The Religious Policeman has a 6 point plan to salvage Islam. I tend to agree with him wholeheartedly.
An Arab man's attempt at bridging the cultural gap and trying to make a difference. Failing a lot. Succeeding once in a while.
The Religious Policeman has a 6 point plan to salvage Islam. I tend to agree with him wholeheartedly.
Comments
The New New Islam
Thanks Mahmoud. You and the Religious Policeman have restored my faith in humanity.
thinker
The New New Islam
There are some good points there, but I’m slightly put off by finding neither an appeal to help the tens of thousands affected by the earthquake or even a mention of it in the blog. I’m not belittling the London bombings but hey lets put things into perspective.
The New New Islam
I disagree because one can be avoided and natural disasters cannot. Furthermore, there are fanatics all over the world now that could cause disasters. Two bombs were found on unversity campus’ this week in the US alone. Last week if the OU bomber had been able to enter the football stadium you could have lost almost as many as in Pakistan.
By the way….a Saudi…your prejudice is showing. I am a woman. Women can think.
thinker
Re: The New New Islam
I can’t disagree with you. I put up an appeal for helping those affected in the earthquake and it got 6 responses. I do hope however that people did donate, we don’t need to know who did and who didn’t this is completely between one’s self. So responses might not tally with actual giving.
But to get to the points made, natural disasters leaves people in shock and awe. You would probably find them just shaking their heads and thinking “poor bastards” and going on with their lives. They attribue the disaster to an act of nature or a super being and then feel completely helpless other than dipping into their wallets.
A bomb or a terrorist attack on the other hand leaves people angry and they want to lash out at the perpetrators wherever they are because they feel that act is avoidable had their been better security, watchfulness, intellegence, or had the known terrorist locations been shut down and terrorists and their supporters eradicated.
Now is a person who lost their life due to a terrorist event more worthy of our sympathy than a person who died due to “unnatural” causes like an earth quake, a flood, etc? Hardly. Both are tragic and both deserve respect. But I think people at least seem to empathise more with victims of terrorist attacks because of the anger they feel and their feeling that it might have been preventable.
I echo your sentiment once again, please give. It is a worthy cause.
The New New Islam
Can anyone recommend some liberal Islamic reformists who are saying something interesting?
Any help would be appreciated.
(ps – by this I don’t mean Irshad Manji.)
The New New Islam
Sorry Mahmoud…I agree with you regarding the Pakistani tragedy. I have contributed. Its terrible.
I just think that reforming the fanatics is important as well and I was addressing my comment to the previous poster. We posted at about the same time. I posted before your comment.
thinker
The New New Islam
I agree with Alhamedi’s post on “The Religious Policeman” not only in general but in detail. To be perfectly honest, it throws me a bit to read something logical and reasonable written by a Saudi who, to be frank, I regard as the most contemptible people on Earth. Virtually, everything I read or hear from Saudis is at best quite transparently a lie, at worst vile hate-mongering. I believe America should declare war on Saudi Arabia not only for the emotional reason of punishing the murdering scum who attacked us on September 11 but also for the more rational reason of decapitating the head of Islamist terror so as to remove this cancer from the world.
Reading Alhamedi over the last few weeks challenges my view of Saudis. The question on my mind every time I finish a post of his is: How many Saudis are like him? How many are actually good people, not bloodthirsty Wahhabi nutcases soaked in hate? 1%? 5%? 10%? I can not imagine more than that. Unquestionably, I have to revise my view that all Saudis are evil. Alhamedi shows that some of them are civilized, educated, cosmopolitan. Good.
Alhamedi is quite right to mock Zakir Naik’s idea to improve the image of Islam in America with a Muslim run news agency. The core of his idea is that you can fool Westerners by playing word games with the news. That may work in closed societies but not in free and open Western countries with a plethora of channels of information in which the facts can be easily found.
Saudi Arabia has already tried something along these lines by hiring an ad agency here in America and treating us with a campaign of glossy commercials broadcast here in Washington, DC featuring the modern skyline of Riyadh, telling us that KSA is a modern nation, and that they are our partners in the war against terror. Nobody believes this ****. Everyone knows it is a pack of lies.
Likewise, Al Jazeera would seem to be the news agency that Naik wants to duplicate. It is virtually a sport for blogs to fish out crazily biased Al Jazeera stories and expose them. It is widely recognized as a biased source in America. I don’t think a second Al Jazeera would improve on the first.
Naik is also wrong to say “the entire Muslim community was being tarred for the deeds of a few misguided elements.” Those “misguided elements” are acting out the doctrine of the Wahhabi cult. Those “misguided elements” are being indoctrinated in the Saudi university system by the thousands. Those “misguided elements” enjoy the support of the Saudi state in financing and logistics as they are sent to sow terror in the world to propagate the Saudi state religion.
This Wahhabi terror enjoys support among Muslims around the world. After the Tube bombings, a quarter of the Pakistani Muslims in London said they would say nothing if they knew of a terror plot in progress. Here in Washington, a Muslim rally against terrorism could barely attract fifty demonstrators and was widely condemned by local Muslim organizations. This is hardly surprising considering the high regard for jihad in the Koran.
Naik is also unconvincing in his complaint that the Oxford Dictionary has changed its definition of fundamentalist: “In the latest definition, the word fundamentalist is associated with Islam and calls a Muslim fundamentalist one who holds “that Islam is not only a religion, but also a political system that governs the legal, economic and social imperatives of the state.â€?” Why is it surprising that the Oxford Dictionary accurately specifies the beliefs that Muslim fundamentalists hold? It’s virtually plagiarizing Wahhabi documents. And really, to be taken seriously, Naik should deliver his objection in some state other than Saudi Arabia, which is dedicated to exactly that fundamentalist definition of Islam.
The problem with Islam is not American bias against it but rather Muslim behavior. No matter how slick that Muslim news agency gets, you just can’t spin those images of Muslims sawing off the heads of infidels and proudly shouting “Allah Akbar!” You are never going to convince Americans that Islam is good after they have that image in their heads. Likewise, you can not sugar coat Sep 11, the Bali bombings, Madrid, Beslan, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, et al. America is biased against Islam because Islam has demonstrated its intention to propagate itself through violence. You can’t explain away video of Muslims dancing in the streets and passing out sweets at the news of Sep 11 or Pakistanis celebrating the passage of a Tube bomber into heaven as a “hero of Islam.” The Muslim world’s intolerance of all things non-Muslim does not endear itself to the West either.
I fully agree with Alhamedi that all that crap about jihad should be extirpated from the Koran. The Muslim unwillingness to work and play with other cultures has left it ignorant and impoverished. It’s Koranic prediliction for violence will get it nuked. I would advise you do it before the bulk of the Western world learns the meaning of dhimmi.
Alhamedi is also correct to press for the truth. Passing off the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” as true makes you look like ignorant bigots. So does all those crazy conspiracy theories like all the Jews staying home from work in the WTC on Sep 11. I am not surprised to read in translations of the Arab media that some people believe this stuff. There are Americans who believe it. What shocks me is the widespread belief in it in the Middle East and the rank of the people who spout it. When I read of Arab generals and statesmen spouting that the US attacked itself on Sep 11 and citing some knucklehead conspiracy website as proof, my respect for the leadership of Muslim countries drops to the floor and starts burrowing to China. No matter how many times I read such examples, it shocks me that such ignorant and prejudiced people can command authority anywhere. It’s as if the Ku Klux Klan took command of a country.
I don’t think any of Alhamedi’s reforms will come to pass in my lifetime, but I share his hope they do.
Steve
The New New Islam
Dear Thinker
I am an active member of Amnesty International and am currently involved in the SVAW campaign-Stop Violence Against Women campaign in Dublin, The head of amnesty btw is Irene Khan-a woman … I don’t at all care for the way you immediately associated me being a Saudi to bigotry. Many Saudi women and Men campaign bravely for equality within Saudi Arabia and indeed in other countries as in the case of Rania Al-Baz. Furthermore I lack the telepathic ability to discern your gender by reading 1 remark. Not to detract too much for the main issue I applaud Mahmood Al-Yousif’s appeal and urge other to do the same.
A Saudi
The New New Islam
Sadly Mahmoud….one of your readers cannot distinguish between a natural disaster and disasters caused by a faulty interpretation of religion.
One thing I would suggest is that people begin to adopt certain principals and then begin to call their mosques ‘reformed’. Then get prayer leaders to sign on to them. As more and more mosquesa adopt the ‘reformed principals’ the reformed mosque will gain more traction.
I am also reminded by one of your readers of the Christian reformation where people because of the Gutenburg press no longer had to look for interpretation from the clergy and could interpret religion themselves. If not for the reformation, Christian Catholics would still be in the Middle Ages and there would be no Protestantism. Of course the enlightenment helped. It certainly seems to scare Muslims to think that Islam could be confused with tradition and could be updated.
thinker
The New New Islam
A Saudi….I characterized you as prejudiced because you compared my thinking to ‘a daughter’. Why not a son? This is a mistake few educated westerners would make in written discourse. I realize it is a minor issue but in writing and corresponding with people in the Middle East, I have sadly seen this faux pas made almost regularly.
thinker
The New New Islam
Don’t mean to be rude, but the points being made have no scientific foundations. Ones that were excreted by the political field, maybe, but not science. Such is the problem of ovecompensation; the response is usually to do the same and overcompensate: Selefis/Wahabis/Hembelis/Khewarij have given us one of the bloodiest and barbaric histories known to man, so let’s flip all the way to the other direction to try and balance the loss. It doesn’t work like that.
Ayatollah Seestani (www.najaf.org) as well as others have an email service. How about addressing contraversial (sp?) questions to him and seeing how he responds. He usually replies in his own handwriting and is accepted as being very open-minded.
2^4^8
The New New Islam
“Sadly Mahmoud….one of your readers cannot distinguish between a natural disaster and disasters caused by a faulty interpretation of religion”
Now lets play match the disaster to the cause game!
1 London Bombings———
2 South Asian Earthquake…….
A- Natural Movements of earths plates
B- A Bunch of fanatics
,, Ans-1-B, 2-A
Got it right?? Well done, marvellous!! Wonderschon!! Unglaublich!!
This my dear author of that gem of a remark is called rhetoric. and generally speaking doesn’t have much use in an intelligent debate, the ISSUE that I brought up was the fickleness of human attention and indeed interest towards disasters-manmade or otherwise. Do you think the parent
who just dug up his daughter thinks “well jee the poor mite is dead but at least it wasn’t a bomb, wipee!” …unlikely, with millions affected and the death count nearing 40,000 dare I say it’s almost insulting mentioning the tragedy that truly was the London Bombings-no doubt about that but without a mere whisper of what is at hand right now… anyhow, people its time to open those wallets and give to a worthy cause, God Bless!
A Saudi
The New New Islam
Sadly Steve…what you said is true…but it would still not have been correct to assume that beause this person was a Saudi that they were prejudiced. Not every Saudi is prejudiced. I went entirely on the fact that they mentioned ‘a daughter’ rather than ‘a kid’. And who knows, maybe this person has no sons…or just didn’t catch it.
Anyway,I have a dear friend from Egypt who is a new American. He is a Christian. I notice he makes comments that betray a culture of male superiority all the time. I adore the guy and just tease him when he does it. He is not aware enough yet to even realize that he does this all the time and how culture interacts with semantics. He is realizing how deeply engrained this is and is amazed that he doesn’t realize it. He is a great guy as are most people from the Middle East.
A Saudi…Perhaps I jumped too fast. I have had a bad day.
Steve…I’m glad you wrote what you did although it made me cringe…One thing I particularly agree with…Foreign governments cannot send literature to mosques in the US saying things like…”Don’t make friends with the kufars.” and expect that we not assume people are not a little twisted from that country. I imagine many people from the Middle East are unaware of such things as they get some censoring of the internet, etc. This kind of thing goes way beyond foreign policy and goes to the heart of religious bigotry. No other religion in America would say these kinds of things…not one. That has got to change.
thinker
Re(4): The New New Islam
Mahmood,
The way the Oracle guy phrased it was the Saudi said something like, “That’s a nice watch. You should give that to me.” He blew him off.
When somebody tells me they have been to Saudi Arabia, I try to get them going with a neutral question so that I don’t influence their account and then I shut up and listen. The civilians are more free in their criticism of the Saudis. The military are more guarded in their criticism. Most of my military friends are field grade officers now and accept the official line not to criticize allies.
The only positive things I have heard about Saudi Arabia from people I know who have been there have been glee at the big paycheck they got and from my friend who was Prince Bandar’s crew chief, some amazement at his wealth. All of them without exception were glad to leave Saudi Arabia. Only one said he’d like to go back and that was for the money.
Your explanation makes sense so I tuck it all away in my Saudi mental bin with all the other bits and pieces.
While it is true that America has its faults, I’d say Saudi Arabia is a much more deeply and pervasively flawed country. We are not awash in hate for the rest of the world here as they are in Saudi Arabia. And we haven’t indoctrinated young dumb Americans to go kill thousands of Saudis in their home for the sake of religion. That is a profound difference. We have respected their religion and culture and made them immensely wealthy. In return, they preached hatred of America throughout their culture and mass-murdered Americans and cry for more American blood. Their behavior has earned my contempt.
Steve
Re(1): The New New Islam
back to generalisations Steve? I missed that, welcome back! 🙂
No, you’re wrong here my friend, we are actively seeing on a daily basis some Good Saudis appear in all walks of life and quite publicly. You should read some of the Saudi papers like Arab Times and others and you will pick some valuable nuggets that will help cure your Saudiphobia. Also read Saudi Jeans, Ahmed he highlights some very pertinent issues openly discussed in Arabia in addition to the Religious Policeman as well of course.
The New New Islam
The difference between modern Christianity and Islam is thus:
Many Christians laugh maniacally when Pat Robertson speaks. The guy is a loon.
FEW Muslims laugh maniacally (or even a little bit) when the Imam writes a fatwa regarding certain topics. Even if they are beyond contempt (see: Omar’s “Veil the Women” order) or insane (see the recent fatwa regarding soccer).
People like Mahmood and TRP can see the humor inherent in a bunch of turbanned -human- jerks parading around as if they have the EXACT WORDS OF -GOD- COMING FROM THEIR MOUTH.
Sadly, there are far more that genuflect to these -humans- and their words.
I agree with TRP. Those 6 points would instantly create a ‘moderate’ and ‘modern’ Islam (and get a half billion people killed by the other half billion).
But.. it’s already been done.
It’s called Baha’i. As Mohammed was heavily influenced by Christianity and Judaism, Baha’u’llah was heavily influenced by Islam, having been born in Persia. The Baha’i faith, from my readings of it, is similar to Islam (or at least the moderate, non-murderous version) except one major and noticable difference: Baha’is work for world peace and justice, but they do not in any way shape or form discriminate between believers and non-believers – sticking to the ‘no compulsion in religion’ side of the story, without the ‘when the holy months have ended, kill the kuffar wherver you find them’ addendum.
–Ethan
The New New Islam
I find some of the postings here from what appear to be “self-satisfied” Christians a bit funny at best and hypocritical Matthew 7:3).
As background to what follows, I was raised as a Christian in one of the “major” branches.
If we want to find intolerance and religious bigotry, we Americans scan look very close to home to our own home grown crop of extremists. And we can find them in our own mainstream religions.
Two of my favorites are the “Reverends” Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.
Both of these gentlemen in a well publicized TV program shortly after 9/11 attributed the attacks to God’s wrath over the USA’s embrace of “homosexual rights, abortion, etc.” It would seem from the purported Biblical exegisis here that it isn’t that “they hate our freedoms” (as President Bush would have it) but rather that “God hates us”. Or to be more precise we are told hates those who aren’t members of the two Reverend’s “churches”.
Just recently “Reverend” Rick Scarborough (Texas) identified the cause of Hurricane Katrina as various forms of immorality including man/horse sexual relations in the State of Washington, a proposed gay parade in New Orleans and the USA’s abandonment of Israeli settlers in Gaza. Frankly, I was not able to understand why God didn’t direct the hurricane to Washington State and why the Hurricane spared the French Quarter in New Orleans (which is the district where the gays would parade).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/blaming-katrina-on-gays-_b_6856.html
“Reverend” Robertson has also publicly advocated detonating a small nuclear device in the USA’s State Department HQ in Washington DC as a way of solving problems he perceives with the US
Foreign Service. Recently, he called for the assasination of Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Shades of the fatwa against Rushdie. I suppose the difference here is the author of the fatwa and the identity of the man it was pronounced against? You may also have seen him on the TV – his 700 Club show – in effect praying for the death of US Supreme Court justices so that President Bush could appoint some God-fearing “Christian” judges to the Supreme Court.
And dare I take a page from the frequent complaint against Muslim leaders (just recently reiterated by President Bush in his speech last week) that they are to slow to denounce “Muslim” extremists. Several of the big “Christian” (conservative political) groups were asked about Robertson’s call for the murder of Chavez, they were “too busy” to comment.
You don’t have to look too hard to find “good Christian” pastors call for the bombing of abortion clinics.
It wasn’t too long ago that the Dutch Reformed Church (South Africa) taught based on its analysis of the Bible that people whose skins were dark were descendants of Cain and therefore could be discriminated against in full conformity with the teachings of Jesus.
We might also consider women’s rights. The Southern Baptist Church officially preaches that women should be subject and subordinate to their husbands. There are ample Biblical verses (though you will find these not in the Gospels which record Jesus’ sayings but in the epistles which reflect the psychoses of certain learned “Christian” Church fathers) – St. Paul. In these you will learn that women are inherently evil as Eve was responsible for tempting Adam to the Fall. If you read “Saint” Tertullian, you will find that he would have been at home with the Taliban – at least as far as appropriate dress for women.
What’s the point of all of this?
First, there are crazies everywhere.
Second, religion like patriotism is often the refuge of scoundrels.
