son Jesus, is, by definition, “Satanic,” according to Christian beliefs.
Surely Fred and Lee also believe Judaism is Satanic as well. If not, I’d like to here them explain why, given that Judaism unabiguously considers Jesus an imposter. Or maybe they just haven’t throught it through, given that their search was never really for truth, as Fred claims, but rather, for rationale for pre-existing beliefs.
Fred openly embraces bin Laden’s version of Islam as the correct one, so it’s no surprise that his views on America share so many parallels with that of fake religious gangsters like bin Laden.
Fred and Lee both make exactly the same criticisms of America that bin Laden makes. It’s a weak society with a secular education system that fails to teach moral values. The society is weak and dissipated by secular consumer culture. Take a sentence out of Fred and Lee’s anti-American screed and you can find a counterpart by bin Laden that matches virtually verbatim.
Indeed, the strain of Christianity Fred and Lee embrace shares much with zealots across the centuries. Lee attempts to whip up fear that the few thousand barely armed, poorly funded and badly disorganized bin Ladenists are on the verge of repeating what the million plus Nazi war machine did.
Lee forgets to mention, however, that Nazism emerged directly from a culture that was fully, deeply Christian, not Muslim. The Nazis sought to displace Christianity, of course, as a competing ideology, but it clearly grew out of and had many allies among Christians. Then there were the Polish pogroms — mass murders of Jews by people unambiguously identified as Christians and, telling, saying the same sort of things about Jews that Fred and Lee now say about Muslims.
Lee, ever helpful, points out the Islam has been around for 14 centuries. Yet, somehow, it has managed a death toll only a tiny fraction of that of Christendom and even less than the realm of pagans and atheists. How could that be?
Even in our own lifetimes, the amount of killing accounted for by Muslims is only a tiny fraction of that perpetrated by countries where Christianity is either the most popular religion or at least provides the cultural template.
And then there’s still that nagging question, the one that got Fred all riled up in the first place:
How is that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful people living ordinary lives with no desire to disturb anyone and have been that way, as Lee helpfully points out for 14 centuries?
How is it that the bin Ladenism Lee and Fred insist is the real Islam is still, after 14 centuries, a fringe faith ruthlessly opposed by the leadership of all the largest Muslim countries?
Fred, I would settle for people having confidence that the values of the West are not inferior, and that they deserve to be defended.
I think the way we do that is by living courageously, productively, and attractively. By creating and supporting cultural institutions to contest the intellectual spaces and give people a choice. By writing and studying. Through the promotion of science. Through engagement with religious organizations. By defending the cultural legacy of the West, and encouraging the study of history.
Through dialog with reasonable people on the Left, who might be there through family inertia or misguided idealism–people such as you once were.
By creating a language and narrative that allows people to defend their views in public without fear of social repercussions.
By engaging young people as worthy of our instruction, even when they are ill-informed and ill-mannered. I believe you can teach them to recognize, distrust, and counter the rhetorical parlor tricks of the Left.
By encouraging young men to be disciplined, sober, and responsible. This will make them marriageable, and reduce the number of unmarried females to vote for the Mommy State. 🙂
By policing our ranks against bigots. By maintaining a civil and reasonable manner.
By finding our friends and allies and giving them encouragement.
Oblio,
Thank you for the upbeat and constructive thoughts about how to live in a period of declining civilization and perhaps help to recover it.
Over the years, because of the time constraints imposed by multiple responsibilities, I have not had enough time to read some of the classics of Late Antiquity and the High Middle Ages that I want to revisit. In college and graduate school I only read parts of these works.
Any kind of spiritual and intellectual discipline that encourages dampening down impulsivity and encourages a calm, rational approach to life needs to be encouraged.
A good start would be troweling off a few layers of condescension and ad hominem before sending your views out into cyberspace.
About 80 percent of Fred’s input on this thread has been either whining about how terrible he feels that I would be so “insolent” as to disagree with him and what a terrible, awful human being I am. About 95 percent of what Oblio has to say is either muddy ad hominem directed at me or offering his shoulder for Fred to cry on.
Grow up!
“How is that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful people living ordinary lives with no desire to disturb anyone and have been that way, as Lee helpfully points out for 14 centuries?”
Because the vast majority of people anywhere are good people. But in any totalitarian regime, fear and power compel complacency. In a certain sense, your claim about Christians killing more through history provides an answer. Claiming to be “christian” to justify war and murder doesn’t make one so. To be Christian, one has to know Yeshua. The people we speak of didn’t even follow His teachings, let alone understand His character.
Fred has referred to peaceful muslims as “bad”, in the sense they do not kill in “Allah’s Cause”. By my reasoning above, the “bad” muslims aren’t really “muslims”.
