[I've asked Øyvind Strømmen if he will translate some of his articles at dilettant.no for me. This one is based on Islamismen sine mange ansikt, and is a look at why not all Islamists are like Osama bin Laden. Øyvind is a good writer with interesting and often unusual perspectives - some of you know him from the Islam debates in this blog. I trust this will spawn an interesting, civilized debate. -bs]

By Øyvind Strømmen

When you look into cases of political prisoners in the Middle East you make a striking discovery. Many people who are imprisoned for their political ideas are Islamists. Take Libya, for instance. Amnesty International has worked on a case which involves hundreds of members of the illegal group al-Jama’a al-Islamiyya al-Libiya – the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood.

Taste the word "Islamist". Doesn’t it remind you of Osama bin Laden, of bearded fanatics and of misguided youth who will not hesitate to blow up themselves and innocent civilians in despicable suicide attacks, as part of a holy war? News reports and terrible pictures from Beslan, Baghdad and Be’er Sheva may easily lead to such conclusions.

There are several things we must remember. First of all, we should defend the human rights of all people. As Voltaire said: "I disagree with what you are saying, but I will fight until death for your right to say it." Murderers, too, have human rights. Terrorists have human rights. Everyone has human rights.

But there’s something odd here. Does Amnesty International use its resources to defend hundreds of Libyan terrorists? Hardly. Amnesty International focuses on political prisoners who neither use nor advocate violence, and - as far as we know - the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood has never done that.

This leads us to another thing we should keep in mind. It is a lesson that should be repeated often: Islamism is not one ideology – it is many.

We increasingly see attacks on Islam that are totally devoid of nuance. The book “Why I am not a Muslim”, written by Ibn Warraq, is a good example. Ibn Warraq claims that Islam is a “fascist ideology”, he uses – like media often does – Islamist and Fundamentalist as synonyms, and he claims that Islamic fundamentalists are “utopian visionaries who want to replace Western-style democracy with an Islamic theocracy, a fascist thought-system which wants to control every action of every human being”.

Let us begin with the most obvious question: Which liberal democracies does he refer to? In areas where radical Islamism has gained a foothold there are few liberal democracies to replace, and the few countries where Islamists have reached power have not been among them. Was Afghanistan before the Taliban a liberal democracy? Was Iran under the shah a liberal democracy? Has Palestine ever been? The Sudan has had parliamentary elections, but would it be fair to call it a Western-style liberal democracy?

To support his conclusions, Ibn Warraq uses carefully chosen quotes from Islamist thinkers such as ayatollah Khomeini. However, wanting to explain Islamism as a natural consequence of Islam, he never looks at how Khomeini was inspired by non-Muslim movements, how the Iranian leader reinterpreted classical Islamic concepts and used them in a kind of class analysis, how he used populism, how the Iranian revolution borrowed socialist rhetoric, and so on. “Why I am not a Muslim” suggests that Islamism is simply the logical result of classical Islam, manifested through a mix of religion and politics, and ideas on how to spread itself through violence. The truth is that Islamism is a modern ideology. It has modern roots. It must be understood in the context of the modern world it exists in.

The Muslim world has few democracies, even though numbers from Freedom House suggest that half the worlds Muslims live in countries that are, at least formally, democratic, and a country like Mali is considered to be no less free and democratic than Croatia and Mexico. The situation in the Arab world is the most depressing. Poverty and illiteracy are huge problems. Human rights violations are common. Prisons are full of political prisoners and press freedom is often limited to repeat the press releases and empty promises of the government. A recent UN report concluded that the global trend towards democracy has barely touched the Arab countries.

The United States has launched several initiatives to promote Arab democracy in the last few years. Arab leaders have usually said no, nope and no way and repeated that reforms should come from within. The few reforms that have actually surfaced have been limited and, more often than not, have served to defend the interests of an elite clinging to power. The result is that young Arabs become disillusioned. They can not believe in their own governments, and they do not have much faith in the Western world either. American support for oppressive regimes is too obvious, and American democratization can be seen live on al-Jazeera; large corporations, mainly American, have already laid claims on the riches of Iraq, while the country is thrown into a vicious circle of violence and blood. Not the whole truth, you say? Sure, but it is a part of the truth often repeated by Arab media.

In this situation, Islamism is often the only believable political alternative. But, as already mentioned, Islamism is not just one thing. Islamism has many faces.

Let use consider the definitions again. Islamism is often referred to as “Islamic fundamentalism”, a phrase which suggests that the supporters of Islamism want to return to the fundaments of Islam, and that they practice an Islam which is “pure” and “original”. This interpretation of Islamism is imprecise at best and misleading and directly dangerous at worst.

If fundamentalism means that one believes religious scriptures to be uninfluenced by human error, most Muslims are fundamentalists. It is a basic tenet in Islam that the Qu’ran is the word of God. Therefore, by this definition, every politician in the Middle East who has ever pointed to Islamic belief must be considered a fundamentalist. Not just Khomeini, but also the shah. Not just shia-Muslim insurgents in post-Saddam Iraq, but also Saddam Hussein himself, even though he stood in a nationalist and secular political tradition. The PLO, which is also secular, is fundamentalist just like Hamas and Islamic Jihad. If you follow this line of reasoning, politics in Muslim countries will seem like a grey and incomprehensible fog.

If fundamentalism means that one seeks – and finds – inspiration in a Golden Era of early Islam, many – if not most – Muslims would have to be considered fundamentalists. One example is the nineteenth century Muslim modernist al-Afghani (d. 1897) who claimed that the source of the weakness of the Muslim world was a tendency to blindly follow earlier authorities. He thought that Muslims should reclaim their heritage, the same heritage that in his view made the Western world successful: reason, science and technology. But Afghani, even though he is read by modern-day Islamists, was never one of them.

And if fundamentalism means that one dreams of returning to a Golden Era, Khomeini, for instance, would in no way qualify. He claimed that Iran surpassed all previous Muslim societies, raising quite a few eyebrows amongst the real fundamentalists. The Iranian leader did in no way refuse technological advances or modern civilization, and his supporters often attacked the traditionalist (sunnati) and their old-fashioned views. The sunnati, they claimed, were obsessed with ritual cleanness, were wrong in not wanting to send their daughters to school and in being opposed to music and art. Worst of all was their opposition to use of electricity, cars, airplanes, phones, television etc. "These traditionalists should be called reactionaries, because they want us to return to the Age of the Monkey. Worship of the past is not what we need; instead we need to create a true renaissance," said one of Khomeinis disciples, Hojjati-Kermani.

Like the disciples of Khomeini, the Palestinian Hamas often uses Western concepts. The German author and journalist Andrea Nüsse writes: “Their ideology is far from static, it does not just point back towards an ancient Islamic model. It can rather be characterised as based on traditional Islamic teaching, with additions of modern concepts and ideas of mostly Western origin”.

This is especially obvious if one studies the Jew-hatred of Hamas. While the Jews are not left much honour in traditional interpretations of the Qu’ran, the anti-Semitism of Hamas is mostly derived from other, Western, sources, among them the forgery “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”. The covenant of Hamas mentions the Protocols as a source for information about the “Jewish Plan”, and Lions Club, Rotary and the Freemasons are listed as part of this global Jewish conspiracy. These are ideas we also find among European neo-Nazis, or the Japanese death cult Aum Shinrikyo for that matter.

