This Week's 'Salient' Op-Ed: Death to Islamofascism!

Lindsay Perigo's picture
Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Sun, 2007-07-15 21:37

(Featured in this week's issue of the Victoria University student magazine, Salient)

We can be thankful in the wake of the botched bombings in Britain by Islamofascist filth that the filth on this occasion was as incompetent as it is evil. But new Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s response to the abortive atrocities was no cause for gratitude. Gormless Gordon instructed his Cabinet and staff that they were not to use the word “Muslim” in the same breath as “terrorist.” (Nor were they to use the phrase “War on Terror” ever again.) Don’t identify the religion of the Jihadists in case you offend the more passive adherents of that religion. The spirit of Neville Chamberlain lives.

Chamberlain, dear reader, for the benefit of the legion of state-worshipping, state-lobotomised airheads among you, was the British Prime Minister who appeased Hitler. The comparison is apposite. The forebears of today’s Islamofascists, such as Sayyid Qutb, were fanatically anti-Jewish; some, like Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al Banna were enthusiastic admirers of Mussolini and Hitler. All were hysterically puritanical and saw America as the Great Satan, repository of all evil. Qutb condemned American women as follows:

The American girl is well acquainted with her body's seductive capacity. She knows it lies in the face, and in expressive eyes, and thirsty lips. She knows seductiveness lies in the round breasts, the full buttocks, and in the shapely thighs, sleek legs — and she shows all this and does not hide it.

The black male fared no better:

Jazz is his preferred music, and it is created by Negroes to satisfy their love of noise and to whet their sexual desires ...

Islamofascists in our time, of course, killed Dutch moviemaker Theo van Gogh, for making a film about Islam’s oppression of women. They destroyed the Twin Towers because they don’t like … well, anything American. As bin Laden put it, his disciples love death as much as Americans love life. Now we are told these squalid savages, these bigoted barbarians, these hysterical humanity-haters, these tawdry terrorists, these god-ridden grotesqueries, these ignoble ignoramuses, these genocidal jihadists, are not to be called Muslims because other Muslims—who remain mute while deeds of unspeakable foulness are perpetrated in their name—might get offended! Well, tough turds. As Salman Rushdie has observed, freedom of speech is nothing without the freedom to offend.

Here in New Zealand, a convert to Islam tried to put a favourable gloss on the Islamofascist riots in the wake of Rushdie’s knighthood. Abdullah Drury, writing in the Dominion Post, said coverage of these riots was a media beat-up and the rioters were not representative of Islam. Who else apart from the coalition that dominates Pakistan’s parliament and the rioters in thrall to it, he demanded, had expressed “similar resolve” on the Rushdie knighthood? An obliging reader promptly identified five other international Muslim groups that had done so. Unfortunately he left the most relevant one out. I quote from the DomPost, June 23:

New Zealand Muslims have added their voices to worldwide anger at the British Government's decision to knight Salman Rushdie, author of The Satanic Verses. Federation of Islamic Association president Javed Khan said the organisation was saddened and extremely disappointed at the honour, saying Rushdie's book was blasphemous and had "inflicted emotional pain" on Muslims.

Is it conceivable that Abdullah Drury, a former secretary of the Canterbury Muslim Association, didn’t know about this when he wrote his article? (This is the same Abdullah Drury, incidentally, who once established his Islamofascist credentials by denouncing the presence of Chris Carter, whom he called a “raging homosexual,” in an Auckland mosque.)

Unfortunately, Islam—stinking, stupid Islam—is the world’s fastest-growing superstition, and its adherents are becoming emboldened everywhere. In Christchurch Muslim women have demanded separate, publicly funded swimming facilities. A Hawkes Bay Muslim couple tried to claim damages for pork in a vegetarian pizza they had ordered. NZ media who published the Danish cartoons were intimidated into abjectly apologising for doing so. The Islamofascists are trying it on. Certainly they haven’t yet plumbed the depths of demonstrators in London who exploited the freedom that living in the west affords them by brandishing placards shrieking “The hell with freedom,” “Behead those who insult Islam” and the like, but they will, soon enough. Their holy book, after all, enjoins them to “slay the infidel, wherever ye shall find him.”

Human beings worthy of the title must rise up worldwide and shout in irresistible unison: “Enough of this primordial primitivism! We who are civilised are revolted by it and shall rebuff it at every turn!” Muslims must discover rationality and decency; Westerners must rediscover them, and, as a matter of urgency, speak up for them!

All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for cowards to appease it. Islamofascism is the locus of evil in the contemporary world. Places like Number Ten Downing Street are evidently the locus of cowardice in the contemporary world. Well, I will say what the likes of Gormless Gordon are too cowardly to say:

“Death to Islamofascism!”


( categories: )

Yes, Richard

Rick Giles's picture

If that's what Orson thinks he might explain himself further.

There is no way you can treat non-terrorists as if they were terrorists. That's initiation of force, made possible by the refusal to distinguish between the two.

Who the hell are we to determine man's rights and liberties depending on his "spirit?" If he doesn't go out and blow people up, or act or conspire to initiate force in any way.....

Once again, applying this rational implicates just about every religion or philosophy in the book! Were this your true argument, Orson, you'd be Witch-Hunting everyone whose "spirit" is with evil.

Here again, Rick

Richard Wiig's picture

Orson,
Do you think an Islamic terrorist has a different conception of life, philosophy, than Cat Stephens?
No.

How does that not make him an identified terrorist, then?

It is not about "terrorist" versus "not a terrorist". It is about supporting Islamic supremacy or not supporting Islamic supremacy, and Yusuf Islam, who has regressed to become a fairly pious muslim, has shown many times that he supports Islamic supremacy. He might not go out and blow people up, but in spirit he is with them.

Alienate the unalienable rights

Rick Giles's picture

"Whereas you lot, on the other hand, convict all Muslims without charge for all time!"

Would you like to point out the quote that supports this bullshit?

"Yusuf Islam, formerly known as Cat Stevens, supports the same goal as the terror groups"

"Do you think an Islamic terrorist has a different conception of life, philosophy, than Cat Stephens?"
"No"

Hear hear!!
Thanks, Orson, for weighing in on the side of reason

Rational suspicion is not conviction

Are you about to pretend, hence forth, not to have already convicted these people?

Aren't we supposed to do things like close our boarders to them and...who was it suggested we drop a nuclear bomb on them all? Was that you?

their right to practice their faith come with moral obligation to speak out in condemnation of that which they find morally repugnant

And that's how Glenn Jameson alienates the unalienable.

either don’t have a problem with the jihad, or that they’re keeping their mouths shut to avoid having their own heads chopped off by their radical brethren.

Yeah, because there’s nothing fearful or bothersome about being spat on, persecuted in the street, jeered at, having your windows broken, having graffiti branded on your property, being bullied at the boarder crosings, made to feel insecure around airplanes, attacked on this forum by you, attacked as a feature issue of The Free Radical Magazine.

Either way, the ‘moderate’ Muslim majority deserves our contempt for their pernicious passivity

Way to encourage them, Glenn.

Seems to me you're trying to make moral contempt itself into a virtue. If it were so you'd be a priest.

