Amy Proctor wrote an excellent and informative comment at Marie’s Two Cents:
One of the things that makes it so difficult is that we, particularly Christians, lump all Muslims together. We think reconciliation means 1)appeasement or 2) condonment of their theology. It means neither. What it really means is that our children may have a chance of not being involved in the same war we’re engaging in today.
My husband met many good Muslims in Iraq who were very devout and peaceful. It is mostly the uneducated and unemployed young Muslims who are wooed by the thrill of a supposed purpose proposed by al-Qaeda types. They are not the embodiement of their religion, however.
If you read the entire open letter you’ll see this is a sincere effort to bridge the gap between the faiths. It doesn’t mean we have to validate each other’s theology, but that we can accept that we are both religions who want to live in the world together without bloodshed. St. Paul urged Christians to live peaceably among ALL men, not just those who theologically align with us.
On another note, here’s something I learned from my husband: MUSLIMS RESPECT YOU MORE IF YOU STAND UP FOR YOUR RELIGION THAN IF YOU HAVE A PC VERSION OF YOUR RELIGION. In Iraq last year, a chaplain went to meet with an Imam, and rather than risking offending the Imam, the chaplain took off his cross before entering his home. In essense, he hid his religion. When the Imam questioned the chaplain about the missing cross, it was clear that this was a huge mistake and that the chaplain had blown a major opportunity to meet with an equal: a religious scholar. The Imam asked point blank: “Where is your cross? Are you trying to trick me?”
The message to the Imam was that the chaplain was sneaky and plotting something cinister because clearly he wasn’t being who he proported to be in the Army. Why esle would he HIDE his religious symbols? Our version of separation of Church and state is killing us on the battle field.
A Muslim would rather you be 100% committed to and proud of our faith than to worry about our dedication to it offending a Muslim. They see it as cowardice and weakness. They are correct.
Essentially, there is no doubt in my mind that these Muslim scholars are sincerely reaching out to the Christian community. Pope Benedict is notorious for meeting with Muslim leaders, praying in Mosques and synoguges, and doing so jointly with those respective religions. Muslim leaders respect this.
So why make peace with Muslims? Because we want to win the war. At least I do. My husband does. We have been given a gift in that Muslims are extending a hand of friendship…. this is truly a great opportunity for us to stop talking about world peace and to work towards world peace.
Finally, I posted an entry last night that I hope all your readers will check out. 3 videos with the Army and GEN Petraeus saying the same thing Wordsmith and I have been saying here. Please do yourself a favor and view the videos. It will really help everyone to clarify their own understanding of what is transpiring in the war on terror.
Amy has left many impassioned comments throughout the blogosphere (I linked to some of them in this post). I encourage everyone to check out her most recent post on Counterinsurgency for dummies (that would be us).
Wordsmith, if I would have known people would be running my replies from comment sections on their blogs I would have run them through spell check first!
My husband and I, and the Army, GREATLY appreciate your support of this important aspect of the war on terror. Sadly, some of the biggies like Michelle Malkin (I’ve been trying to register with her site so I can post what I know about COIN but her dang registration is always closed)keep referring to terrorists as Jihadists rather than apostates and heretics. Many don’t realize that the Muslims we’ve been asking for to rise from the ashes (“Where are all the good Muslims and why are they not denouncing acts of terrorism?”) are indeed rising to the task and rejecting terrorists who use their religion for violent gain.
To win the war on terror, we have to do what GEN David Petraeus says to do; that is, reconcile with the reconcilables (after all, he says, we reconcile with our ENEMIES, not our FRIENDS) and recognize the difference between those who are and are not reconcilable. Hint: al-Qaeda: IRRECONCILABLES
Muslim Leaders in Open Letter to Pope: GOOD MUSLIMS
Insurgents in Iraq Turning against Terrorism: RECONCILABLES
Muslim Groups making Video and Music Denouncing Terrorism: GOOD MUSLIMS
OSAMA BIN LADEN: IRRECONCILABLE
Distinguishing between these groups helps us to win hearts and minds, after meeting the physcial needs of the population with essential services and security, and then the irreconcilables are marginalized, delegitimized by other Muslims and Muslims sitting on the fence wondering which side to support will also be won to our side.