Thus, you find certain people telling you what God wants based not on the religion of God but on (a) their own personal and psychological problems and/or (b) the desire for some personal advantage.
Do we judge all the people of an ethnic group, religion, etc by the actions of a few?
I would argue not.
But if you want to argue “yes” then reflect on what people might say about your religion or country.
Commentator
The New New Islam
Commentator…
I disagree with your arguments. First of all let me start by saying I am a Christian who hasn’t been to church in a very long time…hardly a zealot. Pat Robertson is a nut. He has however never called for jihad against infidels or death for other religions, etc. I think there is no real equivalency. The problem is so much more pervasive in Islam. People are blowing themselves up all over the world. I do not see Buddhists doing that nor other religious people. Nor do you see polls showing support for the odd occasional abortion clinic bomber or other similar situations.
Commentator…two years ago I could have written your comment. Then I read polls. I did my homework and finally, last but not least I shed my need for political correctness. To deny the problem won’t solve anything.
thinker
The New New Islam
To Thinker
I am not denying that there is a problem with extremists who call themselves Muslim.
And I believe that these people need to be dealt with.
What I object to are broad generalizations which are not well founded.
All Muslims are bad. All Saudis are bad. Hey, for someone living in Bahrain, who has to deal with Saudi “drivers” on a daily basis, i should have a lot of incentive to join in that latter sentiment. I don’t because I think.
So why do all these polls show people here don’t like us?
I have lived and traveled in this part of the world for more than 30 years. I recall when people here admired America and its government. Earlier there was no noticeable talk of jihad against Christians. Presidents Eisenhower & Kennedy were heroes to Middle Easterners.
The view of the USA has changed. And the polls show a very dramatic change – a very marked deterioration since 9/11. And for that matter the same polls show a drop in the rest of the world’s opinion of the USA.
Why?
Is it that the people here have changed? Suddenly got religion? The problem of course is that as well the French, Germans, British, etc. etc. have a decidedly negative view of us. Can’t blame that on their being Muslims.
Since polls of this part of the world do not show such a dramatic turn down in approval ratings for other “Christian” nations, then it seems hard to argue that this is a religious phenomenon. Otherwise, why wouldn’t European countries have similar low ratings?
The answer, I think, is that this is all political/economic at its heart. The US foreign policy behaviour in this part of the world differs from the Europeans. We have predominant economic and military power – what we do matters. What the Europeans do, at the end of the day doesn’t.
Why are these political and economic grievances cloaked in religion?
Well, this is an age old issue, not related to the Middle East or Islam. How do you get someone to kill another person or to put themselves in harm’s way? Including suicide actions?
The answer is wave the flag of patriotism and/or religion. “Doing your duty” “Protecting the homeland from the evil enemy”, “Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition” “Gott mit uns”
Also how do you express and develop solidarity against the enemy? You turn to the symbols you have to get the people to rally around them. Even Comrade Stalin the great internationalist and atheist turned to nationalist and religious symbols during the Nazi successes in Russia.
Now we have two groups of “Muslims” blowing themselves up.
The first are the Al Qaeda and associated jihadis.
Al Qaeda (or its predecessor organization) is a creature of US foreign policy – which grew out of the Afghan war. The then USA Administration encouraged countries to fund these groups – particularly KSA – and supplied the weapons. Mr. Bin Laden like Brother Saddam was one of our boys in the past. Unfortunately, once the jihadis kicked the bear out of Afghanistan, they moved on to other targets.
What are Al Qaeda’s demands on the US? To stop eating pork, give up liquor, revert to Islam, put Paris Hilton in a burka? Nope, it’s all political. It’s basically leave me alone and I will leave you alone – don’t support Israel, take your military bases out of the area, don’t meddle in our affairs.
The intifada in Palestine/Israel: this is a national struggle over land, not over religion.
Given the correlation of forces, it’s no surprise that the Palestinians chose unconventional rather than conventional war. Suicide bombings are designed to make the price so high so the other side withdraws. And to increase the conuter repression so there are more willing soldiers.
Intellectual analysis aside, this is a tragic state of affairs – many innocent people being killed. But we’ve seen this pattern before. Mau Mau in Kenya. Algerian war of independence and again today. The IRA terror bombing campaign in the UK.
Certainly one can’t deny that NOW there is a lot of suicide bombing going on by people who say they are doing it in the name of Islam.
57 years ago this region was also shocked by atrocities, assasinations, and indiscriminate bombings. Where? The “Holy” Land. Deir Yassin – men, women, children brutally murdered/mutilated and their bodies stuffed in the village well. Count Folke Bernadotte the UN Mediator in the Arab/Israeli conflict assasinated. The King David Hotel bombed. And then ten or so years later a government was placing bombs in the US Info Center in Damascus. “Muslim” extremists? Nope.
At that point, would you have said that the world has a problem with Judaism? And that Judaism is a warlike religion? And, if you had, would you have really been justified?
During the Second World War, in Europe both sides engaged in indiscriminate bombing of civilian populations. The Allies with a better air force were able to inflict much more mayhem. Most of this of dubious military value. The decision to switch from high altitude precision bombing of military targets to low level attacks on civilian targets was based on a study that roughly only 5% of the bombs were hitting the intended targets. In the Asian theatre, there indiscriminate fire bombing of residential areas in Japan. General Curtis LeMay who directed the campaign is reported to have said, “If we lose the war, we will be tried as war criminals” at least if you believe the quote of Robert McNamara in the “Fog of War”. Then there were two militarily pointless uses of the atomic bomb. Or if you will disagree with that, at least the second bomb did not need to be dropped.
Just for the record, here is a direct quote from the US Gov’t’s Strategic Bombing Survey published in 1946. http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm#teotab
“Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.”
At that point, would you have said that the world has a problem with Christianity being a warlike religion?
What’s the point of all of this?
Don’t confuse a temporary problem as evidence that a civilization or religion is rotten to the core. As noted above, people do the most reprehensible things in the name of God. But that doesn’t mean what they say is right. Q2:8
Commentator
The New New Islam
Some words of “God” from various “Reverends” of the USA evangelical Christian movement.
“I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good…Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don’t want equal time. We don’t want pluralism.”–Randall Terry, Founder of Operation Rescue, The News-Sentinel, Fort Wayne, Indiana, 8-16-93
“You say you’re supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense. I don’t have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist. I can love the people who hold false opinions but I don’t have to be nice to them.”–Pat Robertson, The 700 Club, January 14, 1991
In a story in the Washington Post last month, Ryan Church, a player for the Washington Nationals, disclosed that when he asked the team’s chaplain if those who do not accept Jesus (including Jews) are “doomed,” Chaplain Jon Moeller nodded, indicating his assent. Whereupon, a local rabbi charged “the locker room of the Nationals is being used to preach hatred.”
“One other factor which must be considered: Days before Katrina nearly wiped New Orleans off the map, 9,000 Jewish residents of Gaza were driven from their homes with the full support of the United States government. Could this be a playing out of prophesy (“I will bless that nation that blesses you, and curse the nation that curses you”)?” Rick Scarborough Report The War on Faith Newsletter Volume #1 Issue 24 2 September 2005.
“And whenever Islam, God forbid, ever gets a majority in the United States – like Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Libya, all the Moslem countries – free expression will disappear.”
Jerry Falwell
“The Jews are returning to their land of unbelief. They are spiritually blind and desperately in need of their Messiah and Savior.”
Jerry Falwell, Listen, America!
“Billy Graham is the chief servant of Satan in America”
Jerry Falwell
“State Universities are breeding grounds, quite literally, for sexually transmitted diseases (including HIV), homosexual behavior, unwanted pregnancies, abortions, alcoholism, and drug abuse.”
James Dobson
Benny Hinn proclaimed to thousands of Christians at the American Airlines Center in Dallas, TX that “We are on God’s side. This is not a war between Arabs and Jews. It’s a war between God and the devil.” Several conservative Christian ministers from the Dallas area, who shared the podium, clapped and nodded their approval. Later, a few of them said that the line between Christians and Muslims is the difference between good and evil.
J. Don George, senior pastor of Calvary Temple in Irving, TX, accompanied Hinn on stage. He said: “Our faith is in Jesus Christ, and the Muslim community does not accept Jesus and God, and therefore we’re at odds with Muslims….Any religion or ideology that refuses to acknowledge the lordship of Jesus Christ could be typified as a war against Satan.”
2001-NOV-16: According to MSNBC, Franklin Graham appeared on the NBC Nightly News, commenting on Islam. He allegedly said: “We’re not attacking Islam but Islam has attacked us. The God of Islam is not the same God. He’s not the son of God of the Christian or Judeo-Christian faith. It’s a different God, and I believe it [Islam] is a very evil and wicked religion.”
Rev. Jerry Vines, pastor of First Baptist Church in Jacksonville, Fla., and a past president of the Southern Baptist Convention, called Muhammad a “demon-possessed pedophile,” asserting that his 12th and final wife was a 9-year-old girl, and declared that Muslims worshiped a different God than Christians. Southern Baptist leaders defended Mr. Vines, saying his statements were based on his research into Islam, although many Muslims have said that his views are inaccurate.
(The Southern Baptist Convention has 15 million members).
“Islam claims to be a religion of peace and tolerance. It is, in fact, characterized by instability and religious bigotry. It is our duty to stand for the Gospel and against all other gospels. Islam has rejected the essential teachings of the Word of God. The “prophet” Muhammad brought a message from a false spirit that totally opposes the Gospel of grace. The message of Islam is a curse, not a blessing.”
(Reverend Ric Llewellyn)
“No matter how intellectual, civilized, or scientific Islam is made to appear, it is still a religion which embodies “another gospel.- which is not another” (Gal. 1:6-7). The Lord declares it accursed (Gal. 1:8). Christians must be prepared to present the one true Gospel of salvation to Muslims, desiring that they be delivered from their religious bondage.”
(Reverend Ric Llewellyn)
There is much much more of this “preaching” out there.
The New New Islam
Thinker,
Good grief!!
I had just watched a program on RTE news of a girl’s school that had been totally flattened by the earthquake, and parents were beginning to lose hope. That probably influenced why I used the example of a parent looking for his daughter in the rubble! I think it’s safe to assume that if I had substituted a daughter for a son I still would have been criticized for not mentioning their plight. Damned if I do and damned if I don’t ?! Seriously this is bordering the realm of the ludicrous and rather paranoid.
Steve….,sigh, I have as have many fellow countrymen before me worked towards a government and society that respects the principles stated in the universal declaration of human rights; freedom of speech, opinion, religion etc.. Their are huge obstacles that need to be overcome but one which certainly is not in the agenda is a belief that we are inherently bigoted. I recommend “Inside the Mirage” by Thomas W. Lippman for a broader picture of the expat- “Saudi experience” since the 30’s, warts and all, from cases of deportation to King Faisal’s special agreement that insured a level of religious freedom in the compounds. As in easterner originally from Khobar-Mahmood will know doubt know where that is; you can literally see the causeway from my house. I can definitely relate it to it, I still have memories as a kid of sitting on the lap of a burly Santa Claus in the Aramco compound and later that year sharing that same lap with an American kid with the man this time dressed as “Juha” for the Islamic Eid festival,- happy times….
A Saudi
Re: The New New Islam
WOW! Where did you dig these up from? Quotable Quotes of Asswipes of America? Funny though.. How do we know they are accurate? Say they are…I don’t see any of those quotes saying Go forth and KILL THEE A MUSLIM.
In fact this one from Jerry Falwell is 100% accurate. “And whenever Islam, God forbid, ever gets a majority in the United States – like Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Libya, all the Moslem countries – free expression will disappear.” Well there is solid hope for Iraq at this time so perhpas it is 99% accurate.
I tell you what. When you see American “christians” (small caps and quotes intended) killing muslims based on what one of these asswipes says you may then have a point. Until then what are your driving at? Rhetoric du jour? I bet I can pull up just as many quotes of asswipe Muslims blaming the JOOS and Christians for everything from why the Goat dropped its kid to blaming them from Earthquakes and Tsunamis. Hell’s bells pal I am SURPRISED we haven’t heard of one of these world class BRAIN FARTS in the past week about the earthquakes in Pakistan. Give it time.
You do have to admit someone having sex with a 9 year old is more than troublesome. Don’t you?
Re(2): The New New Islam
Thanks, Mahmood. I always enjoy getting new sources of information. Saudi Jeans sounds promising. Arab Times does not sound so promising. I trust individual accounts from the Middle East much more than state-sponsored accounts.
Steve
Re(2): The New New Islam
[quote]Steve: It is entirely fair to assume anyone who identifies himself as a Saudi is a bigot.
Mahmood: back to generalisations Steve? I missed that, welcome back! [/quote]
Mahmood,
This month I was talking to an Oracle developer at work who was stationed in Saudi Arabia while serving in the Navy, teaching them how to operate the gear we supplied them. He told me that one of the Saudis saw his wristwatch and demanded he give it to him. Why? Because he was an infidel and should just give a Saudi anything he desired on command.
I’ve been talking for years to people who have been to Saudi Arabia. Their stories are all bad. When every person you know who has been to Saudi Arabia gives you an independent unprompted story of bad treatment due to religious bigotry, you tend to believe it.
The Saudis are giving themselves their bad name in ways big and small. I wouldn’t expect Americans to be polite about it anymore.
Steve
Re(3): The New New Islam
Steve, please email me this guy’s address so I can send him an honorary membership in the TWITBTHIFD society, he might even preside over it for a year or two. The guy might be an Oracle developer but he is a chump with nothing other than 0s and 1s between his ears!
I’ve known Saudis ALL of my life, and as most of my family actually hail from those shores, I do believe that I know a tad more about “those people” than this Oracle… err.. developer. They are for the very most part decent human beings going about their lives as you and I would. I know that they are a proud people, just like any Arab or for that matter every single human being is, how a so called Saudi can demand a watch from anyone (regardless of classifications) is way beyond my understanding, because that would mean a huge loss of face. If the stupid fuck asked for a watch from anyone blatantly like that, he has ZERO respect within his community and family. You can take that to the bank and tell them I said to cash it immediately no questions asked.
As to your assertions that everyone you know has a bad story to tell about being in Saudi, did you actually ask them if they have any Good Stories to share with you as well? I realise that Saudi is a very tough country for even Saudis to take, but to every cloud there must be a silver lining, it is simple human nature to also look for the good in things rather than just the bad. As to the emphasising the bad, sure, that too is human nature.
Is Saudi perfect? Of course not. Is the USA perfect? Of course not. Degrees, though differ quite substantially which I accept, but blanket categorisation of 25 million people is a bit much don’t you think?
Re: The New New Islam
I guess it all depends on who and what you define as a “moderat”. For some people there will never be such thing as a “moderate Muslim”. They dont think it is possible. I disagree. I would agree with you on Manjani and suggest Tariq Ramadan and Khaled Abu El Fadl.
Re: The New New Islam
It is entirely fair to assume anyone who identifies himself as a Saudi is a bigot. You will be right far more often than wrong in doing so. If you wish people to think of Saudis as something other than bigots, then you should work to change Saudi behavior to extirpate the comprehensive bigotry that is part of the Saudi character, culture, religion, law, and foreign policy.
Steve
The New New Islam
Steve
I see you reacted to my posting to Bill T.
I think you have completely misread the intent of my posting.
I was trying to engage BillT in a serious discussion of what makes a barbarian.
If I may, I will parse your response.
(1) The Japanese were barbarians because they did atrocious things.
(2) However, we are justified in doing atrocious things to them because we have good intentions and are paying them back/stopping them from doing more atrocious things.
(3) We are not constrained by any limits in #2 above. That is, we don’t have to use just the amount of force needed to stop them but can use as much as we want.
If I have read your posting correctly, then we fundamentally disagree on Point #3.
War involves by its nature killing people and causing damage. But it should be conducted in the most economic way – that is, not to kill more of the enemy than necessary, not to destroy more things than necessary to bring the war to a conclusion.
To my way of thinking firebombing civilians is a form of revenge/inflicting punishment. I don’t see that these raids had any real military value proportionate to the civilian destruction they caused.
As to other elements in my posting
(1) The point about Flying Tigers and the boycott was in the context of my question as to whether atrocious actions may be taken and excused because of good intent (Point #3). What I cited could well have been cited by a Japanese who wanted to justify Pearl Harbor. What was the point of this, then? How do we judge intent? Is it a matter of which side the person was on? Therefore, if an American has a good intent, it will always put him in the right? But if the Japanese has an intent, it must necessarily be a bad intent? To be very clear I am not justifying
Japan’s aggression. But equally I wouldn’t want to see my own country engaging in barbarous behaviour – unless absolutely necessary and then only to the extent necessary.
(2) That gets to the second point. There was no need for the atomic bombs to be dropped on Japan. A study by the US Govt in 1946 (when we might assume passions from Pearl Harbor were still high and objectively therefore perhaps in short supply) concluded it was not necessary. That Japan would have sued for peace.
The New New Islam
A Saudi…Well I did assume too fast. Sorry.
I don’t think commentator that you can say that the change in feelings about the USA is the reason for the distortion of Islam. Is that the reason for the problems in Thailand, Indonesia, Africa, etc? Of course not. There is a problem with radicalism all over the world and with every interfacing society. I do not blame you for having bad feelings about the USA. I am appalled at the nonsense in the Arab media.
I agree with Steve in that Americans that have been to Saudi Arabia tell nightmare stories of how they are treated. I’ve never heard anything good from women who have been there. Never. I think Saudi Arabia is going to have serious problems joining the world because they export an intolerant Islam through foreign mosques with their country’s name on the pamphlets.
Re: The New New Islam
Thank you for this comment. It makes very interesting and fresh points of view we have not dealt with as comprehensively as you have put.
The New New Islam
[quote]”Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.”[/quote]
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again the Japanese were barbarians and commited more barbarious acts than almost any country in the 20th century. When the US starts commiting mass murder and rape and worshiping Bush as a god then by all means drop a bomb on us. Oh I forgot we are gonna get a bomb dropped on us anyway.