Dick...

Jameson's picture

"Whereas you lot, on the other hand, convict all Muslims without charge for all time!"

Would you like to point out the quote that supports this bullshit?

Rational suspicion is not conviction. Nor is intolerance of a faith that demands our beheading.

I believe their right to free speech and their right to practice their faith come with the moral obligation to speak out in condemnation of that which they find morally repugnant. We can only assume they don’t protest because they either don’t have a problem with the jihad, or that they’re keeping their mouths shut to avoid having their own heads chopped off by their radical brethren.

Either way, the ‘moderate’ Muslim majority deserves our contempt for their pernicious passivity perpetuating poisonous principles.

Orson,

Rick Giles's picture

Orson,
Do you think an Islamic terrorist has a different conception of life, philosophy, than Cat Stephens?
No.

How does that not make him an identified terrorist, then?

He's had it too good for too long, right? Time to Gitmo that mo'fo or shoot him in the head. Yeah?

Rick, DO NOT confuse passivity for rejection.

Slap yourself.
Maybe you haven't been paying attention. Let me be quite clear, an Islamist is as much a suicide pilot as he is the accomplice who drove him to the airport.

There is more to the initiation of force than violence. Either you twits don't know that yourselves, or you think I don't know it.

This cat is an artful deceiver. The Islamists are deceivers without much art, however

Seems to me they were more than artful enough to be undetected until they wanted to be in New York, London, and Glasgow.

How much more artful could they get, Orson?

With advancing wealth through globalization, literacy among Muslims will grow by 5 to 10 times! And with it, the penetration and appeal of Islamist Jihad

Why should you think that participation in wealth-creation and internationalism, and literacy, will make terrorists out of people? Are these not civilising influences to be encouraged rather than threats to be combatted?

Michael,
I admit I once felt some Rick-like "Libertarian guilt" over being suspicious of Muslims in general

The only guilty libertarian is the libertarian who, even in his own mind, calls for the initiation of force.

Libertarians only retaliate, and only upon our enemies, and only to protect individual rights. That is not a paradox as our enemies forfiet their rights when they raise a hand against us.

By all means, be suspicious. Don't associate, don't sell to or buy from those you are prejudiced against for whatever whim you like. Islam is a locus of evil in our age, this is good reason for being suspicious but not good reason to initiate force. It is wrong to take man's rights away and make an enemy of him merely because of suspicion. It is wrong to call for the cessation of man's rights before his actions do so first.

Look at Dr Mahomed Hanief, detained in Brisbane without charge for two weeks. We did that to him because it was alleged he provided a cell phone card to the Glasgow terrorists. It's such a slim connection, but it IS a causal connection and I approve of it.

Whereas you lot, on the other hand, convict all Muslims without charge for all time! And you haven't the slimmest shred of causal connection between these millions of individuals and their supposed crime. Think about that.

Mark, there are lots of differences...BUT the parallel stands

Orson's picture

Mark, there are lots of differences between today's challenge of extirpaing Jihadism and pacifying the Indians.

It's true that the federal government had problems - and continues to have BIG problems - serving our obligations to these hundreds of "domestic dependent nations," as the Supreme Court decided they were, early on.

Indian populations continued to be decimated by Euro-Asiatic diseases until the turn of the next century, instead of undergoing a huge population explosion, for instance.

In fact, over my long study of US western history, I thought the most unquestionably egregious and inexcusable act of the federal government was Andrew Jackson's indian removal, resulting in "The Trail of Tears," and several thousand, cruel, innocent deaths. Everybody says so. But check out the two or three pages on the subject in H. W. Brands recent Andrew Jackson: His Life and Times for a real head twister.

Somehow, through all of the last century's World War and totalitarian horrors, including over one-hundred million deaths, the world is becoming more peaceful. Which it was before, and has continued to do since. Somehow, despite the many US military interventions since World War II, this long-term decline has resumed. Which is a startling fact anti-American peace-niks conveniently neglect and never confront.

Although fully of one-third of the world's nations experienced civil war since World War II, after the Cold War, the incredible aggregate decline in the number, frequency, and size of wars accelerated, despite the upturn in terrorism.

The parallel strategic problem-situation I'm arguing for is the pacification of a more primitive culture in order to secure a more prosperous future, both then and now. After I gave a paper on this - admittedly controversial topic - to The Historical Society* over a year ago (synthesizing much new counter-revisionism along the way), a parallel thesis was argued for in The American Interest by an anthropologist with the Naval Potsgraduate Institute in Monterrey. The author writes:

Our difficulty in understanding what we are up against [in the GWOT] flows from the fact that we have no obvious precedent for this Islamist enemy (but there are non-obvious precedents, of which more below). So American policymakers and policy intellectuals, most of whom know little about Islamic and Arab history or modern tribal societies, usually default to reasoning by analogy from historical cases they do know.

Thus, once again, the value of introducing a neglected and misunderstood analogy: Indian Wars and Islam.

-----
*Afterwards, an NEH program officer flattered me enough to invite me to apply to give a seminar - but I don't have the requisite PhD yet. I'm prepping it for a Policy History conference and publication next year.

Mark-

Aaron's picture

Mark-
Very well put concerning suspicion, Christianity and Islam.

Orson-
I certainly hope the war against Islamic extremists is more justified than the 19th century war between the US govt and the Lakota and other tribes. You've conveniently dropped context such as initial residents of a given area being forced by the US govt onto undesirable reservation land in the first place - then not receiving payments they were promised for moving there - or food promised when payments didn't arrive. This doesn't justify misdirected attacks on civilians, but it damn well justified war with the govt, and it's oversimplistic jingoism to describe the situation as only 'they wouldn't stay on their reservations'.

Fortunately it's a poor analogy. If we were forcing the muslims of the world to live in unpleasant desert regions in the middle east and then forcibly relocating them to ever smaller regions when oil was discovered so we could take the resources, then the analogy might hold water. In reality, it doesn't hold - and the west is clearly more in the right dealing with Islamic terrorism than the US federal government was in much of its dealings with native tribes.

I know

Richard Wiig's picture

For example, neither I nor Rick have ever said that Islam is fine.

But you argue that "Islamism" is not Islam, over and over again. You are wrong. That's not a misrepresentation of your position.

Well put, Orson

mvardoulis's picture

I agree religion is ever more entrenched than any 'secular' ideology, and requires a very different, evolved tactic than the 'linear' approach favored during the world wars, the cold war (which was 'hot' in Korea and Vietnam), by Rummsfield, etc. And thank you, Mitch and Jameson, I also agree entirely that *all* Muslims are 'on probation' as Orson so perfectly put it, until they renounce violence. The hundreds of Persian (Iranian)-Americans I saw demonstrating in front of the Santa Monica Federal Building *in favor* of an invasion of Iran when President Achman-Jihad was elected tells me that there are 'modernized' Muslims who are reasonably above suspicion but only because their *public* actions indicate their rejection of the violent aspects of Islam. I would imagine there are 'secular' Muslims in the same way there are 'secular' or ethnic-but-not-religious Jews (or Catholics, etc). There just aren't enough of these at least publicly visible yet! And worse, the bleeding heart media want to talk about how 'hard' it is for Muslims to 'fit in' now, without asking them to so much as vocalize their rejection of jihad at the least.