That equals victory and long term success. We have to start embracing the Muslims who want to be embraced.
It’s unfortunate that some of our friends, with whom we otherwise agree completely, have decided that there is no way they can accept any coexistence with Islam PERIOD!
I’ll fight against creeping Sharia law right alongside them. But it’s also part of our democratic/constitutional tradition that we grant religious freedom to all.
Great post, Wordsmith.
Unfortunately, I am probably in the group that Amy Proctor is criticizing. I have to say that after 9/11, I trusted that the President was correct when he stated that “Islam is a Religion of Peace” and that it was being “hijacked” by “radicals”. But over the past 6 years of studying Islam and its history, I have come to believe that there is a major problem with Islam itself that must be reformed.
From my study and understanding of Islam, the religion and political ideology, I have come to believe that “good Muslims” are much like Catholics who support homosexual marriage, use birth control and have promiscuous sex. In other words, they are not living according to the tenets of their religion. I see “good Muslims” in much the same way. I am glad they exist, but that does not mean that they are following the tenets of Islam.
I disagree with the extreme sides of the issue. Those who say that all Muslims are terrorists and those who say there is nothing wrong with Islam, terrorists are just hijacking a peaceful religion. I believe those groups of people do not help the situation. There is a major problem with the religion and political ideology of Islam that needs to be reformed.
I get the sense that Amy Proctor believes that there is no problem with Islam and that it doesn’t need reforming at all. I disagree with that stance.
But I also understand the sentiment of people who are frustrated with those who believe that all Muslims are terrorists. That is an extremely ignorant viewpoint.
However, just because there are “good Muslims” does not mean that there are no problems with Islam. The fact is that Islamic shari’a law is incompatible with Western civilization. And it is also incompatible with civilization, period. And I believe in the long run, Western society should be working to force reform of Islamic nations who still hold Islamic shari’a law as a form of policy in their nations. Islamic shari’a law has no place in the 21st century. Oppressing women, stoning them for infidelity or simply not covering themselves and teaching children that all non-Muslims are infidels deserving of death and encouraging them to martyr themselves are things that we should be working to eliminate, not letting stand because we “respect their religion”.
I stand with those who say we cannot accept “any coexistence with Islam PERIOD”. But when I say Islam, I am referring to political Islam. Political Islam must be eliminated. Shari’a law has no place in current civilization and no place in goverments.
You’re wrong if you suspect I believe there is “no problem with Islam.” I am a Christian 1st and foremost. My point is that we don’t have to validate Islam theologically, as they do not mine, but we do need to tolerate religious differences or else we become exactly what we claim Islam is.
There are also problems within Christianity. Our apostates look different than theirs. Rather than blowing things up, we break the commandments which Christ says we must obey in order to be His disciple… our apostacy looks loving and tolerant but it leads people to hell. These are Christian spiritual suicide bombers.
Look at the 10’s of thousands of Christian denominations divided along theological lines. It’s as ridiculous to include a David Koresh into a dialogue when discussing legitimate Christianity. Do we include gay Episcopal bishop Gene Robinson when engaging in serious dialogue about examples of GOOD CHRISTIANS? I think not; he’s an apostate. Or Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, et al, and there many moral flaws? So why do we look to the apostates of Islam to define their religion when we don’t with our own? Why do we not give credit to the Muslims who are trying to do what we’ve been asking of them for years: TO STAND UP AGAINST VIOLENT RADICALS IN THEIR RELIGION AND LIVE LIKE THEY ARE A RELIGION OF PEACE? This is what they are trying to do and we keep cutting them off at the knees.
I would also suggest you can find equally disturbing passages in the Torah about stoning rebellious children and women who have committed adultery (not the men, though). So why the double standard?
Part of GEN Petraeus’ successful COIN (counterinsurgency) strategy is reconciling with enemies. As he pointed out, if they were not enemies, there would be no need to reconcile.
My point is that we don’t have to validate Islam’s theology in order to reconcile with them and win the war on terror.
Michael,
Your first two paragraphs are pretty astute observations. Interesting analogy, too.