It still pisses me off royaly that we are the great satan and not the russians who formented most of the problems exsisting in the world today.
billT
Re: The New New Islam
Anon,
You must engage others in terms they understand. You do not speak Chinese to the Arabs. You do not talk opera to ditch diggers. You do not talk sweet reason to barbarians. Barbarians believe in force. That is the language they understand. It is the only language that will reach them. And that is the language we ultimately we forced to use to make the Japanese cease their war on the world. Nothing else would have worked.
I disagree that we used too much or the wrong kind of force to pacify the Japanese in WWII. It almost wasn’t enough. We came close to losing the Pacific war in 1942 because we were insufficiently prepared to fight it. The dropping of the atom bombs is proof of our economical use of force. The lesson of military history is that less lives are lost when a war is brought to a head by the greatest amount of concentrated violence, as at Hiroshima, rather than when drawn out, as it would have been in a conventional invasion of Japan. I might point out that Japan was killing Chinese at the rate of the population of Hiroshima every two weeks. Were it not for the atom bombings, the lives lost on all sides would have many times that of Hiroshima. The atom bombings are the best moral choice of all possible, much better than not bombing and pursuing only a conventional war.
You mistake the target of the firebombings. Unlike the centralized industry of the West, where products were wholly assembled in factories, Japanese industry was decentralized. Subassemblies were made in backshops, usually run by families attached to their homes, and sent to the local factories for final assembly. To destroy the industry which fed the Japanese war machine, you had to destroy the backshops which were located where the Japanese lived. The target was Japanese industry, not Japanese civilians. This policy successfully complicated Japanese military supply, which was one of their weak points. It gave the Japanese less equipment with which to kill people.
Your implication that the Flying Tigers was an atrocious action is quite a wild mischaracterization and the line of argument that it justified Pearl Harbor is absurd. Helping an ally defend itself is hardly provocative. May I point out that by the time we sent the Flying Tigers over to China, Japan had killed millions of Chinese. It seems to me immoral not to provide the Chinese with the means to defend themselves against a savage invader. Likewise, the idea that helping an ally defend itself is a legitimate reason to attack you is wildly absurd. Your line of reasoning seems to assume that Japan was defending itself in this war and an innocent party. It was not. Japan was embarked on a war of conquest for its own gain at the expense of its neighbors. Crushing that aggression was the most moral thing to do.
The Strategic Bombing Survey of Japan, if that’s the study you are referring to, is not well regarded by military historians because its authors seem to have made their conclusions before they set foot in Japan and cherry-picked their sources to confirm their thesis. They also suffered from a lack of interpreters to make a thorough survey of Japanese sources, among other technical deficiencies. It was something of a slapdash effort.
However, the central thesis that Japan would have surrendered is true, though less profound than it seems to be. We would have won the war with Japan no matter what we did after the summer of 1945. The Japanese would have sued for peace eventually if we invaded with conventional weapons, but at a much greater cost.
Had we invaded Kyushu in Operation Olympic, MacArthur estimated that we would have suffered around a hundred thousand casualties in the first four months. Pacifying the entire island would have cost more. Then the invasion of Honshu in Operation Coronet would have been another horror. We could have suffered two or three hundred thousand casualties in total in both operations of the combined Operation Downfall, the conquest of Japan. By contrast, the atomic bombings cost us no casualties. That’s as good as you can get from the American perspective.
A conventional invasion of Japan would have killed millions of Japanese. Hundreds of thousands would have been killed in combat and perhaps an equivalent amount by their own troops and suicide. However, famine would have been the great killer.
Japan could roughly feed itself. Our navy would have cut it off from outside supply. Our air forces would have disrupted its internal transport. Japan was compartmented by mountain ranges, traversed by rail lines. We would have cut the rail net at choke points in the mountains, preventing food and supplies from being distributed. The individual pockets would have slowly starved. When people became weak enough that their immune systems didn’t function, disease would have run rampant. Death would have visited every neighborhood in Japan.
North Korea suffered a famine in the 1990s in which two million died of its 25 million population without losing political control. Apply that to Japan’s 60 million WWII population and you get four million plus dying without loss of political control. When you compare the 300,000 lost at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in atomic bombings to the millions who would have died in a conventional land invasion, the atomic bombings are clearly the less deadly option and therefore, the more moral option.
So while it is true that Japan would have sued for peace without atomic bombings, it is an intellectually dishonest argument to assert that the conventional alternative was better, less bloody, or more moral.
Steve
Re: The New New Islam
To sharpen the point of this argument, the radicalism is all over the Muslim world, not the world in general. The radicalism in the Muslim world is propagated by the Wahhabi missionaries dispatched by Saudi Arabia, and the terrorists which follow close on their heels, in its ongoing foreign policy of religious imperialism.
Steve
Re: The New New Islam
Thank you for posting – I’ll repy to each point in turn:
[quote]”(1) The empty promised land. This is the first defense of the colonist. “I came here and no one was here so I didn’t take land from anyone.” There was an indigenous Arab population in Palestine. UNWRA counted 726,000 refuges in camps post the 1948 war. Since not every Palestinian fled, where did all these folks come from?”[/quote]
After the founding of Israel, there was in fact a large influx of Arabs into the nation from elsewhere. I do not claim that that region was -empty- and uninhabited, but it was not as populated as it became after the founding of Israel. During the multiple wars, the message to the ‘Palestinians’ was to get out, both by the Jewish authorities as well as the leaders of Transjordan and Egypt. Leave the Jewish lands, we crush them, and you can go back. Unfortunately the second part never happened, so the third part failed.
[quote]I grew up in the one of the major Christian denominations. We were taught that the Jews were bad people, responsible for Jesus’ death – even those alive this day – people who are only distantly related, if at all, to the Jews of the time. We were also taught that Roman Catholics were the worst sort of unbelievers and that the Pope was the Anti-Christ. At least there was some balance in our bigotry! [/quote]
Your conclusion is a logical fallacy – because certain Christian groups and Muslim groups hare heavily bigoted against Jews and nonbleievers does not mean that those beliefs are right. They do in fact exist. Anti-Jewish hatred is not the sole perview of Islam; but Islam -does- have it, and it is encoded in the Koran and Hadith.
[quote]Is your point that only Arab or Muslim politicians are hypocrites? That’s going to be a real hard case to make.[/quote]
Certainly not. All politicians are hypocrites.
[quote]Fifth, when did the dictators of the ME embrace Islam? Let’s go to the video tape. The initial military regimes were founded on secularism/modernism (Ba’ath Party, Free Officers Movement)and socialism. These groups were in ongoing bitter struggles with Islamic groups like the Muslim Brotherhood who offered an alternative model.
It was the apparent defeat of the secular model – 1967 War – that got people looking for something else. Unfortunately, the typical pattern is to turn to God when one has a set back not when things are going well. Even Brother Saddam turned to ostentatious “religionism” after the First Gulf War. Anyways, the shock defeat of 67 led to a loss of confidence in the Westernizing elites . [/quote]
And that was in fact my point.
You see, to stay in power, you want to keep the people distracted away from your own failings. Wag the Dog, as it were. Now in many democracies, you don’t have to wag the dog as much – after only a few years you’re out of power anyway.
However, as I said, Islam provided a convenient helper and an amazing foil – The failures of the westernized elites drove the populations to their faith. Now, the faith itself can be used to keep people happy -and ignoring the regime- to focus on the ‘enemies of the faith’ – which in most cases are also the enemies of the regime.
Opiate of the masses, again.
The ‘foil’ is because Islam is inherently political as bin Saud discovered. Once the genie is out of the bottle, groups like the MB will appear. Though some regimes are ‘officially’ secularish, it pays respect to the religion (there is no Arab nation that does not have ‘Islamic’ in their constitution) and in turn, the religious politicians gain a popular support – and as we have seen over and over again over the past 10 years or more – biting the hands that fed them initially, the governments.
[quote]Because of the decentralization of Islam, if some genius issues a silly fatwa, it is likely to be ignored by most folks. One thing about this part of the world is the inherent anarchy just below the surface. Rules of any sort are to be evaded, worked around if it doesn’t suit one. This is not just limited to traffic laws. How many folks here are paying the Zakat? How many of the our Islamic bloc parlementarians are chasing skirts they’re not married to? [/quote]
The problem is that though many people will ignore it, the few that do NOT ignore it are dangerous, and the many that do not ignore it are hamstrung by tradition and certain corrupt ‘spokespeople’ from speaking out as loudly as they should. Is this changing? Perhaps. But more needs to be done.
[quote]Actually, I think a bureacracy is more dangerous. Because it can reach more people. The Holy Office was no trivial matter. The Anti-Catholic persecutions sponsored by the Church of England were not as well. These were well organized institutionalized persecutions as compared to mob actions. Both regrettable but one sort does more extensive damage.[/quote]
This is not a coherent argument compared with your ‘rules to be worked around’ argument. A beaurocracy has many more holes for heretics to hide in than a diffuse legion of fanatics who could be friends and neighbors.
It’s the difference between having an organized police force and the ‘snitch’ culture of Orwell’s 1984. When a loving parent can almost instantly become a brutal murderer over ‘family honor
Re(2): The New New Islam
Ahh! You caught me on the Shi’ite angle. I have to admit that I’m not familiar with the specificities of that sect, and therefore I was running off on what I know regarding Sunni Islam as it has been presented to me. One thing I do know about Shi’ism is that the Ayatollahs work as a sort of ‘pope’ – reinterpreting the texts as time goes on. I perhaps mistakenly assumed that the idea of ‘Bid’ah’ still applied in that they still were not able to change the basic tenets of the religion and its practice.
Re: The New New Islam
Commentator.
You’re new here, so I’ll give you the benefot of the doubt. Every point you have brought up has been analyzed to death, and it really boils down to one thing: In the 1940’s-1960’s, the Middle East was on a crash course to modernism.
But something changed drastically badly. Firstly, Israel was created whole cloth from a basically low-populated area of land. Israel means Jews. Jews are evil according to most, if not all interpretations of the Koran and Hadith. The trees and rocks will cry out that there is a Jew behind them, kill them! Jews are prophet killers. The worst sorts of pigs and monkeys. And not only that, but their holy city, holier long before Mohammed crawled out of the desert to claim it was now part, in a sense, of this new Israel.
Wars happened. The Jews kicked Muslim ass. That itself was a contravention of 1400 years worth of thinking. It was a humilation. The whole Palestinian problem comes about because those poor people are proxy paraiahs for Arab Honor. In a sense, Palestine is Jesus – all the sins of the world are inflicted upon them, and their ‘sacrifices’ are in place of -actual- sacrifices by the other Arab states. Why do you think that Palestinians are NEVER given citizenship anywhere else? They are eternal refugees, created not by Israel, but by the Arab nations.
Pan Arabism failed miserably. Its failure as well as ’emergency laws’ enacted from Egypt to Iraq created rulers for life. (gross oversimplification, I realize, but follow me)
Into the void created by the absolute lack of expression, or even the ability to criticise anything fell religion. In the 1950’s, one of the most common images in Arab cinema was the drunk lady. Today, she’d be stoned. Religion is the opiate of the masses – and there are no masses more in need of opiates than those unable to cope without something. Saudi petrodollars spread their own virulently desertified religion around the globe. Groups like the Muslim Brotherhood saw their own destinies written in the seventh century logic of a conquering slaver army. The powerless turned to their religion and their religion gave them power.
But only so much. Islam, at it s basic core needs.. REQUIRES.. an enemy. Islam means peace only in the sense that everyone is an Allahdroid, doing only things that are permittable and nothing that is not permitted subject to the whims of the interpreters with the biggest guns. Bid’ah is forbidden – yet bid’ah is REQUIRED by humanity, humans MUST evolve, or they stagnate. Humans MUST ask questions, must develop new thoughts, or they lash out, like a caged animal, restrained.
Islam forbids the most basic of human needs: Bid’ah – Cultural evolution.
And thus, it became the perfect foil to -as well as a weapon by- the totalitarian dictoators of the Middle East. Everything could be blamed on the Joos, or Amerika. Look outward. The Kuffar are your enemies, not the governments at home – just like the Koran says. Muslim good, Joo bad, Islam good, Amerika bad.
Problem is, groups like the MB and Hib-ul-Tahir saw through the ruse; they wanted power over the muslim lands, and were willing to kill to get it. Politics and Religion in the Muslimosphere are inseperable – regardless of what we want to see. Islam provides a ‘complete guide to life’ – including politics. To say that they should be separated is noble, but in practice, it requires that Islam be divested of political notions. Divested of Shari’a, divested of anything that is not confined to the religious. But in that case, what is -left-?
Certainly nothing for the Mullahs to control. Divested of political/Jihad ambition, Islam becomes a spiritual, -personal – religion, akin to a charismatic form of Christianity. Very much like Baha’i, as I mentioned elsewhere. If religion is personal, the Mullahs, the Imams lose the legalism they crave. They lose the complete social control over people’s lives. THEY LOSE POWER.
And those in power seek to keep it. And as we can see throughout history, the best way to keep power is to obliterate challenges to that power. Thus the Hudood laws, or the Apostacy laws. Questioners get killed. Thus noone questions. Keep quiet and save yourselves, speak out and die.
The Christians had an inquisition – but in that case they had a centralized power – a beuraucracy that can be worked around and heretics can fall through the cracks to post their 99 theses on the Wittenburg Door. Islam is decentralized, and any believer can take the murder of a heretic into their own hands, especially under the fatwas written by some groups.
Malik was right – you don’t have to follow every fatwa.
But what happens if you only follow the violent ones?
I’ve written enough for tonight.
–Ethan
Re(1): The New New Islam
I have to agree with Steve – as does any serious student of History.
It boils down, in a sense to Vulcan logic – what is more preferable, a moment of intense pain, or a lifetime of ache?
By dropping the bombs on Japan, we provided the moment of pain. Given the choice I’m sure that we’d not have resported to that option – but there was none.
Millions of casualties on both sides combined and a vertitable genocide of the Japanese?
vs.
A couple hundred thousand casualties on one side, and the chance to rebuild a productive society?
What would you choose given ONLY those two options?
Re(1): The New New Islam
Actually, the Rev. Ric Llewellyn is correctly interpreting Christian scripture.
There are many times in the New Testament when Christians are warned to be wary of religions that claim that Jesus is not the Son of God. They may seem “peaceful as sheep,” but they are “inwardly ravening wolves”, to paraphrase the false prophet doctrine.
Like how the Koran refers to Christians as hypocrites for believing the divinity of Jesus; the Apostles, who lived and died centuries before Mohammed was born warned of ‘false prophets’ who would teach that Jesus was not the Son of God, pretend to come in peace, but harbor violence within.
According to Christian theology this is a correct assessment of Islam – Mohammed taught that Jesus was not more than a man (though he is called the messiah in a very bizaare use of the term), and Mohammed’s followers took over the Middle East quite violently. You may not agree with the assessment – but with theology combined with history their logic is quite valid.
–Ethan
Re: The New New Islam
You left out my favorite crazy fundamentalist preachers: Robert Tilton and Gene Scott.
I like watching Robert Tilton because he’s got a giant head on a tiny body and breaks into tongues during his show. He got into a nasty divorce a few years back that was wonderfully scandalous. Lots of name-calling between his wife and him, which is always entertaining to see a preacher do.
I like watching Gene Scott because he’s in such a grumpy mood all the time and he is always sitting in front of a white board full of indecipherable scribbles from his marathon sermon. I always like to think his parishioners are being held hostage in the church.
I’m sure these guys have said something nutty you can quote. Please include them in your lists in the future.
Steve
Re: The New New Islam
Main Entry: bar·bar·i·an
Pronunciation: bär-‘ber-E-&n, -‘bar-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin barbarus
1 : of or relating to a land, culture, or people alien and usually believed to be inferior to another land, culture, or people
2 : lacking refinement, learning, or artistic or literary culture
– barbarian noun
– bar·bar·i·an·ism /-E-&-“ni-z&m/ noun
After actually looking up the meaning of barbarian I’m forced to say technically the word doesnt apply as I used it. The Japaneese culture was definately not lacking in refinement, learning or literary culture at least for the ruling class. What they were lacking in was ethics according to western societys views at the time. Steve pretty much answered with what they did but when you tie up a prisioners hands hood them and cut their head off it doesnt matter if you are being honored by having someone of the same rank do the cutting its still wrong and barbaric. Woops used the word again.
billT
Re: The New New Islam
Anon: “I would note that the folks who flew the planes into the WTC thought “we had it coming to us” and were retaliating for previous grievances.”
False. Bin Laden wants to conquer the world for Islam to establish a Second Caliphate. He followed the traditional Islamic rules for making war on infidel nations by first calling on America to submit to Islam or die. It is more Muslim religious imperialism, part of a 1300 year jihad on the world by Muslims, by a fanatic who doesn’t realize he’s hopelessly outmatched.
His main grievance is that the US military was stationed in Saudi Arabia. That military defended the KSA from being invaded by Iraq, a fact most nations would appreciate. Bin Laden, along with most Saudis, feel no such appreciation but rather their religious sensibilities are outraged that an infidel army set foot in their country, even to save their miserable lives. Their grievance is founded on the basest ingratitude.
Steve
Re(1): The New New Islam
You’re on a role there Ethan! But quite good thought provoking post to be sure, except for this one small thing: generalisation, specifically:
Not so. Only extreme versions of Islam have this concept, as our friends the Salafis and Wahabis do. However in Shi’ism this particular concept does not exist, in fact, Shi’i doctrine demands that we renew our faith taking into consideration the time and age we live in, hence, Islam to us is a perpetually renewable religion keeping of course the tenets of Islam of which bid’ah is only a bid’ah of the Wahabis and their ilk! Ironic I know, but this is how it is.
