Bjørn Stærk blog - Beslan siege ends

Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-09-03 17:39 | Link

But, Bjørn, she does mention religion:

She thinks that the Russians have had better control in the region the last couple of years, and that most [human rights] violations happened in the beginning of the war. But young men are still disappearing.

- This is triggering these new terror attacks. However, it is necessary to see different groups apart from each other. Some are conducting a resistance war to liberate the Chechen republic, while suicide bombers often are recruited by radical Muslims, Wilhelmsen states

Øyvind

Herbie NY, NY | 2004-09-03 17:46 | Link

As I said in another thread here:

"There must be a special place in hell reserved for the "people" who took the school children hostage in Russia. When they let several parents and children go, the Chechens told the parents that were hostage and who had two children there that they had to chose one child to go and one to stay. You may recall that the perpetrators also threatened to kill 50 children for each Chechen killed and 25 children for each Chechen wounded.
>
At some point actions go so far beyond the pale of humanity that the perpetrators should expect to lose all of the laws protections including their own "innocents".
>
In his book "Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument With Historical Illustrations" by Michael Walzer, he recounts two actions that one would have thought were war crimes, but were on trial found not to be. In the first the Germans forced back into the Leningrad the civilians
trying to escape to put pressure on the Russian troops knowing that the civilians would die. When the German generals were put on trial
they were acquitted on the ground that this act was not a war crime. In the second, French Resistance took about 30 German soldiers
prisoner and threatened to kill them if the Germans did not stop torturing captured Resistance members. The Germans did not stop and all of the captured German troops were executed. Thereafter the Germans largely stopped torturing captured Resistance members. The persons killing the German prisoners were not, after consideration indicted.
>
I see not reason why the Russians does not have the right to take an equal number of Chechens prisoner and execute them if the Russian
children are harmed. At some point horrific acts must be made to be so very costly to the perpetrators that such acts will no longer be
worth the cost.
>
> I understand the arguments against such a position and the morality urged. However, in my view you reach the point where there must be
some equilibrium restored in human relationships.
>
> The Romans established that a flag of truce was inviolate. When their enemies at first killed Roman soldiers who approached them under a flag of truce, the Romans responded by butchering all of the solders and civilians that were associated with them. After this happened a number of times, the entire world accepted the fact that a flag of truce was inviolate. In the end the world became a better place. I am of the view that when civilians are targeted and attacked that the response should no longer be targeted but should be in the form of such retaliation that the cost to instigator will be so high that such acts will be given up or the population that the attacker is part of
will face being destroyed."

Bjørn Stærk | 2004-09-03 18:05 | Link

Øyvind: "But, Bjørn, she does mention religion:"

Not as a cause. She's just clarifying that there are different kinds of Chechen rebels, that not all of them are terrorists.

Herbie: "I see not reason why the Russians does not have the right to take an equal number of Chechens prisoner and execute them if the Russian children are harmed."

You don't? Not any reason? How about most Chechens being fully innocent of terrorism, or that this is the logic behind blood feuds? Russians have been taking Chechens prisoner for no reason at all and torturing/raping/executing them or extorting their relatives for years. By your logic, this justifies that Chechens take a relatively small number of Russians prisoner and threaten to kill them. Which is what these people did.

Don't get started down that road.

Herbie NY | 2004-09-03 18:16 | Link

Bjorn, I do not agree with you. You say "how about most Chechens being fully innocent of terrorism." How about the school children?. No, at some point actions are so far beyond the pale of humanity, as here, that the perpetrators have put themselves and their group at risk. Once being put on notice of the response that will follow then it seems to me that the moral consequences of such an act fall on the Chechens first. They Chechens can fight as they see fit for their independence by responding violently to military targets; beyond that they must and should, in my view, bear the consequences of this horrific act.

Joe MA, USA | 2004-09-03 18:33 | Link

They are reporting now that 9 or 10 of the kidnappers were Arabs. This hasn't been simply a Russian/Chechnyan affair for a long time. The Wahabhis have been supplying weapons, money and expertise. This whole conflict has been turbocharged by Islam.

Ali Dashti | 2004-09-03 18:53 | Link

Joe: This conflict has been about Islam for centuries.

As I've said before: What we're dealing with now is indeed a World War. It has already started, it will last for a couple of decades, and it will end with the global destruction of Islam.

Bjørn Stærk | 2004-09-03 19:00 | Link

Herbie: "Bjorn, I do not agree with you. You say "how about most Chechens being fully innocent of terrorism." How about the school children?."

How about both? We have to choose, now?

"No, at some point actions are so far beyond the pale of humanity, as here, that the perpetrators have put themselves and their group at risk."

Themselves, yes. Their "group"? Their group based on what, ethnicity, culture, religion, geograhic location? Would it be right for Russians to round up Chechens living outside of Chechnya and threaten to execute them? Would it be right to round up and threaten to execute random people in Chechnya, people who have been heavily persecuted for years, seen friends and family killed or taken away, who have never been terrorists, and never supported terrorists? Why?

Joe: "This whole conflict has been turbocharged by Islam."

It's more complicated than that. There are indications (such as this story by a former Russian soldier) that the conflict has become a scam for the personal enrichment of the Russian army, and the political benefit of Putin. This is no Palestine. There are Islamists in Chechnya, but without significant support by the locals. And then there are the Islamists outside of Chechnya who have adopted it as part of their global struggle - without bothering to ask the Chechens.

hERBIE nEW yORK | 2004-09-03 19:08 | Link

Bjorn uyou say "We have to choose, now/" No they have to chose. As for definition, you are free to chose. Ideitify the Terrorists and kill theri wives and entire family. Identify the village they came from and destroy it. You can draw this out to absurd lengths. My point is simple: it is appropriate to respond in a way that makes such actions unacceptable. I quite agree that my view is harsh; indeed quite harsh.

Joe MA, USA | 2004-09-03 19:50 | Link

Bjørn the Russians haven't become choirboys overnight. What does that have to do with Wahabh and Al Qaida involvement in Chechnya? Or is that also just a scam that Muslim clerics and "fundraisers" are using to pad their Swiss back accounts? Chechnya is certainly a popular cause for the masjids and MSAs here in the States.
And don't be too shocked at the GRU shooting Army troops. That was part of their job description back in the Soviet days.

Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-09-03 20:30 | Link

Many things have been going on for centuries, Ali Dashti. I quote from Leo Tolstoys half-biographic novel Hadji Murat, written after he served as an officer in the Russian army in Caucasus:

His son, the handsome bright-eyed boy who had gazed with such ecstasy at Hadji Murad, was brought dead to the mosque on a horse covered with a barka; he had been stabbed in the back with a bayonet. The dignified woman who had served Hadji Murad when he was at the house now stood over her son's body, her smock torn in front, her withered old breasts exposed, her hair down, and she dug her hails into her face till it bled, and wailed incessantly. Sado, taking a pick-axe and spade, had gone with his relatives to dig a grave for his son. The old grandfather sat by the wall of the
ruined saklya cutting a stick and gazing stolidly in front of him. He had only just returned from the apiary. The two stacks of hay there had been burnt, the apricot and cherry trees he had planted and reared were broken and scorched, and worse still all the beehives and bees had been burnt. The wailing of the women and the little children, who cried with their mothers, mingled with the lowing of the hungry cattle for whom there was no food.

The bigger children, instead of playing, followed their elders with frightened eyes. The fountain was polluted, evidently on purpose, so that the water could not be used. The mosque was polluted in the same way, and the Mullah and his assistants were cleaning it out. No one spoke of hatred of the Russians. The feeling experienced by all the Chechens, from the youngest to the oldest, was stronger than hate. It was not hatred, for they did not regard those Russian dogs as human beings, but it was such repulsion, disgust, and perplexity at the senseless cruelty of these creatures, that the desire to exterminate them -- like the desire to exterminate rats, poisonous spiders, or wolves -- was as natural an instinct as that of self-preservation.

In our own century Human Rights Watch has called Chechnya 'Europes worst human right crisis', and civilian casualties in the first of the two Chechnya wars amounted to 'tens of thousands' (an estimated 25000 civilian casualties by April 1995, according to www.globalsecurity.org. 200.000 people may be 'displaced'.

So, Bjørn is absolutely right. This is not Palestine.

Øyvind

P.S: A long report about Chechnya in Norwegian can be found here.

Bjørn Stærk | 2004-09-03 20:35 | Link

Herbie: "I quite agree that my view is harsh; indeed quite harsh."

That's one, euphemistic way of putting it. I would call it barbaric, or worse, terrorism.

Joe: "What does that have to do with Wahabh and Al Qaida involvement in Chechnya?"

You wrote that the whole conflict has been turbocharged by Islam. But Islam has been a small part of the conflict, essential to the terrorist attacks carried out outside of Chechnya, but complemented by many other factors inside of Chechnya. Al-Qaeda certainly has a presence in Chechnya, just don't take Putin's word for the extent of it, and don't take his word for what it means. His war on terror and our war on terror overlaps, but they're not the same.

"Chechnya is certainly a popular cause for the masjids and MSAs here in the States."

Yes. As I said, their cause has been adopted. But that does not mean that Chechens have adopted Islamism, or that Putin is Bush.

"And don't be too shocked at the GRU shooting Army troops."

Very well. I reserve the right to be outraged, though.

Herbie, NY | 2004-09-03 20:59 | Link

Bjorn Barbaric, terrorism. Hardly. The objective facts are that the Chechens have taken children hostage, are prepared to kill them and also prepared to die in the name of their cause. There is no negotiation to be had with these terroirists. My "solution" is that the cost be made so heavy that in the end the people they hope to "liberate" will be dead. I offer them a choice: stop or face the consequmnce thatr your group will suffer the same or a worse fate. What do you offer? What solutions have been tried that have worked to date? None that I can see. Moralize as you will, I vote for making sure no more children are victims. Is it a nice solution no, but it puts the burden where it should be on the terrorists.

Herbie NY | 2004-09-03 21:04 | Link

Oyvind "This is not Palistine"? What does that have to do with the issue.

Joe MA, USA | 2004-09-03 21:25 | Link

Islam is a small part?

Here is a recent declaration of jihad by The Ingushetian Shura Council in Chechyna.

Even the effete Council on Foreign Relations admits to these ties between Chechans and Islamic terrorists:

The late Chechen warlord Khattab, a Jordanian-born fighter who was killed in Chechnya in April 2002, and Osama bin Laden. Khattab apparently first met bin Laden while both men were fighting the 1979-89 Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. The U.S. ambassador to Russia, Alexander Vershbow, said shortly after September 11, “We have long recognized that Osama bin Laden and other international networks have been fueling the flames in Chechnya, including the involvement of foreign commanders like Khattab.”

Individuals connected to the September 11 attacks and Chechnya. A Moroccan man charged with abetting the hijackers told a German court in October 2002 that the plot’s ringleader, Muhammad Atta, initially planned to join the fight in Chechnya.