Hamas has another thing in common with neo-Nazis. They consider the national state, or al watan, to be of enormous importance. Their nationalist ideas are influenced by Western political thinkers, and interestingly enough partly by Israeli political thought, and would have been considered fundamentally un-Islamic by such Islamist pioneers as Mawdudi (d. 1979). And it does not stop there. As a study of official and unofficial Hamas publications will reveal, the Islamist terrorist group has borrowed many Western ideas, including liberal democratic ones.

Islamists are far from as faithful to tradition as many believe. Khomeini even broke with classical Islam in the area that probably was closest to his heart, the Islamic legislation. Before the Iranian revolution he categorically stated that the holy law, sharia, could only be implemented when religious judges where completely free from state influence. After the revolution a centralised and state-based juridical structure was retained. The word "fundamentalist" falsely suggests stiff, orthodox ideas, a clinging to tradition and a flat-out denial of new ideas. Khomeini was, though he often denied it, highly flexible. Classical shia-Muslim concepts where disregarded and replaced with ideas and slogans from the non-Muslim world. The result, as Ervand Abrahamian writes in his essay collection “Khomeinism”, was closer to Latin-American populism than to fundamentalism.

While one should be careful with historical parallels, it can be interesting to look at the many similarities between Islamism and political Marxism in Western political history. In the last few years Islamism has gotten a “social-democratic” branch of its own. The last election in Turkey was won by the Party of Justice and Development (AKP), a party with Islamist roots. Under their rule, Turkey wants a European Union membership, and has conducted a series of democratic reforms. While the country has a long way to go, especially concerning minorities, it is today ironically the secular Kemalists who play the role of reactionaries in the country today, while the “Islamists” are promoting reforms towards a – that's right – Western-styled liberal democracy.

It is tempting to wish for such an Islamism also in Arab countries, and perhaps we can already see it. In the September edition of the Washington Report of Middle East Affairs, Charley Reese points out an interesting fact: most of the reformists in the Middle East the last years have been Islamists, and sometimes even Islamic fundamentalists. They have provided social services where the governments have failed and has often been they who demand democratic elections and honest government.

This is a piece of the jigsaw that needs to be included to understand Islamism, and – perhaps more importantly – to understand the popularity of Islamism. As a conclusion a quote by the controversial Tunisian Islamist Rached Ghannouchi might be fitting: "There is no room for differentiating between citizens. Complete equality is the basis of any new Muslim society. The only legitimacy is the one provided by elections. Freedom comes before Islam and it is the step leading to Islam."

Ghannouchi lives in exile.

Freedom comes before Islam and it is the step leading to Islam."

Totalitarianism is where a system of government dictates all aspects of a persons life, leaving no room for civic organizations or voluntary organizations. This is what we see in a theocracy, where the religion also supplies the structure of law.

Islam combined with Sharia law forms a totalitarian system. Sharia was applied in Taliban Afghanistan, and is applied in Saudi Arabia and some other muslim controlled areas.

Islamist-provided social services is simply one component of an anticipated totalitarian society. Islamist-provided education (madrasas etc.) is another.

Oyvind,

It's interesting to see your writing. When I was a college student majoring in modern European history, I was always fascinated by the socialists, marxists, nationalists, romantics, and racists. (I believe this pretty much covers the subjects learned in my 19th-century European history classes.) My main interest in 19th-century European history stemmed from my wondering how Europe--so elegant, artistic, and enlightened--could be covered in darkness under Nazism and Bolshevism. How did it happen? That was my question.

I guess if I were a college student today, I'd be equally fascinated by the various schools of thought among the Islamists.

I've noticed that when you argue with various people on Bjorn's blog, you lose yourself in the intricacies of Islamic thought. I urge you to take two steps back and look at the big picture.

The Islamists that most people who read this blog are concerned with are those who plan to use any means necessary to destroy Western civilization. We don't care about the people who sit in their living rooms and discuss the Caliphate and the good old days of the Muslim empire.

An analogy would be: which of the communists were dangerous and which were "parlor pinks" or "radical chic" people? That's what is important in the current discussion over Islamism, or to be more precise "Jihadism" or "Islamofascism."

I see now why you seem to be talking at cross purposes with so many posters on Bjorn's blog. I'm not trying to be flip or sarcastic here (a flaw of the internet is that you don't get the tone of the person writing). Intellectual history is fascinating and worth studying.

I like the article, very informative.
But I thought even moderate muslims themselves are wary of islamic fundamentalism?

Very well written article apart from equating hamas which is a legitimate resistance movement against barbaric Israeli illegal occupation to neo nazi thugs, I think this comparsion is flawed in its basis.

Until last year, Hamas was NOT enlisted as terrorist organization by the EU, only after huge pressure from the US and Israel, the EU decided to enlist hamas as terrorist organization.

Fighting for your land's freedom is not terrorism ( and before you give me the crap about suicide bombings, look at what Israel is doing in Gaza, more than 100 innocent palestineans have been killed in the last month alone ! ) isnt that terrorism as well ?

http://www.israel-state-terrorism.org/

Yes, Islamists/Islamic fundamentalists do believe in democracy. As Ibn Warraq writes, one man, one vote, one time. That's the democracy they believe in. Not good enough for me, but good enough for Oyvind and John Esposito.

May I ask what you mean by islam is a modern ideology, has modern roots, and must be understood in the context of the modern world it exists in.

I did not understand this, as I can see nothing modern about islam.

Allan:

Islam is not a modern ideology. Islamism is. In English those words are sometimes used as synonymously, however one should take care to differ between for instance an Islamic point-of-view and an Islamist point of view.

Totoro:

I agree with you that most of the posters here are concerned about those Islamists who are capable of and willing to commit terrorism in Western countries. However, quite a few confuses these Islamists with all Islamists, or even worse with Islam as a whole. This can lead to dangerous conclusion, as Bjørn himself has pointed out at several times.

My point of view is that - yes, those Islamists are absolutely dangerous, but that it is flat-out wrong to conclude that all Islamists are. Some Islamists should, in fact, be considered our allies in the fight for democracy in the Middle East.

Susan, apparently, refuses to see this, chooses to brand me as another Esposito and quotes from Ibn Warraq. The problem is that the insight Ibn Warraq provides isn't insight at all, while what he says is undoubtably true for some Islamists it is also undoubtably false for others.

My second - and perhaps most important point - is that Islamism has been gathering a following for a reason. Their social work and their work against despotic governments in various Muslim countries are extremely important here. As you surely have discovered in your studies of socialism, the Russian Revolution can not be explained without looking at the Czar regime. There are still a lot of Czars out there.

Ex-C, Now Muslim:

Hamas is deliberately targeting civilian Israeli citizens. In my eyes that makes them a terrorist organization. An independent Palestinian state is a legitimate goal, but their methods are not legitime (and the goals of Hamas seem to be going a tad further). While it is true that the Israelis have committed atrocities, two wrongs does not make one right, and Hamas is still a terrorist organisation.

However, even Hamas has two faces. One of the major reasons for its popularity in Gaza and on the Western Bank is the social services they have been providing.