Islam is a religion for all times and all scenarios ONLY IF it is a religion that is continuously re-interpreted taking into consideration the current day and age and particular circumstance.
The New New Islam
For billT
Your posting is quite intriguing and I’d like to understand your thinking a bit more.
You say that the Japanese were “barbarians”.
In making your statement are you basing it on, an assessment of Japanese culture, religion, etc. That is, as the ancient Greeks thought anyone who did not speak Greek was a barbarian?
Or is your statement based upon some acts that they committed?
If it is the latter, then is it the acts themselves or the intent behind the acts that makes one a “barbarian”?
My reason for asking this is that a reasonable open-minded person might question certain acts of the Allies during the Second World War and might even characterize some of them as “barbarous”?
To choose just one example, I think fire bombing civilians or dropping atomic bombs on civilian targets could be so characterized. One of the ways to think about this is what our reaction would be if the Japanese had firebombed Boston or San Francisco. Or if they had dropped a nuke on Chicago.
Or is your argument that they “had it coming” and thus the US was excused because it’s intent was pure? Or do are taking revenge or imposing stern punishment OK?
If any of the latter, then we are in the realm of situational ethics.
The problem is who is to judge the intent of the party committing the action to determine if that party is justified.
There were many in the Japanese High Command who perceived a direct and imminent threat to their way of life from the USA – which had imposed an economic blockade which was causing great distress. Now at that point there were no direct military moves against Japan. However, if you know your history, you know that the US was clandestinely supporting the training the Flying Tigers during the Summer of 1941 (well before Pearl Harbor) to fight the Japanese pursuant to an executive order allowing US military to “resign” their commissions to fight the Japanese – Pres Roosevelt signed this order in May 1940. 300 US “ex” military were training in SE Asia in the Summer of 1941 (well before Pearl Harbor) with the clear goal of killing Japanese.
I would note that the folks who flew the planes into the WTC thought “we had it coming to us” and were retaliating for previous grievances.
Re: The New New Islam
Anonymous,
The Japanese were barbarians because wars of conquest were part of their culture. As part of their way of war, they wrote field orders that commanded their soldiers to kill the women they raped to stop bad stories from being told. They casually killed people on a whim. They seemed to have a habit of throwing babies up in the air and spearing them with their bayonets to terrify the captive populations under their occupation. They oriented their new soldiers in China by having them kill a captive: Enlisted soldiers took turns bayonetting a bound captive, officers each blooded their samurai swords by beheading their own captive. The Japanese used prisoners to test weapons and try out new biological weapons. The Japanese doctors used prisoners to keep their surgery skills sharp by amputating body parts until the prisoners were used up. Some Japanese officers cut out the livers of prisoners and ate them. In New Guinea, when the Japanese ran out of supplies, they harvested the wounded and dead Australians from the battlefield, cooked, and ate them.
That is why the Japanese were barbarians. That is why the United States put a stop to them. I hope that clears up your confusion.
If you knew your history, you would know that our economic sanctions against Japan prior to our entry into WWII was to stop supplying oil and scrap iron, among other things, that Japan was using to wage war in China. Americans were repulsed by the slaughter of Chinese by the Japanese, a war which snuffed out the lives of ten to thirty million Chinese. We were right to covertly supply the Chinese with the men and airplanes to help stop the Japanese onslaught. You are on the wrong side of history to criticize the US aid to China and implicitly support the Japanese.
Your criticism of the atomic bombings is also wrong-headed. Pursuing a conventional war against Japan would have not only led to many more US casualties along with many more victims of Japanese fury throughout Asia but also to the deaths of millions of Japanese. That is not a superior moral outcome to the atomic bombings, which ended the war in a few days with the comparatively cheap cost of 300,000 Japanese lives. The alternative was another year of conventional war and millions of dead.
Steve
Re: The New New Islam
[quote]Anon: “What I object to are broad generalizations which are not well founded. All Muslims are bad. All Saudis are bad. Hey, for someone living in Bahrain, who has to deal with Saudi “drivers” on a daily basis, i should have a lot of incentive to join in that latter sentiment. I don’t because I think.” [/quote]
After the Sep 11 atrocities, the Saudis took a poll and found that an overwhelming majority of them, something like 90% of the adult male population, supported Osama Bin Laden. That in itself is convincing evidence to make the broad generalization that Saudis are bad people who enjoy evil done to America.
For six months after the Sep 11 attacks, the Saudis denied Saudis were involved. They accused the US of being racist for blaming the skyjackings on Saudis who happenned to be flying on the terror jets. That is convincing evidence to demonstrate that the Saudis are contemptible racist liars. Another broad generalization with foundation in fact.
[quote]Anon: “So why do all these polls show people here don’t like us?”[/quote]
Middle Eastern Muslims feel they should be the supreme power in the world and are outraged that an infidel power such as America is the world’s only superpower.
I might also point out the fallacy of your argument here, ie the ad populem fallacy, that popular opinion anywhere constitutes proof. It does not. The fact that any particular population has a poor opinion of America is not proof that such a view has merit.
In particular in the Middle East, where the most outrageous venom against America flies from mosques, media, and government, popular opinion is founded on propaganda. For example, most Muslims in the Middle East are convinced that America is making war on Islam when in fact we could not give a flying leap about their religion. After Muslim nutcases bombed Sharm El-Sheikh, the local TV and mosques blamed it on the CIA and Mossad. And the dumb Egyptians believed it.
[quote]Anon: “I have lived and traveled in this part of the world for more than 30 years. I recall when people here admired America and its government. Earlier there was no noticeable talk of jihad against Christians. Presidents Eisenhower & Kennedy were heroes to Middle Easterners. The view of the USA has changed. And the polls show a very dramatic change – a very marked deterioration since 9/11. [/quote]
The jihad against America did not begin on Sep 11, 2001. The hatred was in place long before that. There is a long paper trail of Osama’s proclamations among a greater wave of hate spewed from the Great Mosque in Mecca out through the Muslim world. The hatred blossomed after Saudis came into big oil bucks in the 1970s and 1980s. That allowed them to indoctrinate legions of their youths and others in Wahhabism in their university system. They then decided to export their jihad around the world in the 1980s. That changed the tone of the conversation in the Muslim world and prepared the ground for a new campaign of Muslim terror.
And that jihad is but a part of the larger, continuing jihad which Islam has been waging against the world since its inception. It actively fought wars for a thousand years before it grew too feeble to wage them successfully. Petrodollars have refreshed the will to jihad.
[quote]Anon: “And for that matter the same polls show a drop in the rest of the world’s opinion of the USA. Why? Is it that the people here have changed? Suddenly got religion? The problem of course is that as well the French, Germans, British, etc. etc. have a decidedly negative view of us. Can’t blame that on their being Muslims.”[/quote]
You could blame it on simple envy in the case of Germany and France. You could also fix the blame on their left-leaning politics, which tends toward extreme rhetoric and bears the burden of being far less successful than American capitalism.
[quote]Anon: “Since polls of this part of the world do not show such a dramatic turn down in approval ratings for other “Christian” nations, then it seems hard to argue that this is a religious phenomenon. Otherwise, why wouldn’t European countries have similar low ratings?”[/quote]
Because America the superpower is the Great Satan. The Muslims have plenty of bad things to say about Europe. For example, they are none too fond of the headscarf ban in France. And of course, Muslims still plot terror in the major European nations and occassionally succeed.
[quote]Anon: “The answer, I think, is that this is all political/economic at its heart. The US foreign policy behaviour in this part of the world differs from the Europeans. We have predominant economic and military power – what we do matters. What the Europeans do, at the end of the day doesn’t. Why are these political and economic grievances cloaked in religion?”[/quote]
I disagree. Muslim opinion of America does not ebb and flow in response to American foreign policy. It is negative all the time. Muslim opinion does not improve when America acts in the Muslim interest. For example, the Muslims did not fall in love with us when we aided the jihad in Afghanistan nor when we saved Muslims from slaughter in the Balkans. At best, they ignore such things. The grievances are not cloaked in religion, they spring from their religion. The grievances are an expression of religious bigotry.
[quote]Anon: “Al Qaeda (or its predecessor organization) is a creature of US foreign policy – which grew out of the Afghan war. The then USA Administration encouraged countries to fund these groups – particularly KSA – and supplied the weapons. Mr. Bin Laden like Brother Saddam was one of our boys in the past. Unfortunately, once the jihadis kicked the bear out of Afghanistan, they moved on to other targets.”[/quote]
Pure nonsense. Al Qaeda is a Saudi creature. It is composed mostly of Saudis and was funded by Saudis. Saudi Arabia provided free transportation to Pakistan for its jihadis to fight in Afghanistan.
US support went through Pakistan, which built up the Taliban. Pakistan had its own motives for moving into Afghanistan, which did not include a Saudi presence.
Bin Laden was never one of our boys. He only was able to establish Afghanistan as his base when we abandoned it after the Soviet defeat and he was able to buy off the Taliban with Saudi money. The Saudis paid him to wage his jihad elsewhere, outside Saudi Arabia. Killing infidels in faraway places like America was fine with them. They did not object until the jihad came home and spilled blood in their own streets. Even then, they had no strong objections until Al Qaeda started killing Saudis instead of infidels.
[quote]Anon: “What are Al Qaeda’s demands on the US? To stop eating pork, give up liquor, revert to Islam, put Paris Hilton in a burka? Nope, it’s all political. It’s basically leave me alone and I will leave you alone – don’t support Israel, take your military bases out of the area, don’t meddle in our affairs.”[/quote]
More nonsense. Religion comes first with Bin Laden. In his declaration of war on America, he made the traditional demand that jiihadi commanders make on infidels they intend to conquer: Convert to Islam. There is no hint that Bin Laden intends to leave America or the world alone. He wants the whole world to be subject to Islam.
[quote]Anon: “During the Second World War, in Europe both sides engaged in indiscriminate bombing of civilian populations. The Allies with a better air force were able to inflict much more mayhem. Most of this of dubious military value. The decision to switch from high altitude precision bombing of military targets to low level attacks on civilian targets was based on a study that roughly only 5% of the bombs were hitting the intended targets. In the Asian theatre, there indiscriminate fire bombing of residential areas in Japan. General Curtis LeMay who directed the campaign is reported to have said, “If we lose the war, we will be tried as war criminals” at least if you believe the quote of Robert McNamara in the “Fog of War”. Then there were two militarily pointless uses of the atomic bomb. Or if you will disagree with that, at least the second bomb did not need to be dropped.”[/quote]
False. The only purely indiscriminate Allied bombing of civilians that can be rationally argued might be Dresden. In general, bombing civilians does not make military sense because they are not a center of gravity in the current terms, ie killing them does not affect the warmaking capability of the enemy.
What did happen is that massed formations of hundreds of bombers carpet bombed targets due to the mediocre accuracy of high altitude bombing. In the process of destroying factories and railroad switching yards, neighboring towns were flattened. The civilians were not the targets of these attacks. In practical terms, no aircrew is going to fly through flak and fighters to bomb civilian targets that have no value in ending the war.
As I pointed out elsewhere, the firebombing in Japan was not indiscriminate as you falsely claim but meant to destroy Japanese industry embedded in civilian neighborhoods.
LeMay did indeed say that if they lost the war, they’d be tried as war criminals but you have missed the meaning of what he said because you have stripped the context from it. If the Japanese won, they would try commanders like LeMay as war criminals and execute them just as they tried the Doolittle bombers who attacked Tokyo as war criminals and executed them. It was a comment on Japanese victor’s justice. You have distorted it to be a confession of criminality.
The atom bomb on Hiroshima was hardly “militarily pointless,” as you weirdly claim. Hiroshima was a military city and had been for a century. It was proud of its samurai heritage. The Second Japanese Army was headquartered in Hiroshima. One eighth of the population of Hiroshima were uniformed soldiers and much of the civilian population was engaged in war production to supply the Second Army. The bomb wiped out 19,000 Japanese soldiers doing their morning exercises on a huge parade field.
With that said, what part of this militarily pointless?
The second bomb needed to be dropped to persuade Hirohito to press for surrender. After Hiroshima, the head of the Japanese atom bomb program argued that the nuclear fuel in such a bomb was so difficult to process that America probably only had one bomb. The Hiroshima bomb did not budge the military at all, who still believed they could dictate terms of a truce by bleeding the invasion force. It was only after the second Bomb on Nagasaki that convinced Hirohito that we might have plenty of atom bombs. He also was startled that his military refused to build him a stronger bomb shelter. He plainly was worried that his life was at risk. His advisors clearly state in interviews and memoirs after the war that the second bomb was the deciding argument in persuading the government to surrender.
[quote]Anon: Just for the record, here is a direct quote from the US Gov’t’s Strategic Bombing Survey published in 1946. http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm#teotab: “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.”[/quote]
This is why the Strategic Bombing Survey for Japan has so little credibility with historians and the military. It’s a bogus conclusion. As I pointed out elsewhere, the Survey had come to their conclusions before they started. Their lack of interpreters led them to interview only a few Japanese commanders and they tended to interpret the ambiguous results to fit their conclusions.
Japan had no intention of surrendering. Their military believed it could bleed the Allies so badly that they could dictate the terms of a truce. Far from preparing to surrender, the Japanese had made extensive efforts to resist the coming invasion of Kyushu. They had guessed correctly the landing beaches, had fortified their defenses, and were building up all their forces in the area. They were planning to throw everything they had at us, including suicide vehicles of all types. They planned to expend their entire remaining air forces with gas they had hoarded for just this battle.
The conclusion of the Survey favors the US Navy, which believed that it could force Japan to surrender through naval blockade and air interdiction. That means that laying siege to Japan would have caused it to surrender, which is probably true. But it would not have happenned in a couple months. It would have taken a long time to reduce Japan by famine. Such an approach would have killed millions through starvation instead of the 300,000 killed by atom bomb.
[quote]Anon: “At that point, would you have said that the world has a problem with Christianity being a warlike religion?”[/quote]
That’s quite a leap in logic to ascribe the motives of the Allies as religious. If you might recall, the war in the Pacific was begun by the Japanese by a series of invasions and surprise attack, like at Pearl Harbor. This was a defensive war by the Allies. They did not fight a crusade in the Pacific to establish Christianity. A casual observer of postwar Japan might have noted that their God Emperor Hirohito was left in place, a serious mistake if we waged war to impose our religion. We made no attempt to force conversion of the Japanese to Christianity.
It’s also just so crazy to castigate America for being warlike in its defense of itself. You’ve stretched your argument past the breaking point.
Steve
Re: The New New Islam
Saudi,
Yes, I agree that “Inside the Mirage” is an excellent book. I’ve read and recommend it along with you. You are right that there are tales of Americans in it who had no problem in Saudi Arabia, who just considered it, in Lippman’s phrase, as “just another hot place to work.”
But, the fact that Americans need to be walled off from Saudi society tends to confirm Saudi bigotry, although there were other contributing reasons as well. When I lived in the Philippines, there were no walls between Americans and the Philippinoes. I don’t know of another country where the Westerners are so unwelcome that they need to be placed in what amounts to a minimum security prison. No Saudi in America is kept like a bug in a bottle from contact with America nor Americans. You can go where you please, meet who you please, worship as you please in any mosque you please. That is what the opposite of bigotry looks like.
While it’s wonderful if you as an individual actually support the universal declaration of human rights, your religion and country do not. Specifically, they do not support a person’s right to choose his faith. While they support the death penalty for infidel murderers of Muslims, they reject the death penalty of Muslim murderers of infidels. The reason given is that Muslim faith is of a higher level than infidels. That is an example of entrenched institutional bigotry.
Every day I go to work on the Metro in Washington, the target of murderous Wahhabi scum, we are reminded daily via announcements of the threat to our lives posed to us by Saudis who wish to blow up commuters for their contemptible religion. Every month brings news of a new plot to kill Americans by Saudis. While your country, for no good reason at all, continues to wage war against us by terror, I don’t believe we should wait around for Saudis to bring their jihad to our doorsteps but rather fight their war on their doorsteps until they lose their taste for killing and tear every page about jihad out of their Koran.
Steve
Re: The New New Islam
It’s true we have crazy fundamentalist preachers in America. The difference between us and Saudi Arabia is that we don’t put them in charge of our affairs. They are the butt of jokes here and widely ridiculed in public on late night TV talk shows and in private. In Saudi Arabia, you risk your well-being by publicly ridiculing crazy clerics.
Another difference is that the US does not support the dumbest, craziest, bloodthirstiest preachers and make their religion our Constitution and foment a war against all other religions as part of our foreign policy. Saudi Arabia does exactly that.
While crazy Pat Robertson may advocate assassinating Hugo Chavez, Hugo remains in no danger from some Alabama Baptist coming to kill him. By contrast, the Revolutionary Guard of Iran just confirmed that the death fatwa against Rushdie is still in effect. There is an Iranian institution that still offers two million some bucks reward to the Muslim who kills him. I have yet to see Pat Robertson saw off some non-Baptist’s head in a snuff film and yell “PRAISE JESUS!” That’s a rather significant difference from the bloody-minded Wahhabis of Arabia, wouldn’t you agree?
In those few cases where a tiny handful of fanatics have actually bombed abortion clinics in accordance with their fundamentalist beliefs, the government has hunted them down, tried them, and convicted them. They are in prison. By contrast, Muslims who murder for Islam are heroes in Saudi Arabia and throughout the Muslim world.