Among other (preferably non-linear, non-20th century style) military tactics, Islam needs to be corrupted and seduced by infidels like myself (but who have the required patience), leading to decentralization. The many 'Muslim' Persians I know of here in 'the OC' of Southern California take the Koran about as seriously as I take Greek Orthodoxy, i.e. as a function of their ethnicity not something they *actually* believe in. I've had occasion to talk with some of these local folks, and they think jihad belongs in the dark ages with the Christian crusades and inquisitions, and Jewish temple sacrifices, etc. I think this experience is similar to the kind Fraser speaks of with 'ethnic but secular' Muslims he has met, but as far as the public stage is concerned, this is a tiny minority of those who identify themselves as Muslims.

I admit I once felt some Rick-like "Libertarian guilt" over being suspicious of Muslims in general, but then, when I go to Huntington Beach (an OC haven for white supremacists) and see 'white' guys’ with shaved heads I look at them with suspicion also. Those who identify with violent ideologies deserve no less.

Hmmm. Richard

Fraser Stephen-Smith's picture

Richard,

That's not an accurate representation of my position.

For example, neither I nor Rick have ever said that Islam is fine. We have both repeatedly said that Islam is NOT fine. Even moderate, 'pick-and-choose' support of Islam involves adherence to modes of behaviour that are unjustifiable.

If there is one thing about our discourse that I find disappointing, it is that even after our varied responses, you can still make this 100% INaccurate comment about my position.

At some stage maybe? Maybe.

Cheating reality

Richard Wiig's picture

No it's not. That's what you need to discover.

Well, all the mainstream schools of Islamic jurisprudence, which are grounded in Qur'an, Hadith and Sira, are in support of offensive Jihad. This is not my opinion. It is fact. Do the facts not matter?

You think my view is mistaken (possibly ignorant), based on my lack of Islamic reading and I think your view is mistaken, based on my everyday interactions with Muslims.

Sure, you'll have some wonderful interactions with everyday Muslims, but so what? It doesn't change the ideology they support one whit, and the ideology they support, whether naively supported by them or not, intends murder on a grand scale. Basically what you're saying to me is that because you see what appears to be smiling peaceful muslims in your daily life, that Islam is fine. Anything outside of those smiling peaceful Muslims, such as people blowing themselves up, just isn't Islam. But that denies the above facts. It is a cheating of reality.

We're not going to get much further than this - at least at this stage.

At some stage maybe.

Richard

Fraser Stephen-Smith's picture

"Al Qaida IS mainstream Islam. That's what you and Rick need to discover."

No it's not. That's what you need to discover.

You think my view is mistaken (possibly ignorant), based on my lack of Islamic reading and I think your view is mistaken, based on my everyday interactions with Muslims.

We're not going to get much further than this - at least at this stage. Sincere thanks for the thoughtful and considered responses; especially after I had falsely accused you of bigotry in earlier discussions.

More good stuff, Orson...!

Jameson's picture

... now if you'd kindly close your italics... Smiling

YES, yes, but not completely - and consider this!

Orson's picture

....I have no idea whether such a transformation of Islam is possible.

It must be if peaceful co-existance with these barbarians is to occur.

...as I entertain suspicion of anyone who adheres to these equally inherently violent belief systems.

Me too. That is, I consider all Muslims to be "on probation," or otherwise suspect. Anyone who believes otherwise is free to be fool. But not at my expense!

The direct analogy of Islam to Nazism and Communism fits... If you mean Islam is a dangerous ideology directly comparable to Nazism and Commumism, I mostly agree. Where I demur is in facing the fact that these 20th century doctrine are in no way as foundational as religion is. Thus, acting in strategically productive ways to counter it is far more difficult than a cultish political ideology. The latter is more easily marginalized while the former cannot be!

This leads me to a strategic agument best explored in my own blog post, but I'll introduce it here because so germane.

Neo-cons like Norman Podhoretz and Leftists mugged by reality like Paul Berman have struggled to find compelling historical parallels for the GWOT. World War II, the Cold War are most often invoked. And one label for the GWOT that captures this enormous struggle is "World War IV." But I think these 20th century anaolgies overlook a better one: The Indian Wars of the late 19th century US West.

Without going into detail (which I have and will pursue next year in scholarly policy and historical circles), this parallel is better because the Indian Wars accelerated because of terrorism, population increase, and trade: the Souix uprising in Minnesota in August 1862, which killed more civilians, in proportional terms, than 9/11 did; because the wars resulted because an alien culture, with tribal, warrior values, wouldn't stay on their reservations; because valuable minerals (gold then, and oil now) exacerbated these conflicts; and this phase, from 1850 to 1893, represented the climax and resolution of a much longer culturally based conflict and similarly long lasting 400 hundred years of conflict. In proportional terms, about 120,000 lives were lost over those 43 years.

The chief difference is that back then, repeating rifles and dynamite in enemy hands was the greatest terrorist threat - not nuclear weapons. Something quite different to ponder.

Hear, hear!!

Jameson's picture

Thanks, Orson, for weighing in on the side of reason in this futile debate!

Brilliant, Bro!

Mitch's picture

"Since its all mystical mumbo jumbo to me that I have (at this point) little patience for, I have no idea whether such a transformation of Islam is possible. I do know that Christianity has morphed into thousands of different variations, causing the faith to decentralize and become arguably less barbaric.

Otherwise, I don't see why any Muslim should be above suspicion when their doctrine clearly preaches violence. Because of this advocacy of violence, all the tear-jerking articles in the world can be written but I'll never feel 'sorry' for any Muslim who doesn't speak out against jihad (and even then I doubt, just personally, I'll never have my guard down completely).

The direct analogy of Islam to Nazism and Communism fits, as I entertain suspicion of anyone who adheres to these equally inherently violent belief systems. I believe in Liberty, but Liberty does require eternal vigilance."

 

So well put! It is such a simple concept, I can't believe we are arguing about it.

Can O'sts embrace great public interests for private reasons?

Orson's picture

Richar says It's questionable as to whether Islam can be reformed.

Indeed it is. And you and I have no obvious private interest in seeing it done. But as world citiziens, we both do because we know that Islam leads to terrorism.

But the historiography the Islamists promote is poisonous: we were Great when we were had fidelity to the Kor'an, So Manji poses this potent alternative; we were Great when we embraced Ijtiahd! then Islamic civilization was at its height. We lost our Greatness when we abandoned reason.

I find that a pwerful challenge to radical orthodoxy. And equally important to Muslim modernizers, Christianity followed a similar arc: Medieval Chirstianity enforced conformity, but what it achieved was so much smaller than what came after the Renaissance.

So, don't Muslims deserve to benefit from the fruits of reason, even though they muddle through witha primitive system of Belief? Or must they be abandoned to mysticism? In our globalizing world of ever-cheaper WMD , I don't hink we can afford this neglect.

Accepting with people or cultures holding mixed premises is not the skill either Rand or Oblectivists are best at. We are best at criticizing, confronting, and rejecting them. (we respond well to logical forks; most poeple, however, do not!) But the sophisticated among us should be able to do both!