For some, the threat of death compels one to be muslim. For others, the less onerous “zakat” tax, vs. “jizya”, or “tribute” tax for dhimmi. Most, like us, tend to be what our parents are. But no matter how you came to be one, leaving is forbidden, under penalty of death. I cite the case of Abd Al Rahman of Afghanistan recently in the news as evidence.
Ernst Renan once said “Muslims were the first victims of Islam. Many times in my travels I have observed that a small group of fanatics maintain others in the practice of this religion by terror. To free the muslim from his religion is the best service one can render him.”
Anti-American, moi? See all faiths other than Christianity “satanic”, moi? I would never say there aren’t “other paths” to God. In fact, I believe the vast majority of muslims we speak of will be in the Heaven I believe in. One cannot choose what one is ignorant of.
But most “religions” are bad things. Abraham did not have a religion, he had a relationship with Yahweh. Dogma and ritual are irrelevant. And Islam is chock-full of it.
Bogey, you need to figure out what “ad hominem” means before you use it any more.
Lee writes: “Claiming to be “christian” to justify war and murder doesn’t make one so.”
But, in his belief, claiming to be “muslim” to justify war and murder, does.
The hypocrisy is a little too obvious.
Oblio: Whatever you do, don’t attempt to contribute anything of substance to this debate. Keep up with the insults and ad hominem, it may be pathetic, but it’s the best you’ve got. It’s beyond obvious that you’d like to shut me up, and it’s so much fun to see that the only way you can think of to do that is to drop feeble little insults. Hilarious!
Actually, Bogey, I meant my comment seriously. Why did you think it was an insult?
Nice try, Bogey, but no dice. Swing and a miss.
The problem is context. If Jesus says “love your enemies”, it’s a little hard to justify putting an arrow through one and claim you’re doing “god’s bidding”.
On the other hand, if “god” says “kill all who are not like us” and you murder non-believers, I’d say you have the right to say you’re “following god’s command”.
If Christians know Jesus and follow His example, they’re Christians, right? If Muslims follow what Allah and his messenger command them to follow, they’re Muslims, right?
Lee, I’m afraid you may underestimate his uncanny ability to evade logic. Expect everything you’ve posted to be “deconstructed,” including logic, and then turned on its head. I’ve learned a lesson here on neo’s blog (and elsewhere). There is no point in debating these kinds of people.
Lee, I’m with Fred on this. Debating with Bogey is pointless under his rule #3:
http://neoneocon.com/2009/01/23/obamaphiles-its-only-love-and-that-is-all/#comment-99866
He will only insist on having the last word so he can declare victory in his mind. There will be no end to it, and no one will learn a thing. I asked him to clarify what he thought the debate was about THREE DAYS AGO.
Wow, that could be the title of a comic book:
THE UNCANNY BOGEY MAN
He’s just trying to distract us from today’s lesson (which he specifically asked for, by the way): why most victims of Islamic terror are muslims.
Quran 9:16: “Do you think you will get away before Allah knows who among you have striven hard and fought?”
Qur’an 4:89: “They wish that you would reject Faith, as they have, and thus be on the same footing: Do not be friends with them until they leave their homes in Allah’s Cause.”
Qur’an 4:77 “Have you not seen those to whom it was said: Withhold your hands from fighting, perform the prayer and pay the zakat. But when orders for fighting were issued, a party of them feared men as they ought to have feared Allah. They say: ‘Our Lord, why have You ordained fighting for us, why have You made war compulsory?'”
Because the peaceful muslims are “hypocrites”, and the “losest depths of Hell” await them, not the “infidels”.
See, Bogey, it’s hard to steal and plunder and kill for profit and power if no one is willing to kill or die for it. So you make examples of those unwilling to die for the cause.
E made the point TWO DAYS AGO that Bogey cannot or does not wish to understand other people’s points. Lee, you should stop. Matthew 7:6.
Lee,
Good stuff there, but he’s not gonna listen. He’s already decided we’re knuckledragging hayseeds and bigots. Matthew 7:6 indeed!
The reason why the vast majority of cultural and minimalist Muslims (what I call “the bad Muslims”) only very timidly, and with very careful statements – if they ever do it – will condemn terrorism and jihad is because they fear retaliation from jihadis and from clerics. Plus, more of them than you may realize may secretly approve. We just never really know how it all breaks down. But the facts of the 20th and 21st century so far support the observation that the vast majority of the victims of jihad terror are Muslims.
Muhammad cared not one iota for the the sacredness of life. Life was cheap to him. The only life he valued was his own, which is why he never personally was in the thick of any battle or raid. He got others to kill and be killed for him. His place was safely behind the lines. But his career was exceedingly blood-soaked. He did personally execute people, as he did participate in the execution of over 900 Jewish men and boys of the Qurayza, after they were compelled to dig a trench for their own burial. Going down the line, with his lieutenants, lopping off the heads of these men and boys.