Øyvind

Furthermore, ex-C, the comparison between Hamas and neo-Nazis is based on facts. They both use the false "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and have some of the same anti-Jewish ideas.

When it comes to the nationalist ideas of Hamas, however, these are derived from numerous sources - including their Jewish neighbours.

Øyvind

Ex C says "Fighting for your land's freedom is not terrorism ( and before you give me the crap about suicide bombings, look at what Israel is doing in Gaza, more than 100 innocent Palestinians have been killed in the last month alone ! ) isn’t that terrorism as well ?"

No it is not and the premise is what is wrong with Islam today. The deliberate targeting of women and children is terrorism such as in Israel, Indonesia and Chechneya is. The fact that civilians are killed, but not targeted in a response is terrible, but is not terror and the attempt to equate the two is absurd. Under that analysis it would be correct for Israel, Indonesia and Russia to carpet bomb Moselm enclaves in response and that would not bve terror but just someone fightinhg for their land.

Not only are Hamas' means illegitimate, but their ends are also. Hamas' goal is not the liberation of the occupied territory as everyone understands it. It is the "liberation" of what is now Israel also. This is a key distinction when one is talking about what is legitimate violence and what is not.

"I disagree with what you are saying, but I will fight until death for your right to say it." -Voltaire

I don't believe Voltaire intended for you to use his support for the right to free speech as a defense for "rights" of murderers. Notice how he only speaks about "saying" not doing... Voltaire fought for intellectual freedom, not for you to drag his name through the dirt in defense for the "rights" of human scum that do not recognize the rights of others, thereby forfeiting their own.

ch in Spain:

Murderers to the left of us and murderers to the right of us. What shall we do?

When you write human scum that do not recognize the rights of others, thereby forfeiting their own. are you not with that statement forfeiting YOUR rights and defining YOURSELF as "human scum"?

ch: I don't believe Voltaire intended for you to use his support for the right to free speech as a defense for "rights" of murderers.

But it's still a good principle which can be applied to other things than freedom of speech, such as human rights. There is a standard of behavior I believe we should observe towards all humans, no matter who they are and what they've done. Outside the battlefield, no people should be executed without a fair trial. No people should be indefinitely imprisoned without trial, nor tortured. This is not just a courtesy towards others, but a way of protecting our own way of life from ourselves.

Yes, I know, the war on terror. I'm one of those who didn't see much wrong with Guantanamo and related American behavior after 9/11, such as the practice of psychological torture. I was uneasy about it, but I felt that as long as this power wasn't abused, it wouldn't be so bad. There's a war on. But that power was abused. We've seen it often enough. And I no longer trust anyone with the power to bypass democratic institutions that were created for a good reason. I learned that from observing what happens when we do.

And I no longer trust anyone with the power to bypass democratic institutions that were created for a good reason.

If there is hope to be found in the present situation it lies in enough people coming to precisely this realisation and having the courage and commitment to further these beliefs against attacks from both right and left.

ie: A new poltical Enlightenment but one cleansed of the legacy of moral hypocrisy.

"When you write human scum that do not recognize the rights of others, thereby forfeiting their own. are you not with that statement forfeiting YOUR rights and defining YOURSELF as "human scum"?"

For the record, human scum is here a reference to the murderers that were mentioned in the orignal article.
If you by this suggest that murderers are not human scum, than don't scream for my help if ever you are faced with one. On the other hand if you by this imply that I am a murderer, I would like to see some proof...

Bearstrong wrote:
"But it's still a good principle which can be applied to other things than freedom of speech, such as human rights."

If applied for example to today's human rights, then Voltaire would have had to say:

I disagree with what you are eating, but I will fight until death for your right to eat...

Today the definition of _rights_ is diluted beyond recognition, especially in "democratic institutions"..

BearStrong wrote:
"Outside the battlefield, no people should be executed without a fair trial. No people should be indefinitely imprisoned without trial, nor tortured."

I agree with you on this... But when a fair and speedy trial is over, and the murderer convicted, does he then have rights? I say no. The rights he has are "rights" the good people of a civilized society permits him, but not his by default..

ch: I agree with you on this... But when a fair and speedy trial is over, and the murderer convicted, does he then have rights? I say no. The rights he has are "rights" the good people of a civilized society permits him, but not his by default..

By "no rights", do you mean "we can do whatever we like to them, like torturing them for the fun of it"? Of course prisoners have rights. Not all the same rights as free citizens have, but many of them. They do, for instance, have the right to be treated humanely, and released after the end of their sentence. You don't strip anybody of all their rights, for whatever reason. This is democracy 101. It's part of what makes liberal democracy a superior way to organize society.

These rights are "given" them by society only in the sense that all rights are given by society, ie. they wouldn't exist unless society permitted them to. But this is a dangerous way to look at rights, as a gift from the government. I prefer the enlightenment ideals of inalienable rights, and of government receiving its powers as a gift from its citizens, and not the other way around.

Remember when convicted murderers were put on display, to be pelted with filth by the crowd? Presumably this would satisfy some of the righteous indignation stored up in the bystanders.

Seriously, terrorists and murderers certainly forfeit some of their rights. The right to freedom, certainly. The right to dignity, to a certain extent. (especially if they are being raped by cellmates)

Even the most civilized society is a thin veneer, waiting for a sufficiently barbaric act to occur, before being shed.

>> These rights are "given" them by society only in the sense that all rights are given by society, ie. they wouldn't exist unless society permitted them to. But this is a dangerous way to look at rights, as a gift from the government. I prefer the enlightenment ideals of inalienable rights, and of government receiving its powers as a gift from its citizens, and not the other way around.

I prefer the enlightenment ideals of inalienable rights, and of government receiving its powers as a gift from its citizens, and not the other way around.

That has to be the very basis of any enlightened society.

Societies exists to further the interests of the individuals who make it up either all of them or some of them. The concept has no meaning on its own whatsoever.

This means that any statement to the effect that society gives people rights is really a saying that some people have the power to limit the rights of others.

Many of these points are well taken. No doubt Western cozying up to various dictatorial governments is a huge problem, and (rightfully) encourages a lot of cynicism among Arab youth, and drives them towards Islamist groups, radical and otherwise. That, incidentally, is one of the reasons why I support George W. Bush, and not John Kerry. It seems to me that Kerry (and many other commentators, including most European governments) are even stronger supporters of making good with these nasty governments. I hear a lot from Kerry and his supporters about how the Middle East couldn't handle liberty or democracy, and how it's better to just get along with these repressive governments, since they are the best one could hope for.

By no means do I mean to claim that Bush, or indeed any other politician, would or could renounce all alliances and dealings with these governments. He does seem to be far more interested in dealing with these real root causes than those who oppose him, though. (Regarding the inevitable Israel objections, not only is Kerry unlikely to have a different Israel policy, but I note that neither US Muslims and Arabs, nor Israeli Arabs (the ones who are citizens of Israel) seem nearly as susceptible to becoming terrorists. I suspect that bringing better governance to the Arab states as a whole would be at least as important as doing anything about Israel.)

I think I'll write another article: "The many faces of Nazism. Why moderate Nazism is the way forward." History would look a bit different if Churchill made that speech in 1939.