Richard asks about Cat Stevens, aka, Yourif Islam. Do you think an Islamic terrorist has a different conception of life, philosophy, than Cat Stephens? No. We agree on that.

This cat is an artful deceiver. The Islamists are deceivers without much art, however. Our challenge is to get the Left to see throught these lies and deceiptions and reject coddling Islam.

That's a huge challenge. It may outlast our lifetimes.

Rick asks about ordinary Muslims and how different they are from terrorists. Dinesh D'zousa, raised an Indian but college educated in the US, makes the same elision in his lates book, "The Enemy Within." Thus, he argues that US conservatives ought to make common cause with Muslim conservatives!

This thesis has been roundly condemned among US conservatives: he fails to see US conservatives as exponents of classical iberalism, which they are (unlike Continental conservatives), something so underdeveleoped within Islam as to be absent, as Manji knows!

My sense of Jihadism and Islam's unique and harmful notion of Martyrdom, as explained in David Cook's "Understanding Jihad," is that the division of labor that Jihad requires means that not everyone within the Umma can be a Maryr. Nor should they be! But where the line is drawn is why Jihadism takes the form of terorism today. Inshalla, the doctrine of fatalism means Jihadists can too conveniently rest on the doctrine "Kill Infidels and Muslims alike and let allah sort them out!" True Muslims will be saves, and the rest condemned to Hell.

This means Jihadism makes more for civil war among Muslims themselves than organized, WWII-style attacks on the rest of the world. This means the experiment in Iraq stirs the pot of Muslim self-examination ever more so, keeping our enemies busy!

Rick, DO NOT confuse passivity for rejection. There is no basis for this other than ignorance! Since the terrorists who attack us are drawn from the young and literate, and especially those exposed to the modern West, the future looks far more challenging than the threat we have today. The Muslim demographic explosion means that young, unemployed men will multiply. With advancing wealth through globalization, literacy among Muslims will grow by 5 to 10 times! And with it, the penetration and appeal of Islamist Jihad. And with movies and the intenet, direct exposure to western civilization may matter less and less, incresing their inevitable recoil of secular modernity with nativist rivivalism.

(Ironically, THIS is something D'souza deeply and seriously conveys. For example, when we see "Abu Graib," we see human rights abuses. But when Muslims see or talk about it, they see stark sexual perversity. And when this is seen as representing the West, they recoil and reject us, seeing us like OBL does: as a threat and attack upon their most cherished Beliefs! In short, we fail to se past our own ethnocentrism, and thus don't see Muslims as they view ourselves.

All these factors amount to synergies that will dangerously multiply the appeal of radical Islamism to Muslims in future decades. Thus, the modernizing benefit of having democracy within their midst, like Iraq, sooner than later is many many times cheaper now than just waiting for Islamists to strike out at us. It keeps the Muszzies busy with their neglected project of modernizing their stale and irrational religious doctrines. It's just the most important conclusion of looking at the cost/benefit calculus, comparing the inescapable future with todays tough reality.

Marvelous mvardoulis!!

Jameson's picture

One more on the side of the rightly suspicious and reasonably vigilant!!

Distinction between 'moderate' and 'fundamentalist'

mvardoulis's picture

The steady flood of media in the wake of the ongoing war in Iraq and in general after 9-11 talking about how difficult it now is for Muslims in America yadda yadda yadda... like this one here:

Newsweek Article

The cry that 'most Muslims in America consider themselves Americans' conveniently doesn't address the renouncing of violent jihad at least as interpreted even by mainstream Islam. Clearly, this is what needs to happen if American (and especially elsewhere) Muslims want 'acceptance' in their respective societies: a public rejection of jihad and the major theological overhaul that it would take to accomplish it. Since its all mystical mumbo jumbo to me that I have (at this point) little patience for, I have no idea whether such a transformation of Islam is possible. I do know that Christianity has morphed into thousands of different variations, causing the faith to decentralize and become arguably less barbaric.

Otherwise, I don't see why any Muslim should be above suspicion when their doctrine clearly preaches violence. Because of this advocacy of violence, all the tear-jerking articles in the world can be written but I'll never feel 'sorry' for any Muslim who doesn't speak out against jihad (and even then I doubt, just personally, I'll never have my guard down completely).

The direct analogy of Islam to Nazism and Communism fits, as I entertain suspicion of anyone who adheres to these equally inherently violent belief systems. I believe in Liberty, but Liberty does require eternal vigilance.

I don't agree with that

Richard Wiig's picture

My point is that not all Muslims have the moral equivalency of Nazis. I think you agree with this, don't you?

No, I don't agree with that. Just as not all Nazis fully adhered to the evil of Nazism, neither do all Muslims fully adhere to the evil of Islam, but they all equally belong to evil ideological movements. Al Qaida IS mainstream Islam. That's what you and Rick need to discover.

P.S. The Islamic Star and Crescent would be right at home alongside the swastika and hammer and sickle, as symbols of murderous totalitarian movements.

Yusuf Islam

Richard Wiig's picture

What about you though, Orson. Do you think an Islamic terrorist has a different conception of life, philosophy, than Cat Stephens?

Yusuf Islam, formerly known as Cat Stevens, supports the same goal as the terror groups.

Questionable

Richard Wiig's picture

Islamic totalitarianism means the revival of ijtihad is badly needed - the lost doctrine of interpreting the Kor'an by the light of reason. Only then can Islam be saved from itself.

It's questionable as to whether Islam can be reformed. The only end via the light of reason is rejection of the Koran, because reason shows that Muhammad commands his followers to Jihad. What is one to do with that? Fixing it requires an outright rebellion and a scrapping of Islams absolute fundamentals, such as the moral uprightness of the Prophet himself, or that the Qur'an is the perfect uncreated word of God. What Islamic Scholar is going to do that?

One Harvard professor calls Manji's mission "the most important new movement in several decades.”

Manji wont achieve her aim though, because she is not honest.

Orson

Rick Giles's picture

Because it's fundamentalist Islam as distinct from Islam. It's subtle, but I feel that if you apply yourself you may see the distinction, and Mr Perigo has seen it.
There are those authorities who subscribe to this distinction,

And I'm one of them.
Take a look in your own street. Don't have first-hand experience living among Muslims? I do.

there is no doctrinal difference between fundi-Islam and mainstream Islam. Both share the same beliefs and sacred sources.

What about you though, Orson. Do you think an Islamic terrorist has a different conception of life, philosophy, than Cat Stephens?

Maybe you think they do, but you just don't want to identify it with words.

Bravo Lindsay!

Orson's picture

Muslims must discover rationality and decency; Westerners must rediscover them, and, as a matter of urgency, speak up for them!

All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for cowards to appease [Islamofascism].

Bravo Lindsay!

Richard,Of course someone

Fraser Stephen-Smith's picture

Richard,

Of course someone who attends a mosque can be assumed to be a Muslim. My point is that not all Muslims have the moral equivalency of Nazis. I think you agree with this, don't you?

I suspect we will disagree on the proportion of Muslims who do have the moral equivalency of Nazis, but that is a future argument.