Steve
[Modified by: Steve The American (Steve) on October 14, 2005 04:59 AM]
Re(1): The New New Islam
[quote]But, the fact that Americans need to be walled off from Saudi society tends to confirm Saudi bigotry, although there were other contributing reasons as well. When I lived in the Philippines, there were no walls between Americans and the Philippinoes. I don’t know of another country where the Westerners are so unwelcome that they need to be placed in what amounts to a minimum security prison. No Saudi in America is kept like a bug in a bottle from contact with America nor Americans.[/quote]
Steve,
Definitely, Saudi has major issues regarding religious and racial discrimination. But we should be clear. Most Americans (especially if you’re white) get the better end of the stick. It isn’t the Saudis who are “walling off” the Americans in to their compounds (even though it may be an indirect result of Saudi society). The walls of the American compunds have been made to keep the Saudi and other riff-raff out, not to prevent Americans from leaving. It is so that Americans can live their lives in autonomy from some Saudi laws… where women can drive cars, and where people can drink alcohol with less risk of getting caught. No one is stopping Americans from leaving their compounds except themselves. I only wish that more Americans would venture out of their compunds to learn more about Saudi culture and so Saudis could learn about Americans through human interaction (rather than hollywood and aljazeera).
While some Westerners may feel unwelcome in Saudi, many Saudis worship the ground that has been touched by the feet of a white Westerner. Even when Saudis have a grudge against Americans in most cases it is not shown. If an American gets into trouble with the law, then they can usually get preferential justice. Saudi employers love to hire white western managers (sometimes regardless of qualification) as mere showpieces.
There is a great deal of bigotry in Saudi, but Americans fare much better than other social groups in the kingdom. In the country’s social hierarchy they are located towards the top, below the rich industrial families. So the discrimination towards Americans is usually in their favor.
All this does not completely weaken your general argument Steve, but you need to argue based on reality. Reading books and surfing the internet is not enough.
The New New Islam
For Ethan
First, thanks for the benefit of the doubt. I don’t need it.
Second, you have rehashed a lot of the old saws about the region. I don’t buy them.
(1) The empty promised land. This is the first defense of the colonist. “I came here and no one was here so I didn’t take land from anyone.” There was an indigenous Arab population in Palestine. UNWRA counted 726,000 refuges in camps post the 1948 war. Since not every Palestinian fled, where did all these folks come from?
Other empty arguments of the colonist are.
“Well, there were some folks here but they really weren’t properly exploiting the land so who can blame me for introducing progress.” In other words “I earned the right to the land because I can use it better”. On this basis then I can take your bank account because I can put the money in the account to better use.
OR
“Well don’t worry how I got here, I am a staunch ally in the fight against (pick the enemy of the superpower whose aid is being sought to keep down the natives). For the Apartheid regime in South Africa it was keeping Communism away from the strategic shipping lanes of the Cape. For Israel it’s we’re your “land based aircraft carrier in the heart of the Middle East” to keep at bay (a) [in the past] those evil Communist influenced regimes in Egypt, Syria, and Iraq and (b) now militant Islamic terror bombers.
(2) Muslims Hate the Jews
This is posited as some eternal hate buried deep in the culture of Islam. Over the centuries the records of Christianity and Islam are clear. In terms of continuous persecution and number of people killed, the “Christians” win hands down.
Is it a matter of religious dogma?
I grew up in the one of the major Christian denominations. We were taught that the Jews were bad people, responsible for Jesus’ death – even those alive this day – people who are only distantly related, if at all, to the Jews of the time. We were also taught that Roman Catholics were the worst sort of unbelievers and that the Pope was the Anti-Christ. At least there was some balance in our bigotry!
Now does that mean that there is not some hatred among people who call themselves Muslims against Jews based on what they perceive as “religious” reasons. Of course not. But that’s not a condition limited to Muslims only.
But what is driving anti- Jewish sentiment to the levels seen today in the Arab World? Simple politics – the Arab Israeli conflict over land not relgious dogma.
Third, what is behind the “wound” in the Islamic world? You seemed focused on Palestine.
I would argue that the situation is more complex.
When the Europeans were “living in trees”, the Arab/Muslim world had quite a developed civilization. It was in the position that the USA is in today in terms of military and economic wealth and today’s Europe for high culture. And thanks to Islamic translation and transmission much of Greek and “classical” learning was preserved for us.
No doubt Arabs/Muslims at that time had quite a high view of themselves. It showed them (or so they no doubt thought) just how wonderful they were and how favored by God. Where have I heard that recently?
The position changed for two reasons. Geographic discoveries removed the transport trade between Far East Asia and Europe from Middle East middlemen and discoveries in the “New Wordl” provided a source of immense wealth to certain West European countries.
And last but not least, the later development of mechanistic/industrialized society in certain Western European countries – primarily England.
Attempts by ME states to “catch up” were frustrated. To cite just two examples. Muhammed Ali’s industrialization in Egypt directly threatened England’s textile primacy and so was “put down” 200 or so years ago. More recent attempts by these countries to take control of their natural wealth were put down 50 years ago (Mossadeq in Iraq).
For a lot of people – both individually and as nations – their self-worth depends on their status. You work in a garage and I am president of IBM. Therefore, I think I am better than you. And sadly enough, so may you. In the most pathological manifestations of this – I determine this means that I am more favored by the Divinity.
The same with nations. I can occupy your country – my army is bigger than yours. My economic system overwhelms yours. Therefore, I think I am better. In the words of General Boykin “My God is bigger than yours”. This is the age old confusion of the amount of toys one has with one’s intrinsic self worth.
So when the Islamic lands were surpassed and imperialist/colonialist intrusions took place, there was this natural reaction on the part of the Islamic world – tinged with, I am sure, “How could non Muslims surpass Muslims”? This leads to self-doubt in one’s society, bitterness against the one who has surpassed one, etc.
This is not just a Muslim reaction but has happened in other societies which faced the rise of the Western powers. China has deep wounds on this score.
It also applies closer to home (at least for some of us). Remember not so long ago the antipathy against the Japanese? The profound fear that they had discovered a new more productive way to run their economy and soon we would be a second tier nation? Or the recent anti Chinese sentiment?
Fourth, are the Palestinians and the Palestinian issue a plaything? That’s a no brainer. Of course at times. It’s not only various Arab countries. It’s the so-called “leadership” (at least past) of the Palestinians themselves. If Likud had planned it, they couldn’t have had a better opposite number than Brother Arafat.
Some of the pro Palestinian sentiment is genuine. But let’s face it, the Arab countries don’t really have armies capable of standing up to Israel. So rhetoric (magic talk) takes the place of action when one is weak or incapable of achieving a goal. That’s a very common phenomenon.
Many of the Arab regimes came into power based on perceived failures of the previous regime in defending the Arab nation, e.g. the Free Officers Movement in Egypt. No doubt some of the rhetoric of these people was sincere and some of it (like any politician’s) was self-serving. Not sure what this proves. Is your point that only Arab or Muslim politicians are hypocrites? That’s going to be a real hard case to make.
Also on the score of pan Arabism, nationalism is a relatively new concept in this part of the world as compared to say Europe. Many of the borders in this part of the World were drawn by colonial powers based on their own interests or sheer ignorance of the reality on the ground. So a broader “Arab” nationalism is not so hard to understand.
Fifth, when did the dictators of the ME embrace Islam? Let’s go to the video tape. The initial military regimes were founded on secularism/modernism (Ba’ath Party, Free Officers Movement)and socialism. These groups were in ongoing bitter struggles with Islamic groups like the Muslim Brotherhood who offered an alternative model.
It was the apparent defeat of the secular model – 1967 War – that got people looking for something else. Unfortunately, the typical pattern is to turn to God when one has a set back not when things are going well. Even Brother Saddam turned to ostentatious “religionism” after the First Gulf War. Anyways, the shock defeat of 67 led to a loss of confidence in the Westernizing elites .
At this point, let’s run today’s video tape. I wouldn’t call the secular/socialist origin regimes in Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Syria and Yemen particularly religiously oriented. Iraq really doesn’t have full sovereignity or full control over its territory so let’s leave them aside. My own guess is that the final result in Iraq will be a more religiously inclined state than under Brother Saddam and one more closely allied with Iran.
Of the other states, Morocco, Tunisia, Jordan, Oman, UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait – not particularly in the hands of religious parties. That leaves poor old KSA as a so-called religious state.
If we go further afield, since the Muslim world is a lot more than just the Arabs. We have a secular military ruler in Pakistan. Some form of democratic government in Bangladesh – not particularly religious. A so-called religious state in Iran. Another non sovereign/non controlling regime in Afghanistan – but not particularly religious. A form of democratic government in Indonesia – definitely not religious.
Of course, with the traditional societies. I think the proper term for a lot of these rulers is absolutist or feudal rather than dictatorial. And in some the proper term is probably kleptocratic.
Fifth, I am really uncertain why you believe that Islam needs an enemy to survive? What is the basis for this, besides your assertion?
Sixth, do people in power like to hang on? Yep. So what makes a “mullah” different from someone else in power? His beard?
Are so-called religious folk intolerant of dissent? Yep. The same folks who rebelled under the Reformation in the name of religious freedom were themselves a few years later persecuting perceived heretics. Can we find today “Pastors” in the USA and “Mullahs” in the Islamic world, who brook no dissent? Yep. You can even find Buddhist and Hindu “religious” leaders who do.
Because of the decentralization of Islam, if some genius issues a silly fatwa, it is likely to be ignored by most folks. One thing about this part of the world is the inherent anarchy just below the surface. Rules of any sort are to be evaded, worked around if it doesn’t suit one. This is not just limited to traffic laws. How many folks here are paying the Zakat? How many of the our Islamic bloc parlementarians are chasing skirts they’re not married to?
Actually, I think a bureacracy is more dangerous. Because it can reach more people. The Holy Office was no trivial matter. The Anti-Catholic persecutions sponsored by the Church of England were not as well. These were well organized institutionalized persecutions as compared to mob actions. Both regrettable but one sort does more extensive damage.
As to manifestations of intolerance today (purely religious not political) I’m not aware of any widespread pattern of drunken ladies being stoned. A bunch of grey beards issued a fatwa against Sister Sonia – but I believe she’s still in those short tennis dresses. Salman Rushdie is still writing bad literature.
Perhaps, we can consider these fatwas in the same league as I am told are the pronouncements of some of the leaders of the evangelical “Christian” conservative politico-reverends.
Seventh, prohibition on “bid’a”. If I’m not mistaken, this is the credo of the evangelical Christian movement in the USA.
In both cases, Sunni Islam and Christianity, this is not inherent in the faith but in itself an innovation! The closing of the “bab al ijtihad” occured in the Muslim medieval period when certain scholars thought they had dealt with all issues and no new ones were to come up.
That’s not from the Quran nor from the sunna of the Prophet. Nor from any of the Imams. At least as far as I am aware.
But is the bab al ijtihad really closed? Are minds really closed?
There’s a lot of antipathy towards KSA on this board (the wound of 9/11?) and it is held up as a medieval place of dark doings and thinkings. Yet, education for women, use of the radio and TV were agreed as not being un-Islamic. Could they do more? Yep.
I’m not aware of any broad based Muslim movement to ban the teaching of evolution. Scientific discoveries seem to pose few problems for Muslims – they’re not threatened by them nor fear that their religion is undermined. There’s a lot of innovation there. Modern technology is being used. No shunning of zippers, electricity, internal combustion engines in the name of religion.
Societal patterns take a bit longer to change. But we only have to look to our own country. We have at least one state that execute minors or mentally incompetent people. Others that do not.
And we have large blocs of society at odds over the role of women in society, etc. The quotes I posted earlier represent the views of a significant number of “Christians” in the USA. How do we know their numbers are large – politicians pay attention to (pander) to these folk. Notice the muted criticism of these guys by our leaders compared to when Louis Farrakhan spouts some obscenity.
Is the Muslim world ideal? Nope. But a lot of what occurs here under the name of Islam is not really based on Islam. That happens in a lot of places. Not a big surprise to me.
There’s also a natural tendency to confuse God’s revelation with the society in which it incarnates. Many times cultural folkways are assumed into the religion and then confused with it.
The New New Islam
Not to worry -Thinker- as long as there’s a constructive debate I’m happier than a hog in slurry,for lack of a more graceful phrase!
A Saudi
Re(2): The New New Islam
You can pretty much justify anything on the back of this utilitarianism. Moral cretin.
Re(3): The New New Islam
Well the estimates are that the Shi’a make 300 million of the total muslim population, if you believe that muslims are 1.2 billion, then that’s one quarter, if it’s 2 billion then that’s 15%, quite a sizable minority, so you can’t really paint the blame on all Muslims. This is just one minority, there are probably 70 other sects and I bet that you will find a few completely at opposites at almost any given issue, therefore, you can’t generalise at all.
If however you replaced the word “Muslim” with the word “Wahabis” or “Salafis” you would have been correct.
The Shi’a, when you scratch the surface are a pretty progressive bunch, but in other aspects, they are a stick in the mud. So no better and certainly no worse than everyone else, just a flexible outlook on life, again, for the most part.
Re(1): The New New Islam
Steve
You have an interesting approach of personal attacks when someone differs with you.
Argue from facts. If your case is solid, you don’t need to resort to this.
In any case it seems I have indeed been speaking Chinese here.
What I think is happening is that when I challenge the conventional wisdom and ask people to consider the other side, there is an instinctive emotional reaction (hence the personal attacks) to defend what is perceived to be right. What I am trying to say is lost and so the ensuing debate is a dialogue of the deaf.
In my posting my argument is that unless there are bright moral lines about what is right and wrong for all parties then a fundamental problem is created. Because when one gets into situational ethics, one accepts the principle that all things are permitted for the right reasons. The problem then is who decides who has the right reasons.
Most of history is written by the winners. And, of course, the winners always just happen to be right. And the other side is totally wrong. Funny how that works out.
Some Questions for You
(Note these are designed to get you to think more about my argument – which you may agree with or disagree with)
(1) As to your argument about Japan, your line would be consistent with Christian “just war” doctrine, except for the fact that there were two bombs dropped on Japan within a relatively short period. So let’s say the first bomb was justified. Why the second?
(2) And turning back to the first bomb, why not drop it somewhere else as a demonstration of the awesome power that we had? Why did it have to be dropped on a major city? Could it have been dropped in a less inhabited place?
(I think the answer to both cases is summed up in the sentiment you expressed in your opening paragraphs. We had decided that the Japanese were an extremely evil people – all of them. And so we could kill these barbarians with impunity. I know people from the generation of WW2. For a lot of them – because of Pearl Harbor – the Japanese are an evil evil people. For some of them this extends to all Asians.)
(3) Is it right to ascribed guilt to an entire society for the actions of some. (Hint: I don’t think this is right. I don’t “buy” collective guilt.)
As Steve “the American” do you feel it’s fair for people to ascribe responsibility for Abu Ghraib, Bagram, etc. etc. etc. to all Americans? Are all people in the USA horribly evil because of racism against Afro-Americans? Remember there was a time when lynching of blacks was a recreational sport in some parts of the USA. So you’re from another part of the USA and might claim you’ve got nothing to do with Mississippi. But did you or your forebearers do anything about it.
(Now just to be clear I am not justifying Japanese atrocities in WW2 by this. This example shows how someone might form the judgement that Americans were “barbarians” or “evil”).
Look forward to a considered non-emotional response.
While it is your opinion that simply sitting on the sidelines and blockading Japan would have resulted in many more casualties, I don’t think that is proven.
Re(2): The New New Islam
Many students of history hold the position I do. Because they differ with your position does not make them “unserious”.
With respect to the atom bombing of Japan, representatives of the US Govt and military seem to hold the view I am advocating on this MB (as evidenced by their 1946 study).
Are these not serious people? What would their motive be for making what you perceive as a “false” judgment? They “hate our way of life”? These guys were fairly close to the horrors of WW2. The study took place before the USA decided to really revitalize Japan (something that we did because of the Communist threat in Asia – fall of China, Korean War, etc) So it’s hard to see a political motive.
Clearly, there were more than the two options you posed.
And so to frame the debate in terms of these two options doesn’t really solve the question. And you have framed you question in the form of “would like to be poked in both eyes with a sharp stick or just one eye?” Well, it’s pretty clear the answer that you will get.
Here’s a question for you. And you have to pick ONLY one answer. “Do you want to elect George Bush and have the country led to disaster? Or do you want to elect Ralph Nader?” Does this solve anything?
Answering your question, doesn’t answer the debate on this MB – at least the one I am involved in (perhaps all by myself) about morality in political/foreign affairs. Nor does it really answer the question about whether the atomic bombing of Japan was justified.
Finally with respect to that topic, since only one option was chosen, we do not know for certain what would have been the results of choosing one of the others.
So at the end of the day, when we are discussing hypotheticals, let’s all remember that we are speaking of our opinions here and not “facts”.
Re(1): The New New Islam
Steve
Message #1
Many thanks your posting. Now we are talking.
I will respond with a separate message on each point.
As part of this process, I’d like to pose some questions to you to sharpen the dialogue and make sure we are speaking the same language
To your first point: Saudis are bad.
Yes, there were polls and it is disconcerting to see people lining up with those who wish evil to my country.
You have characterized these polls as meaning that Saudis are “bad”. That is, we are not speaking about people are not evildoers in the sense of actually committing acts, but those who sympathize with them.
(1) Rather than bad, could these people just be misinformed?
(2) Could it be that there are some legitimate (at least in their eyes) grievances that they have that provide a basis for their antipathy to the USA?
(3) Is the USA always in the right? If so, does this result from our superior intellectual and moral skills? Special favor from the Divinity?
(4) How does Saudi lying prove that they are “racist”?
( I missed the logical connection here. Are all liers racist? Just Arab liers? Muslim liers? If a Christian tells a lie, is he a racist?)
Re(1): The New New Islam
Why don’t they like us?
Perhaps, my point was not clear.
(1) I am not arguing that the worldwide polls necessarily show that current US foreign policy is wrong (though I happen to believe that and think the polls should be troubling to those who hold an opposing view). You are of course correct that polls do not necessarily prove anything. Perhaps, they don’t prove all Saudis are “bad”?
The point I was responding to in my post was the earlier posting that the antipathy in the Muslim world towards the USA was the result of Islam. At least that is how I read that posting.