For the obvious answer to "the most obvious question" try Britain, Belgium, France, the US, or any other Western-style democracy you can think of. Why would they be working feverishly to establish a foothold in places where they've already had one for centuries? Duh. They blame the West's interference for past failures of the Khilafah, so this time they dream of removing that impediment and going global. I know it isn't rational. What makes you think we are talking about rational people here?

The notion that Islamism is a "modern ideology" is pure nonsense. It's been in existence as long as Islam itself. It doesn't take much searching to find writings of Muslims over many centuries which describe the same totalitarian theocratic ideas and violent methods of conquest, conversion and subjugation.

Sorry, but I was only able to make it through the first eleven paragraphs. I'm starting to think that "nuanced" is synonymous with "willfully obtuse."

Nick:
"For the obvious answer to "the most obvious question" try Britain, Belgium, France, the US, or any other Western-style democracy you can think of. Why would they be working feverishly to establish a foothold in places where they've already had one for centuries? Duh."
What's the most obvious question? I'm sorry, but I could actually not grasp what you mean here.

"The notion that Islamism is a "modern ideology" is pure nonsense. It's been in existence as long as Islam itself. It doesn't take much searching to find writings of Muslims over many centuries which describe the same totalitarian theocratic ideas and violent methods of conquest, conversion and subjugation"

I guess you're already familiar with how Christianity was spread through Europe?
Still, Christianity can be be considered to have modern notions like being nice to eachother and treating eachother with respect, dont you think?
I dont think history of how a religion has spread or been interpreted in the past can show how it is today unless we really take a good look at how it is Today, because it seems that the way people interpret a religion changes along with how people change themselves.

"I'm starting to think that "nuanced" is synonymous with "willfully obtuse"
Well, then I guess you prefer willfully prejudice.

Well, Ali, you can of course choose to look at Islamism as an equivalent of Nazism. Saying that you think it is, however, can hardly be considered an argument, and I would like to see you argue against the points I make in my article instead of repeating your dull slogans.

And Nick, yes, I expected someone would say that they dream of making for instance Belgium a Islamic theocracy. I'm in Belgium right now and haven't met any of those scary Muslims you're talking about, but I'm sure they're hiding out somewhere nearby - possibly in Brüssels. Most Islamists, however, don't care too much about the Western world at all. Their goal is to establish new governments in Muslim countries - few of them are ruled by Islamists, the foothold you're talking of barely exists. Some dream of reestablishing the kaliphate in
Muslim world thereby freeing their countries from the "yoke of Western imperialism". Read Islamist writings and you will discover this for yourself.

But, then there's the people who are attacking the "infidels". Most of them claim they're doing this in self-defence and in keep with the Qu'ranic principle of not attacking someone who isn't attacking you. This is for instance true for Osama bin Laden, who in a statement made long before 911 said that America had declared a de facto war against Islam and that he was just responding. Of course that's crap, but it still proves writers like Mark Gabriel wrong.

He talks about abrogation of the peaceful verses in the Qu'ran and points - as you do - to historical "bad guys" in Islam. The latter is, of course, not very difficult. Islam has had plenty of its own Tomas de Torquemadas, like Ibn Tayymiyya, Ibn Wahhab, the Kharijites and the Hashashins (who gave us the English word "assassin")

But then the problems arise again. Most Islamists do not explain their actions with abrogation. Ibn Tayymiyya is read, but his thoughts are elaborated on and combined with ideas of Western heritage and ideas from other populist Third World movements. The Hashashins, the prototype terrorists as they're sometimes called, were a radical Shia sect - like other Shias they would be loathed by the often Wahabi-inspired Sunni Islamists. The Kharijites disappeared out of the picture after a couple of centuries, today only the Ibadites (found mostly in Oman) can still be traced back to this sect. The ideas of Ibn Wahhab, however, is highly alive - thanks to one of the allies of America in the Muslim world; Saudi-Arabia, a country founded on the reactionary Wahabist doctrine.

Militant islamism is obviously dangerous. But it's more dangerous for Muslims than for anyone else. The first targest of extreme Islamists are other Muslims, not Westerners. Therefore, our best allies in the fight against extreme Islamist are people in the Muslim world who fights for democracy and human rights and against terrorism and militant interpretations of their religion. Amongst those people you will find people who are also Islamists. That's not nuance. That's pure facts.

Sure you can denounce these people as equivalent of Nazis. The only ones who will thank you for this is the extreme Islamists. The result: You lose, "Dashti". Here comes the Kaliphate!

Øyvind

Allan,
The issue was whether the ideology of Islamism is a modern development, not whether Christianity also has a violent history. In addition to being beside the point, your drawing of a contemporary equivalence is invalid. When is the last time large numbers of Christians practiced and supported torture or burning people at the stake to "cleanse" them of their sins? I don't remember reading about it in the newspaper lately. When is the last time large numbers of Islamists supported kidnapping, beheading, or mass murder of ordinary citizens? Christianity was defanged by internal reformation, changes that were enabled by its basic philosophies of love and forgiveness for ALL people, not just for fellow Christians. Christianity at its core seeks to overcome the darker impulses of human nature and The Reformation was a manifestation of that core. Islam at its core celebrates those darker impulses and even requires that they be indulged (but not against fellow Muslims and with some restrictions for dealing with other monotheists.) For that reason, Islam's fundamentals preclude a substantive reformation. The basic goals and principles of jihad for the furtherence of Islamist political/religious ideology are as they have always been. Adaptations to modern weaponry and political realities are superficial.

Allan wrote: "What's the most obvious question? I'm sorry, but I could actually not grasp what you mean here."

I was quoting and responding to the seventh paragraph of the original commentary.

Nick:
"The issue was whether the ideology of Islamism is a modern development, not whether Christianity also has a violent history. In addition to being beside the point, your drawing of a contemporary equivalence is invalid"
I drew the link because I think that not all people think alike. Just as Christianity can be misinterpreted, can not Islam be?

"When is the last time large numbers of Christians practiced and supported torture or burning people at the stake to "cleanse" them of their sins? I don't remember reading about it in the newspaper lately"
Nah, but we do have our own terrorists, look for instance to Ireland.

Opps, last comment was from me, Allan

Allan: "...we do have our own terrorists, look for instance to Ireland."

When they go global, murder thousands at a time, bomb dance halls, pizza parlors and Olympic events, murder scores of children, shooting some in the back as they flee, and spout Bible verses to justify it all in the name of Jesus Christ, then I'll look a bit more closely. For now, I think there's absolutely no valid comparison there.

There is an exchange today between the ex-Muslim scholar Ibn Warraq, author of Why I Am Not A Muslim, and Thomas Haidon, a convert to Islam and President of the New Zealand Chapter of the Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism:

Islam: A Totalitarian Ideology?

MUST READ: A MASTER PIECE

''Hatred is western export that was marked: RETURN TO SENDER ''

by Ibrahim Nafi, the editor of the Egyptian government daily Al-Ahram

http://www.jamaat.net/jforum/viewtopic.php?p=2082#2082

Oyvind wrote:
"I'm in Belgium right now and haven't met any of those scary Muslims you're talking about, but I'm sure they're hiding out somewhere nearby - possibly in Brüssels. Most Islamists, however, don't care too much about the Western world at all. Their goal is to establish new governments in Muslim countries - few of them are ruled by Islamists, the foothold you're talking of barely exists."
I really fear for your powers of observation! There are now more moslem immigrants in Brussels than there are Belgians and the name 'Mohammed' has officially replaced 'Michel' as the traditionally most popular name for new-born male children in Belgium.