That may be. But one might consider that all Christians- not just the Catholics you analogized as apostates who are now accepting of homosexuality and birth control- have evolved from orthodox teachings and “strict constructionist” interpretation of the New and Old Testaments.
Fundamentalist Islam of the Salafist and Wahhabist ideology is stuck in the distant past. Are they the carriers of “true” Islam? Perhaps so. But if it’s only for the purposes of propaganda, I believe that it is advantageous for us to push the “good Muslims” as the true adherents to Islam, and the “radical fundamentalists” as the apostates.
Al-Qaeda, by all accounts, is an abomination. Even to anti-American Muslims. Al-Qaeda needs to be marginalized and devoid of all credibility. When one thinks about “where are all the good Muslims? Are there any?”. Think about this: The thousands of Muslims in Iraq who have been slaughtered and butchered by Al-Qaeda and the insurgents. Why would they be victimized by al-Qaeda, unless they disagreed with the Qutb ideology espoused by al-Qaeda? The “good Muslims” do exist. And they are enemies of al-Qaeda.
That is false. She’s left a number of comments that speak otherwise. I’ll let her speak for herself, though.
Reformation is what Muslims such as Dr. Zuhdi Jasser represents. He believes in the separation between mosque and state, the embracement of modernity, and does not beleive that Sharia Law should be imposed upon a western democracy. He for one, does not want to live under Sharia. Yet he considers himself a devout Muslim. It does not help us in the war on Islamic terror, to marginalize Muslims like him, and attack the religion itself. That simply disrespects and alienates the “good Muslims”. Of course, that does not mean we cannot be critical of Islam itself. And the signs of a mature religion will be if it can withstand criticism without its practitioners wanting to behead you. I think it’s safe to say, that Jasser would argue against you, in defense of Islam, but will not kill you because of it.
I pretty much agree with you on criticizing political Islam. If you are able to do so, watch Islam vs. Islamists, the Crossroads episode that PBS suppressed. Dr. Jasser is absolutely critical of imams who mix religion with politics and who criticize U.S. foreign policy, rather than simply talk to Muslims about how to be a better human being.
Well, looks like Amy beat me to responding.
It is difficult to separate Islam from Middle-Eastern culture when it comes to stoning adulterers, honor-killings, etc. It’s a problem, but can be “worked on”, over time, pressuring changes and reformation. There are those in these countries, after all, who embrace western culture and freedoms, and are enticed by modernity. I think the UAE exemplifies this, as much as any of them. And of course, this drives the wahhabists and salafists crazy, and they see our mere existence a threat to their brand of Islam. They are the ones who are a danger to civilization and modernity.
My primary concern, is with those Islamists who are trying to kill me. Not the ones who are merely critical of U.S. foreign policy.
I don’t need the majority of the 1.5 billion Muslims approving of my country. So long as they are critical, peaceably. They can demonstrate in the streets all they want, just as thousands of people all over the world do, all the time. So long as they aren’t strapping a bomb vest on. I’m “fine” with it. After all, anti-Americanism isn’t something exclusive to Islamists. Half of my fellow citizens express sentiments that I deem “anti-American” and not just anti-Republican Party.
If it’s merely disagreement, we can live with that.
My concern is with those who express their criticism and hatred of us with violent action.
First off, Amy, thanks for the reply. The double standard, in my eyes, is that these passages are condemned to demonize Christianity and Judaism, yet they are glossed over when it comes to Islam. And this goes back to my main point. Christianity and Judaism have gone through reforms. Islam has not. And I believe that it must.
I’m not too worried about the theology. If they want to hold up a jihadist pedophile as their perfect prophet instead of Jesus, so be it. However, we cannot allow – and should not allow – Islamic shari’a law to be practiced anywhere. It is not compatible with civilization.
One example I can give of when I started thinking about this topic more recently was when reading on LGF of a story (which turned out to be false) of an accusation of American soldiers burning a Koran and the local Afghanis threatening the Coalition with violence if proper punishment were not doled out. In the comments section of the post at LGF, “mama winger” told of how our troops are trained to respect the “culture” of Iraq. The example she gave was that our troops are told not to look Iraqi women in the eye, because in Iraqi culture, that is a huge no-no and it will lead to the woman getting beaten by her husband/family.