Therefore, I cited polls which showed that non Muslims pretty much across the world had a bad view of the USA and US policy. So I am not sure that one can say Islam is driving this. My own view is that it is politics.
(2) You seem to be exercised that some Muslims think they should be the major superpower.
(a) Is this a big surprise? The French think they should be. The Russians. Many Brits long for their day in the sun? So why not the Muslims?
(b) Is this wrong? That is, is the role of superpower reserved to only one country, religion, etc?
If so, why is this? Please be specific cause I really don’t understand where you are coming from here.
(3) Propaganda
Yep. Is there a distortion of the news, spinning of facts in some cases. We’re fortunate that in the States our media is free of partisan spin. (Now don’t get excited because I am not saying it’s to the same extent).
Do people believe that the CIA has a hand in events?
Yes. Most of this is pure idiocy. This is also the typical colonizer/colonized reaction. The outside power made me do it.
However, the CIA did interfere in this part of the world repeatedly. We overthrew Mossadeq, helped the Ba’ath party to power in Iraq (to get rid of the “Commie” Qassem), funded Mr. Iyad Allawi for a bombing campaign in Iraq (under Saddam), use to stir up the Kurds against the Iraqi and Syrian regimes, our agents in Lebanon set off a bomb in a Shi’a mosque in Beirut in an attempt to kill one of the leaders of Hizbollah. Lots of collateral damage but the Hiz guy escaped unscathed).
Is popular opinion solely founded on this bad propaganda, psychological reaction to colonialism/imperialism and some justification?
I don’t think so. There is real sentiment in the street for the Palestinians (even though for some leadership elites there may not). Just as there is/was for the IRA in certain neighborhoods in the USA.
So it’s a bit more complex than what I’m reading in your posting.
It’s a matter of getting out the message but more importantly it’s a matter of actions. If I were from this part of the world, I think I would probably have serious grievances against the USA.
Re(1): The New New Islam
The Islamic Hate for the West – The Eternal Jihad
We hold completely different opinions on this topic.
I think that a case can be made for more recent Western wars/intrusion into the ME.
The Western Powers attacked the Ottoman Empire.
The major Arab countries were occupied and colonized.
Post liberation, Western powers interfered in the area – overthrowing and trying to overthrow regimes they did not like. Propping up horrible regimes.
In any case there is no point at continuing discussion on this point, because it’s just a matter of shouting at one another.
Re(1): The New New Islam
World wide anti US sentiment
(1) Europe Towards the USA
If you look at polls right after 9/11 and current polls, there is a sea change.
You might blame it on simple envy.
I don’t.
This should be a matter for deep concern on the part of those who love America. And thought about carefully, not dismissed on the basis that “they don’t understand us” “they hate our freedomes (whoops that’s the wrong “answer” for this group).
My argument is based on the following:
Not everyone who disagrees with a side is motivated by intellectual dishonesty, greed, envy, etc.
No country, religion, person is right 100% of the time. Everyone makes mistakes. Sometimes people do bad things.
(2) Muslim Attitudes towards Europe and USA
Interesting point, but reallly not something I was raising in my post.
My point was not that Muslims, Arabs, Moroccans, etc might not have bad things to say about Europe. But again I was reacting to the earlier post which implied this was all religion. They are Muslim, we are Christian so they hate us. My post therefore was intended to suggest wait a minute, if this is correct, why don’t they hate the French as much as they do us.
One conclusion is that it has something to do with our behavior.
I also noted another point which was that in matters military/geopolitical Europe is not a major actor.
(3) Muslim Opinion Ebb and Flow
Well, cite me some studies as I dont’ see your conclusions supported except by assertions.
As I noted I have lived and traveled in this part of the world for a long long time, I see a real change. And it tracks an intensification of what is perceived in this part of the world as an anti-Arab anti Muslim bias – a large part of that is what is seen as unreserved support for Israel.
(4) Al Qaeda
We are reading different accounts I guess.
The Reagan Administration encouraged the Saudis to financially and logistically support the anti-Soviet campaign in Afghanistan. Mr. Bin Laden received arms from the USA (bought by the Saudis). Whether at that time he called his group, Al Qaeda or not is immaterial. If it did not create the jihadis, the USA Afghanistan policy clearly enhanced them.
The Taliban were installed to stabilize the situation in Afghanistan. If you think that Pakistan did not get a “green light” from the USA on this, well then you and I differ fundamentally.
So this is another point where futher discussion is pointless, because we will just shout at one another.
Re(1): The New New Islam
Bin Laden’s Goals
Here are his own words.
“We declared jihad against the US government, because the US government is unjust, criminal and tyrannical. It has committed acts that are extremely unjust, hideous and criminal whether directly or through its support of the Israeli occupation.”
“For this and other acts of aggression and injustice, we have declared jihad against the US, because in our religion it is our duty to make jihad so that God’s word is the one exalted to the heights and so that we drive the Americans away from all Muslim countries.As for what you asked whether jihad is directed against US soldiers, the civilians in the land of the Two Holy Places (Saudi Arabia, Mecca and Medina) or against the civilians in America, we have focused our declaration on striking at the soldiers in the country of The Two Holy Places.”
“The country of the Two Holy Places has in our religion a peculiarity of its own over the other Muslim countries. In our religion, it is not permissible for any non-Muslim to stay in our country. Therefore, even though American civilians are not targeted in our plan, they must leave. We do not guarantee their safety, because we are in a society of more than a billion Muslims.”
“I have benefited so greatly from the jihad in Afghanistan that it would have been impossible for me to gain such a benefit from any other chance and this cannot be measured by tens of years but rather more than that. … Our experience in this jihad was great, by the grace of God, praise and glory be to Him, and the most of what we benefited from was that the myth of the superpower was destroyed not only in my mind but also in the minds of all Muslims. Slumber and fatigue vanished and so was the terror which the U.S. would use in its media by attributing itself superpower status or which the Soviet Union used by attributing itself as a superpower.”
[As quoted in The Washington Post 8/23/98]
———————————————————————————————————-
Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders
World Islamic Front Statement
23 February 1998
Shaykh Usamah Bin-Muhammad Bin-Ladin
Ayman al-Zawahiri, amir of the Jihad Group in Egypt
Abu-Yasir Rifa’i Ahmad Taha, Egyptian Islamic Group
Shaykh Mir Hamzah, secretary of the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Pakistan
Fazlur Rahman, amir of the Jihad Movement in Bangladesh
Praise be to Allah, who revealed the Book, controls the clouds, defeats factionalism, and says in His Book: “But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)”; and peace be upon our Prophet, Muhammad Bin-‘Abdallah, who said: I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but Allah is worshipped, Allah who put my livelihood under the shadow of my spear and who inflicts humiliation and scorn on those who disobey my orders.
The Arabian Peninsula has never — since Allah made it flat, created its desert, and encircled it with seas — been stormed by any forces like the crusader armies spreading in it like locusts, eating its riches and wiping out its plantations. All this is happening at a time in which nations are attacking Muslims like people fighting over a plate of food. In the light of the grave situation and the lack of support, we and you are obliged to discuss current events, and we should all agree on how to settle the matter.
No one argues today about three facts that are known to everyone; we will list them, in order to remind everyone:
First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.
If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it. The best proof of this is the Americans’ continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless.
Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million… despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation.
So here they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors.
Third, if the Americans’ aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews’ petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel’s survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula.
All these crimes and sins committed by the Americans are a clear declaration of war on Allah, his messenger, and Muslims. And ulema have throughout Islamic history unanimously agreed that the jihad is an individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries. This was revealed by Imam Bin-Qadamah in “Al- Mughni,” Imam al-Kisa’i in “Al-Bada’i,” al-Qurtubi in his interpretation, and the shaykh of al-Islam in his books, where he said: “As for the fighting to repulse [an enemy], it is aimed at defending sanctity and religion, and it is a duty as agreed [by the ulema]. Nothing is more sacred than belief except repulsing an enemy who is attacking religion and life.”
On that basis, and in compliance with Allah’s order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims:
The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies — civilians and military — is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, “and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together,” and “fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah.”
This is in addition to the words of Almighty Allah: “And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)? — women and children, whose cry is: ‘Our Lord, rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will help!'”
We — with Allah’s help — call on every Muslim who believes in Allah and wishes to be rewarded to comply with Allah’s order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan’s U.S. troops and the devil’s supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson.
Almighty Allah said: “O ye who believe, give your response to Allah and His Apostle, when He calleth you to that which will give you life. And know that Allah cometh between a man and his heart, and that it is He to whom ye shall all be gathered.”
Almighty Allah also says: “O ye who believe, what is the matter with you, that when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling so heavily to the earth! Do ye prefer the life of this world to the hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place; but Him ye would not harm in the least. For Allah hath power over all things.”
Almighty Allah also says: “So lose no heart, nor fall into despair. For ye must gain mastery if ye are true in faith.”
———————————————————————————————————–
Looks like political stuff to me.
He’s not castigating America for being Chrisitan, eating pork, not fasting, etc.
I think Brother Usama has a view similar to some of our own homegrown Christian “mullahs”. “The other side is going to hell. So the hell with them. I want them out of my face.”
Re(1): The New New Islam
(1) Indiscrimate Bombing in Europe During World War II
The firebombing of Dresden was the most egregious example but not the only one.
In February 1942 with the ascent of Air Marshall Arthur Harris to head the British Bomber Command a shift was made from bombing military targets where only 5% of the bombs were reaching their targets to “area bombing” which was the “indiscriminate” (my word) bombing of German cities designed to “break civilian morale”. The first city targetted was Lubeck which as far as I can tell had no real military value. There is a lot on Google. Even stuff from some Brits admitting that area bombing was indiscriminate bombing.
Initially the USAAF conducted “precison bombing” in Europe using the Norden bombsight. In 1943 the method was changed to “blind bombing” relying on a rather crude radar to target. The result was more bombing of civilians.
(2) Indiscriminate Bombing in Japan During WW2
Yes, I have heard the cottage industry argument before.
I think the motive here was similar to that in Europe “to break civlian morale”. I also think there was a strong element of revenge for Pearl Harbor.
Well, we can debate why LeMay said what he said. I think he recognized that this tactic was not above reproach. And here we’re back to the situational ethics issue. Of course, there is a telling comment on victor’s “justice” here.
(3) US as Christian Nation
My point was that it would not be unreasonable for someone to say that the US is predominantly Christian in population. Lord knows we hear our political elite blathering on and on about how we are a “Christian” or “Judeo-Christian” country. It is part of the political game in our country for politicians to be constantly “God Bless-ing America”. So, if we do something bad, why wouldn’t it be logical for an outside party to say they are Christians. Or is it only religion if we pronounce God’s curse on the heretics when we slay them?
(4) What’s the Point of My Raising This?
Do I love the Imperial Japanese Regime of the 30’s and 40’s? Do I wish the Axis had won the war?
Nope, while “my people” weren’t on the top of the list of untermenschen, we definitely were on the list so I had a personal stake in victory.
Do I hate America?
Nope, I’m very pleased to be an “American” (more precisely a citizen of the USA since Canadians, Mexicans and all sorts of other folk live in the Americas and are “Americans”) because of what America stands for.
Do I think that “America” can do no wrong? Is our society perfect?
Nope, we’re only human. If we overstep a moral bound, then we should correct our ways.
Do I object to America being “warlike” in the conduct of wars?
Nope, but equally I don’t want to see us act as barbarians. We should do what is necessary to win., but no more than necessary.
We claim to stand for certain principles. The test of moral principles is not when it is easy to follow them but when it is hard.
As someone said in the debate about the non-torture bill passed by the US Senate (90-9) to the objection that Al Qaeda doesn’t play by our rules and we “shouldn’t tie the president’s hands”: since when does Al Qaeda set the moral standard we ascribe to?
So I don’t think I’ve stretched my argument to the breaking point. I think it is well founded.
Re(1): The New New Islam
Atomic Bombings
Some commentators from the time on the decision to drop the A-bombs on Japan.
Note the comment of President Truman about not using the bomb on civilians.
Maybe he wasn’t a “serious” thinker?
——————————————————————————————————-
Memorandum by Ralph A. Bard, Undersecretary of the Navy, to Secretary of War Stimson, June 27, 1945
Source: U.S. National Archives, Record Group 77, Records of the Chief of Engineers, Manhattan Engineer District, Harrison-Bundy File, folder #77, “Interim Committee, International Control”.
________________________________________
SECRET — TOP SECRET — SECRET
REGRADED UNCLASSIFIED
ORDER SEC ARMY BY TAG PER
721164
CLASSIFICATION CHANGED
UNCLASSIFIED
To………..
By authority of: SEC ARMY
BY TAG per 710554
Date 9/29/71 WHC-NARS
Copy 1 of 2 copies each
of 1 pages series A
MEMORANDUM ON THE USE OF S-1 BOMB:
Ever since I have been in touch with this program I have had a feeling that before the bomb is actually used against Japan that Japan should have some preliminary warning for say two or three days in advance of use. The position of the United States as a great humanitarian nation and the fair play attitude of our people generally is responsible in the main for this feeling.
During recent weeks I have also had the feeling very definitely that the Japanese government may be searching for some opportunity which they could use as a medium of surrender. Following the three-power conference emissaries from this country could contact representatives from Japan somewhere on the China Coast and make representations with regard to Russia’s position and at the same time give them some information regarding the proposed use of atomic power, together with whatever assurances the President might care to make with regard to the Emperor of Japan and the treatment of the Japanese nation following unconditional surrender. It seems quite possible to me that this presents the opportunity which the Japanese are looking for.
I don’t see that we have anything in particular to lose in following such a program. The stakes are so tremendous that it is my opinion very real consideration should be given to some plan of this kind. I do not believe under present circumstances existing that there is anyone in this country whose evaluation of the chances of the success of such a program is worth a great deal. The only way to find out is to try it out.
[signature]
RALPH A. BARD
27 June 1945
=================================================================================
A PETITION TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
Source: U.S. National Archives, Record Group 77, Records of the Chief of Engineers, Manhattan Engineer District, Harrison-Bundy File, folder #76.
On July 17, 1945, Leo Szilard and 69 co-signers at the Manhattan Project “Metallurgical Laboratory” in Chicago petitioned the President of the United States.
________________________________________
July 17, 1945
A PETITION TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
Discoveries of which the people of the United States are not aware may affect the welfare of this nation in the near future. The liberation of atomic power which has been achieved places atomic bombs in the hands of the Army. It places in your hands, as Commander-in-Chief, the fateful decision whether or not to sanction the use of such bombs in the present phase of the war against Japan.
We, the undersigned scientists, have been working in the field of atomic power. Until recently, we have had to fear that the United States might be attacked by atomic bombs during this war and that her only defense might lie in a counterattack by the same means. Today, with the defeat of Germany, this danger is averted and we feel impelled to say what follows:
The war has to be brought speedily to a successful conclusion and attacks by atomic bombs may very well be an effective method of warfare. We feel, however, that such attacks on Japan could not be justified, at least not unless the terms which will be imposed after the war on Japan were made public in detail and Japan were given an opportunity to surrender.
If such public announcement gave assurance to the Japanese that they could look forward to a life devoted to peaceful pursuits in their homeland and if Japan still refused to surrender our nation might then, in certain circumstances, find itself forced to resort to the use of atomic bombs. Such a step, however, ought not to be made at any time without seriously considering the moral responsibilities which are involved.
The development of atomic power will provide the nations with new means of destruction. The atomic bombs at our disposal represent only the first step in this direction, and there is almost no limit to the destructive power which will become available in the course of their future development. Thus a nation which sets the precedent of using these newly liberated forces of nature for purposes of destruction may have to bear the responsibility of opening the door to an era of devastation on an unimaginable scale.
If after this war a situation is allowed to develop in the world which permits rival powers to be in uncontrolled possession of these new means of destruction, the cities of the United States as well as the cities of other nations will be in continuous danger of sudden annihilation. All the resources of the United States, moral and material, may have to be mobilized to prevent the advent of such a world situation. Its prevention is at present the solemn responsibility of the United States — singled out by virtue of her lead in the field of atomic power.
The added material strength which this lead gives to the United States brings with it the obligation of restraint and if we were to violate this obligation our moral position would be weakened in the eyes of the world and in our own eyes. It would then be more difficult for us to live up to our responsibility of bringing the unloosened forces of destruction under control.
In view of the foregoing, we, the undersigned, respectfully petition: first, that you exercise your power as Commander-in-Chief, to rule that the United States shall not resort to the use of atomic bombs in this war unless the terms which will be imposed upon Japan have been made public in detail and Japan knowing these terms has refused to surrender; second, that in such an event the question whether or not to use atomic bombs be decided by you in light of the considerations presented in this petition as well as all the other moral responsibilities which are involved.
Leo Szilard and 69 co-signers
=============================================================================
Harry S. Truman, Diary, July 25, 1945
________________________________________
President Truman told his diary on July 25, 1945, that he had ordered the bomb used.
Emphasis has been added to highlight Truman’s apparent belief that he had ordered the bomb dropped on a “purely military” target, so that “military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children.”
________________________________________
We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world. It may be the fire destruction prophesied in the Euphrates Valley Era, after Noah and his fabulous Ark.
Anyway we “think” we have found the way to cause a disintegration of the atom. An experiment in the New Mexico desert was startling – to put it mildly. Thirteen pounds of the explosive caused the complete disintegration of a steel tower 60 feet high, created a crater 6 feet deep and 1,200 feet in diameter, knocked over a steel tower 1/2 mile away and knocked men down 10,000 yards away. The explosion was visible for more than 200 miles and audible for 40 miles and more.
This weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10th. I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop that terrible bomb on the old capital or the new.