In WW2 my great-uncle was tortured to death by the Gestapo as a suspected member of the Resistance. Many older Belgians have greater fear now for the survival of their national identity identity and culture than they ever did under Nazi occupation. Short of a coup-d'etat in the near future - or a revival of the Resistance - I think your suggestion of a muslim theocracy in Belgium is more prophetic than you might care to admit.

Michel:

Is it the same 'resistance' that led to the holocust in the 1940s that you are calling for in your beloved belguim ??

what identity you are talking about ? I am European, white and convert to Islam, Europe is my land as it is yours, Islam is my religion, are you going to resist my ' free ' choice to become muslim ??? if so, then you are for a long losing battle because for us muslims, Islam is dearer than life itself.

Instead of moaning about Islam and Muslims, why you( not personaly ) dont ditch your animalistic hedonestic life style, stop changing girlfriends and mistresses every year, get married, have a family and bring up some childern ??? this is what muslims do, are you going to fight them for this great noble act as well ???

After all, we need Muslims:

The ESA Research Network on Ageing in Europe

http://www.ageing-in-europe.de

some facts:

http://www.issa.int/pdf/anvers03/topic6/2cichon.pdf

Europe's ageing workforce

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2053581.stm

Here is a typical face:

THE WASHINGTON TIMES
BAGHDAD — Islamist extremists are targeting the city's universities by threatening and even attacking female students who wear Western-style fashions, setting off bombs on campuses and demanding that classes be segregated by sex.
* * *
Guards at al-Kindi University in Baghdad last week arrested a man carrying nearly 10 pounds of TNT in a bag. * * * "When we asked him about the one who sent him, he replied, 'It is God who sends me.' "
* * *
Pamphlets found on campus declared: "If the boy students don't separate from the girl students, we will explode the college. Any girl student who does not wear a veil, we will burn her face with chemicals."

>> apart from equating hamas which is a legitimate resistance movement against barbaric Israeli illegal occupation to neo nazi thugs, I think this comparsion is flawed in its basis

Others have answered this well, but here is some more perspective. Interesting that you mention Nazi, since it's so apropo. Assuming that one agrees that Nazi-ism is evil, this really shouldn't be that controversial. You see, we're really still fighting WW2. In WW2, the arabs eagerly sided with Hitler, and were part of the axis powers. When Hitler was defeated, all active supporters of hitler were deposed, and properly so. This happened in Norway with Quisling, other european countries, and the middle east. No one who supported Hitler has any right to power. Given the holocaust, the UN created the state of Israel from countries that had no standing to argue, since they were the defeated enemies of freedom.

Of course, after the UN vote, they attacked immediately, and repeatedly. Instead of allowing a small influx of people, they refused to let them in, and created refugee camps to breed terrorists.

Now consider the absurdity of this situation: A country that supported Hitler in WW2, still controlled by Nazis (baath party), refusing to abide by the UN decision on Israel, having destroyed and OCCUPIED the nation of Lebanon, harbors and supports terrorists (Hamas) that have an evil purpose.

And you dare proclaim them resistance fighters? Who's side are you on, Hitlers side?

As occupiers of lebanon, one is hardly in a position to complain about occupation. If one is on the wrong moral side, and you attack and lose, you lose. The arab nazis were part of an effort to exterminate the jews. They lost the war. The winners of the world gave the holocaust survivors a small sliver of territory that was won fair and square. The losers couldn't take that, so they attacked, and lost even more ground. The only solution to Hitler was regime change.

Ex-Christian- I understand your desire to love and protect the ideas of your faith but you don't know much about Hamas and what they are, what they do and what their intentions are- is a giant blank space. First they were recently offically anounced to really be the Gaza branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Second they openly advocate genocide. Third, if you think resistance is blowing up a bus full of innocents with rusty nails and anit-coagulents, you are beyond the all reasoning.

People have a right to defend their homes. If some psycho with a rocket started launching rockets over the border of any country; the government of the country has a duty to protect its people.

Israel is a lawfully constituted country whose existance is reparations to the Jewish people for 2000 years abuse by Christianity and 1400 under Islam. The 1948 borders are the product of a war in which 5 Arab armies tried to annihilate Israel. Well they failed and it is only just for the Arab world to suffer the consequences of that defeat. The Arabs tried again in 1967 and got another helping of defeat.

I am someone who believes in the Palestinians being given a State; but I believe that Israel has an absolute right to exist. Given that Israel is trying to pull out of Gaza, I do not understand why Hamas wants to invite Israeli troops in; the troops don't want to be there.

It is not barabrism to send in soldiers and defeat your enemy (please do note that if Israel, one of the most powerful militaries in the world, wanted to inflict real casualties, it could cause 500 times as many in a single hour)- Israel does not target civilians and punishes any soldier intentionally injuring a civilian (and intentions do matter quite a bit). When there are not rockets shooting over the border, Israel does not go in.

So it is that more Muslims have been killed in Darfur in the last two months than Palestinians fighters by Israel over the last twenty years. Naturally Israel is exporting hatred, the slaughter of non-combatants in Sudan is hardly mentioned in the Arab press other than to condemn Western threats to punish Sudan in anyway for its barbarism.

I know you find Israel exasperating and wrong to your world view. A devout Muslim has to look at Israel and wonder why it is there. But it is actually a good thing- in fifty years Israel has built a modern nation state under extremely adverse conditions. If the Arab world put as much effort into building up their people and their economies, using Israel as the model and partner, the Arab world could be transformed in 25 years.

The Arab world cannot manufacture any consumer goods suitable for the global markets- it has intelligent people, wealth and resources.

If you can't be honest about people's intentions and conditions, there is little hope for you.

I've mentioned before that I think that the Moslem world is experiencing it's plague moment. The the middle ages, the Catholic church claimed heaven's sanction and could not explain or lessen the plague (leading to protestantism etc).

At present, Islamic clerics cannot explain the modern world. There's the success of Israel (galling because of the sharp contrast between living standards in Israel and, let's say jordan or Egypt), the much higher living standards of the western world (compared to the poverty plaguing the Arab world). Moslem piety (as traditionally understood) at present brings poverty and disease (Nigerian imams denouncing polio vaccine) unless the country has oil in which case it mostly brings brutal dictatorships and war. And despite jihadi howling about colonialism et al, the sad remains that moslems kill far more moslems than non-moslems do (and moslems kill more moslems than non-moslems as well).
As a faith, Islam is going through some painful growth, I'm sure it will survive, but in a watered-down secular form (which allow Moslems to enjoy that same cognitive dissidence that's required to flourish in the modern world).

Michel:

For your claims on naming I would appreciate a link. The latest statistics I find at Statistics Belgium (2002) claims something else, you see, namely that the number one name is... Thomas. Mohamed is a long way down on that list.