This was just shocking to me. It made me think of “honor killings” and just the overall oppression of women in Islamic shari’a law. Basically, it sounds like to me, that we are condoning and respecting barbaric oppressive behavior of Islamic shari’a law and considering it part of our COIN strategy. While I understand the importance of getting on the good side of the local populace, I feel we are setting a dangerous precedent and propping up Islamic shari’a law. We are basically saying that their “culture” of beating and stoning and killing their women because of small things like not wearing hijabs or looking an infidel man in the eyes is something to be respected.
I find that troubling, to say the least.
I don’t know how we are to reconcile not tolerating oppression and subjugation of women with the need for gaining the trust of the local populace with respect to COIN operations. But, by setting these precedents, we are, in essence, validating Islamic shari’a law.
Wordsmith – To you as well, thanks for your replies. I want to address some of what you have stated, but it will have to wait until tomorrow. It is already 2 hours past my bedtime. Ugh.
Also, Amy, I am sorry that I misinterpreted your stance on Islam. But I hope you did not take my comments to be mean criticism. I simply was not too familiar with your other writings on the subject and was only going by what you stated here.
Anyway, I look forward to continuing this discussion tomorrow.
I disagree with Amy and Wordsmith. I do agree that islam in islamic countries can and should practice their religion in whatever manner they want – and our soldiers need to work within their framework rather than ours. The problem is that no matter what you say, muslims are taught by the koran that the world belongs to allah, and islam should be spread by muslims – by the sword if the infidels refuse the invitation when it has been offered three times. When you look at the authors of that text, they are not those who are generally accepting of the _right_ of Christianity and/or Judaism to exist – they are individuals who are prominent in leading muslims in propagandizing their religion.
The two concepts of islam I find most disturbing in this area are “taqiyya” and “hudna”. The first allows – in fact demands – that they lie if it is to the benefit of islam. The second is the proffer of a peace so long as the islamic party is in a disadvantageous position. The peace lasts until the islamic party has achieved the strength it feels it needs to attack, at which time, it _will_ – no announcement of resumption of hostilities needed.
I think we’re dealing with two different aspects of islam here – the religion that exists among the people who live in the islamic countries we’re fighting in, and the militaristic version that intends to spread islam to the world – whatever it takes.
You can call AQ heretics of islam if you wish, but in fact they are simply the militaristic arm of the Salafiyeh – who are the Saudi branch of islam. They will as readily kill any muslims who do not believe as they do – as we see in Iraq – because they consider them heretics. These Saudi extremists are the ones indoctrinating in the madrassas and in this country. They are a danger to us if they are not pushed back to the limits of islamic countries.
If they reform in the next 500 years, maybe we can intermingle at peace. They read the koran literally, place the latter verses – the militant ones – over the earlier ones – the peaceful ones – when there’s any contradiction of literal meaning.
Aren’t you then, also disagreeing with General Petraeus and our military’s COIN strategy? After all, Amy’s views are more in alignment with him and the COIN strategy than with most of those who have been detracting her. I posted only the blog comment of hers, as a launching platform; but really, it’s her recent post that I linked to, as well as her entire body of work on the topic, that I am pointing to.
It wasn’t that long ago that I was more in alignment with your views, Suek; but now I find that we need to take a step back and re-evaluate our strategy in winning this war. And that involves “hearts and minds”. You don’t turn “enemies” into friends, or even “non-enemies into friends and allies” by attacking their faith. Marginalizing the Islamists and the Islamic terrorists by drawing a distinction between them and others who practice Islam, does make a difference, however. That is why I believe we should drop the term “jihad” in reference to the movement of the militant branch of Islam, and replace it with a word such as “hirabah”.
This is the thing. Islam aches for reform. Yet, those Muslims who embrace modernity are seen not only as the apostates by the Qutb ideologists and fundamentalists, but as apostates by us. i don’t care if you want to call the “moderates” the radicals of Islam. The distinction, in the end, is rather irrelevant to the argument I am making. Whatever you wish to call them, just don’t dismiss them, don’t confuse them with the terrorists, and don’t turn them into our enemies because we view them as such, having declared intolerance to their religion, as they see it- not as we see their religion to be.