Zacarias Moussaoui, whom U.S. authorities have charged with being the “20th hijacker” in the September 11 attacks, was reported by the Wall Street Journal to be formerly “a recruiter for al-Qaeda-backed rebels in Chechnya.”

Chechen militants reportedly fought alongside al-Qaeda and Taliban forces against the U.S.-backed Northern Alliance in late 2001. The Taliban regime in Afghanistan was one of the only governments to recognize Chechen independence.

And we can't say for sure if all the money is used for it's stated purpose, but the fundraising effort for Chechan rebels is enormous in the Islamic world.
Internet Haganah has also done a tremendous job documenting numerous jihadi websites in support of Chechnya.
One of the most notorious, www.qoqaz.com, seems to have finally shut down, thank God.

Bjørn Stærk | 2004-09-03 21:46 | Link

Herbie: "The objective facts are that the Chechens have taken children hostage, are prepared to kill them and also prepared to die in the name of their cause."

No. Those are not the objective facts. The objective facts are that a group of Chechens and Arabs have done this, not the Chechens as a people. You do see the difference?

"What do you offer? What solutions have been tried that have worked to date? None that I can see."

The Russians will have to solve this the same way we do - which is not by deliberately killing the families of terrorists. You Americans did not arrest the bin Laden family after 9/11, and you did not threaten to kill them unless bin Laden gave up his war on the West. Do you believe this should have been done?

"Moralize as you will, .. Is it a nice solution no"

I'm not impressed by your tone of grim, regretful harshness. You either believe it is right to kill the innocent families of terrorists, or you believe it is wrong. Let your decision stand on its own, and not on some bravado about how you're somehow more willing to make "harsh" decisions than the rest of us. Please. That's not what this is about. It's about killing innocent people to put pressure on terrorists. Right or wrong.

I say it is wrong, and I insist that your tactic would be very similar to terrorism. In both cases innocent civilians are deliberately killed or held hostage to change the behavior of others. I don't see a large difference. I don't mean to "moralize", whatever you mean by that, I'm just pointing out to you that to be consistent in your views, you need to accept that some forms of terrorism, under some circumstances, is acceptable. That's what you're saying, and no amount of euphemisms can change that.

Joe: "Even the effete Council on Foreign Relations admits to these ties between Chechans and Islamic terrorists:"

Of course there are ties. There are commanders in Chechnya who are funded by and connected with foreign Islamists. I don't dispute that. But the conflict as a whole is much more than another example of Islam's bloody borders.

First off, we have to admit, all of us, that we don't know much about what is happening inside of Chechnya. Chechnya is a journalistic dead zone, largely because the Russians prefer it that way. What we do know is that this began as a war of independence, (a centuries-old war revived by the fall of the Soviet Union), not a war of religion. We know that the Russians have committed countless atrocities against a defenseless civilian population. We know that foreign Islamists came into Chechnya some time during the last ten years, and that some commanders cooperate with these Islamists. We also know that most Chechens are sufis who despised these foreigners when they arrived, and probably do so still.

All I'm saying is that the role of Islamism in this conflict is 1) young, and 2) limited. It's vital to acts like the one in Beslan, but the conflict as a whole is more complex.

"And we can't say for sure if all the money is used for it's stated purpose, but the fundraising effort for Chechan rebels is enormous in the Islamic world."

Well, yes. Of course it is. Chechnya has been adopted by the Islamists. But Chechnya has not adopted Islamism.

Herbie NY | 2004-09-03 22:04 | Link

Bjorn, So far as I am aware the Bin Laden family disowned him. Therefore striking at them would not accomplish anything. There is nothing bravdo in my statements. I accept that what I proposed may be a form of terrorism (depending on how one defines terrorism) and I find it acceptable in the circumstances that I laid out.

I am off. Have a good weekend

Joe MA, USA | 2004-09-03 22:37 | Link

I'm not advocating punishing all Chechen for the actions of the terrorists, but I still think you are downplaying the role of Islam.
For example you seem to have bought the notion popularized by Indres Shah that all Sufis are the equivalent of a kind of Zen Islam. While they are comparatively more civilized than other sects, lets not forget that dervishes fought with the Madhi in the Sudan and the janissaries were Bektashi Sufis. I've had this argument with Stephen Schwartz about whether Sufism represents hope for a kinder gentler Islam. I'm not completely ruling out the possibility, but it's a long shot.
Unlike Europe, the US still has enough of a Jacksonian non-PC tradition that make us a little less susceptible to the kind of self defeating breast-beating that comes into play whenever Islam is discussed. It seems to be hard-wired into the standard issue secular humanist worldview, but I don't pretend to really understand it well enough to comment with authority. It's good to question one's values from time to time, but this guilt at the dominance of Europe over the rest of the world is getting ridiculous. Do you think this nonsense went on in the Caliphate during the Middle Ages?

Bjørn Stærk | 2004-09-03 23:43 | Link

Joe: "For example you seem to have bought the notion popularized by Indres Shah that all Sufis are the equivalent of a kind of Zen Islam."

The Chechens are well known for their history of insurgency and war against the Russians. A lot of the barbarity in Chechnya is caused by Chechen bandit groups. They're not Zen Muslims, and they're not noble savages.

My point is that the Islamists do not just represent a much more extreme form of Islam, as it does in most of the Arab world, but a different branch of Islam. From a Chechen perspective, the Islamists are arrogant foreigners, trying to hijack their war. That naturally causes resentment it takes more than a few years to overcome. My impression is that the Islamists support specific rebel groups inside of Chechnya, but that these groups do not have the cultural/religious backing of the general population.

But then again, the area is closed. Who knows what's going on?

"It's good to question one's values from time to time, but this guilt at the dominance of Europe over the rest of the world is getting ridiculous."

Which guilt do you refer to? Don't recall anyone talking about feeling guilty here.

D | 2004-09-04 03:24 | Link

I've met several muslims in my life. I know of only one muslim who was against terrorism. And he was a black african who wasn't very religious. All the rest weren't pro terrorism but at the same time were not against it. Of course this was all in America. I wonder how they really talk when they are among their own kind.

If the muslim separatist succeed in russia, it will be just another terrorist state.

I think if this war on terrorism is about our survival then there is nothing we do to win it that I would consider immoral.

I'm sure many more people would be thinking this way if terrorists nuked a western city.

So maybe the argument isn't about what is moral, but more about how much danger we are in.

Totoro, U.S. | 2004-09-04 04:26 | Link

"So maybe the argument isn't about what is moral, but more about how much danger we are in."

I think that's what a lot of discussions on Bjorn's site boil down to. Since most of the people who write here haven't personally suffered huge atrocities, the back and forth seems to be kind of theoretical. That's a good thing--we don't really want to be proven right or wrong on issues pertaining to massive casualties.

Bjørn Stærk | 2004-09-04 08:17 | Link

D: "If the muslim separatist succeed in russia, it will be just another terrorist state."

If the Chechens were made independent today, and the Russians pulled out all their forces, I doubt there would be much of a state for a long while. It would be 90's Afghanistan all over again, and possibly, eventually, your "terrorist state".

That does not change the fact that the Russians could have solved this conflict at many times during the last 10 years, and left a relatively stable state behind them. They chose not to. Let's not forget that.

"I think if this war on terrorism is about our survival then there is nothing we do to win it that I would consider immoral."

Are you then willing to absolve the Russians for what they've done to Chechnya? Think carefully about that. As I said, they're not fighting our war on terror.

Sylvia, Denver | 2004-09-04 08:44 | Link

There have been reports that many of the child casualties were shot in the back. My guess is that the "negatiations", if there really were any, were a form of hudna. The terrorists probably intended to kill all of the children anyway.

Russia borders a number of Islamic states that are independant now, like Uzbekistan, so the reason(s) for non-recognition of a Chechen state can not be based on that. Certainly many other people, both in Czarist Russia and the Soviet Union suffered as much as the Chechens, if not more so. They are not blowing up theaters and shooting children in the back.

For whatever reasons, the Chechens, seem to have come under the control of the Wahabbists. As much as I believe that Russian policies have been loathsome, I must say that I can understand that the Russians cannot tolerate a Wahabbist controlled, fanatical state at their border. If the Chechens had simply wanted an independant state, like some of the other groups, they probably could have gotten it, but they have become a tool for fanatical Islam. And please don't tell me it's because they are "oppressed" - they are certainly not more so than many other groups in that region.

It may be true that many of the Chechens don't like the Wahabbists or the foreign terrorists. But how do you tell them apart from the next door neighbor who has a lucrative deal smuggling weapons? I understand that the Chechen region has a long history of smuggling and criminal activity, and hence little real leadership, so perhaps the Wahabbists smelled weakness there and went to fill in the vacuum.

The Chechens, whether as a group, or a hijacked "cause" are no longer fighting for an independant Chechnya, even if some of the Chechens don't want Wahabbist/Islamofascists there. The Islamofascists are looking for any excuse to commit atrocities against infidels - to expand the ummah, or whatever. They don't really care about Chechens, who are just useful fools and cannon fodder, and will take the brunt of Russian vengence while the Saudis and their sympathizers sit back and sip mint tea.

The problem here is that Islam allows for any justification of atrocities against infidels, and so blinds many (if not most) of the moslem population to this kind of manipulation. Other religions have to be twisted around to accomplish this - but Islam can be used "as is". That's what makes Islam such a convenient tool for depraved despots.

Giving in to Chechen demands for an independant state won't create a Chechnya. All you will have there is a front for Islamic extremism and expansionism that is called Chechnya - and the Chechens will swallow that hook line and sinker. Plus, not a whole lot of Moslems seem to have a problem with that - and why should they, since that is the objective of Islam. You know, the end justifies the means or something.

I think I've heard that one before too, somewhere.

Willy, Drammen | 2004-09-04 09:36 | Link

Tears of Jihaad (Chechnya)

The issue of religion is for the terrorists the main issue, - and the only one.

I found some lines about the war, written by Momin Saeed (read more at blog.willy.no):

We are the soldiers of Islam you see,
we fight day and night for Allah's command no matter what our condition may be.
-
Jihaad is the way to justice in this Russian land today,
and if this the only way to let our religion flourish, then so let it be,
let it be this way.

Bjørn Stærk | 2004-09-04 09:48 | Link

Sylvia: "If the Chechens had simply wanted an independant state, like some of the other groups, they probably could have gotten it, but they have become a tool for fanatical Islam."

What do you base that on? At what point during the last 10 years has the Russians shown any willingness to help Chechnya create an independent state of their own? Remember that there were no Islamists in Chechnya before the first Chechen war - which started precisely because Russia did not want to allow an independent Chechnya.