He and I are in accord. The target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement asking the Japs to surrender and save lives. I’m sure they will not do that, but we will have given them the chance. It is certainly a good thing for the world that Hitler’s crowd or Stalin’s did not discover this atomic bomb. It seems to be the most terrible thing ever discovered, but it can be made the most useful…
Truman quoted in Robert H. Ferrell, Off the Record: The Private Papers of Harry S. Truman (New York: Harper and Row, 1980) pp. 55-56. Truman’s writings are in the public domain
=========================================================================
Copyright, August 15, 1960, U.S. News & World Report.
==============================================================================
President Truman Did Not Understand
Dr. Leo Szilard, 62, is a Hungarian-born physicist who helped persuade President Roosevelt to launch the A-bomb project and who had a major share in it. In 1945, however, he was a key figure among the scientists opposing use of the bomb. Later he turned to biophysics, and this year was awarded the Einstein medal for “outstanding achievement in natural sciences.”
At NEW YORK
Q Dr. Szilard, what was your attitude in 1945 toward the question of dropping the atomic bomb on Japan?
A I opposed it with all my power, but I’m afraid not as effectively as I should have wished.
Q Did any other scientists feel the same way you did?
A Very many other scientists felt this way. This is particularly true of Oak Ridge and the Metallurgical Laboratory of the University of Chicago. I don’t know how the scientists felt at Los Alamos.
Q At the Oak Ridge and Chicago branches of the A-bomb project, was there any division of opinion?
A I’ll say this: Almost without exception, all the creative physicists had misgivings about the use of the bomb. I would not say the same about the chemists. The biologists felt very much as the physicists did.
Q When did your misgivings first arise?
A Well, I started to worry about the use of the bomb in the spring of ’45. But misgivings about our way of conducting ourselves arose in Chicago when we first learned that we were using incendiary bombs on a large scale against the cities of Japan.
This, of course, was none of our responsibility. There was nothing we could do about it, but I do remember that my colleagues in the project were disturbed about it.
Q Did you have any knowledge of Secretary of War Stimson’s concern at this time on the question of using the bomb?
A I knew that Mr. Stimson was a thoughtful man who gave the bomb serious consideration. He was one of the most thoughtful members of the Truman cabinet. However, I certainly have to take exception to the article Stimson wrote after Hiroshima in “Harper’s Magazine.” He wrote that a “demonstration” of the A-bomb was impossible because we had only two bombs. Had we staged a “demonstration” both bombs might have been duds and then we would have lost face.
Now, this argument is clearly invalid. It is quite true that at the time of Hiroshima we had only two bombs, but it would not have been necessary to wait for very long before we would have had several more.
Q Were you aware then of the attitude of Under Secretary of the Navy Ralph Bard or of the memorandum by Lewis L. Strauss?
A No.
excerpt
===========================================================================
Re(2): The New New Islam
[quote]Anon: “(1) I am not arguing that the worldwide polls necessarily show that current US foreign policy is wrong (though I happen to believe that and think the polls should be troubling to those who hold an opposing view). You are of course correct that polls do not necessarily prove anything. Perhaps, they don’t prove all Saudis are “bad”? “[/quote]
A poll showing 90% of Saudis supporting Bin Laden after Sep 11 is a convincing metric of Saudi hatred for America but not proof of the merit of that hate.
[quote]Anon: “(2) You seem to be exercised that some Muslims think they should be the major superpower. (a) Is this a big surprise? The French think they should be. The Russians. Many Brits long for their day in the sun? So why not the Muslims?”[/quote]
The French do not cut the throats of American aircrews and fly American women and children into American skyscrapers full of office workers. The Brits do not cut off American heads for the Church of England and display snuff films of the same on the BBC. The Russians do not keep the heads of American hostages in their refrigerators as trophies. The Muslims do all of these things. That exercises me.
The major difference between our European competitors and the Wahhabi savages is that the Europeans are committed to peaceful competition while the Wahhabis want endless war with infidels to propagate their desert Islam. That is their character, which is evil.
[quote]Anon: “(b) Is this wrong? That is, is the role of superpower reserved to only one country, religion, etc? If so, why is this? Please be specific cause I really don’t understand where you are coming from here.”[/quote]
Yes, it is wrong because becoming a superpower through violent conquest puts the whole world on a trajectory of violence which ultimately wastes lives and wealth, making the world a worse place. Competing through commerce benefits the whole world by increasing wealth and subsequently providing the means to support and improve human life.
I don’t begrudge the Saudis their oil wealth, undeserved though it be. The core of their problem is that they, as desert savages, lack the maturity to handle such riches responsibly. Had they earned it, they would have acquired a discipline in the labor of doing so and a maturity in dealing with the rest of the world that they lack. The oil windfall has exacerbated all their worst traits.
[quote]Anon: “However, the CIA did interfere in this part of the world repeatedly.”[/quote]
I only wish the CIA was as powerful and competent and pervasive as Abdul the vendor on the Arab street believes. From my seat, it looks like another government bureacracy, full of bumblers with a few bright spots. Their incompetence is hidden by the necessary veil of secrecy.
The CIA’s interference with foreign governments has been self-defeating in the long term, which is recognized by the CIA itself. We are much better off to support the opposition in hostile countries, like Iran, openly with only a moderate amount of covert support. That prepares and sways foreign opinion.
[quote]Anon: “I don’t think so. There is real sentiment in the street for the Palestinians (even though for some leadership elites there may not). Just as there is/was for the IRA in certain neighborhoods in the USA.”[/quote]
I don’t think the average Arab in the street gives a damn about the Palestinians. They like the idea of Palestinians fighting a religious war with the Jews, but they are not about to welcome them into their own countries because they make unwelcome houseguests. I don’t see any non-Palestinians sneaking into Palestine to become suicide bombers. And the Saudis quite cynically treat them as cannon fodder in their jihad against Israel.
Steve
Re(2): The New New Islam
[quote]Anon: “I think that a case can be made for more recent Western wars/intrusion into the ME. The Western Powers attacked the Ottoman Empire.”[/quote]
The Ottoman Empire was one of the Central Powers in WWI, which were the aggressors, not the Western powers. The Ottoman Empire attacked Russia, one of the Triple Entente, which triggered the defensive treaty obligations of France and Britain. The subsequent attacks on the Ottoman Empire, like Gallipoli, were in response to that.
[quote]Anon: “The major Arab countries were occupied and colonized. Post liberation, Western powers interfered in the area – overthrowing and trying to overthrow regimes they did not like. Propping up horrible regimes.”[/quote]
It’s true that the European powers carved up the Middle East, but America was not part of that. We have no colony in the Middle East nor have we ever.
The history of the relationship of America and Saudi Arabia runs counter to the European experience in the Middle East. We respected Saudi sovereignty. We did not try to interfere or change their culture. We made no attempt to convert them. In all respects, we were careful to treat them fairly, more than fairly in most cases. We did not steal their oil wealth from them. We helped them build up their oil industry, develop their infrastructure, mentored them in running a modern government, and in the process, made them extravagantly wealthy. Saudi Arabia benefitted wildly from American foreign policy.
Despite all this, the Saudis hate America out of pure religious bigotry. The case of Saudi Arabia demonstrates that foreign policy makes no difference in the opinion of Arabs for America. Our foreign policy can lift them to the pinnacle of luxury and power and they will still hate us and seek to do us evil because we are not Muslims. They follow the Koranic injunction to make no friends with unbelievers but rather make war on them.
As for propping up horrible regimes, what are the choices? What Arab regime has been admirable? As I’ve said before, it’s a choice of supporting murdering thieves or thieving murderers in most cases.
Steve
Re(2): The New New Islam
[quote]Anon: “World wide anti US sentiment; (1) Europe Towards the USA: If you look at polls right after 9/11 and current polls, there is a sea change. You might blame it on simple envy. I don’t.”[/quote]
You are cherry picking your poll results to support your conclusion. The brief European sympathy for America immediately after Sep 11 was mostly lip service. It was not the norm but rather an outlier. Europe maintained the same anti-American animus during Bill Clinton’s administration and before as it did during Bush’s administration and will after. It is part of a longer trend of the Old World looking down on the New World as a society of primitives. Being outdone by their former colonies jars delicate European sensibilities.
[quote]Anon: “This should be a matter for deep concern on the part of those who love America. And thought about carefully, not dismissed on the basis that “they don’t understand us” “they hate our freedomes (whoops that’s the wrong “answer” for this group).”[/quote]
I’m not too concerned. While the Europeans have made a great show of anti-Americanism their police and military have been very cooperative in resisting the Wahhabi jihad at the technical level. They have no illusions that we do not share a common enemy in the Wahhabis and, if anything, feel the threat more keenly. When it comes time to do business, my experience is that all that European rhetoric flies out the window to get the deal done.
[quote]Anon: “(2) Muslim Attitudes towards Europe and USA; … My point was not that Muslims, Arabs, Moroccans, etc might not have bad things to say about Europe. But again I was reacting to the earlier post which implied this was all religion. They are Muslim, we are Christian so they hate us. My post therefore was intended to suggest wait a minute, if this is correct, why don’t they hate the French as much as they do us.[/quote]
They do. France just stopped a train bomb plot by Moroccan Muslims a couple weeks ago. It wasn’t the first one. It’s part of a continuing terror campaign against France that has gone on for years. The Muslim world is in an uproar about the French ban on headscarves worn by Muslim schoolgirls. The Muslims living in France hate the French who suffer from a Muslim crime wave. Here’s a link to it. Read and learn.
[quote]Anon: “One conclusion is that it has something to do with our behavior.”[/quote]
Another conclusion is that it has everything to do with Islam, which regards anything non-Muslim as inferior and whose religious doctrine demands the world be ruled by Islam. For example, you might consider the current Wahhabi terror campaign in Thailand, which has nothing to do with our behavior or Palestine or Iraq or Afghanistan. It has everything to do with Islamic supremacy.
[quote]Anon: (3) Muslim Opinion Ebb and Flow
Well, cite me some studies as I dont’ see your conclusions supported except by assertions.
As I noted I have lived and traveled in this part of the world for a long long time, I see a real change. And it tracks an intensification of what is perceived in this part of the world as an anti-Arab anti Muslim bias – a large part of that is what is seen as unreserved support for Israel.[/quote]
Their perception of an anti-Arab anti-Muslim bias is accurate. There is one. A deserved one. When Arabs butcher Americans by the thousands for Islam, it inspires such bias. The subsequent revelations of the wild venom spewed from Arab government, media, and mosques against America bolsters such bias. I note her that you do not object to any of the widespread anti-American bias in the Middle East that any objective observer would admit is based on the wildest, most unbelievable lies. Arab Muslims fare better in the US media than America fares in Arab media.
Yes, we support Israel. It’s a democracy. If Palestine was a democracy, we’d support it.
Citing Israel tends to undermine your point that Islam does not play the dominant role in Arab opinon of the US. The Arab objection to Israel is all about Islam. You did not see such objection when Iraq took over Kuwait. All the players were Muslims in that conflict so no popular opinion was inflamed to oppose it.
[quote]Anon: (4) Al Qaeda; We are reading different accounts I guess. The Reagan Administration encouraged the Saudis to financially and logistically support the anti-Soviet campaign in Afghanistan. Mr. Bin Laden received arms from the USA (bought by the Saudis). Whether at that time he called his group, Al Qaeda or not is immaterial. If it did not create the jihadis, the USA Afghanistan policy clearly enhanced them.”[/quote]
The Saudis in the 1980s did not need money from America. They were flush with cash. Neither did they need prompting from infidels to fight the Soviet atheists in Afghanistan. They were highly motivated to do so. You are attempting to reassign authorship of Al Qaeda from Saudi Arabia to America.
[quote]Anon: “The Taliban were installed to stabilize the situation in Afghanistan. If you think that Pakistan did not get a “green light” from the USA on this, well then you and I differ fundamentally.”[/quote]
The Taliban are creatures of Pakistan intelligence, sent to take over Afghanistan, as they did, to serve Pakistan’s interests. America funded the Afghan resistance through Pakistan which forwarded arms and cash to the Taliban.
However, the Taliban is not Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda was riding in the trail of the Taliban during the Soviet war. They did not command the Taliban until after the Soviets left and America lost interest in Afghanistan.
Steve
Re(3): The New New Islam
[quote]Anon: “Many students of history hold the position I do. Because they differ with your position does not make them “unserious”.”[/quote]
Mostly bad students of history oppose the atomic bombings. For the most part they are ideologues who have casually examined the facts to make a case against the US. And your assertion that if enough people support your position it is proof of its correctness is fallacious thinking.
[quote]Anon: “With respect to the atom bombing of Japan, representatives of the US Govt and military seem to hold the view I am advocating on this MB (as evidenced by their 1946 study).” [/quote]
Wrong. The Strategic Bombing Survey was a civilian entity, not a military one. Their conclusion was wrong for the reasons I stated, reasons you do not address. And really, the government puts out lots of studies that are wrong.
[quote]Anon: “Are these not serious people? What would their motive be for making what you perceive as a “false” judgment? They “hate our way of life”? These guys were fairly close to the horrors of WW2. The study took place before the USA decided to really revitalize Japan (something that we did because of the Communist threat in Asia – fall of China, Korean War, etc) So it’s hard to see a political motive.”[/quote]
That’s correct. The people who performed the Strategic Bombing Survery for Japan were not intellectually serious people. They formed their conclusions before they did their research. Their research was rushed and focused only on gathering data that confirmed their existing prejudice. As to their motives, I don’t have any facts to speculate on that.
The Strategic Bombing Survey for Japan was a considerably weaker effort than that for Germany. The German Survey made conclusions with which I do not agree, but it was an intellectually serious effort.
[quote]Anon: “Clearly, there were more than the two options you posed.”[/quote]
Name the other options.
The only other options were:
1) Invest Japane with a naval blockade, starving it out. That would have led to millions of casualties, an inferior moral option.
2) Withdraw our forces. That would have allowed Japan to reconstitute its forces and restart the war in ten years, an inferior moral option.
Neither of these is serious enough to merit real consideration.
[quote]Anon: “And so to frame the debate in terms of these two options doesn’t really solve the question. And you have framed you question in the form of “would like to be poked in both eyes with a sharp stick or just one eye?” Well, it’s pretty clear the answer that you will get.”[/quote]
Atomic bombing or conventional invasion were the only practical options available to the Allies. You falsely assume that war always presents you with good and bad options, when in reality it often presents you with bad and worse options. If you have another option that would have magically ended the war with less casualties, name it.
[quote]Anon: “Here’s a question for you. And you have to pick ONLY one answer. “Do you want to elect George Bush and have the country led to disaster? Or do you want to elect Ralph Nader?” Does this solve anything?”[/quote]
It’s a false dilemma, a fallacious argument. There are more options than Bush and Nader. There were not more options than a conventional invasion and atomic bombing. If so, please name them.
[quote]Anon: “Answering your question, doesn’t answer the debate on this MB – at least the one I am involved in (perhaps all by myself) about morality in political/foreign affairs. Nor does it really answer the question about whether the atomic bombing of Japan was justified.”[/quote]
I have answered exactly why the atomic bombing of Japan was justified. You ignore that answer because your position is indefensible.
[quote]Anon: Finally with respect to that topic, since only one option was chosen, we do not know for certain what would have been the results of choosing one of the others. So at the end of the day, when we are discussing hypotheticals, let’s all remember that we are speaking of our opinions here and not “facts”.[/quote]
We know for certain that the atomic bombings stopped the Japanese war of aggression cold without a single Allied soldier lost in an invasion of the Japanese home islands. Your implied support of an invasion would have cost hundreds of thousands of Allied lives and many multiples of that in Japanese lives, plus the lives of hundreds of thousands of the captive populations occupied by Japanese troops around Asia.
Your opinion condemning the atomic bombings is simply wrong and by inference supports greater loss of life by an order of magnitude. It represents the least moral course of action out of ignorance.
Steve
Re(2): The New New Islam
[quote]Anon: “To your first point: Saudis are bad. Yes, there were polls and it is disconcerting to see people lining up with those who wish evil to my country. You have characterized these polls as meaning that Saudis are “bad”. That is, we are not speaking about people are not evildoers in the sense of actually committing acts, but those who sympathize with them.
(1) Rather than bad, could these people just be misinformed? [/quote]
In the book “Saudi Arabia Exposed,” the author, John Bradley, writes about an interview he had with a granddaughter of Princess Faisal, Princess Reem Mohammed Al-Faisal, in which he
(pp 21-25) witnesses her and her friends deny to a journalist from the New York Times that the fifteen Saudi skyjackers of Sep 11 were Saudi. A few hours later, in the course of conversation with Bradley, she casually admitted they were Saudis.
I see that incident as representative of the Saudi approach, which is to lie and deny when they are caught dead to rights. With a little more work, I could dig up examples of how the Saudis blamed the Sep 11 attacks on Zionists.
The Saudis know damned well who hijacked those jets and killed those people and exactly why they did it. They lie to cover up their guilt. That makes them bad.
[quote]Anon: “(2) Could it be that there are some legitimate (at least in their eyes) grievances that they have that provide a basis for their antipathy to the USA?”[/quote]
There is no nation that has benefitted so much from America as Saudi Arabia. Their grievance with America is founded on religious bigotry, an illegitimate basis for attacking us.
[quote]Anon: “(3) Is the USA always in the right? If so, does this result from our superior intellectual and moral skills? Special favor from the Divinity?”[/quote]
Is the USA always in the wrong? If so, why?
[quote]Anon: “(4) How does Saudi lying prove that they are “racist”? ( I missed the logical connection here. Are all liers racist? Just Arab liers? Muslim liers? If a Christian tells a lie, is he a racist?)”[/quote]
Instead of the well-documented truth that Saudis attacked America on Sep 11, they said that the Saudis picked out by the flight attendants on the doomed jets as the skyjackers were chosen as scapegoats for the crime on the basis of their race. Their bogus accusation of racial prejudice is a racist evasion. When you indulge in such race-baiting to escape responsibility, you are a racist.