“Sometimes you go to war with the religion as it is, not the religion you wish it to be”
Christianity and Judaism have evolved. They embrace the modern world. We are wrong to tell Muslims, “no, Islam cannot reform along with us. Otherwise it is no longer ‘true’ Islam”. Reformation is exactly what should be encouraged.
And even so, let’s not expand the war on terror by confusing our real enemies. Some Muslims should be able to disagree and criticize the U.S. without having their political views confused with that of “political Islam”. After all, as I’ve pointed out before, we have many anti-Americans within our own country. We call them “liberals” [/joke].
Anti-Americanism and criticism of American foreign policy I may vehemently disagree with. But so long as they are not trying to blow me up and turn their anger into violent expression of outrage against my country, I can live with not “being loved” by them.
Wordsmith – The “moderate” Muslims are apostates. At least in the sense of what is the accepted version of modern Islam. The only groups speaking for Islam are radical groups such as Muslim American Society, Muslim Brotherhood, Muslim Students Association and, of course, CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations). I know of no mainstream Muslim “moderate” who denounces all these groups as being the radicals that they are. I only see and read about mainstream Muslim leaders all across the United States, Britain, Australia and the Islamic world who embrace these groups and their teachings. And then they all denounce people such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali and “moderatae” Muslims as apostates.
The fact is that the “radical” Muslims and their groups are in good standing with Islamic teachings found in the Koran, Hadith and Suras and the teachings and example of Mohammad. There is absolutely NO commonality between the teachings and life of Jesus and the teachings and life of Mohammad. So to say that Islam is like Christianity and Judaism is naive, in my opinion, and dangerous.
And I haven’t even gotten to the fact that 33% of American Muslims apparently want Islamic sharia law here in America. Islamic sharia law is incompatible with current civilization. Yet, Islamic sharia law is the basis of Islam as a political idealogy and its goals of world domination and a worldwide caliphate. I get the sense, maybe incorrectly as I did with Amy Proctor, that you seem to think that the political ideology of Islam and its goals of world domination and a worldwide caliphate are “radical” ideas. They are not. They are a part of Islam. As is their belief that all non-Muslims are infidels and Christians and Jews are on par with rodents and pigs. People seem to think that these ideas are “radical” when, in fact, they are part of Islamic teaching.
I stand by my contention that Islam needs serious reform and that it is correct to attack the religion along with the political ideology, because they both work hand-in-hand for the goal of the worldwide caliphate.
As far as the COIN strategy, that’s fine in the short term. But in the long term, unless you have been living under a rock, you are well aware of the creeping sharia here in America and the goals of groups such as CAIR, MSA, MAS all across America, as well as their funding from Saudi Arabia and their willing accomplices in the mass media and the leftists.
Not confronting the growing problem of Islam now will only make it worse down the road. And I stand by my statement that our COIN efforts of accepting barbaric Islamic culture only validates that culture. Just like when Nancy Pelosi went to Syria and wore her hijab. That was a huge mistake and validated the oppression of women under Islam. When our soliders are told to not look women in the eyes because they will be beaten or worse because of it, that is just as bad an what Nancy Pelosi did.
Then just come back to the United States and the efforts of Muslims to refuse to adhere to the laws of the United States and not taking off their Islamic garb for ID or when at the bank or at the airport security. Or the Muslim cab drivers who will not drive people with dogs or alcohol. Or the Muslim groups in universities all across the country taking control of “prayer rooms” and making them mosques for Muslims only.
I know you cannot possibly be ignorant to all of this happening.
For us to say ‘well okay, you can force all that on us and you don’t have to follow our laws, because we respect your oppressive religion’… that is dangerous.