As for the brutal Russian behavior in Chechnya, that is not an excuse for terrorism. But it is evidence that the Russians have no interest in an independent, peaceful Chechnya. Their interest is primarily selfish - financially and politically. Chechnya is not Palestine - and it's definitely not Iraq.

Michael Farris | 2004-09-04 11:31 | Link

It's my understanding that initially the Chechen independence movement was as much a maffia-power grab as legitimate political movement. The Chechen maffia was one of the most successful and ruthless in early 90's Russia and a some of the leaders of the movement had definite maffia ties. They've since been adopted by jihadis.

I understand Russian hesitance to grant independence for a number of reasons. Russia was more brutal than necessary but that's always been a violent part of the world where people shoot first and ask questions later.

It's also obvious that the slime that carried this out was not really interested in having their demands met (either they _knew_ could not be met or were incredibly stupid).
They were interested in
a) killing people
b) scaring people
c) publicity (this is the terrorist equivalent of a power-point presentation: we can do _this_, imagine what we could do with more resources!)

Jorma | 2004-09-04 13:40 | Link

Religion has nothing to do with this, you kill Muslims, Muslims will kill you. you dont need to be that clever to understand this.

Angelo | 2004-09-04 16:21 | Link

What is it going to take? How long is the civilized world going to just passively analyze and academically digest this ever escalating, ever expanding procession of atrocities? Will it be a nuclear detonation in your city bfore you wake up? I am afraid it is. The deliberate, targeted butchering of 300(maybe more)children is not a surprise to me. Jorma has it right. We should kill all the muslims. That way there wont be any left to kill us.

| 2004-09-04 16:48 | Link

"Remember that there were no Islamists in Chechnya before the first Chechen war"

Bjørn:

I think saying that there were NO Islamists might be to somewhat overdo your point.

Also, I think we should be willing to make a comparison with Tatarstan - not very well known in the West, Tatarstan is another predominantly Muslim republic in Russia where the Russian federation and the local authorities managed to find a peaceful solution.

Read some more on Tatarstan at for instance The Carnegie Moscow Centre.

There is, however, no doubt that there are many more Islamists in Chechnya today than before the first Chechen war, Chechnya is one of the best examples showing us that the rise of Islamism is a result of political and historical circumstances.

Øyvind

D | 2004-09-04 17:09 | Link

Bjorn,

I'm not only willing to absolve the Russian, I'm willing to endorse it and support it with my tax money.
Better them them than us and I've thought very carefully about that.

We kill countless civilians in every war because we need to achieve something. That is just an extension of that.

We are already fighting chechens in Afhanistan. The muslims are united against it. They are global and networked and they cheering each other on while the western countries are busy accusing each other of war crimes.

Clem Snide | 2004-09-04 18:13 | Link

Bjørn:

Chechens had their chance for independence in 1996. Of course, it only resulted in an increase, rather than decrease in organise crime and terrorism against Russia. This is the same pattern we have seen in Israel, Pakistan and Kosovo. Muslims infiltrate a region and make separatist demands, ethnically cleanse it of non-muslims then use that a base for further imperialism. It is the same with all totalitarian ideologies - appeasement only worsens the situation.

As for the principal of collective punishment, the practical argument against it is that it turns friendlies or neutrals into enemies. I'm not sure, however, that this argument applies in the case of muslims, given the widespread celebration of terrorist atrocities by muslims and their general silence in condemning them, together with the demonisation of the terrorists' victims. This even occurs among western muslims who would have nothing to fear from their governments, and much to gain in public trust, if they condemned terrorism publicly, loudly, and openly. Thus, there is little risk of killing genuinely innocent muslims. That said, a staged approach would be desirable, killing first the terrorists, then if that didn't work, their families, then if that didn't work their extended clan, mullahs, teachers, village elders, political leaders etc. That would then concentrate the minds of muslims on how to eradicate terrorists within their community themselves. At the moment, too many of those muslims/appeasers who should take on this task only fear the terrorists, and not the response to the terrorism, and with good reason. This must change.

As to the morality of all this, frankly I no longer care. I believe muslims deserve to be treated with the same tolerance, decency and respect they show to others, until they learn to understand the principal of reciprocity. If it's a choice between killing innocent muslims or, through insufficient aggression, allowing islamic terrorists to kill innocent westerners, that's a very straightformward decision.

D | 2004-09-04 19:03 | Link

I don't think there is a big possibility of turning the neutrals against us if we use collective punishment.

I'm not even that there are that many neutrals out there.

But more importantly people who think like that are only projecting Western culture on muslims. I don't think muslims are anything like us. Their religion is primative and tribal. Any charity or mercy given to them will be seen as a sign of weakness.

In their world the strong murder, rape, and take everything for themselves. Our mercy only renforces that. They believe we are weak. and maybe they're right.

Bjørn Stærk | 2004-09-04 19:19 | Link

Clem Snide: "Thus, there is little risk of killing genuinely innocent muslims."

Wow. Did I just read that? Seems I did. Not sure what to say, except that this is the most evil suggestion I've ever read in my blog. Herbie is flirting with terrorism. You're openly embracing it.

"As to the morality of all this, frankly I no longer care."

Very well, then you won't protest when I call your ideas evil.

Perhaps you will protest when I tell you that defining innocence and guilt on the group level is a collectivist idea incompatible with individual rights. You can't have individual rights and collective guilt at the same time. And you're not just making a wartime exception - you include Western Muslims as well, citizens of Western democracies. That's not just Islam you're fighting, but democracy and rule of law.

D: "I don't think muslims are anything like us. Their religion is primative and tribal. Any charity or mercy given to them will be seen as a sign of weakness."

Wow again. Are we still talking about the murder of random Muslim civilians to discourage terrorists? I'm too stunned to express my outrage here. Perhaps the words will come later.

D | 2004-09-04 19:42 | Link

Bjorn, Islam is not a race. It's even more political ideology than religion. Their prophet was a sexual deviant, and a mass murderer. He invented a religion which would allow him to conquer. Islam is nothing more than Arab imperialism.

Now you can argue that I am wrong. and you can quote moderate muslim scholars, and you can quote specific passages from the Koran out of context. But the bottom line is that there is no place in the world where a significant amount of muslims could ever live with non muslims.

Islam is the same as Nazism. I'm sure there were just as many moderate nazis who believed the death camps were just sausage factories.

Bjorn, maybe you can tell me why you think it is reasonable to build nuclear missles and point them at Russia during the cold war. Isn't that preparing for genocide? Sure the Soviets were willing to kill us all. But so are the muslims.

The only difference is that the Russian won't dance around like monkeys when the first Western city is nuked.

Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-09-04 21:29 | Link

Which could be the greater threat to Western values?

Islamist fanatics mostly angered by and attacking governments in their own countries, or Western fanatics willing to sacrifice the very ideas they pretend to be defending and throw the world into an endless circle of blood, irrational hatred and mindless attacks on civilian citizens?

When will white roses be cut?

Sylvia, Denver | 2004-09-04 21:43 | Link

"Their prophet was a sexual deviant, and a mass murderer. He invented a religion which would allow him to conquer. Islam is nothing more than Arab imperialism."

Bingo.

Yes. And the fact that the Taliban would refer to non-Arab muslims as "low Moslems" reinforces this. Not to mention the atrocities against black African Moslems in Darfur (and quite frankly the rest of North Africa).

I also find it interesting that the way in which Islam is structured (in this case Shia) only the Black Turbans - the Mad Mullahs, can rule over what was Persia. Only the descendents of Mohammed - who would be by definition Arab descendents in the male line can rule over the Persians. What a tragedy.

While there are certainly local exceptions, typically it is Arab descendents who assume poitions of power, if not right away then eventually, with the rest of the now Islamized population little more than "dhimmi Moslems" to their Arab rulers (especially the closer you get to the Arab heartland of Arabia). Afganistan comes to mind.

This is not specific to Wahabbism, for it seems to me that Whahabbism is Islam unmasked. "Moderate" Islam with the resources to become fanatical and expansionist, once again. Chechnya is just another front on Islam's bloody borders.

D | 2004-09-04 22:03 | Link

Øyvind, Bergen

Maybe you can ask the parents of dead children in russia what is the bigger threat?

What western values are you claiming that we are willing to sacrifice by defending ourselves?

Was the western world built on the concept of suicide?

I think you only prove that those who call for restrain are really just people who fail to see the danger we are facing.

There are people out there who have dedicated their lives to destroying us. Every hour of every day they work to build a bigger bomb. To kill more people. The more the better.

The fact that you talk about the danger to "Western values" and not about physical danger just shows how unserious you are about the threat we are facing.

Bjørn Stærk | 2004-09-04 23:08 | Link

D: "Bjorn, Islam is not a race."

Nobody has mentioned race here. Collective guilt and innocence is not wrong because racism is irrational, but because the right to be treated as an individual is one of the cornerstones of a free society. We can argue for a long time about what rights individual should have in a free society, but the moment you create concepts of collective guilt, you no longer have a free society.

"Their prophet was a sexual deviant, and a mass murderer."

Why is the behavior of a man dead 1400 years relevant to the Western concept of individual rights? You're dragging a lot of things into this that are not relevant. Muhammed was a pervert, Islam is Nazism, whatever. Different debate. Now explain to me why it is right to hold groups accountable for the crimes of individuals?

"Bjorn, maybe you can tell me why you think it is reasonable to build nuclear missles and point them at Russia during the cold war."

You know the logic of MAD as well as I do. The whole point of that logic was that only by being willing and able to carry out mutual destruction, could both sides of the conclict be certain to avoid that destruction. That was a terrible but rational gamble, unique to that conflict and that weapon. You're proposing a different solution to a different conflict. Even if terrorists had nukes, MAD would not work. MAD threatened fairly rational Soviet leaders with destruction of something they cared about - their lives and power. Islamic terrorists are not that rational, and do not care about such things. There's no relevant analogy here.

Sylvia: "Bingo."

No, not bingo. He's changing the subject, from "we should hold all Muslims collectively accountable for terrorism", which is an evil, un-Western idea, to "Islam is Islamism", which is just a descriptive claim, and one which is easier to defend than the first.

"Chechnya is just another front on Islam's bloody borders."

Just? Sure that's the word you're looking for? Yes, it's a front on Islam's bloody borders. It's also a front on Russia's (historically) bloody borders, and a new chapter in the long book of Russian imperialism and cruelty.

D: "Maybe you can ask the parents of dead children in russia what is the bigger threat?"

Oh come on. You're not writing a convention speech here. That's a cheap emotional appeal, irrelevant to the issue.

"What western values are you claiming that we are willing to sacrifice by defending ourselves?"

The concept of individual rights. You want to punish people collectively for terrorism carried out by individuals belonging to what you define as their group. The concept of individual rights tell us that guilt is individual. This does not mean that bombing an enemy target is wrong if civilians may be hurt. Those civilians are not the target, and we don't hold them collectively guilty of any crimes, they're just in the wrong place. The problem begins the moment you introduce the concept of collective guilt, and start handing out collective punishments.