"meaningful" distinction? why the Left/Terrorists threaten US!

Orson's picture

Because it's fundamentalist Islam as distinct from Islam. It's subtle, but I feel that if you apply yourself you may see the distinction, and Mr Perigo has seen it.

There are those authorities who subscribe to this distinction, but more because it is politic or strategically sensible to do so, I think. Middle East historian Daniel Pipes is one. Others, like Middle East historian like Martin Kramer, disagree. He points out that there is no doctrinal difference between fundi-Islam and mainstream Islam. Both share the same beliefs and sacred sources.

This point has great significance to those who have noticed life since 9/11. It explains "Sudden Jihad Syndrome," as this pattern's been dubbed. In the US, for instance, a seemingly successful and secular student from a Muslim country suddenly goes on a rampage at the University of North Carolina, trying to kill people in a rented SUV. At a point of transition in his life, anomie takes hold: he wants to make his felt-dissipation redeemed through martyrdom in the Jihad against the Infidels surrounding him.

It also explains why virtually no Muslims are ever seen protesting the mass murder committed in the name of their religion! They can disagree with terrorism, but not out of religious principle.

As the Canadian feminist and friend of Salmon Rushdie, Irshad Manji says, "I am a Muslim dissident, first." She also calls herself a "Muslim refusenik", evoking comparison with the tragic course and future hope of the last totalitarianism vanquished. She hopes to inspire dissidents within the Muslim world first, because only later can there be a liberal movement within Islam with sufficient mass to oppose the Jihadists and modernize the religion. Dissent necessarilly preceeds reform.

Islamic totalitarianism means the revival of ijtihad is badly needed - the lost doctrine of interpreting the Kor'an by the light of reason. Only then can Islam be saved from itself. One Harvard professor calls Manji's mission "the most important new movement in several decades.”

Writing after the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, Kramer argued that the peaceful Muslim one day can become the terrorist Muslim the next. (interestingly enough, the US presidential candidate wanna-be Rudy Guiliani has named Kramer to his foreign policy board of advisors.) But almost everyone choses to ignore this disturbing fact. That was true then, and is still true today - only more disturblingly so, now.

Consider the unique challenge we face as put by one Richard Hernandez, an American based in Australia, blogging under the Revolutionary inspired name "Wretchard" at Belmont Club and writing online for pajamasmedia:

There are times when I am tempted to think that the Western Left is radical Islam’s Ring of Power. And the brilliance of al-Qaeda’s reliance on it as a force-multiplier is that the defeat of radical Islam must consequently come at the price of altering the structure of post-war Western politics itself. In a sense the Western Left has become a hostage to the current world crisis, and perhaps the only part of the Left that understands this are the signatories of the Euston Manifesto, who realized that al-Qaeda had already claimed its political soul: that unconciously, almost imperceptibly, the Left in uncritical embrace of any foe of America had come to align itself with the most brutal, obscurantist, repressive theocrats on the planet. And would conceivably share its fate with them.

Consider this core insight: ...al-Qaeda’s reliance on [the Left matters because] the defeat of radical Islam must consequently come at the price of altering the structure of post-war Western politics itself. If this insight is valid, it implies that our war aboard must be supported by challenging and changing "The Enemy at Home" as well - as former Reagan advisor Dinesh D'zousa calls this problem in his latest book.

What else might this powerfully suggestive insight mean? Together with Lindsay's words above, I'm still pondering its implications....Perhaps we need to re-define the significance of the Western tradition and the Enlightenment to undermine the Left/terrorist alliance? In doing so, Ayn Rand's cannon can surely help us.

"any other tome that's been

Fraser Stephen-Smith's picture

"any other tome that's been written for expressed purpose of furthering the cause of the superior race, that instructs its adherents to go forth and cleanse the world of non-adherents, that makes special mention of exterminating the dirty, filthy Jews... etc, etc"

ANY other such tome, Jameson? Are you sure? What if the 'other such tome' in question has adherents that "denounce acts of violence committed in the name of their religion!" 

That would be different, right - because you and Richard have (justifiably) asked that Christianity and Islam not be compared? I accept this, if for no other reason than that we are not faced with Christian terrorists trying to buy massive packs of fertiliser. I accept this, but then you should accept that having a dodgy text as the basis for your religion does not complete the requirements for the moral equivalency of a Nazi.

If someone was attending and cheering at a pro-terror event, or demonstrating and yelling "Death to the West!" then wrap him up in a Swatstika and give him the words to the Horst Wessel song.

I'm avoiding responding in kind to comments such as "get this into your thick heads", but only just. You may want to beware of the lazy flaws in your own posts if you are going to throw such insults around. Here's a polite pointer: there is a difference between a tenant and a tenet. 

I think Lindsay's article

Rick Giles's picture

I think Lindsay's article speaks for itself. But he did say, last week, that it would be an update from "Death to Islam" to "Death to Islamofascism." I'm merely agreeing, happily.

Argue your vicious point by all means, but do not invoke me on your side. I detest what you're saying here. Is that fucking clear enough?!

Doesn't mean much. Two years ago you said the same thing and worse when I championed the polymath, the Renaissance Man. Last week the same words were given sticky-blue SOLO front page status!

You'll come around.

Rick - If I were in Linz's position, I would also object to being called in as support for either you or me. I don't think we're winning an argument here, i think we're just climbing off positions to accept that a proportion of our arguments are about definitions, rather than moral positions.

No. Whatever their reasoning failures, our interlocutors are not illiterate.

Beat me to my punch line, Richard...

Jameson's picture

The point is, Fraser, that having the Qur'an under their arm is the same as carrying any other tome that's been written for expressed purpose of furthering the cause of the superior race, that instructs its adherents to go forth and cleanse the world of non-adherents, that makes special mention of exterminating the dirty, filthy Jews... etc, etc...

It was not a coincidence that the Nazis and Islamics were best of buddies during the war.

But doesn't...

Richard Wiig's picture

... attendance at mosques, praying five times a day while facing Mecca, etc, indicate that they are all Muslims?

The Nazi symbols and the attendance at Nazi events indicate the fact that they are Nazis.

Your question is disingenuous

Fraser Stephen-Smith's picture

Your question is disingenuous, Jameson, and so I'm close to ignoring your posts, but as a last honest post in good faith:

The Nazi symbols and the attendance at Nazi events indicate the fact that they are Nazis. For the record I hope you would still squirm at the idea of bombing a Hitler Youth camp full of 8 year old boys; even it was somehow desperately important to the Allied WWII effort, and you accepted the responsibility. 

And before you write it, attendance at an anti-war protest is not the same thing as a Nazi rally. (And for clarity I supported the war in Iraq, and would probably support a war against Iran). Saying "Leave Germans alone" was not the same thing as saying "You should all be subjugated by the power of Nazi Germany".

What, they're ALL Nazis?

Jameson's picture

How can you tell, Fraser -- what distinguishes them from the moderate Conservative Religious Nationalists?

Missed the Point, Somewhat, Did We?

Fraser Stephen-Smith's picture

Jameson,

These pictures are of Nazis. There is a difference between Nazis and conservative religious nationalists. We don't agree with conservative religious nationalists, buyt we don't go to war with them. We do go to war with Nazis.