No, I’m sorry, I respectfully disagree with your position that we need to respect the religion of Islam. Right now, as it is prior to reformation, it deserves absolutely no respect, because it is basically an oppressive cult hell bent on world domination. When it is finally reformed, then fine, I will respect it. But Muslims have a LONG way to go to get to that point. And I don’t see too many people standing up to groups like CAIR, MSA, MAS, Muslim Brotherhood, Saudi Arabia buying their way into our children’s schools, etc. Instead I see our government validating CAIR, giving them tours of my hometown airport in Chicago, our President ignorantly saying Islam means Peace when it actually means submission, and finally our President saying that Saudi Arabia, probably the biggest exporter of terrorism and “radical” Islam in America and worldwide, is really a parter with us in fighting terrorism.
Also, with regards to your idea about ‘jihad’, didn’t Mohammad say that jihad was holy war? I don’t see how you, an infidel, is going to tell a Muslim that Mohammad is wrong.
Also, here is the latest on the Muslim American Society and their leader who was appointed to a leadership position in Virginia government. I would like to know where are the “moderate” Muslims denouncing these people. I don’t see them anywhere. Silence and apathy from “moderate” Muslims is not an excuse. Unless they get out there and denounce this nonsense, we have no other choice but to believe they accept it and endorse it.
>>Aren’t you then, also disagreeing with General Petraeus and our military’s COIN strategy? After all, Amy’s views are more in alignment with him and the COIN strategy than with most of those who have been detracting her.>>
Absolutely not. As I said – there are two situations: one in which muslims are in their own lands and living life as they believe it should be lived. You can call them moderates, but they’re only moderate in the sense that they all agree with how they should live. These are the people the military is dealing with for the most part (those who just want to live in peace). Their lives have been disrupted by AlQaeda who initially convinced them that war against the invading infidel was their obligation. Then the “peaceful” – as opposed to “moderate” – muslims learned that AQ cared no more for them than they did for the infidels, and they also learned that they didn’t want to live how they’d have to live if AQ had their way. That’s what Petraeus has tapped into.
AlQaeda, on the other hand, is part of a group which are the second group. Not only do they intend to enforce islam on the entire world, it’s going to be _their_ brand of islam – which is _not_ moderate, _not_ peaceful – at least until everybody submits. _Then_ it’s peaceful. I agree with Michael – there are no moderate muslims – those who we’d consider moderate, the militant islamists consider heretics, and the punishment for that is death. Islam doesn’t teach discussion of aspects of islam – it teaches submission. To be a muslim, you must submit. They don’t have a single head to define islamic teachings, they have as many teachings as they have imams. The Saudis have been spending millions to spread their version and their imams to teach their brand of islam throughout the world, and the terrorist attacks throughout the world testify to the fact that they are _not_ peaceful – or moderate.
The problem is that we have to work _with_ them over there, but we really need to work _against_ them _here_. They should be able to live as they choose in islamic countries, but we should be able to live as _we_ choose _here_. They teach that islam has two phases – the Medina phase, and the Mecca phase. In the Medina phase, they are in a minority, and conditions are not ripe for them to be obvious or demanding. In this phase, they are quiet and unassuming. As they reach a percentage of the population where they can begin demanding facets of shari’a, they enter the Mecca phase, which is strident, demanding and ultimately warlike.
Look at Europe. Read:
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/
http://the-gathering-storm.blogspot.com/
http://www.vigilantfreedom.org/910blog/
Look at the demands for accomodations beginning – the wash basins for prayer, the right for cabs not to have to pick up passengers with alcohol or dogs. The demand for their own school _within_ the public school system in New York City to teach arabic, according to the Koran, with Cair members as a board of advisors…
If you don’t see it, you’re not looking.
Michael and Suek, those are superb comments. It’s weird, because I already know much of what you two are saying. I’ve made some of the same arguments myself, when talking to the PC/multiculturalist/Islam-is-the-religion-of-peace crowd.
I agree with you in a way, and yet am finding myself on the opposite side of the fence here, in a convoluted manner.
Anyway, I’ll try to come back later to sift through, and address your comments properly.
“If you read the entire open letter you’ll see this is a sincere effort to bridge the gap between the faiths.”