Sharon Ferguson | 2004-09-04 23:24 | Link

The simple fact of the matter is that terrorists are Baby Killers. The Viet nam vets never earned that name. The monsters who did this to the school have. I don't care what has gone on before, there is NO excuse for this.

Terrorists are baby killers.

D | 2004-09-04 23:36 | Link

You are missing the point Bjorn.
When I was equating Islam with nazism, imperialism and communism, I was making a point about all muslims being our enemy. It's not a different argument at all. Islam is an ideology, an individual choice. They declare themselves our enemy. They shout it out as loud as they can from the towers of their mosques.

When their men come to rape and kill. The women will wait with sacks outside the village to loot whatever is left.

How many times have they bragged about how fast they multiply?

Araft said it himself said that the womb is their greatest weapon.

I'm sure you watched the videos of their summer camps where ten year old children learn how to kill without mercy.

Those are the extremes I admit. But all muslims do their part.

The vast majority of them are more than happy with what happened in Russia. The rest are making excuses or claiming that israel did it.

If you have a problem with killing so many people, then you should make the argument that is better to be conquered, raped, and murdered than to fight back. I wouldn't be surprised if there are many people who would sign up for that in your country.

Jorma | 2004-09-04 23:54 | Link

I am stunned seeing some hypocrites here cry about some Russian kids hold hostages for 3 days and some of them died but they dont cry about the muslim chechen kids hold hostages for 10 years by the Russian terrorists and thousands of them were killed in their own country ? I found that really sickning.

I found it even more sickning the attempt to blame Islam for what had happened in Russia and not the Russian sadistic terrorism against the Muslim chechens which lasted for more than 10 years !

Look at these pictures, they show the muslim chechens who were massacred in their hundreds of thousands by the Russian terrorists, some of these chechen muslims were childern burnt alive in their own homes

http://www.alkhilafah.info/massacres/chechnya/index.html

http://www.alkhilafah.info/massacres/chechnya/index2.html

Grozny, the capital of Chechnya was leveled to the ground with massive Muslim civilian casulties, are the Russian lives more valuable than muslim ones ? I dont think so.

Look at these pictures from the Muslim captial, Grozny:

http://users.westnet.gr/~cgian/grozny2.jpg

http://users.westnet.gr/~cgian/grozny1.jpg

http://users.westnet.gr/~cgian/grozny4.jpg

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/shows/chechnya/images/photo8.jpg

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/shows/chechnya/images/photo9.jpg

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/shows/chechnya/images/photo10.jpg

Terrorism stems from Terror and violence will only generates more violence. let us remember it was the Russians who invaded Chechnya not the other way around.

D | 2004-09-05 00:11 | Link

Jorma don't be such a hypocrite.
My blood lust is only a result of centuries of attacks on Britian by your blood thirsty race.

you also fail to note that Russian gave up Chechnya after the first war, but only went back in after the muslims continued their aggression.

Give the muslims an inch and they'll take a mile.

Mashiki, Canada | 2004-09-05 00:58 | Link

This is a pain. Stupid ISP...bloody conversion...I spend two weeks and I can't even get back to some of the websites I enjoy. Rune I've got your e-mail, the last couple I've sent have bounced(thanks to my ISP again!) Grr.

I hope this isn't off topic too much, forgive me if it is. I'll try to answer the question tho.

Bjorn you said:
"Why is the behavior of a man dead 1400 years relevant to the Western concept of individual rights? ?...? Now explain to me why it is right to hold groups accountable for the crimes of individuals?"

It is relevant to this, their belief that this individual and their creator supersedes all western ideals. It's a fundamental aspect and a part of the psychology and reasoning. It is taught that both their prophet and creator are greater then everything, that the Koran is the divine will, that it should be followed to the letter. That the hadiths of Mohammed are divinely inspired and should also be followed. To do otherwise is to make one a non-muslim and to be cast-out. A question that I could never answer is...do secularists believe that?

To the second point, "why it is right to hold groups accountable for the crimes of individuals?"

The groups do not denounce condemn, protest, work against, villify, harass, or humiliate them. We have heard individuals in some cases speak out against them. Scanning the news wires, I've heard the British Muslim council denouced it; but another "radical" group(Al Muhajiroun) supported them and lended their solidarity to them, both are large groups. I haven't heard anything from the Canadian so far, or American. The silence is...so thick you could cut it with a knife. In fact the biggest news today in Canada was the Muslims women group(forget the name) who held a rally against hijab ban in France.

We hear nothing when we learn about the latest kid who tried to blow himself up at a checkpoint in Israel, or was transporting explosives for a "martyr" operation either. The lack of concern for the children of their own religion is well...disconcerting. We've seen a callous disregard for all life by these groups tho, they simply don't care. Old, young, infirm, innocent...it doesn't matter. They delibertly seek out where they can inflict the most horror and do it.

Maybe the newswires are just 'dead' wrong and it's a vast conspiracy in non-reporting. I doubt it tho. I didn't even hear anything from the mosque in any of the major cities near me(Toronto, London, Kitchener, etc). I even checked the papers, the websites and TV stations.

Just to toss it in...the Jews were behind it all.

"Ali Abdullah, a Bahraini religious scholar who follows the ultraconservative Salafi stream of Islam, condemned the school attack as "un-Islamic" but insisted Muslims weren't behind it.

I have no doubt in my mind that this is the work of the Israelis who want to tarnish the image of Muslims and are working alongside Russians who have their own agenda against the Muslims in Chechnya," said Abdullah.

Once more...an individual condemns it...but someone else is behind it.

Mashiki , Canada | 2004-09-05 01:08 | Link

I'm going to add something else. Stan is translating from Russian newswires over at Logic & Sanity

Far too much to post, read it. 323 dead, 156 children, 260 are still missing. I hate to consider what 'missing' means. Hostages reported that the terrorists raped some of the older students.

R | 2004-09-05 01:15 | Link

When confronted with a rabid dog that has already killed several innocent people, you don't stand around lamenting that the owners failed to give the dog rabies shots! Instead, you kill the dog as quickly and cleanly as possible.

The monster is being raised in its cradle by religious clerics who want the world to run with blood. The monster is still mostly in its crib, but soon it will have the power to destroy millions at a time. There is still time to kill the monster in its cradle. Soon there will be no more time for anyone.

| 2004-09-05 02:50 | Link

You write like a true "Jacksonian." I wish more people would study the recently popularized idea of "Jacksonian" thought by Walter Russell Mead in "A Special Providence."

I only mention it here, because I've been following the arguments that go back and forth on this and other threads (like the Banning Islam thread). Bjorn is usually outraged when a poster suggests violence. Oyvind finds a lot of hypocrites who don't know enough Islamic history and who aren't consistent in their views over space and time.

What is the answer to dealing with terrorist attacks that are backed by important suppliers like Iran and Saudi Arabia?

I haven't made up my mind as to what actions should be taken in North Ossetia, against Iran, etc. Also, I'm not a military person, so I don't know much about warfare. However, since 9-11, I find that my views have become much more "Jacksonian".

I only mention this because it's worth discussing the uses of violence as well as the importance of understanding root causes, the presence of innocent civilians, the fact that not all Muslims are murderous jihadists, and all the other civilized things that we discuss on this website.

Totoro, U.S. | 2004-09-05 02:51 | Link

Above post was mine. Sorry.

R | 2004-09-05 04:00 | Link

If a deadly disease is confined to mosquitoes from a particular swamp, it is wise to drain that swamp to deny the deadly mosquitoes the chance to breed, multiply, and continue killing. The solution in the early stage is local.

Once the disease has spread to swamps around the world, and become far more lethal, people will have to come up with both global and local solutions to the problem. The problem is now much more difficult. Immunizations, chemotherapies, insecticides, repellants/nets, in addition to swamp drainings. The human death toll is much higher, for having waited indecisively. You may feel your motivations for waiting were pure, but millions die because of it.

If you know where the disease is centered, you concentrate your efforts there. You do what has to be done to protect the part of the world that is working toward a better future, from those dedicated to wreaking destruction in a bid to recreate a questionable past.

Totoro, U.S. | 2004-09-05 04:59 | Link

"The human death toll is much higher, for having waited indecisively. You may feel your motivations for waiting were pure, but millions die because of it."

This is my view, as well. I admire Bush's restraint in the Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns, but I hope there are plans to do serious damage in appropriate places before things get worse and more people die.

Of course, no one can see the future, but it's worth trying to look through the prism of the 1930s. As I recall, 50 million people were killed in World War II. How many millions--including 6 or 8 million Germans--could have been saved if Hitler had never been allowed to march into the Rhineland or dismember Czechoslovakia. (I won't even mention the Jews, since they seem to be on everyone's hit list anyway.)

Many of the people I know who are "antiwar" haven't given much thought to the victims of terrorism. During the Iraq invasion, I was the guest of two "antiwar" people who were so smug in their moral preening that they refused to give one minute of their time to celebrating the fall of Saddam.

Is that "moral purity" or something else?

Bjørn Stærk | 2004-09-05 10:24 | Link

Totoro: "R: You write like a true "Jacksonian.""

That's not Jacksonianism. Remember the context. Several people above would like to use terrorism against Chechen civilians and other Muslims to discourage Islamic terrorism. In that light, R's proposal that "you kill the dog as quickly and cleanly as possible" becomes a lot more disturbing, and will remain so until he stops using bloodthirsty metaphors and say exactly what he means by killing the rabid dog.

Mashiki: "The groups do not denounce condemn, protest, work against, villify, harass, or humiliate them."

Yes, but remember what kind of group accountability we're talking about here. Muslims have a moral obligation, I believe, to speak out against their own extremists, and they have a moral guilt if they fail to do this. But that should not become a legal guilt or a military guilt, allowing us to deliberately imprison or bomb civilian Muslims simply for not standing up against extremism. I know it sounds hard to believe, but that's actually what people are suggesting here, to fight terrorism with terrorism.

Ali Dashti | 2004-09-05 11:35 | Link

I see more and more "nuke Mecca" suggestions on all the forums I frequent. Being a rather peaceful person myself, I was horrified the first time I heard it. Frankly, I'm not so sure anymore. Nuking Hiroshima was harsh, but the argument that it may have shortened the war should not be dismissed too easily. What it did was breaking the illusion that Japan and the Emperor were "divine" and invincible. It might have something of the same effect on Muslims today. Nuking Mecca would destroy any notions they have about Islam being "unstoppable".

What it boils down to is your view of the world. If your view is that we should avoid a Clash of Civilizations/World War at any cost, this suggestion is horrible. If you, as me, believe we already HAVE a World War, the perspective becomes very different. Millions of people will die, anyway. The point is to WIN. And the longer we delay, the more people will ultimately be killed. Just as in WW2. If war is indeed unavoidable, there's no point in waiting.