And checking out their 2003 statistics I discover that Robbe seems to be popular in Flanderen and Hugo seems to be a Wallonian favourite. Mohamed, however, is the number one name in... Brussels - barely beating Adam, Ayoub and Alexandre.

So, you see, Marcel, I suspect that you are flat out wrong - or that you have been dreaming the whole thing. But then maybe you can provide a link with more credibility than statbel.fgov.be?

Secondly - you seem to nourish the all-Muslims are-the-same-and-they-all-want-Belgium-to-be-like-Iran-theory, which is a rather far-fetched theory, to be frank.

I prefer dealing with reality - not with myths. And the reality is that most Muslims are not Islamists and that most Islamists do not care an awful lot about who is in the government in Western countries. Now, for your Veterans fearing that their culture is to disappear, that is a discussion that has loads to do with immigration but little to do with militant and non-militant Islamism.

And your culture would do good without those AZERTY-keyboards, this response took forever to write. QWERTY forever.

Oeyvind

I did not look good enough, here is a press release from Statbel concerning names in 2003:

http://statbel.fgov.be/press/fl053_nl.asp

Let me quote:

Emma en Thomas zijn de voornamen die in 2003 het vaakst aan borelingen werden gegeven. Dat blijkt uit nieuwe cijfers van het NIS (Nationaal Instituut voor de Statistiek, Statistiek en Economische Informatie, FOD Economie). In 2002 stonden Laura en Thomas nog bovenaan.

Welke voornaam het populairst is, verschilt van gewest tot gewest. In Vlaanderen zijn Emma en Robbe het populairst, in Wallonië Léa en Hugo en in Brussel gaat de eer naar Sarah en Mohamed.

My translation:

Emma and Thomas are the given names that were most often given to newborns in 2003. This is revealed by new numbers from the NIS (National Statistics Institute). In 2003 Laura and Thomas was on the top.

What name is the most popular is different from region to region. In Flanders Emma and Robbe are the most popular, in Wallonia Lea and Hugo and in Brussels Sarah and Mohamed comes first.

Mvg

Oeyvind
p.t. Leuven, België

Gunnar, Maryland

''Others have answered this well, but here is some more perspective. Interesting that you mention Nazi, since it's so apropo. Assuming that one agrees that Nazi-ism is evil, this really shouldn't be that controversial. You see, we're really still fighting WW2. In WW2, the arabs eagerly sided with Hitler, and were part of the axis powers''

In fact, the JEWS also not only sided with hilter but some of them FOUGHT in hitler army as Generals and high ranking admirals:

Hitler's Jewish Soldiers
The Untold Story of Nazi Racial Laws and Men of Jewish Descent in the German Military

Bryan Mark Rigg
New in Paperback: September 2004
528 pages, 95 photographs, 6 x 9
Modern War Studies
Paper ISBN 0-7006-1358-7, $16.95

Some pictures of Jewish Generals and soldeirs in Hitler army:

http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/righitpix.html

As to the rest of your post, it is typical zionist recycled justification for illegal Israeli occupation and the theft of the arab land, no need to waste my time on it.

Uncle From Detroit

''Ex-Christian- I understand your desire to love and protect the ideas of your faith but you don't know much about Hamas and what they are, what they do and what their intentions are- is a giant blank space. First they were recently offically anounced to really be the Gaza branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Second they openly advocate genocide. Third, if you think resistance is blowing up a bus full of innocents with rusty nails and anit-coagulents, you are beyond the all reasoning.''

So what if they were a branch of the muslim brotherhood ? the muslim brotherhood is great organization intended on establishing pure islamic rule in the muslim world, do you have a problem with that ?

Secondly, they dont advocate genocide, will you care to provide a back up for your claim from HAMAS official site for example ?

Thirdly, suicide bombings dont come from nothing, you are trying to frame the israelis as innocent civilians being blown up for nothing !! give me a break ! more than 60% of these ' innocent' israelis advocate the ' transfer' of the palestineans from their homes and support the barbaric atrocities committed against the palestineans by their war criminal, ariel sharon.

You Have Made Me Your Human Bomb

http://www.mideastinfo.com/library/ey-bomb.htm

''People have a right to defend their homes. If some psycho with a rocket started launching rockets over the border of any country; the government of the country has a duty to protect its people.''

But the palestineans have no border nor a country nor any one to protect them against the israeli barbarism, what should they do ???

''Israel is a lawfully constituted country whose existance is reparations to the Jewish people for 2000 years abuse by Christianity and 1400 under Islam.''

This is utter pure nonesense, Israel until this very day has NO recognized border.

I agree with you that the jews suffered under christianity but they certainly DID NOT suffer under Islam, let me quote you a famousJEWISH site:

''The tolerance of the Umayyad regime made Muslim Spain a refuge for Jews, and their numbers increased dramatically.''

http://www.jewishgates.com/file.asp?File_ID=126

Also, let me quote you FAMOUS JEWISH historians and writers:

''The politics of the region depended on the rulers. With the adoption of Christianity as the official religion of Rome, the Romans placed restrictions on Jews. These were lifted with the Arab conquest in 636 CE, when Islamic caliphates began ruling the region. From the seventh Century until the end of Ottoman rule, the Jewish community was self-governed. Self-government entitled the Jews to freedom of religion, a separate court system ruled by local rabbis to handle internal disputes, and military protection''

Source : Sarina Roffé is a career journalist and the author of Branching Out: The Kassin and Labaton Dynasties . She is a member of the Jewish Genealogical Society, Inc. of New York, and Brooklyn's Syrian Jewish community.

Colin Thubron, the British author, writes in his book Jerusalem, " In the early centuries, the Muslims were generally tolerant of the Jews and lived with them peacefully while Europe was steeped in persecution.''

Salman ben Yeruham, A Karaite Jewish author, writing about A.D. 950, the Muslims granted the Jews access to Jerusalem and its holy sites. Salman wrote:

"As it is known, Jerusalem remained under the rule of the Rum [the Byzantines] for more than 500 years, during which they [the Jews] were not able to enter Jerusalem. Anyone who was discovered entering was killed. When by the mercy of the God of Israel the Rum departed from us and the kingdom of Ishmael [the Arabs] appeared, the Jews were granted permission to enter and reside there."

During the reign of Saladin this traditional Islamic tolerance continued. Conversely, when the Crusaders entered Jerusalem, they burned the Jews in their synagogue.

From 1099 to 1189, Jews were not allowed to live in the city. But with the Muslim repossession of Jerusalem, Jews were allowed to return. The Spanish poet Yehuda al-Harizi, who was in Jerusalem in 1207, described the significance for the Jews of the recovery of Jerusalem by Saladin:

[ In A.D. 1190] God aroused the spirit of the prince of the Ishmaelites [Saladin], a prudent and courageous man, who came with his entire army, besieged Jerusalem, took it and had it proclaimed throughout the country that he would receive and accept the entire race of Ephraim, wherever they came from. And so we came from all comers of the world to take up residence here. We now live here in the shadow of peace.

Further testament to Saladin's tolerance comes from [B]the eminent German Jewish historian of the Nineteenth Century, Heinrich Graetz.In his Geschichte der Juden History of the Jews, vol. 11, published in 1853, he states that the Sultan, " opened the whole kingdom to the persecuted Jews, so they came to it, seeking security and finding justice.''