Steve
Re(2): The New New Islam
Warning was given to Hiroshima in advance of the bombing. Leaflets were dropped telling the inhabitants to leave the city. They were ignored.
While the scientists who created the Bomb were brilliant physicists, they were not brilliant military commanders. Their call for restraint in the prosecution of the war by not dropping the atom bombs would have resulted in more bloodshed, not less, as I have pointed out previously.
The lesson of military history is that a short, lethal, decisive war is far preferable to a prolonged, indecisive war that kills people in penny packets. Far more lives are consumed in such long wars. The physicists suffer from the delusion that war can be attenuated to achieve its objects with less destruction. It cannot. The most effective war is fought with all the fury needed to bring it to a quick end. As General Sherman said, “War is cruelty. You cannot refine it.” The attempt to refine it by the Manhattan Project scientists was wrong-headed.
As I have pointed out before, Hiroshima was a military target. Nagasaki would have served as an important port and distribution center in the logistics train supporting the defense against the invasion. It is also the site of the torpedo works which made the weapons used in Pearl Harbor. There is a neat moral justice in seeing the fury of war return a hundredfold upon the place where the eggs of war were hatched amidst great celebration and enthusiasm. The atom bombs snuffed out the Japanese glee for war, replacing it with ardent pacifism.
Szilard’s endorsement of a demonstration of the atom bomb seems to me a typical woolly-headed ivory tower academic suggestion that is completely impractical. It reminds me of the incompetent Civil War politician turned general who commanded his artillery to fire at Confederates out of range to scare them with the sound. Wars are won by bringing fire on the enemy, not by earnest threats. If anything, the Japanese would have considered such restraint as weakness and would have bolstered their argument that the Allied will to invade was crumbling and could be defeated with an aggressive defense.
Wasting an atom bomb by dropping it on an uninhabited island would have undermined the war effort, the effects of all of it having a cumulative effect to break the will of the enemy. You don’t win by letting up in your air campaign, as in the intermittent B-52 strikes against North Vietnam, but by pouring it on until the enemy can take no more.
We did not have atom bombs to waste. When the Japanese surrendered, the third Bomb was at Mather AFB in Sacramento, CA, en route to the Pacific. It would have been at least another couple weeks before it was ready to be used. The Bombs after that would have been used to clear out the Japanese defenses behind the beach heads in Kyushu. Three atom bombs would have been dropped behind each of the three landing beaches. Wasting a Bomb on a demonstration would have left tens of thousands of US infantrymen to clear out a sector of Kyushu the conventional way with great losses. Try explaining to a grieving family who lost a son on Kyushu that you chose to drop a Bomb harmlessly to scare the Japanese instead of clearing out the Japanese soldiers who killed your son. It would be an irresponsible use of the Bomb.
It’s also worth noting that the Japanese did not need to be informed that we had the capability to wipe out their cities. The Bomb did not differ significantly in its effect from a conventional massed raid. One B-29 carrying an atom bomb was roughly equivalent to 220 B-29s carrying conventional bombs. We had been carrying out such massed B-29 raids for months without breaking the will of the Japanese to fight. It was the qualitative shock of the atom bomb that pushed them over the edge to surrender. The atom bombs gave the Japanese the face-saving event that allowed them to surrender.
Bard was reading the Japanese mail when he mentioned there were those in the Japanese government seeking surrender. However, they were not the faction in charge and that same mail was far more full of messages arguing to continue the war. There was also the problem of Japanese credibility, which had used peace negotiations in the past to mask preparations for war, most notably at Pearl Harbor. Relying on Japanese good will was a risky proposition.
Steve
Re(2): The New New Islam
[quote]Anon: “(1) As to your argument about Japan, your line would be consistent with Christian “just war” doctrine, except for the fact that there were two bombs dropped on Japan within a relatively short period. So let’s say the first bomb was justified. Why the second?”[/quote]
I’ve answered that elsewhere in this thread but to summarize: The Japanese did not surrender after the first Bomb, therefore a second was delivered. The object of the Pacific campaign was not to convince the Japanese to think about surrender, but to surrender. The Japanese did not think we had a second Bomb due to the difficulty their own atom bomb program had in refining the nuclear fuel. The Japanese military never changed their mind, even after the second Bomb, that they could dictate a truce by bleeding the invasion forces. Hirohito did not fear for his life until the atom bombs fell. The Japanese leadership was not moved to make the final decision to surrender until the second Bomb, by their own admission. Bombing has a cumulative shock effect which dissipates when the campaign slacks off.
Bombing a country is like making pinpricks on a human body. You can deal with a few pinpricks strung out over a long time or a bunch of them all at once given time to heal but a continued large amount of pinpricks every day will bring you down.
[quote]Anon: “(2) And turning back to the first bomb, why not drop it somewhere else as a demonstration of the awesome power that we had? Why did it have to be dropped on a major city? Could it have been dropped in a less inhabited place? “[/quote]
Again, I’ve answered this elsewhere. You win wars by putting fire on the enemy, not by making threats. Wasting a bomb on a pointless display would have shorted the Bombs needed for the coming invasion, forcing the infantry to clear a sector of Kyushu by hand with great loss. And its pretty foolish to tell the enemy the time and place of a military raid so that they can assemble a force to destroy it.
[quote]Anon: “(I think the answer to both cases is summed up in the sentiment you expressed in your opening paragraphs. We had decided that the Japanese were an extremely evil people – all of them. And so we could kill these barbarians with impunity. I know people from the generation of WW2. For a lot of them – because of Pearl Harbor – the Japanese are an evil evil people. For some of them this extends to all Asians.)”[/quote]
You do not defeat a military opponent by resort to emotion but rather to reason. While the Japanese were thought to be evil people, this is not a useful foundation for deciding the means to beat them. War is won by applied engineering, not cathartic flailing about.
In the case of the atom bombs, they solved the technical problem of reducing the Japanese will to fight by substituting technology for flesh and blood soldiers. It was very successful. We did not need to invade, an invasion half again as big as the Normandy invasion. The Japanese cited the Bomb as the deciding factor in pushing to surrender. Emperor Hirohito cited the Bomb as the reason for surrender in his radio address to the Japanese.
That’s as clean an end to war as you can get. It is far better than fighting a conventional war for another year and then a guerrilla war for years after that, with Hirohito commanding his people to fight on to fulfill the Japanese idea of the “crushed jewel,” the complete and glorious destruction of Japan in honorable combat. It is also superior to the inevitable invasion of Japan by the Soviet Union as a conventional war dragged on, setting up a North and South Japan with the same follow-on wars as Korea and Vietnam.
[quote]Anon: “(3) Is it right to ascribed guilt to an entire society for the actions of some. (Hint: I don’t think this is right. I don’t “buy” collective guilt.) As Steve “the American” do you feel it’s fair for people to ascribe responsibility for Abu Ghraib, Bagram, etc. etc. etc. to all Americans? Are all people in the USA horribly evil because of racism against Afro-Americans? Remember there was a time when lynching of blacks was a recreational sport in some parts of the USA. So you’re from another part of the USA and might claim you’ve got nothing to do with Mississippi. But did you or your forebearers do anything about it. (Now just to be clear I am not justifying Japanese atrocities in WW2 by this. This example shows how someone might form the judgement that Americans were “barbarians” or “evil”).”[/quote]
The harassment at Abu Ghraib was committed by the night shift of prison guards over a brief period of time. It was reported by one of the guards, acted upon the NEXT day by their commanders, the guilty tried and convicted. Their imprisonment demonstrates where America stands on the issue.
By contrast, the Saudi state supports the university system which indoctrinates its youth in venomous Wahhabism, supports their dispatch throughout the world to sow terror in faraway lands. Jihad is the approved foreign policy of Saudi Arabia. This policy is supported by the Saudi media and mosques. Saudi Arabia is awash in hatred for non-Wahhabis.
That difference is why its unfair to ascribe prison abuses at Abu Ghraib as representative of America while it is perfectly fair to ascribe the Wahhabi terror atrocities to Saudi Arabia as a whole.
To sharpen the point, when the Abu Ghraib abuses came to light, President Bush said on national TV that he was sickened by it. By contrast, when our Special Forces fooled an Al Qaeda prisoner into thinking he was being held by Saudis, he relaxed and gave them the phone number of a Saudi prince who he said would fix everything.
As an additional point, Michael Yon reports from Iraq that arrested insurgents freely say they prefer to be sent to Abu Ghraib than an Iraqi prison. They know they will get three hots and a cot at the American prison with a minimum of abuse, unlike an Arab prison.
[quote]Anon: “Look forward to a considered non-emotional response.”[/quote]
I look forward to less rhetoric and more reason in your response.
[quote]Anon: “While it is your opinion that simply sitting on the sidelines and blockading Japan would have resulted in many more casualties, I don’t think that is proven.”[/quote]
It’s really impossible to prove without doing it, now isn’t it? And really, what other mechanism would a blockade employ to induce Japan to surrender other than starvation?
However, if you think this is just my opinion, then I direct you to John Ray Skates book, “The Invasion of Japan: Alternative to the Bomb“, in which the effects of various combinations of land, sea, and air campaigns against Japan are discussed, based on the original vigorous debate by the respective services at the time.
Steve
[Modified by: Steve The American (Steve) on October 16, 2005 02:21 PM]
Re(3): The New New Islam
“Moral cretin.”
I love it – persoanl attacks rather than anything else. Sign of a lost argument.
–Ethan
Re(1): The New New Islam
Thanks. I was actually looking for a liberal alternative to Tariq Ramadan, but I’ll certainly explore Khaled Abu El Fadl.
The New New Islam
hmm…
u might want political reform or even religious reform… it’s your call & your decsion but the 6 point phase is nothing but a joke & an insult not the way to reform. Can you as a muslim jusity the points in the plan mentioned.
Re(2): The New New Islam
Khaled Abou El-Fadl CV seems quite impressive, Daniel Pipes doesn’t seem to be impressed though.
Re: The New New Islam
ooooh we’re so scared!
can you contribute in a logical and scientific fashion rather than the mindless threats of eternal damnation you’re aluding to?
now, do you have any other practical suggestions?
Re(2): The New New Islam
I’m not sure what exactly you’re looking for, but in addition to Abou el Fadl try reading Abdolkarim Soroush (Iran). In my opinion he has the most interesting things to say today “from within” about wordly Islam. Maybe also try reading the late Ali Shariati (some consider Soroush to be Shariati’s successor in ways).
Also try reading the late Fazlur Rahman (Pakistan)… there are many Pakistanis named Fazlur Rahman so don’t get confused… this Fazlur Rahman died in 1988 and was a prof at UChicago. Farish Noor in Malaysia is saying some interesting things about Islam and human rights. Syed Hossein Nasr (Iran) is more well known for his work on spiritualism, but his occasional forays into worldly Islam are worth reading also. Also try Muhammad Khalid Masud (Pakistan) if you have a good understanding of Islamic history and philosophy… he mostly deals with Islamic jurisprudence.
Some other interesting people are Nurcholish Madjid (Indonesia) who passed away just a few months ago, Abdelmajid Charfi (Tunisia), and the late Mahmoud Taha (Sudan). Most of the writings of these three guys hasn’t been translated in to English yet, but there is alot of scholarly work available in English about them.
Hope that helps a bit
— chan’ad
The New New Islam
threats of eternal damnation?
pal, i just pointed out that the 6 point plan for what it is- “garbage” & woah u have to come attacking me. Isn’t that the problem with the monarchs & ulemas that you want replaced. The 6 point plan which is being praised is not a practical solution & not even close to the correct solution. Not even a minority of muslims will accept it. We need reforms & solutions to the problems in our country but solutions that practical & logical.
You are asking me to contribute in a logical and scientific fashion when you are subscribing to such illogical & highly irrational half-baked solutions. How hypocritical!!!
Re: The New New Islam
Anon,
We agree that Muslims would not accept Alhamedi’s Six Point Plan for reforming Islam. In my opinion, the obstacle is Muslim religious bigotry. Your opinion would likely differ. However, I am curious about your objection that his points are not correct, not practical, not logical. Can you be more specific? Here I summarize his points:
[b]1. A New Koran that ditches all the violence and war directed at non-Muslims and focuses on a positive message of love for God and his creatures.[/b]
What do you find objectionable to that? In what way is it not correct nor desirable?
[b]2. The Islamic world ceases its jihad against the non-Muslim world, accept believers of other religions as equals, and relinquishes its claims for non-Muslim lands, including Bali, Southern Spain, and Israel.[/b]
What is incorrect, impractical, and illogical about this proposed reform? Why do Muslims think it better to make war on non-Muslims?
[b]3. Saudi Arabia tolerates other religions, just as other religions tolerate Islam in their nations.[/b]
What is incorrect, impractical, and illogical about this proposed reform? Why would turnabout not be fair play in this matter?
[b]4. The Muslims world repudiates its most common lies, such as “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” forgery, the “4000 Jews didn’t show at the WTC on Sep 11” lie, the “skyjackers weren’t Saudis” lie, and the “Holocaust never happenned” lie.[/b]
What is incorrect, impractical, and illogical about this proposed reform? What would Muslims find so difficult about it?
[b]5. Muslim charities would no longer exclude non-Muslims.[/b]
What is incorrect, impractical, and illogical about this proposed reform? Why would most Muslims reject it?
[b]6. Islam recognizes other religions as equally valid ways of seeking personal salvation.[/b]
What is incorrect, impractical, and illogical about this proposed reform? Why would most Muslims reject it?
Take all the time you need to answer.
Steve
The New New Islam
[quote]1. A New Koran that ditches all the violence and war directed at non-Muslims and focuses on a positive message of love for God and his creatures.[/quote]
There’s only one Quran & it can’t be changed. The problem is with how individuals prefer to interpret the Quran. One can’t pick verses out of context which both Islamist & anti-Islamists do. Tafsir is very important when referring to the Quran. The Quran doesn’t advocate mindless slaughter of innocents, Quran only justifies war against oppression & occupiers & that too while compiling with the rules of war.
We Muslims believe that Quran is the word of Allah (God) & every Muslim has to believe that. Changing the Quran or not believing in it counts towards blasphemy. And I doubt any believing Muslims would be willing to take such steps.
[quote]2. The Islamic world ceases its jihad against the non-Muslim world, accept believers of other religions as equals, and relinquishes its claims for non-Muslim lands, including Bali, Southern Spain, and Israel.[/quote]
Jihad is not a one-way street, the Non-Muslim world is not merely a spectator in this carnage of events. Jihad is a fight for freedom & justice and against occupation in parts of world where jihad is in full force. Iraq, Kashmir, Chechnya & Palestine are occupied by outside forces and victims of this occupation will fight them… why should they accept occupation in their lands? You talk about Israel as if Israel is all innocent… read upon it on how it came into existence * it’s aristocracies & war crimes on the local people.
West at the same time needs to start minding it’s own business, as long as it’s keeps interfering in Muslim countries & tries to impose their values & culture on the locals.. there’s bound be resistance & animosity. I am sure none of the non-Muslim countries want their countries to be ruled by Islamic laws then how is vice-versa acceptable.
[quote]
3. Saudi Arabia tolerates other religions, just as other religions tolerate Islam in their nations.[/quote]
Saudi Arabia does tolerate other religions but it’s like the Vatican where only Catholicism thrives & all rules are by & for Catholics. One can practice their religions in private but not in public. I will post more on this alter as I believe this is a much more complex topic by itself.
[quote]4. The Muslims world repudiates its most common lies, such as “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” forgery, the “4000 Jews didn’t show at the WTC on Sep 11” lie, the “skyjackers weren’t Saudis” lie, and the “Holocaust never happenned” lie.[/quote]
There are always going to people who will make such claims both Muslims & non-Muslims. Some of these claims are due to the fact that these Muslims are shocked themselves & can’t come to face the truth. Some fall for these claims as they are plain & simple ignorant. There’s no shortage of many westerners who think similarly but they are on the other sides of the fence. “The president doesn’t lie�, “This war is for freedom, liberty & justice�, “Saddam can attacks us with WMDs anytime�, “911 hijackers were Iraqis�, “Saddam Hussein was behind 911�, “Israel is a peaceful country & never harms Palestinians�
[quote]5. Muslim charities would no longer exclude non-Muslims.[/quote]
Misconception…. yes Muslims charities cater specifically to Muslims but that doesn’t mean they exclude non-Muslims. I do agree there are charities that are only for Muslims but again it’s up to each charity to define their goals… there are charities that are only for Christians, Hindus, Africans, Blacks, Arabs, Asians… etc. Everyone has their goals 7 objectives. If you go ahead & open a charity that helps everyone be my guest no one would have any objection.
Many Christians charities helps everyone but the main motive is propagation of Christianity… charity is nice front.
[quote]6. Islam recognizes other religions as equally valid ways of seeking personal salvation.[/quote]
This makes me laugh…. a Muslim follows Islam as he believes this is the right religion as set by God. All religions adhere to similar beliefs… one is free to follow any religion but doesn’t make sense to say that Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism etc are right too. One example I would give is Muslims don’t believe Jesus (peace be upon him) is a son of God but that he’s merely human and is only a prophet of God. Now if a Muslim has to say that Christianity is correct then he’s contradicting his belief. It’s applies vice versa… I don’t accept a Christian to say that Islam is the right religion.
_________________________________________________________________________
You can disagree with me, that’s fair. After all, we live in a diverse world with diverse opinions. And living peacefully in such world is our goal.
Take care & Peace 4 real.
Re: The New New Islam
Don’t take your own interpretation of events and situations as gospel. There are others who are more qualified that probably both of us combined debating these very points. For instance, have a look at this comment I posted last year which lists a transcript of the Al-Jazeera Opposing Directions program which discussed some of these issues, and you will probably be surprised at the views expressed. Especially concerning the “splitting of the Quran”.
The other points you raised are not very convincing and are to my mind repetitive or worse apologist.
Re(3): The New New Islam
Cheers guys – much appreciated.