Jorma | 2004-09-05 12:00 | Link

Ali is suggesting nuking Mecca ! hmmm how lower can you go ?

''Man perfected by society is the best of all animals; he is the most terrible of all when he lives without law, and without justice. ''
- Aristotle

Bjørn Stærk | 2004-09-05 15:04 | Link

Ali Dashti: Well that's clever. You argue for dropping nuclear bombs on Mecca not by explaining why we should drop nuclear bombs on Mecca, but by explaining why it was right to drop nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Again, for the record, and because the normal reactions of people who read evil proposals (kill the Jews, massacre Muslims) in a peaceful context is to shrug and say "well they don't really mean that", let's summarize this discussion. So far we have Herbie wanting to terrorize Chechen civilians to discourage Chechen terrorism, we have "D" endorsing what Russia has done in Chechnya and proposing collective punishment of Muslims, Clem Snide implying that we can do almost anything to Chechens because "there is little risk of killing genuinely innocent Muslims", and Ali Dashti here saying that we should nuke Mecca.

There used to be a neo-nazi commenting in this blog. He was an extreme anti-semite, but I don't recall that he ever suggested that we should murder civilian Jews. A few weeks ago, there was an Islamist writing here. He too was an anti-semite, who shared and approved of bin Laden's hatred for the West, but I don't recall that he actually proposed the use of terrorism against Jews and Westerners. That line has been crossed by you four. I'd like to congratulate you with that. It's something I never expected to hear from fellow Westerners within three years of the September 11 attack. There were a lot of people warning in those days against anti-Muslim bigotry and violence. I thought, well it's important to say that, but of course it's mostly for show, because we as a culture have outgrown that.

I've changed my mind. We have not outgrown irrational hatred of foreigners, we have not outgrown terrorism, and we have not outgrown cruelty and authoritarian ideas. The next time Islamist terrorists carry out a major attack against the West, I'll think of you four, and what you would do if you with the press of a button could eradicate the village those terrorists came from, or the holy cities of their religion, and I will join those people who three years ago warned against responding with Islamophobia. They were right, or at least they have become so in the meantime.

R | 2004-09-05 15:15 | Link

Hatred of particular groups becomes rational from time to time. A culture may outgrow such hatred, and then be forced by circumstances to re-acquire the hatred temporarily in order to survive. Then the hatred can go away again, until needed again.

Hatred can be like the body's antibody reaction to a deadly antigen. The antibody isn't needed until the antigen threatens to overwhelm the body's defenses. Then the antibody is lifesaving.

After the body is saved, the antibodies go away, until needed again.

JCassian | 2004-09-05 15:33 | Link

Bjorn's right. You can't claim to be civilized and advocate genocide in the same breath. I'm amazed, reading some blogs, how those 26 or so terrorists have become the entire Chechen people. We don't even know the ethnic composition of the terrorists in the school for sure yet. Arabs have been mentioned but no photos of the dead gunmen have been released. It's also been claimed that other North Caucasians may have been among them and some North Ossetians are pointing the finger at Ingush involvement. If this situation is not handled carefully we might have another outbreak of the war between North Ossetia and Ingushetia which raged in the early 1990s. One thing we can presume is more such chaos and bloodletting in the Caucasus region was just what these terrorists wanted.

Kevin McDonnell, Bergen | 2004-09-05 17:11 | Link

I have just read through this thread and I would like to make a few general and some not so general comments.

The thread began with a discussion of the culpability of Islam as a religion in Islamo-fascism. Obviously there is much culpability in that there were ready made tenets that could be co-opted directly to the requirements of terror-masters. In fact, Islam’s only real hope if it is to ever establish itself as a source of something good and enlightening in the tapestry of human history is, in my opinion, to do what it has never done: To open itself to the marketplace of ideas. Islam’s main obstacle in this is its own complete rejection (presently) of the idea that there is no virtue without freedom. But even this can perhaps be overcome, and whether (as D seems to imply), Islam is irredeemably evil, is presently unproven. What we KNOW, is that the Islamists are ruthless and that the ideology they promulgate is nakedly evil. My greater point in this area however, is to address the implication in several posts, the idea that this is really an indictment of religion per se That insidious conceit so often argued by relativists, is a truly sad commentary on what has infected our idea of “progress”. It is a self-satisfying equivalence of the highest order. Marx once declared in an iconic call to address injustice that “Religion is the opiate of the people”. What an ironic deception! Religion has indeed often been the opiate of the people… and so have calls to tear down religion in toto, and calls of a master race, and illusions of “Social Justice”, and the “inevitability of history” and any number of other illusory visions that allowed a ruthless few to subsume the free will of the many. That last Marxist tenet is perhaps the most pernicious of all, and we are still struggling with it. Belief by the many of the inevitability of history as it is envisioned by an elite few, can make it so, but only as a self-fulfilling prophecy. It is indeed possible for people to become mere automatons in a “historic” venue… but they must elect to give over their will to permit it, usually through some flavor of hatred disguised as superiority. (Perhaps in the desire to be included in the ranks of “freethinkers” for example.)

On that note I want to express my utter contempt for Clem Snide’s position of nascent genocide. This is as much a face of evil as the position he claims to stand against, and Bjørn rightly confronts it on that level. To me, this shows the pernicious seductiveness of what is often called pragmatism/realpolitik. Essentially, Clem has begun the first critical step that leads to mass madness and genocide: He has taken up dehumanizing his enemies. Obviously, the only way to wipe out an entire swath of humanity for the crime of hatred… is for your own commission of that act to be against non-humans. Our strength in the West is indeed the idea (and Bush by the way often cites it) that every individual is inherently imbued with dignity. It can be co-opted yes, and it can be disdained, and it can be denied… but it can also be redeemed. If this is wrong, then Marx is right, and there will be no bright future in mankind’s destiny. I will not go softly into THAT “good” night!

If the Wests response to the Islamists who have opened the bloody gates of naked nihilism is to declare “How dare you”, and proceed to open our own, then we will hardly be in a position to claim the moral high ground, or indeed anything fine and good at all in the catastrophic wreckage that follows. This is again why we must reassert what has always been that most important strength of the Western free world: The dignity of the individual. Indeed this is why the moral equivalence that says there is no meaningful distinction between this and other "ideologies" (an abuse of that term in this case) is a form of nihilism in itself. It both enables terror and tyranny and, when they manifest themselves in murderous form, gives them succor by acting directly or indirectly as apologist (usually with intellectually artful and convoluted "reasoning") for "root causes"… which invariably are in ourselves.

This is in many ways, rather ironically, the very source of the rage that many here feel over the unfolding saga of this strife. One thing is the understandable anger at the horrendous fact of Islamism's death cultism so reminiscent of Nazism's black heart. But the other is the seeming impossibly obtuse refusal of the "progressive/transnationalist/multiculturalist et al" mind which so dominates the public discourse, to assert any defense of that which has given rise to modern freedom in the first place. The sad truth behind this in my opinion, is that for them to acknowledge there has been, metaphorically speaking, a great big fire burning in the theatre for a long time, would be to acknowledge that their worldview is and always has been fundamentally flawed. It is interesting that in this, the emerging global strife has at last revealed the inherent moral weakness of the "Left" (I use the term loosely because I think it is very deceptive and easily skewed) in that respect. And it is the massive implications on power both politically and socially (metaphysically if you like) of the changes this implies, which is the source of the exploding schism within the West that is occurring at the same time we face Islamic terror.

Regarding Herbie’s position of collective response to mass murder. I do not endorse it for the reasons I stated above. Restated: As simplistic as it may be, if our reaction to the beckoning nullity of this abyss, is to boldly take a few steps closer to it, we have won nothing. If there is no way to win without doing this, then there is little worth fighting for. However, I think that the implication of Herbie’s point that we need to think very carefully about is this: Morally tortuous dilemmas like these have sadly, reached the point where we now need to coolly consider them. If indeed we must disenfranchise this nihilism from its foundation of direct or tacit support in the Islamic world and elsewhere, we must, because of its almost surreal ruthlessness, weigh options heretofore unthinkable… while yet preserving the hope for humanity for us all (including those who seek to destroy us). This is no easy task obviously (and I’m not being coy), and it must NEVER include the murder (for that’s what it would be) of innocents in the name of the murder of other innocents… but it may include things that we would blithely call “warcrimes” in the intellectually indulgent halls of “International Law” today. Indeed, for clarity’s sake we should note also, that it has been the fatuous disconnect from a moral center in those postmodern schools of thought, which are the very source of the nuanced ambiguity that has cast the shadows permitting Islamo-fascism to gain purchase and thrive. Our meaningless posturing was (rightly) seen by the ruthless (who never lack "clarity") as signs of moral weakness. And our continuous appeasement of it (also rightly) as cowardice. There are indeed "root causes" ... and they are mostly found in the empty and infinitely malleable "morality" that has been projected by the West, especially when it comes to Justice (The UN in its present state, perfectly embodies it). It is this which has permitted naked hatred to fester and tyranny to self perpetuate as though both were merely "other" (ho hum) valid forms of "cultural" expression.

So... in the relentless and ubiquitous public imagery of our collective discussion, we have focused our self righteous solipsism against easy targets with twisted and empty indignation (see Israel is committing another holocaust, Bush is the biggest terrorist etc and so on), TRUE atrocities were happening in parts of the world that were altogether too messy to consider. Now the nature of evil is again revealed and we are not going to be able to "move on" from it.

Along those lines I wondered about Jorma’s declared indignation at the atrocities committed in Chechnya by the Russians, which is fine. But what does that sensitivity towards their rage do to address it? Does the history in Chechnya justify what has happened now. And have you considered how slippery is the slope you are on Jorma? Does the bombing of the Taliban in Afghanistan and its liberation/occupation constitute a wrongness that will justify the explosion of murderous nihilism? The same question goes for Iraq. Does the explosion of terrorism there, which is inarguably subject to the machinations of forces outside of Iraq who are the same forces who are the source for this event in Chechnya, mean that the war there is de-facto… wrong? What do we do to address the explosion of murderous nihilism in your world of righteous indignation?

By the way, D’s response to Jorma there… says all I ever need to know about anything D will ever say. There’s a lot of seething hatred in that post. Enough to make a comparative equivalence with Islamo-fasicsm that doesn’t require convoluted reasoning or deconstructive techniques… just common sense. That’s the only worthwhile lesson from the post.

In any case, a very interesting and important discussion. I look forward to reading more.

Cheers,

Kevin

D | 2004-09-05 17:26 | Link

Bjorn you're avoiding the argument.

Why was it right to bomb the japanese because it was thought that it would bring peace sooner and save Allied lives?

What if the Russians made the same calculations in their war in Chechnya? You can argue that their tactics are bad, but you can't argue bombing a village off the face of the earth because they are giving sanctuary to terrorist is any more immoral.