At about the same time that Jews were fleeing from Spain and seeking refuge in Arab lands and elsewhere (15th and 16th Centuries), the Ottoman Empire opened its doors to them and gave them refuge. The prominent Jewish banker Don Joseph Nasi, a refugee from Portugal, was made advisor to Sultan Suleiman who showered the emigre with honors.

There are a number of statements from prominent Jews expressing gratitude to the Ottomans for their generous treatment of fugitive Jews. In his History of the Jews, A. L. Sachar, a former president of Brandeis University, noted:

"Jews had found refuge in the Ottoman dominions for many decades before the expulsion from Spain. During the fifteenth-century persecutions in Germany, thousands had fled eastward and had been well received in the Turkish provinces. Life was secure and the morrow could be greeted without terror.''

Source : Arab American Roman Catholic Community:

http://www.al-bushra.org

''The 1948 borders are the product of a war in which 5 Arab armies tried to annihilate Israel. Well they failed and it is only just for the Arab world to suffer the consequences of that defeat. The Arabs tried again in 1967 and got another helping of defeat. ''

Well, the arabs did not try again in 1967, it was Israel which attacked them frist, but hey, dont be so much taken by this zionist propaganda, in 1973, the arabs nearly crushed Israel had it not be for the American intervention.

Not to forget 1982 Israeli and American defeat in Lebanon and of course the heros of Hizbollah who after 20 years fighting defeated the israelis out of south lebanon.

''I am someone who believes in the Palestinians being given a State; but I believe that Israel has an absolute right to exist. Given that Israel is trying to pull out of Gaza, I do not understand why Hamas wants to invite Israeli troops in; the troops don't want to be there.''

If so what Israel has been doing in Gaza for more than 30 years ????

''It is not barabrism to send in soldiers and defeat your enemy (please do note that if Israel, one of the most powerful militaries in the world, wanted to inflict real casualties, it could cause 500 times as many in a single hour)''

I can argue the same, it is not barbarism to send in suicide martyers and defeat your enemy !! how about that ?

Beside Israel cant do anything against its arab neighbours, Israel know very well its geographical size, the israelis know very well that the arabs can absorb the first hit due to their siz but Israel on the other hand cant absorb the retaliation of the arabs due to its size, if israel with its mighty army cant stop some primitive Qassam rockets launched from Gaza, how about the Syrian Advanced Ballistic missiles ? what about SHIHAB-3 the formidable Iranian ballistic missile ??

Zionists live in fantasy world, Israel failed to defeat the intifada, isnt better to think again about the 'myth' of Israel being so powerful ?

I think you should read more about Hizbollah and the colorful defeat they inflict against Israel, it is really so much fun :)

''- Israel does not target civilians and punishes any soldier intentionally injuring a civilian (and intentions do matter quite a bit). When there are not rockets shooting over the border, Israel does not go in.''

This is bullshit:

UNITED NATIONS:

Commission on Human Rights
MORNING 15 April 2004

COMMISSION ADOPTS THREE RESOLUTIONS ON THE VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE OCCUPIED ARAB TERRITORIES

http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/view01/400428B523407689C1256E770057784B?opendocument

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

Amnesty International is concerned about the deterioration of the human rights and humanitarian situation as a result of the Israeli army incursion in the Jabaliya refugee camp and surrounding areas in the northern Gaza Strip (including sectors in the nearby towns of Beit Hanoun and Beit Lahiya).

In the past week (since the evening of Tuesday 28 September) more than 70 Palestinians have been killed, more than a third of whom were unarmed and including some 20 children. Hundreds of others have been injured.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE150952004?open&of=ENG-ISR

Israeli state terrorism:

http://www.israel-state-terrorism.org/

''So it is that more Muslims have been killed in Darfur in the last two months than Palestinians fighters by Israel over the last twenty years. ''

another piece of nonesense.

''Naturally Israel is exporting hatred, the slaughter of non-combatants in Sudan is hardly mentioned in the Arab press other than to condemn Western threats to punish Sudan in anyway for its barbarism.''

there is NO slaughter in sudan, even the EU and the UN acknowledge that, it is only slaughter in your FOX JEWS.

where are the mass graves ? why we dont see dead bodies everywhere ? give me a break, this darfur myth is another ploy against Muslim Sudan.

there was some killing and some burning but not to the extent which was reported in the zionist controled western media.

''I know you find Israel exasperating and wrong to your world view. A devout Muslim has to look at Israel and wonder why it is there. But it is actually a good thing- in fifty years Israel has built a modern nation state under extremely adverse conditions.''

Israel is living on the American life support machine, once this machine is turned off, israel is gone.

'' If the Arab world put as much effort into building up their people and their economies, using Israel as the model and partner, the Arab world could be transformed in 25 years.''

israel can be hardly a model state, it is aparthied state, it is a racist state by constituion which refer to it as JEWISH STATE ONLY !!!

''If you can't be honest about people's intentions and conditions, there is little hope for you.''

if you can't examine your recycled zionist myths, there is no hope for you.

PICTURES OF AWEFUL ISRAELI TERRORISM AGAINST THE PALESTINEANS:

http://www.alkhilafah.info/massacres/palestine/index16.htm

Anther face
"Protestant minister who converted from Islam risks the death penalty for apostasy

Tehran (AsiaNews) – Hamid Pourmand is a Protestant minister of the Assemblies of God Church. He converted from Islam several years ago. Since September he has been held in prison at an undisclosed location and under Iranian law he can be put to death for “apostasy against Islam”. He was arrested on September 9 in Karaj, a town 30 km west of the capital Tehran during a police raid against the annual General Council of the Assemblies of God Church."

http://www.asianews.it/view_p.php?l=en&art=1708

"In WW2, the arabs eagerly sided with Hitler, and were part of the axis powers. When Hitler was defeated, all active supporters of hitler were deposed, and properly so. This happened in Norway with Quisling, other european countries, and the middle east."

Only partially in the Middle East. Al-Husayni stayed in the Palestinian political leadership until 1948, despite having spent most of the war in Berlin, and being instrumental in the formation of Balkan SS-units. (Yugoslavia sought, unsuccessfully, to have him extradicted.)

This man has been referred to by Yasir Arafat as "the hero of the Palestinian people", by the way.

Herbie:

Enjoy:

RADICAL JEWISH GROUPS RAISE FUNDS

Larry Cohler-Esses, NY Daily News, 8/25/04

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/225602p-193595c.html

Violence-spewing Jewish radicals are raising big bucks in New York even though they're tied to groups identified by the U.S. as terror organizations.

Jewish Rabbai inciting hate against Muslims

http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2004-10/08/article07.shtml

Thousands of Muslims were killed by Christian terrorists in Nigeria

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3724218.stm

Jewish Cult girl is double killer

http://www.jamaat.net/jforum/viewtopic.php?t=299

Chief rabbi of Ariel arrested on rape charges

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/471677.html

You bring up some bad news against Muslims, I bring up MORE bad news against jews and zionists, would you like to play this game of cat and mouse ? :)))

Terje, Gdansk

Why you dont tell us about the jewish Generals and admirals who served in Hitler army ???