Are you deliberating posting in bad faith, or are you struggling to understand the point I am making?

If you don't have the ability or inclination to contribute to the discussion in a sincere, honest and thoughtful way, then you may want to question what value your picture posts are.   

Snaps of some nice Conservative Religious Nationalists...

Jameson's picture

Tiresome

Fraser Stephen-Smith's picture

"You, Rick, and Fraser can shove your appeasement and your apologetics for evil straight up aforementioned orifices as far as I'm concerned. "

More hysteria from the old crone downstairs. Maybe she just needs a cat for company. 

If we're going to use an analogy, let's use Nazism = Islamofascism/Jihad ideology/extreme Islam etc, and conservative religious nationalism = most Islam.

I'm not apologising for Islam; in fact I oppose it. You claim that your tantrum is the result of misrepresentation, then turn around and misrepresent my position.

Now Richard and I were actually involved in an interesting discussion, where I was challenging both my views and his with an aim to developing a consistent, rational position. I didn't claim your views for my side; the only time I mentioned you was to thank you for your powerful article. You're not adding anything lucid.

Rick - If I were in Linz's position, I would also object to being called in as support for either you or me. I don't think we're winning an argument here, i think we're just climbing off positions to accept that a proportion of our arguments are about definitions, rather than moral positions.

Mullah-fuckin'-lujah!!!

Jameson's picture

Lindsay: "Was Nazism any less evil because most of its adherents were peaceful?... You, Rick, and Fraser can shove your appeasement and your apologetics for evil straight up aforementioned orifices as far as I'm concerned. Argue your vicious point by all means, but do not invoke me on your side. I detest what you're saying here. Is that fucking clear enough?!"

I was wondering how long you could hold your breath!! Smiling

Actually Richard...

Hayden Wood's picture

I could go into a whole screed about the fundamentals or essentials of fascism, but I don't see the point. Whether it's fascist, whether it's socialist, whether it's whateverist, Islam is fundamentally totalitarian, and aims for a complete and total regulation of life, right down to the way you brush your teeth and comb your hair. I'm not going to quibble as to whether it's strictly fascist or not.

I think this is important. If Islam *isn't* fascistic, but instead simply brutish totalitarianism then why call it something it isn't?  Why knowingly be in error when it would cost almost nothing but gain a great deal to use then correct terminology when identifying the enemy?

If you are arguing with some pinko hippie and you say "Islamo-fascism", and he is knowledgable enough to know that Islam isn't fascistic, since it isn't nationalistic or for whatever other reason, then the entirety of your argument will be lost on him becuase you have not bothered to accurately find out about or describe what you are arguing against or even worse, don't really care about using words correctly.

Of course, Orwell may be right and the word could mean whatever anyone thinks it means...

http://orwell.ru/library/artic...

It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.

Yet underneath all this mess there does lie a kind of buried meaning. To begin with, it is clear that there are very great differences, some of them easy to point out and not easy to explain away, between the régimes called Fascist and those called democratic. Secondly, if ‘Fascist’ means ‘in sympathy with Hitler’, some of the accusations I have listed above are obviously very much more justified than others. Thirdly, even the people who recklessly fling the word ‘Fascist’ in every direction attach at any rate an emotional significance to it. By ‘Fascism’ they mean, roughly speaking, something cruel, unscrupulous, arrogant, obscurantist, anti-liberal and anti-working-class. Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathizers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come.

But Fascism is also a political and economic system. Why, then, cannot we have a clear and generally accepted definition of it? Alas! we shall not get one — not yet, anyway. To say why would take too long, but basically it is because it is impossible to define Fascism satisfactorily without making admissions which neither the Fascists themselves, nor the Conservatives, nor Socialists of any colour, are willing to make. All one can do for the moment is to use the word with a certain amount of circumspection and not, as is usually done, degrade it to the level of a swearword.

Rick!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Because it's fundamentalist Islam as distinct from Islam. It's subtle, but I feel that if you apply yourself you may see the distinction, and Mr Perigo has seen it.

You're talking out of your appeasing ass. There's no such distinction, nor have I "seen" one. Quit misrepresenting me and read what I wrote. Which part of "stupid, stinking Islam" is ambiguous?

Was Nazism any less evil because most of its adherents were peaceful?

You, Rick, and Fraser can shove your appeasement and your apologetics for evil straight up aforementioned orifices as far as I'm concerned. Argue your vicious point by all means, but do not invoke me on your side. I detest what you're saying here. Is that fucking clear enough?!

Linz

Would you look at that

Rick Giles's picture

Forgive my confusion but I thought you also claimed we were at war with Islam.
Yeah, but I think you are being picky. As much as Islam is about Jihad we are at war with it.

Well well well well said Mr Richard.

Fraser scores where Giles failed.

Thankyou, Mr Wiig.

Rick

Richard Wiig's picture

Second part of my reply to Fraser, by way of Rick.

I have stated many times that we are at war with Jihad ideology and need to declare war against Jihad ideology.

Forgive my confusion but I thought you also claimed we were at war with Islam.

.

Yeah, but I think you are being picky. As much as Islam is about Jihad we are at war with it. Jihad is the heart of Islam, so would it be better to say we are at war with Islams heart, but not its kidney?

Fraser

Richard Wiig's picture

First half of reply:

You said the Islam is not malleable to personal interpretation, but that it is laid out in the Islamic texts, the Qur'an, Hadith and Sunnah. I have either misunderstood you, or this is a very naive thing to say.

Any text must be interpreted by the reader;

Sure, but Islam has been interpreted and codified and laid out  in Sharia. Any individual who wants to reinterpret it, comes up against traditional mainstream Islam. Reinterpretation is called ijtihad, and Islams Scholars closed the gates of ijtihad in the tenth century.

any text will be interpreted in different ways by different readers.

.

Sure again, but Joe Bloggs down the road who may interpret it his way, in his modern day unIslamic PC think way perhaps, means little. The four main schools of Islamic Jurisprudence are already laid out for him, and if he is too far off the beaten track he will be beaten back onto the track. Besides, it's hard to interpret "thou shall subjugate the unbelievers" as anything other than "thou shall subjugate the unbelievers". Unless you're a modern day PC thinker like the above politician.

Not only is this true in theory, but there is empirical evidence that there are different interpretations of Islam. Examples of this evidence are interviews with Islamic scholars who contend that the Imams who preach violence in the UK only do so because they are not well educated in Islamic studies. As these Islamic scholars spend their professional lives focused on the study of Islam, their understanding of it may even be better than yours.

.

I agree, I am no Islamic scholar, and can only go by what I read from those who are, and certainly, there are Islamic scholars who say those things. But it's funny, even though they say this, the violent Jihadists show that they are incredibly well versed in Islamic studies, and it's by refererenc to their own education and understanding of Qur'an, Hadith and Sira, that they gain new recruits. Perhaps these "Islamic scholars" are saying what they believe to be true, but then Islamic scholars have been caught lying or obfuscating many times. Deception is a Jihad tactic, so it is even possible they're simply saying what they want you to believe. Do you really believe that a Muslim who's pious enough to become a Cleric or Imam, hasn't studied Islam? I mean honestly. What you really ought to do is put what these scholars say onto the table for dissection. Don't simply accept them at their comforting word.