What if countries that gave aid to terrorists were nuked? don't you think that would cut down on terrorism? you say that terrorists are irrational, but most of the people who fund and support them are much clear headed and concerned with earthly things.

you said I was over the top when I said that a poster should ask the russian parents of the dead children what they think is the bigger threat. But I was really being straight forward. I think people who experience this conflict have a clearity of mind that people like you can never have.

It's unfair of you to compare us to nazis or islamists. None of us ever cared to conquer or convert by force. This war is against us. We are only defending ourselves.

I would really like to hear what policies you would support in this war.

What would you think would be the right thing to if nuclear bomb was set off in a major western city. millions are dead. A muslim terrorist group anounced that it was responisble a few hours before it went off. The terrorists themselves were vaporized too, along with any evidence of where the bomb came from. All the muslims around the world dance in the streets. The governments denie any knowledge.

What would you have us do then? What would be the moral thing to do? I'm very curious.

Personnaly I prefer to be preemptive.

D | 2004-09-05 17:37 | Link

Kevin

What part of my response to Jorma did you find so hate filled?

You do realize that I wasn't being serious in the first paragraph right? right?

Bjørn Stærk | 2004-09-05 18:12 | Link

D: "Why was it right to bomb the japanese because it was thought that it would bring peace sooner and save Allied lives?"

You're assuming it was right. I only assume that it happened, I have not decided if it was right. I do know why many say it was right, though. They say Japan was prepared to fight for every inch of territory, and that it was better to kill 50-100 000 in a few bombing raids (including with nukes) if it could save many American lives and many more Japanese lives by convincing them to give up. That argument does not apply here, for reasons that should be obvious. The war we're supposedly fighting is abstract and non-territorial - we can't even agree on who the enemy is. There's no clear goal that would signify victory, and no particular behavior it would be realistic to expect our enemy to follow after, say, us having nuked Mecca. Do I have to go on? I can't see any similarities here. You're bringing Japan into this because you like the (more or less agreed upon) conclusion of the Japanese dilemma: That it was right to kill several hundred thousand civilians. Aha, so it's right in this case as well! No it's not. If it was right in Japan, it was right for a specific reason, which does not apply here. At least you haven't made any argument that it does.

"What if the Russians made the same calculations in their war in Chechnya?"

They don't. The Russian army is corrupt, greedy, cruel and out of control. Putin is an authoritarian crook. Do you know anything about what's going on there?

"you said I was over the top when I said that a poster should ask the russian parents of the dead children what they think is the bigger threat."

No I said it was an irrelevant emotional appeal. You're trying to bypass rational debate about your ideas by playing on sympathy for hundreds of dead Russian children. I refuse to follow along. We're talking about murder of Muslim civilians to discourage terrorism. What those Russian parents think about that is irrelevant - it's not an argument for if they agree, or against if they don't. And what if some agree with you and others don't? Maybe we should hold a vote. Or maybe you're right or wrong independently of who supports you.

"It's unfair of you to compare us to nazis or islamists."

I just pointed out that, unlike Nazi's and Islamists who have commented in this blog, you're openly advocating the murder of innocent civilians. That's a fact. If you don't like the company that puts you in, that's not my problem.

"What would you have us do then?"

You speak as if "us" are the majority and I'm the skeptical outsider. But you're on the fringe here. You don't have anyone in the American government with you, nor any major politicians in any Western country I know of. I don't know what we should do when that happens. I do know it would be evil and counterproductive to nuke Mecca, round up and execute Muslim civilians, or whatever. And even more so to do it preemptively. You're just going to have to find a solution that doesn't turn is into barbarians and terrorists. I'm kind of picky that way.

D | 2004-09-05 18:57 | Link

Bjorn your still avoiding my argument.
You said it would be counter productive to nuke meca or round up muslim civilians and maybe your right.
Is our argument all about tactics?
YOu say that it may have been right to bomb japan if it could save more lives.
What if bombing meca would save more lives?

I am not arguing that we should kill all muslims because I hate muslims or because I want revenge. I'm not even arguing that we should kill all muslims at all. All I am saying is that we should start looking at Islam as the enemy, and that means all muslims are our enemy. In the same way that all soviets and all nazis are our enemy. and we should do whatever it takes to defend ourselves.

Maybe our all disagreement is about how much danger we are in.

And if we only disagree about tactics then you shouldn't bring morality into the discussion.

Kevin McDonnell, Bergen | 2004-09-05 19:06 | Link

No I didn't realize you were joking. I guess thats completely my bad. But I am going to inject that the extenuating circumstances are in my reading of some of the points you have made.

It is good to learn from history and include it in your calculations. It is on the other hand, HORRIBLY bad to deconstruct history, parse convenient slices, and then produce metaphors that can dress even the most atrocious meanderings in a positive light(whether the vehicle is a supposed realpolitik perspective, and/or a cold rationalist perspective, or whatever... matters little).

We are at war, yes. It is a new kind of war, yes. Our enemy however, is not inclusive of everyone who these ruthless men claim to represent, any more than the French in toto are responsible for Pol Pot... (although for my part, I'd actually be happier having a debate attempting to explore the nature of THAT connection more clearly :-))

You seem to think that clarity denotes ruthlessness and reason implies heartlessness. For more reasons than I could count, and in the name of anything beautiful and true... I disagree and implore you to think carefully on where the world came from. It is not the way it is by happenstance. We have ALL been involved in making it thus.

If that seems a bit melodramatic, so be it... we live in interesting times and it is called for.

Still... as per your comment that I misjudged... my apologies.

PS Bjørn. Just for the record, and I'll probably irk you with this... but like it or not, you are a Christian philosophically... and thats a good thing even when (and sometimes actually BECAUSE) "Faith" is not inclusive of it. I may digress here, but I am keeping it in the thread somewhat by wanting to point out that you have not donned the seductive garb of secular humanism ala the "Brights" et al, and that is to your credit. That particular nascent ideology is as intolerant intellectually as anything one can find in history, so I chafe at it.

I'm just noting that you should have it clear in your mind, how much in the way of philosophical truths which have been explored in depth in Christian philosophy you (and the best of Western Civilisation) owe to that body of beliefs. In fact, I'm a big advocate of defining the US political foundation in terms of Judeo-Christian... and not just because it tends to piss off "progressive thinkers"(that's just a bonus).

I say this by the way, as someone for whom "Faith" has always been problematic due to the simple fact that I have never met God and cannot ascertain whether the universe is His artifact, or a random flux. Yet... I know a dogma when I see it. And I figure I can tell the difference between good and evil nine times out of ten, given half a chance to look, before someone "sophisticates" it.

Just thought I'd mention that. Don't know why exactly.

Ali Dashti | 2004-09-05 19:08 | Link

Bjørn:

I have not advocated the genocide of civilians. That's what Islam does, both the Koran and the sunna of Muhammed. First of all, no politician in the West would ever use a nuke until we are hit first, for instance by an Islamic terrorist attack.

Second: I talk about Mecca because I am trying to figure out ways to minimize civilian casualties on both sides in this World War. And it IS a WW. My enemy isn't "Muslims", it is ISLAM. If I considered everybody born in Muslim countries my enemies, that would include Ibn Warraq and Ali Sina, wouldn't it? Ali Sina advocates intensive education of Muslims as the cure. I support that, and I believe it can work on many. But not everybody. We cannot win this war by pacifism alone.

Pakistanis or Arabs are not born evil, any more than you or I. ISLAM, however, is evil. We didn't fight WW2 to get rid of Germans, or the Cold War to get rid of Russians. We fought them to break aggressive, totalitarian IDEOLOGIES. By taking out Mecca, perhaps you could force all those hundreds of millions of Muslims to think that Islam isn't "God's plan", it isn't divine, it isn't invincible. And it isn't right. If this could be achieved, it could save millions, tens of millions or even hundreds of millions of lives, both ours and theirs. If possible, the city itself could have been evacuated in advance. I'm not looking to kill ANYBODY, I'm looking for ways to break the attraction of Islam. You still think I'm crazy, but I truly and honestly believe Islam is even worse than Nazism. And I want it to kill as few people as possible before it disappears. That's my one and only motivation.

R | 2004-09-05 19:34 | Link

Islam may not be evil, but it is certainly intolerant. And Islamic intolerance is the father of much of the evil in the world. Islamism is one example of distilled Islamic intolerance. Christianity had its eras of brutal intolerance, but unlike Islam's sins, those sins of Christianity are centuries old.

If Islamic intolerance and ambition acquires the nuclear weapon, the world will suffer as never before. All moral posturing and sensitivity will avail nothing.

And then, Bjorn, the hatred and violence of your Viking ancestors will be unleashed. Like the latent violence of the Celts, the Goths, the Franks, the Huns, and the Slavs. The latent violence of the European tribes is there, is always there. It will only come out if those in charge are too foolish to take care of the business at hand, before it runs out of control.

Kevin McDonnell, Bergen | 2004-09-05 19:58 | Link

Ali Dashti,

I meant to address your post earlier. I just want to say that I don't necessarily disagree with you. In the last two years I've spent a lot of time going through a variety of analyses and commentaries in Islam including reading the Koran at least once in toto, and a lot of it several times. I've come to the conclusion first of all that comparisons that assert the equivalence of the Koran and the Bible for example are almost beyond absurd. Reading the Bible through and through can at times be startling, but the built in "safety" mechanism, especially in the Old testament is that it is in a larger context to which the disturbing parts are set against. Reading the Koran however is often deeply shocking with the add on effect that it is the overall context which is the most dosturbing of all. One begins to latch onto the occasional assertions of Truth and Beauty in the language tightly... because they seem to be the exception rather than the rule.

Others can argue this, but I think that most of the arguments that have occurred in the public discourse, have played on the ignorance of people, because I have seen positions taken that can only be considered deliberate mendacity there. There are serious problems with the socializing influences of the Koran, that make many of the internally conflicted and occasionally breathtaking actions among large groups of Muslims make "sense".

However... is it irredeemably evil? I'm not at all sure. Some have said that Islam needs to go through a reformation. I'm not sure if thats possible... I have my doubts, but I would be pleased if it seemed to begin to happen. Others have said it has been twisted and distorted by Islamofascists who "hijacked" the religion. Frankly I'm not sure that is much the case either.