Going back and reading over this, I think this statement is the crux of the disagreement, because I think it is _not_ a sincere effort to bridge the gap between the faiths. Somewhere I read an analysis of the letter, but I’ll have to find it. When I do, I’ll post a link. In any case, one of the prime statements in the letter was basically that we all agree that there is only one God, and that God is the same for all faiths (Christian, Jewish, and Muslim), and there can be no other God. The way it is written would require a clear agreement that Jesus Christ was not divine – not acceptable to Christians. At least, not to this Christian. In other words, this analysis states that the bridging of the gap does so by assuming that islam is truth, and we all agree on that. You may consider that a good faith effort to bridge the disagreements – I don’t. Naturally whoever did the analysis I remember did a much better job at this than I’m doing – I’ll try to find it again….!
Is there _any_ way to keep track of links so that they can be found easily again!!???? There are so _many_!
suek – I believe you may be referring to this analysis at JihadWatch: Muslims to Christians: make peace with us, or the survival of the world is at stake
And I completely agree with you that the letter was NOT an effort to ‘bridge the gap’. Not at all. It was a ‘convert to Islam or else’ letter. Just like every other statement put out by Islamist leaders.
I don’t think that was the one – but it’s difficult at times as people excerpt parts of something and combine them with their own thoughts, adding more from other sources. I sort of think it might have been a link from http://www.realclearreligion.com/index.html
If it was, I probably won’t find it again as they link to articles which then pass off their site. If there’s a way to get to old links, I haven’t found it yet. If I find it somewhere else, though, I’ll post it.
I think the hardest thing for me was the concept of taqiyya – or however it’s spelt. If you know that someone not only _can_ lie, but is encouraged to do so if it benefits islam, it destroys all trust. To be honest, I don’t know how to get past it unless someone is willing to fight for us – and even then, there is a lingering distrust that it might be part of a long term deception – a deep cover sort of thing. In _this_ country, it’s going to have to start with them being _Americans_ first, muslims second. I understand that if there’s actually a specific moral issue that someone might place their religion first, but without a specific issue, if their identity is muslim first, then they aren’t _Americans_. What Amy and Wordsmith are arguing from is a Christian position. I understand that. Should we go as lambs to the slaughter? If we follow Christian ideals, I suspect that’s what will happen. Look at how Christians are treated in muslim lands. When that changes, I’ll consider another option. Sharia requires them to make Christians second class citizens, subject to the jizya which muslims don’t have to pay. It seems to me that they haven’t explored the meaning of dhimmi and what _that_ means. Thank heavens for the Jews among us who don’t have the belief of trusting those who mean you harm, but choose survival first!
Not what I was looking for, but check it out. Peaceful, hah.
http://www.realclearreligion.com/index_files/8ccbbc56bc133d8ab54c2a6303bc8ac6-237.html
Ok…you two keep giving me more reading material to sift through and respond to. I actually did try to follow up here the other day, but had trouble posting my comment (windows for name and email are missing, and tells me they are required when I hit “submit”; It’s still encountering the same problem, but I discovered I can post using IE).
I lost my original response, and don’t have the energy to dissect through and repeat.
Regarding the letter, Amy Proctor had a completely different take on it. Don’t know if you traced back this post of mine, to that particular post.
Islam needs reform and embracement of modernity, or it will not survive. It needs to evolve, as Christianity and Judaism have evolved. I hate terms like “appeasement” and “political correctness”; but there is a world of difference between squishy “cultural sensitivity” and PC-appeasement” and the art of diplomacy, and the “winning of hearts and minds”. By condemning Islam, no matter how much condemnation it may well deserve, we run the risk of alienating those who do not fit the “fundamentalist/”radical” wahhabi/salafi/militant” branch of Islam. You can call that “mainstream” or “moderate” “normal” Islam, if you want. But in “insulting” a whole religion, and not isolating and marginalizing the Islamists- the “Islamo-fascists” and militants, we risk doing exactly what al-Qaeda has sought to do: plunge the world into a “clash of civilizations”, bringing all Muslims into alignment with their theo-political ideology.
Unless we are prepared to alienate and war with 1.5 billion Muslims, we need to solidify our alliance with Muslims who are being slaughtered by the hundreds of thousands by their radical brethren.