If a Muslim publicly renounces jihad and all of Allah’s commands to kill, convert, or subdue us unbelievers, then he is my friend. If he rejects the commands of Allah to own, humiliate, and denigrate women, then he is my friend. If he is willing to declare that Muhammad was a very bad man who did frequent unspeakable sins, then he is my friend. And I will protect him.
I take great offense at some of the lame and idiotic attempts at equivalency which put Muhammad in the same class with Jesus of Nazareth. These two men are one hundred and eighty degree opposites in every way.
Same goes for you, Fred. A very effective exit line, let it go.
Fred asserts:
“The reason why the vast majority of cultural and minimalist Muslims (what I call “the bad Muslims”) only very timidly, and with very careful statements – if they ever do it – will condemn terrorism and jihad is because they fear retaliation from jihadis and from clerics.”
You contradict yourself, Fred. You say jihadis and clerics advocate terrorism, yet they, at the same time, threaten “retaliation” to Muslim’s who don’t renounce terrorism.
Which is it? If they advocate terror, they can’t threaten retaliation to Muslims who don’t embrace terror. Rather, it would be the opposite.
You also say “if they ever do it,” as if you are unaware of the vast majority of Muslim clerics, political leaders and secular scholars who same Islam prohibits terrorism.
You claim to have studied Islam, but anyone who has even a superficial understanding of the religion knows that the bid Ladenist are a tiny, isolated faction and that the vast majority of Muslims advocate peace and brotherhood.
Oblio: advocating retreat is another good avenue for you. That leaves two: ad hominem and advocating silence. Both suit your mentality.
Lee: I’m missing your point entirely. I don’t see how those verses have anything to do with Muslims terrorists focusing their attacks on other Muslims.
Since BM is too lazy to look anything up:
1ad ho·mi·nem Listen to the pronunciation of 1ad hominem
Pronunciation:
\(ˈ)ad-ˈhé¤-mÉ™-ËŒnem, -nÉ™m\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
New Latin, literally, to the person
Date:
1598
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect 2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
It would be an ad hominem attack if Oblio said of BM: “He’s a leftist hack and a troll, and you can’t take seriously anything he says.” But I’ve never seen a single post from Oblio which takes this tack. Instead, Oblio does BM the compliment of analyzing his writings, and pointing out flaws of reasoning and logic. It’s not an ad hominem attack to say “your argument is specious and poorly-reasoned, and here’s why…” That’s called debate, and until BM can do it right I think he needs to go away and practice. Oh, and get a dictionary.
By the way, the above definition is from Merriam-Webster online. As Emile Faber says, “Knowledge is Good.”Check it out!
Gee, Bogey,
I can’t help it if the verses provided are over your head. You do understand English, don’t you? They speak very clearly to most anyone who reads them. They are quoted verbatim by muslims when justifying their murder of other muslims.
Here’s some more…I’m sure these will be hard for you to understand, too, Bogey.
Qur’an 9:48 “They had plotted sedition before, and upset matters for you until the Decree of Allah became manifest, much to their disgust. Among them are many who say: ‘Grant me exemption to stay back at home (exempted from Jihad). And do not tempt me.’ Have they not fallen into temptation already? Indeed, Hell surrounds them.”
Qur’an 9:67 “The Hypocrites enjoin what is forbidden, and forbid what Islam commands. They withhold their hands (from spending in Allah’s Cause). They have forgotten Allah so He has forgotten them. Verily the Hypocrites are oblivious, rebellious and perverse.”
Qur’an 9:68 “Allah has promised the Hypocrites, both men and women, and the disbelievers the Fire of Hell for their abode: Therein shall they dwell. It will suffice them. On them is the curse of Allah, and an enduring punishment, a lasting torment.”
Qur’an 9:74 “The Hypocrites swear by Allah that they said nothing, but indeed they uttered blasphemy, and they disbelieved after Surrender (accepting Islam). They meditated a plot (to murder Prophet Muhammad) which they were unable to carry out. The reason for this revenge of theirs was the bounty with which Allah and His Messenger had enriched them! If they repent, it will be best for them; but if they turn back, Allah will punish them with a grievous torment in this life and in the Hereafter.”
I’ve provided at least ten or more Qur’an and hadith quotes backing my position. If you persist, I can provide hundreds more. So far, you have provided one to back your position, and it was out of context and shown to actually support mine. Between you and all the “experts” and “Islamic scholars”, I would think you could come up with more than that to make your case. Why don’t you (or can’t you)?
And you’ve put words in Fred’s mouth. I’m sure even you are smart enough to figure out Fred said imams and clerics retaliate against muslims who do renounce terror. It may have been a typing error, but you understand his position well enough. To claim he is contradictory, only discredits yourself, Bogey.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/32643_Top_Islamic_Cleric_Wishes_for_Another_Holocaust_at_the_Hands_of_Muslims
And here’s one of your “moderate” muslim clerics (at least Newsweek thinks so).
How many renounce terrorism, Bogey?