Ultimately though... I agree heartily with your position that we must truly begin to look at Islam and the Muslim world OPENLY and without reservation or caveat, especially when it comes to connections with terror and tyranny. This we have not done, in no small part due to the illusory and effete conformity of political correctness as defined by the multicult. We do a dis-service to ourselves and we demean Muslims as human beings in that endeavor. We can pretend this is "respect", but it is disdain at its core and little different in effect (in that it perpetuates barriers and ignorance) from the colonialist attitudes it smarmily decries.

jimmytheclaw, earth | 2004-09-05 20:11 | Link

on the muke nekka subject, i remember in the days after 9/11 this was a subject on afghanistan. we didnt use WMD so that was a moot subject. now we are faced with iran getting nukes [if they dont have them already] now iran funds supports aids and assists hezbollah and hamas so therefore when iran achievs building these things they will be essentially in the hands of two of the top three islamic terror groups. now the problem is when one or more of these devices are detonated in the US, britain, france, germany, or israel what will be the response? also remember iran will claim its a small group of extremists that stole the weapon [which will be another lie]how will we respond? will we respond and tear out the black heart of arab imperialism [mecca] or will we cower like good little dihmmi's? ive noticed after every one of these atrocities committed in the name of allah [not my god]more and more people are moving towards the jacksonian type of thought. as for what happened in russia i commented to someone that the locals were hunting the escaped terrorists with there deer rifles. not one person said that those citezans were wrong in hunting them down and killing them. this is a change from a year or two ago when many would have gone for trial and imprisonment.

just my 2 cents

Kevin McDonnell, Bergen | 2004-09-05 20:18 | Link

Hi.

Bjørn, If what I'm about to do is a faux pas in discussion thread, then feel free to remonstrate me, but I just happened to hop over to The Corner and immediately came upon two posts by Andrew Stuttaford in a row that would be extremely poignant here.

To Wit:

FROM AL-ARABIYA [Andrew Stuttaford]

“It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims... We cannot clear our names unless we own up to the shameful fact that terrorism has become an Islamic enterprise; an almost exclusive monopoly, implemented by Muslim men and women. We cannot redeem our extremist youths, who commit all these heinous crimes, without confronting the Sheikhs who thought it ennobling to reinvent themselves as revolutionary ideologues, sending other people’s sons and daughters to certain death, while sending their own children to European and American schools and colleagues.”

Meanwhile, here in Britain the Sunday Telegraph is reporting that “an Islamic cleric has announced that he would support hostage-taking in British schools if carried out by terrorists with a just cause.”

Posted at 01:13 PM

BESLAN [Andrew Stuttaford]

Nothing can ever excuse the horrors of the Beslan massacre or the guilt of the revolting butchers who carried it out, but we will, doubtless, be hearing a lot from some sources about how the Russians at least partly brought this massacre on their own heads by their terrible mistreatment of the Chechens over the years.

It is, of course, certainly true that imperial Russian and, far more so, Soviet treatment of the Chechens was disgusting and, during the 1940s, frankly genocidal. Adding to the misery, the brutality of the wars waged by Yeltsin and Putin against their Chechen opposition has, at times, been staggering. Nevertheless, we should be careful about the extent to which Moscow can be blamed for the current nightmare. Russia did offer Chechnya independence in all but name in the mid-1990s. The result was the creation of a slum statelet that combined religious bigotry, military adventurism and aggressive banditry in roughly equal measures.

It’s also worth noting that the guerillas now in the vanguard of the resistance to Moscow want far more than independence for their own country. As this piece from the Sunday Telegraph explains, the objectives of their leader, Shamil Basayev, now include the establishment of an Islamic emirate across a wide swathe of the northern Caucasus.

And is there evidence that these guerillas gets at least some funding from sources linked to the cesspit ‘kingdom’ now known as Saudi Arabia?

Well, what do you think?

Ex-Christian, now Muslim | 2004-09-05 21:51 | Link

Isnt sign of intellectual bankruptcy to attack Islam and its great prophet and demonise it the way some posters do like Ali for example ? I mean it is easy to describe Islam as evil but I am sure if you conduct serious debate with any muslim you will lose it very easily.

Islam's history is filled with great examples of immense tolerance toward the others, this fallacy that Islam is intolerant cant stand the test of reality on the ground and indeed the history of Islam itself, I remember before converting to Islam watching a BBC documentry about Salahuddi Al Ayoubi ( Saladin as we call him in the west )and the amazing tolerance he showed toward the christian crusaders who invaded the Muslim levant killing hundreds of thousands of muslims. After defeating them in the battle of Hitin in 1088 AD, the Christians of Jerusalem feard for their lives because 88 years earlier the Christian crusaders massacred 70,000 muslims when they entered Jerusalem, but the great muslim hero did not touch any single christian, he even asked his commanders to look after them and to treat them well based on the teachings of Islam.

Muslim Spain ( 711-1492 AD ) is another shining example of unheard before tolerance granted by Muslims to the others who have different faith.
Indeed, Jews who were burnt alive at that time in Europe found refuge in Muslim Spain and made it to the highest ranks of the muslim state, many of them became wizir ( prime minister ) and many of them ran the state financial affairs.

It is wel known fact that the muslim armies never reach Indonesia which now has the largest muslim population, can someone tell me how Islam spread there ? the same applies to Malaysia and western China.

History tells us about the Moghuls, a barbaric tribes from Asia who in the 12th century swept accros the Muslim world destroying Baghdad, the capital of the Muslim empire, burning everything in their way, they had immense military power that if they wished they could have converted all muslims by force into paganism, but what happened is really unique ! for the first time in the history of all mankind an invading force so superior in its military power embraces and converts to the religion of the invaded nations, indeed the Moghuls converted to Islam and after they used to pile skulls as towers, Islam civilized them and they started building schools and hospitals, mosques and gardens and so they took Islam with them to spread in Asia Minor.

The same with the Turks, they were pagan tribes roaming the plains of Asia and they too embraced Islam and later formed the magnificent Ottoman empire.

Thousands of ancient churches and synagouges and indeed pagan temples are still standing in the Middle East, I have seen so many by myself, if Islam was so intolerant, how come all these non muslim buildings survived the rule of Islam for 1400 years ?

Ambassador Herman Ellis, in a testimony in front of the committee on Foreign Affirs of the House of Represntatives of the United States Congress on June 24th, 1985, said, "The Muslim community of the globe today is in the neighbourhood of one billion. That is an impressive figure. But what to me is equally impressive is that Islam today is the fastest growing monotheistic religion. This is something we have to take into account. Something is right about Islam. It is attracting a good many people."

Yes, something is right about Islam and that's why it has attracted so many people throughout its 1400 years of history including me.

Phillippe Moullin worker North America | 2004-09-05 22:03 | Link

This is interesting discussion. I am only a construction worker, far away from home. But I worry about the changes brought by muslims when they come to countries that are not muslim. I don't see respect for their new country, only for the old ways that have made their old countries unlivable. I think the prisons in my home country will soon be full of muslims.

Jorma | 2004-09-05 22:41 | Link

I think the Hispanic immigrants who live in America would love to hear what Philippe said but 'en Espanol por vapor ' ?

Ali Dashti | 2004-09-05 22:44 | Link

Hello, Muslim. Yes please, tell us about your great Profet. Allow me to begin:

the Prophet ordered them to go to the herd of (milch) camels and told them to go out and drink the camels’ urine and milk (as a medicine). So they went and drank it, and when they became healthy, they killed the camel herder and drove away the camels. This news reached the Prophet early in the morning, so he sent (some) men in their pursuit and they were captured and brought to the Prophet before midday. He ordered their hands and legs to be cut off and their eyes to be branded with heated iron pieces and they were thrown at Al-Harra, and when they asked for water to drink, they were not given water.

And this:

The Murder of Asma bt. Marwan at Medina by Umayr b. Adiy al-Khatmi —March, 624CE

Immediately after his return from the victory at Badr, Muhammad felt strong enough to put a halt to his critics who were displeased that his arrival at Medina, along with his horde of marauding Jihadists, had caused fear and serious divisions among the Medinites. During those days, the most successful method of hurling epithets and criticisms at opponents was through poems. Therefore, poets in those days were what journalists are today. One such poetess was Asma bint Marwan. She belonged to the B. Aws and did not hide her dislike for Islam. After the Badr war she composed some satirical poems. The verses spread from mouth to mouth and finally reached the ears of the Muslims and they were greatly offended. Muhammad could not endure satire or vituperation.2 Therefore, an incensed Muhammad decided that it was time to get rid of her.

In his mosque, at night, Muhammad sought a volunteer to assassinate Asma bt. Marwan. A blind man, Umayr b. Adiy al-Khatmi, belonging to the same tribe as Asma’s husband (ie Banu Khatma) stood up to complete the job. In the dead of night he crept into her apartment. Her little children then surrounded Asma while she slept. Hugging her bosom was her infant, suckling her breast. The blind man, feeling stealthily with his hand, removed the infant from her breast and plunged his sword in her belly with such a force that it passed through her back. This severe blow killed Asma on the spot. It was just five days prior to the end of the month of the sacred month of fasting, Ramadan, when Muslims are not supposed to shed blood.3

The morning after murdering Asma, the killer Umayr went to pray in the mosque while Muhammad was there. Muhammad was quite anxious to learn if the mission of Umayr was a success or not. He said to Umayr the killer, “Have you slain the daughter of Marwan?” Commenting on this Ibn S’ad 4 writes, “This was the word that was first heard from the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him.” When Umayr replied that the job had been carried out with success, Muhammad said, “You have helped God and His apostle, O ‘Umayr!’ When Umayr asked if he would have to bear any evil consequences, the apostle said, “Two goats won’t butt their heads about her.”5 Muhammad then praised Umayr in front of all gathered for prayer for his act of murder, and Umayr went back to his people. (Note: Some biographers suggest that Omayr was Asma’s former husband). Five days later, the Muslims celebrated the first Eid (the end of fasting)!

When Omayr, the killer returned to Upper Medina, he passed the sons of Asma who were burying their slain mother. They accused Umayr of murdering their mother. Without hesitation, Umayr admitted the accusation boastfully and threatened to kill the whole family if they dared to repeat the satires their mother had composed deriding the Prophet of mercy. This threat of terror worked wonderfully. The entire tribe of Asma’s husband (i.e., Banu Khatma) who secretly hated Islam, now openly professed their adherence just to save their lives. Ibn Ishak writes, ‘That was the first day that Islam became powerful among B. Khatma. The day after Bint Marwan was killed the men of B. Khatma became Muslims because they saw the power of Islam.’6

Muhammad and his followers were now convinced that terror, plunder, political murder do indeed work for Islam.