It’s a shame, because it would aid in my understanding, but I’m happy to take another approach if you demand.

If it isn't used as an excercise in moral equivalency, then fine.

If we are at war with Islam - why can’t we carpet bomb any Islamic country…or is that we are only at war with *some* Muslims?

Because quite simply it isn't necessary.

I think you're mistaken,

Rick Giles's picture

I think you're mistaken, Fraser.

I have stated many times that we are at war with Jihad ideology and need to declare war against Jihad ideology.
Forgive my confusion but I thought you also claimed we were at war with Islam. Who was it that wrote: “Islam is at war with us and enemies of war have no right to freedom of speech.”? But OK, that’s a smart arse answer on my part. I accept that you think we are not at war with Islam, but rather at war with Jihad ideology.

Richard has always been quite clear that it is Islam itself that is at war with us. If he reduced his attacks to only the criminal element of Islam we'd have nothing to argue about with him.

This is why I like this article from Lindsay. It points the finger at the true enemy. I would expect Richard and Glenn to be bothered by that.

Why are they called "Islam" o fascists, Rick?

Because it's fundamentalist Islam as distinct from Islam. It's subtle, but I feel that if you apply yourself you may see the distinction, and Mr Perigo has seen it.

Richard

Fraser Stephen-Smith's picture

Richard,

I had approached this discourse with no hidden subtexts and in a spirit of genuine enquiry. I have made that painfully clear. After the tone of your last post, I’m replying in kind – but as well as trying to win a few points, I am still keen to learn more about your viewpoint, and to challenge my own. I have already identified a few inconsistencies in my previous view as a result of this dialogue.

You said the Islam is not malleable to personal interpretation, but that it is laid out in the Islamic texts, the Qur'an, Hadith and Sunnah. I have either misunderstood you, or this is a very naive thing to say. Any text must be interpreted by the reader; any text will be interpreted in different ways by different readers. Not only is this true in theory, but there is empirical evidence that there are different interpretations of Islam. Examples of this evidence are interviews with Islamic scholars who contend that the Imams who preach violence in the UK only do so because they are not well educated in Islamic studies.  As these Islamic scholars spend their professional lives focused on the study of Islam, their understanding of it may even be better than yours.

Comparing and contrasting Islam to Christianity is very useful in this discussion; but fine, if you don’t want to – I am happy to cede the ground. It’s a shame, because it would aid in my understanding, but I’m happy to take another approach if you demand.

I don’t think you got my Bill Tingley reference. If you did, I don’t understand your response.

Again, it's a mischaracterisation, it's unfair and it pisses me off.
I didn’t suggest that you recommend carpet bombing Pakistan – and I understand how it would piss you off if you thought I did. I was using an extreme position to demonstrate that any reciprocation should be proportionate; and to demonstrate that saying we are at war with Islam isn’t particularly helpful. When the Allies were at war with Germany, they carpet bombed cities in Germany. If we are at war with Islam – why can’t we carpet bomb any Islamic country…or is that we are only at war with *some* Muslims?

I have stated many times that we are at war with Jihad ideology and need to declare war against Jihad ideology.
Forgive my confusion but I thought you also claimed we were at war with Islam. Who was it that wrote: “Islam is at war with us and enemies of war have no right to freedom of speech.”? But OK, that’s a smart arse answer on my part. I accept that you think we are not at war with Islam, but rather at war with Jihad ideology.

If I claimed (hypothetically speaking) that I defined Jihad ideology as Islamofascism; would we agree that we are at war with Islamofascism…and not at war with Islam? We still find aspects of Islam violently contrary to our own values, of course.

FFS, you are looking through your own eyes, by your own standards
Of course I am. That is the only view of the world I have access to.  I know that Islam preaches sacrifice, but I also think that the people who become suicide bombers would rather cause destruction and live to cause more destruction. Suicide bombing is their only effective weapon in the West, because they are so much weaker, both militarily and philosophically. The mayor of London summed the reasons for the suicide bombers understanding of their weakness after the 7/7 bombings:

In the days that follow look at our airports, look at our sea ports and look at our railway stations and, even after your cowardly attack, you will see that people from the rest of Britain, people from around the world will arrive in London to become Londoners and to fulfil their dreams and achieve their potential.
They choose to come to London, as so many have come before because they come to be free, they come to live the life they choose, they come to be able to be themselves. They flee you because you tell them how they should live. They don't want that and nothing you do, however many of us you kill, will stop that flight to our city where freedom is strong and where people can live in harmony with one another. Whatever you do, however many you kill, you will fail.


Suicide bombers wouldn’t be so driven to attack if they didn’t feel so gravely threatened. They feel threatened because they see their neighbours reject their values and accept the values of the West. I really can't fathom how something so fundamental can be so ignored by the supposedly emotionally mature.

How many times before it sinks in?

Richard Wiig's picture

Item 1.

“And they are either mistaken, or being disingenuous.”

 

I think this is a difficult position to hold. In essence, I think Islam is defined by the people within the religion,

Islam is defined by the Islamic Scholars, the clerics and Imams, etc, not by the people on the ground floor. It is not a personal religion, it is laid out in Sharia Law, which is derived from the Islamic texts, the Qur'an, Hadith and Sunnah. It says and states particular specific things, and is not fluid, relative and malleable to peoples feelings and personal interpretations. You are treating it as something it is not.

rather than by those outside it. If a Muslim defines his religion as peaceful, and practices his religion peacefully – and if we agree that he is a Muslim – then how can we say that he is mistaken in saying his religion is peaceful?

In exactly the same way that the clerics and Imams tell him he is mistaken and practicing it wrong and not being a true muslim and that he is being corrupted by the Kafir. And they are right, and they recruit muslims who feel guilty about that, and who want to be truer to their faith and closer to God.

Islamic texts may contain calls to war and subjugation, but Christians certainly take what they like from the Bible, and leave the rest…so I contend that Muslims can do the same.

Christianity and Islam are two entirely different religions. You cannot compare apples and oranges. Christianity isn't literalist in its approach to the Bible for one. Please, seeing as I am answering your questions, how many times does it take pointing out that the two religions aren't the same before it starts sinking in? Islam is under the microscope here, not Christianity, which cannot be compared.

To steal Bill Tingley’s illustrative technique: we say Islam is X, and that we must be at war with X, but some Muslims say that Islam is Y.

In other words, he's a applying a non-Islamic standard (some kind of relative subjective thing) to the Islamic. He'll find his answers by looking at Islam, not by avoiding it.

Item 2.

However, given that no credible world leader claims that we are at war (literally, not metaphorically) with the whole of Islam; how do you justify this claim? I'm not sure exactly where I draw the line, but I don't think that carpet bombing Pakistan is a proportionate response even to 9/11.