How does it help to crap on the religion practiced by Marine Sgt. Abdelhalim? We ask “where are the moderates”? But don’t really ever acknowledge them, when they are trying to speak out. Naser Khader, a Danish lawmaker; Mohamed Sifaoui, a French journalist; Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, an American physician; and Tariq Fatah, a Toronto-based TV host are just a few of very outspoken critics of Islam- and they consider themselves devout Muslims. Michael, when you ask me
I can ask the same: Who are you, to tell these Muslims that they can’t possibly be devout because they don’t practice “true Islam”? Who are we to tell them we know better than they do, how they should read the Koran, and that they are the apostates and the radicals of Islam, rather than the hirabists? These “moderates” that I listed have staked their lives in speaking out, against the ones who we should be concerned about, and the ones who we are indeed at war with.
Rather than focus on the humans behind the religious practice, we are plunging ourselves in readings of the Koran and the Hadith, the work of Robert Spencer, and every politically incorrect guide to Islam on the bookshelves; sometimes guilty of cherry-picking what fits our own agenda. So when peaceful Muslims tell us what they are like, we tell them, I don’t believe you because your religion tells you to practice taqiyya, the koran says this, the hadith says that….we refuse to listen because we’ve supposedly “educated ourselves” and gotten our heads out of the sand.
Jasser is my idea of an American Muslim and the “antithesis” to CAIR (which, remember should speak no more for Muslims than Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton speak for blacks, considering their membership has declined by 90% since 2001).
Read:
Curious to know what you two think of Dr. Zuhdi Jasser. He appears in the PBS Islam vs. Islamists, and was present at a free screening which I attended in LA.
>>By condemning Islam, no matter how much condemnation it may well deserve, we run the risk of alienating those who do not fit the “fundamentalist/”radical” wahhabi/salafi/militant” branch of Islam.>>
I don’t condemn Islam. It seems to me that you are not considering the two separate conditions here – one is the active war that exists in Iraq and Afghanistan. We may be involved in other areas as well. The goal of those conflicts is to destroy the power of foreigners who are imposing their particular brand of islam on the local people by means of terrorism – either on the ground or in the pulpit – and return power to moderates. This is where the COIN approach works well.
However, there is an effort to use political power to achieve dominance of islam in the US – and Europe generally, but I’ll leave them out for now – by the camel’s nose under the tent flap method. They are very skilled in using our own legal system against us. I have no problem with any muslim practicing his religion in the US – I _do_ have a problem with placing islam in a protected position in the US. The “moderates” – if they exist – are going to be just as rejecting as I am…if indeed they have recognized that our freedom of religion is their freedom of religion. Unfortunately, just as some blacks have decided that affirmative action means that they get special bennies that “white folks” don’t because they were held back 150 years ago, so too some muslims are willing to accept a few bennies and use the force of law to get them. Equal protection under the law means that WASPs are entitled to the same protection under the law that blacks and muslims get – and if we don’t watch out for the “affirmative actionists” among us, the WASP is going to be the legal underdog.
Islam may take 3-500 years to change – I don’t have that long. We live _HERE_ and _NOW_. They moved into _OUR_ country – they don’t have the right to demand that we rearrange our furniture and schedules to _THEIR_ liking.
And – just as in the wars we’re fighting in various places, it’s often nearly impossible to tell the good guys from the bad guys. We can only judge by what they _DO_ – not what they _say_.
Found it…
http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/phyllischesler/2007/10/19/an_urgent_call_to_all_infidels.php
Here’s another good analysis of the letter with links to various blogs commenting on the same thing:
http://the-gathering-storm.blogspot.com/2007/10/storm-track-disinformation-language-of.html
Suek,
Thanks for your links and your comments. I haven’t had time to properly check them out yet, but will try to do so.
Here’s another one…gotta keep ahead of you! Also had to bookmark this page so I wouldn’t get lost! This one is similar to the phyllis chester article, except she approaches from the Jewish angle, and this one approaches it from the Christian position.
http://www.realclearreligion.com/index_files/b58f5795502024aa90d6a4b6dfd63092-244.html
Here’s another one – very good. Discusses islam as the enemy and has a good explanation of _why_ and why muslims cannot become true citizens of the US and also be true muslims.
If you’re still reading…!
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=AF613BFA-8E34-4A07-8DB4-20D89DE3D84B