Terror Eleven

The Murder of Abu Afak at Medina by Salim b. ‘Umayr—April, 624CE

Abu Afak, a Jew of Medina was a very old man, about 120 years old. He was active in the opposition of Muhammad’s religion. He too, composed some satirical verses that annoyed the Muslims. One month after his victory at Badr, Muhammad showed his limit of tolerance to his intellectual opposition by expressing his wish to eliminate this old man. At his mosque, the apostle of Allah sought the service of a volunteer killer saying, ‘Who will deal with this rascal for me?’7 A convert by the name of Salim b.‘Umayr, brother of B. ‘Amr b.’Auf from the B. Amr tribe came forward to do the job. He killed Abu Afak with one blow of his sword when the latter slept outside his house. (Some say that Abu Afak was murdered first, then Asma). Ibn S’ad describes this gruesome murder in this way:

“He waited for an opportunity until a hot night came, and Abu ‘Afak slept in an open place. Salim b. ‘Umayr knew it, so he placed the sword on his liver and pressed it till it reached his bed. The enemy of Allah screamed and the people, who were his followers rushed him, took him to his house and interred him.”8

and this:

The thought of an old man becoming aroused by a child is one of the most disturbing thoughts that makes us cringe as it reminds us of pedophilia and the most despicable people. It is difficult to accept that the Holy Prophet married Ayesha when she was 6-years-old and consummated his marriage with her when she was 9. He was then, 54 years old.

Narrated 'Aisha:
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).

D | 2004-09-05 23:03 | Link

We don't need to argue about history to know that islam is evil. Just turn on the news.

Islam is evil but not always violent. Islam is above all other things cynical. Sometimes making peace is better when you are weak, so you can rape and kill when you grow stronger. This is where "moderate" muslims come in.

Ex-Christian, now Muslim | 2004-09-05 23:15 | Link

Hi Ali:

I noticed you did not quote a single verse from the Holy Quran, you only quoted some fake hadiths and stories, cant you see how weak your argument is ?

Here are some 'Authentic' hadiths that I am sure you will not be able to even look at because they expose your prejudice and your unjustified hate against Islam:

The great prophet Muhammad (pbuh ) said:

''He who believes in God and the Last Day should honour his guest, should not harm his neighbour, should speak good or keep quiet." (Bukhari, Muslim)

"Whoever hurts a Non-Muslim citizen of a Muslim state hurts me, and he who hurts me annoys God." (Bukhari)

"He who hurts a Non-Muslim citizen of a Muslim state, I am his adversary, and I shall be his adversary on the Day of a Judgement." (Bukhari)

"Beware on the Day of Judgement; I shall mysefl be complainant against him who wrongs a Non-Muslim citizen of a Muslim state or lays on him a responsibility greater than he can bear or deprives him of anything that belongs to him." (Al-Mawardi)

"Anyone who kills a Non-Muslim who had become our ally will not smell the fragrance of Paradise." (Bukhari)

(1). 'A'isha said that the prophet Muhammad said : "The deeds most loved by Allah swt (are those) done regularly, even if they are small". (Bukhari, Muslim)

(2). 'Abdullah b. Umar said that prophet Muhammad said : "The muslim is he from whose tongue and hand a Muslim is safe, and the muhajir he who gives up what Allah has prohibited for him ". (Bukhari, Muslim)

(3). Abu Hurairah said that Prophet Muhammad said : "Beware of envy, for envy devours good (deeds) like fire devours firewood". (Abu Dawud)

(4). Jabir b. Abdullah said that prophet Muhammad said : "Allah is not merciful to whim who is not merciful to people ". (Bukhari, Muslim)

(5). Abdullah b. Umar said that prophet Muhammad said :"The Merciful One shows mercy to those who are themselves merciful (to others). So show mercy to whatever is on earth, then He who is in heaven will show mercy to you " (Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi)

(6). From Abu Hurairah : Prophet Muhammad said : "He who does not thank people, does not thank Allah". (Ahmad, Tirmidhi)

(7). From Anas : prophet Muhammad said : "By Him in whose hand is my soul, a servant (of Allah) does not believe (truly) until he likes for his brother what he likes for himself ". (Bukhari, Muslim)

(8 ). From al-Miqdam b. Ma'dikarib : prophet Muhammad said : " When a man loves his brother he should tell him that he loves him " (Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi)

(9). From Abu Ayyub al-Anshari : Prophet Muhammad said : " It is not right for a man to abandon his brother for more than three days". (Bukhari, Muslim)

(10).Jabir said that Rasulullah saw ( prophet Muhammad ) said : " If one makes excuses to his brother, but he does not excuse him, or accept his apology, he is as sinful as one who takes an unjust tax " (Baihaqi)

(11).From Abu Hurairah : Rasulullah saw said : " The strong man is not the one who is strong in wrestling, but the one who controls himself in anger " (Bukhari, Muslim)

(12).Abu Muhammad al-Hasan ibn Ali b. Abu Talib said : I preserved the following words from Rasulullah saw : "Leave what you have doubt about for that you have no doubt about; for it is truth that brings peace of mind and it is falsehood that brings doubt". (Ahmad, Tirmidhi, Nasa'i)

(13).Abu Yahya Suhaib b. Sinan said that Rasulullah saw said : " Wondrous are the believer's affairs. For him there is good in all his affairs, and this is so only for the believer. When something pleasing happens to him, he is grateful, and that is good for him; and when something displeasing happens to him, he is enduring (sabar), and that is good for him " (Muslim)

(14).From Uthman ra : Rasulullah saw said : "The best of you is he who has learnt the Qur'an and then taught it " (Bukhari)

(15).Ibn Umar ra said that Rasulullah saw said : "Each of you is a guardian, and each of you will be asked about your guardian- ship. The leader is a guardian, and the man is a guardian over the people of his house, and the woman is a guardian over her husband's house and children. So each of you is a guardian, and each of you will be asked about your guardianship". (Bukhari, Muslim)

(16).Abdullah b. Amr b. al-As ra said that Rasulullah saw never used obscene talk nor did he listen to it. (Bukhari, Muslim)

(17).On the authority of Abu Hurayrah ra, who said that Rasulullahsaw said : Allah swt said : "Whosoever shows enmity to someone devoted to Me, I shall be at war with him. My servants draws not near to Me with anything more loved by Me than the religous duties I have enjoined upon him, and My servantcontinues to draw near to Me with supererogatory works so that I shall love him. When I love him, I am his hearing with with which he hears, his seeing with which he sees, his hand with which he strikes, and his foot with which he walks. Were he to ask (something) of Me, I would surely give it to him, and were he to ask Me for refuge, I would surely grant him it. I do not hesitate about anything as much as I hesitate about (seizing) the soul of My faithful servant : he hates death and I hate hurting him " (Bukhari, hadist qudsi )

(18 ).From Anas : Rasulullah saw said : " Make thing easy, and do not e make them difficult, and give good tidings and do not make people ay " run away (Bukhari)

(19).From Abu Mas'ud al-Badri : Rasulullah saw said : " When a man spends to support his famili hoping (for Allah's reward) it is counted for him as sadaqah " (Bukhari, Muslim)

(20).From Amr b. Shu'aib, from his father, from his grandfather : Rasulullah saw said : "He is not of us who has no compassion for r our little ones and does not honour our old ones " (Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi)

(21).On the authority of Abu Hurairah ra, who said that Rasulullah saw said : Allah swt said : " I am as My servant thinks I am. I am with him when he makes mention of Me. If he makes mention of Me to himself, I make mention of him to Myself. And if he makes mention of Me in an assembly, I make mention of him in an assembly better than it. And if he draws near to Me a hand's span, I draw near to him an arm's length. And if he draws near to Me an arm's length, I draw near to him a fathom's length. And if he comes to Me walking, I go to him at speed " (Hadist Qudsi: Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah)

(22). Ibn 'Umar ra said that Rasulullah saw said : "Do not talk for long without remembering Allah swt, for talking much without remembering Allah swt is hardness of the heart. The most distant among man from Allah swt is one with a hardened heart". (Tirmidhi)

(23). From 'Iyad b. Himar al-Mujashi'i ra : Rasulullah saw said : Allah swt has revealed to me : "You should be humble so that no one boasts over his neighbour nor anyone oppresses his neighbour " (Muslim)

(24). From Bahz b. Hakim ra, from his father, from his grandfather : Rasulullah saw said: "Woe to him who tells lies to make people laugh -- Woe to him -- Woe to him " (Ahmad, Tirmidhi)

(25). From Abdullah bin Mas'ud ra : Rasulullah saw said " Try to earn a lawful livelihood is (also) an obligation like the other obligation (in Islam) ". (Baihaqi)

(26). Abu Abdullah, who was called Abd al-Rahman Thaubah b Yujdud , the maula of Rasulullah saw said : Rasulullah saw said : " The best dinar a man spends is the dinar he spends on his family, and the dinar he spends on his riding beast in the path of Allah swt, and the dinar he spends on his companions in the path of Allah swt ". (Muslim)

(27). On the authority of Abu Said ra, who said that Rasulullah saw said : " Let not any one of you belittle himself. They said : O Rasulullah saw, how can any one of us belittle himself ? He (Rasulullah) said : He finds a matter concerning Allah swt about which he should say something, and he does not say (it), so Allah swt says to him on the Day of Resurrection : What prevented you from saying something about such-and-such ? He says : (It was) out of fear of people. Then Allah swt says : Rather it is I whom you should more properly fear " (Hadist Qudsi, related by Ibn Majah with a sound chain of authorities)

(28 ). On the authority of Abu Hurayrah ra, who siad that Rasulullah saw said : Allah swt said : " Spend (i.e. on charity), O son of Adam, and I shall spend on you " (Hadist Qudsi, related by Bukhari and Muslim)

(29). From Ibn Umar ra : Rasulullah saw said : "The muslim who meets with people and endures any harm they may do is better than he who does not mix with them and does not endure any harm they may do". (Tirmidhi)

(30). From Sufyan b. Asad al-Hadrami ra : I heard Rasulullah saw say : " It is a great treachery that you tell your brother something he accepts as truth from you, but you are lying" (Abu Dawud)

(31). Abdullah b. Amr ra said that Rasulullah saw said : "There are four traits; he who has all of them is a certain hypocrite and has one of them has some hypocrisy, until he gets rid of it : when being given a trust, he betrays; when he speaks, he lies; when he promises (something), he breaks it; and when he quarrels he commits excesses" (Bukhari)

(32). Ibn Mas'ud ra said that Rasulullah saw said : "Abusing a Muslim is sinful, and fighting (making war, qital) with him is (tantamount to) kufr." (Bukhari, Muslim)

(33). Abu Hurairah ra said that Rasulullah saw said : "Beware ofsuspicion, for suspicion is the greatest falsehood. Do not try to find fault with each other, do not spy on one another, do not vie with one another, do not envy one another, do not be angry with one another, do not turn away from one another, and be servants of Allah, brothers to one another, as you have been enjoined. A Muslim is the brother of a muslim, he does him no wrong, nor does he let him down, nor does he despise him. Fear of God is here, fear of God is here, and he pointed to his chest. It is evil enough thata Muslim should look down on his brother. For every muslim is sacred to one another : his blood, his honour, and his property. Allah does not look at your bodies or your forms, or your deeds, but He looks at your hearts". (Bukhari, Muslim)

(34) Abu Musa ra said that prophet muhammad saw said : "Visit the sick, feed the hungry and free the captives". (Bukhari)

(35) From Abu Huraira