No one here has ever talked about carpet bombing Pakistan, least of all I, so I don't know why this kind of thing keeps popping up. Again, it's a mischaracterisation, it's unfair and it pisses me off. I have stated many times that we are at war with Jihad ideology and need to to declare war against Jihad ideology. That doesn't require carpet bombing Pakistan, or Nuking Mecca, or throwing bricks or molotov cocktails through the window of the local Pakistani dairy. Also, declaring war against Jihad ideology isn't declaring war against the whole of Islam, just the Jihad part, although, many would probaly take it as the former, but that cannot be helped, and it's not a reason to avoid clearly identifying what we're at war with.

Random Throwaway Item.

At the moment, they see, and know, that the West is a pushover.”

I doubt this, I suspect our enemy is gravely threatened by the West in many varied ways. Suicide bombs are not the tools of people who feel they are in a position of power.

FFS, you are looking through your own eyes, by your own standards, rather than Islamic standards. WHAT DOES ISLAM TEACH PEOPLE??? I really can't fathom how something so fundamental can be so ignored by the supposedly intelligent.

Most importantly, thanks to

Fraser Stephen-Smith's picture

Most importantly, thanks to Linz for writing such a powerful article. I have a small disagreement, discussed elsewhere, regarding the particular catalyst for this op-ed - but this is minor in the face of the unambiguous and ceaseless punches that are espoused in the article’s second half.

Richard:

I’m interested in following a number of lines from our discussion so far, but I will start with only a few. I’m not asking direct questions per se, but please interpret the comments as an inquiry.

 

Item 1.

 

 

“And they are either mistaken, or being disingenuous.”

 

I think this is a difficult position to hold. In essence, I think Islam is defined by the people within the religion, rather than by those outside it. If a Muslim defines his religion as peaceful, and practices his religion peacefully – and if we agree that he is a Muslim – then how can we say that he is mistaken in saying his religion is peaceful? Islamic texts may contain calls to war and subjugation, but Christians certainly take what they like from the Bible, and leave the rest…so I contend that Muslims can do the same.

 

To steal Bill Tingley’s illustrative technique: we say Islam is X, and that we must be at war with X, but some Muslims say that Islam is Y.

 

We can argue that Islamic texts prove that Islam is X, but a Muslim – like a Christian - can argue that is only one mistaken, inaccurate interpretation of Islam. I understand that Leviticus is pretty dodgy, but we don’t argue that Christianity is totalitarian as a result; partly because the Bible also talks about giving Caesar his due (apologies to all readers for my probably inaccurate paraphrasing et al).

 

When faced with a Muslim who agrees that Islam is X; by all means, we can treat them as a dangerous enemy.

 

Item 2.

 

It raises another question about when we can accurately say that we are at war with Islam. We could say that we were at war with Germany, when there were a number of Germans Jews who supported the Allies (Interestingly though German Jews were interned in the UK, alongside German war criminals).

However, given that no credible world leader claims that we are at war (literally, not metaphorically) with the whole of Islam; how do you justify this claim? I'm not sure exactly where I draw the line, but I don't think that carpet bombing Pakistan is a proportionate response even to 9/11.

 

 

Random Throwaway Item.

 

“At the moment, they see, and know, that the West is a pushover.” I doubt this, I suspect our enemy is gravely threatened by the West in many varied ways. Suicide bombs are not the tools of people who feel they are in a position of power.

No apology necessary Fraser,

Richard Wiig's picture

No apology necessary Fraser, but thanks all the same. It's just nice to see that you've seen past the bigot label.

Islamic terrorists draw their justification from their religion, and some other Muslims argue that their religion does not justify terrorism, is a religion of peace, and is distorted by those who use it to justify terrorism.

And they are either mistaken, or being disingenuous.

1. Do you accept that these "other Muslims" are Muslims;

Yes

or do you think they cannot describe themselves accurately as Muslims without subscribing to fascist ideals?

They can describe themselves accurately as muslims.

2. What do you consider the core tenets of fascism? I understand them to be strong state control, organic conservative values and extreme nationalism often allied with racism.

I could go into a whole screed about the fundamentals or essentials of fascism, but I don't see the point. Whether it's fascist, whether it's socialist, whether it's whateverist, Islam is fundamentally totalitarian, and aims for a complete and total regulation of life, right down to the way you brush your teeth and comb your hair. I'm not going to quibble as to whether it's strictly fascist or not.

3. Is your view on restricting their freedom of speech etc based purely on your understanding that Islam demands subjugation of non-believers,

It demands subjugation of believer and non-believer alike. The believer is to become an automaton for Allah. The more pious he becomes, the more he'll have submitted his ego and the closer he'll get to willingly strapping a bomb to his waist. That's the path your moderates are on, if they follow their religion.

or would domestic injustice (e.g. familial and paternal controls) also motivate you to call for similar restrictions?

It's based purely on the fact that Islam is at war with us and enemies of war have no right to freedom of speech. Presently we are giving our enemies complete freedom to recruit. What we're allowing would be akin to having allowed Hitler and the Nazis to campaign their war against Britain from downtown London during WWII. The WHOLE of Islam, meaning, in this case, the entire Ummah and not just a few "hijackers", needs to know that we will not accept their Jihad. At the moment, they see, and know, that the West is a pushover.

Richard

Fraser Stephen-Smith's picture

Richard,

Please interpret my post here as written in a genuine spirit of inquiry and discussion. In order to do so, I suspect you require an apology for my previous accusations of bigotry, which I offer.

Islamic terrorists draw their justification from their religion, and some other Muslims argue that their religion does not justify terrorism, is a religion of peace, and is distorted by those who use it to justify terrorism.

1. Do you accept that these "other Muslims" are Muslims; or do you think they cannot describe themselves accurately as Muslims without subscribing to fascist ideals?

2. What do you consider the core tenets of fascism? I understand them to be strong state control, organic conservative values and extreme nationalism often allied with racism.

3. Is your view on restricting their freedom of speech etc based purely on your understanding that Islam demands subjugation of non-believers, or would domestic injustice (e.g. familial and paternal controls) also motivate you to call for similar restrictions?

Touché, Richard!

Jameson's picture

Smiling

Not twisted.

Richard Wiig's picture

“Death to Islamofascism!”

The difference here, Rick, is that the knife is put in, but not twisted. It is more comfortable for those who it causes discomfort. It is still death to Islam, because it's the essence of Islam that is called to die.

Why are they called "Islam" o fascists, Rick?

Richard Wiig's picture

This leads by good example that other SOLOists may achive the brainwave of making the same distinction between Islam and "Islamofacism."

Because their fascism IS born from Islam. They are practicing the core tenets of Islam, which are fascist. Islam is fascist.

That's more like it!

Rick Giles's picture

I am relieved and pleased to see Death to Islam updated with Death to Islamofascism.

This leads by good example that other SOLOists may achive the brainwave of making the same distinction between Islam and "Islamofacism."

Forward SOLO.

Hoorah, Lindsay!!

Jameson's picture

Here's another gem from a peace-loving mullah, Sahih Al-Bukhari, reading from the Hadith...

"The prophet Mohammed (may he rest in peace) once said: "A cheap rug is more valuable in a man's home than a woman"

Excellent stuff!

Ross Elliot's picture

I assume they have Letters to Editor? Love to see some of the comment.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.