Me: When Hitler was defeated, all active supporters of hitler were deposed, and properly so.

You: Only partially in the Middle East. Al-Husayni stayed in the Palestinian political leadership until 1948,

Good point, I should have said "were deposed, or should have been".

Oeyvind wrote (re:names):

"...and in Brussels Sarah and Mohamed comes first."

Thanks for finding the link, which I probably would not have done since I read this item some time ago on BBC Telelext (I'm presently in England - where I'm enjoying the advantages of a QWERTY keyboard!) As you see, I didn't make it up.

For my part I admit I mis-remembered in saying Mohammed is now the most popular name for boys in Belgium, when it is in fact the most popular name in the Brussels Province. Memory can play tricks as you must know - you called me 'Marcel'!

Belgium (for those who don't know) is/was a Roman Catholic enclave whose peoples (Dutch/French/German) rejected the Protestant faiths of neighbouring countries. I'm happy to live alongside people of any religion (I've lived in the Middle East and North Africa), but when adherents of one particular religion/ideology/cult tries to impose their will on everyone else through a gradual process of increasing intimidation, threats and aggression, then I think all people have a right to resist in whatever way they can.

Bjorn -

Much as I'd like to read more and post more here, the reality is that I am so far behind with my own projects that i just don't have the time, unfortunately. I found your stimulating site by following a link, so I'm just passing through. I wish you the best of luck with it. As Winston Churchill famously said, "Jaw-jaw is always better than war-war.'

(Luckily, he excelled at both.)

Ex C Other than the fact that you appear to have an obsessive hatred of Jews and Zionists, what exactly do your posts concerning them have to do with the topic at hand which is "The many faces of Islamism"?

M:

Ok, I'll call you M from now on, easier to remember that one. Anyway, M, wouldn't you say that there's a major difference between being the most popular name in Brüssels and being the most popular name in Belgium?

I sure would.

There's a reason I mentioned Brüssels in connection with scary Muslims above. If you go looking for radical and militant Islamists in Belgium - including underground al Qa'ida cells -I'm sure that your capital is the place your most likely to find them.

These people are indeed dangerous, but they're still a tiny fringe group. While they are fully capable of terrorism they are not - and will not be - capable of turning Belgium into an Iranian-like theocracy. Most Belgian Muslims support other politics than the radical Islamism of ayatollah Khomeini or for that matter ayatollah Khomeini.

This does not mean that there's no problems with Belgian - or rather European - immigration politics. In country after country we see the same tendencies: ghettofication, poverty, joblessness, crime. Muslim minorities are ending up in much the same role as Blacks are in the United States. This, however, is a completely different issue from the two issues I was trying to raise in my article above:

1. That not all Islamists are bad people. Some of them are on the right side in the fight for democracy and human rights and against terrorism in the Middle East.

2. That Islamism is a modern ideology with modern roots that needs to be understood from its modern background, including Western sources.

I would love this thread to discuss those two points more - and Belgian immigration politics and Israeli military conduct less.

Øyvind

Correction: Or for that matter Osama bin Laden.

Furthermore, the whole Arabs fought on the Nazi side thing is not only irrelevant to the discussion, but also silly. After the First World War the Ottoman Empire lost control of several Arab provinces to England and France.

At the same time Arab nationalism, inspired by similar ideas in Europe, was on the rise. While you surely found nationalsocialistic ideas amongst Arabs much of this nationalism was purely a fight for freedom from European (and earlier on, Ottoman) control.

When the WWII arrived many Arabs saw a chance to achieve liberty by fighting on the German side. Not only Arabs were volunteering for the Axis powers, though. So were - for instance - Indians. Battaglione Azad Hindoustan was parly created with ex-Indian army personell. Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, an Indian nationalist and rival of Gandhi, also saw the war in Europe as a chance for liberty. Unlike Gandhi, Bose did not oppose the use of violent means. Just like some Arabs Bose went to Germany to gather support. He later created Legion Freies Indien - an army force including both Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus.

Furthermore, Arabs - like Norwegians, Germans, Belgians, whatever - fought on both sides in WWII. In Libya, that was an Italian colony, the Arabs and Berbers, fought on the Allied side - also hoping to be able to rid their country of its colonizers.

Øyvind

Øyvind:
"At the same time Arab nationalism, inspired by similar ideas in Europe, was on the rise. While you surely found nationalsocialistic ideas amongst Arabs much of this nationalism was purely a fight for freedom from European (and earlier on, Ottoman) control."

I dont entirely disagree with your points, but I think you are too quick to dismiss the Arab nationalists as merely opportunistic in their embrace of nazism. At least the Baath version of Arab nationalism is heavily indebted to fascist ideology, (key words: militarism, secularism, racism, anti-marxism, anti-semitism) and was partially modelled on Western fascist parties. As for the Palestinian political leadership, several of its leading figures participated actively and enthusistically in the Holocaust. I mean, you know all this, are you saying it's not relevant? It might not be the whole picture, but it's certainly an interesting part of it (especially now that it's fashionable to call Israel a nazi state), and a part of modern history that most people dont know anything about, because it doesnt fit in with a world view where Arabs can only be victims.

And what about the anti-Jewish pogroms in Baghdad in 1941, were they also part of the Arab "fight for freedom"?

I appreciated your article on Islamism because it paints a more nuanced picture. Ironically, you seem to fall into the same trap of oversimplifying if you say they were all anti-colonialist freedom fighters temporarily led astray by fascism, and disregard the fascist roots and indeed the fascist/nazi nature of at least some versions of Arab nationalism.

"Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, an Indian nationalist and rival of Gandhi, also saw the war in Europe as a chance for liberty. Unlike Gandhi, Bose did not oppose the use of violent means."

So what you're basically saying is: if it wasn't for Gandhis strange fixation on non-violence, he would have fallen from nazism too. Because he was fighting for freedom, right?

Kind of like saying that if Hitler hadnt been a German nazi, he would have become a great French resistance leader.

Gandhi proved it, as have Afro-Americans and many others. You can fight for freedom without embracing totalitarian death cults.

The post above was mine.

How nice of you, Terje, to give me ideas I have never had. What I am saying, Terje, is not that Gandhi could have been a Nazi, but that amongst his contemporaries there were people who joined the German side merely because they saw a chance to end British (and French) rule.

Furthermore I'm saying that in Libya the opposite happened. Arabs joined the Allied side hoping to end Italian rule. They were motivated by local nationalism, not by pro-British or pro-German feelings.

To hint that I think that freedom fighters using violence are right is making a very nice strawman, Terje, but that's all it is. I have always been a supporter of the non-violent resistance and I think that the Palestinian cause, for instance, would do good by swapping from the current violent means to non-violent ones. Sadly, the Palestinian resistance has, this far, proved mostly uncapable of breaking out of the violent political culture of the Middle East.

To conclude that I'm sayint that there was no anti-Semitism (or rather anti-Judaism) in the Arab world in and around WWII is also false. Of course there was, and the pogroms in Baghdad is just one example of this. However, did anti-Jewish violence in Russia mean that the Russians were also Nazis? The disease of Jew-hatred did infect much of the world, not only Germany, Terje.

Baath-nationalism was indeed inspired by European fascism (but also by socialism). What I was protesting against was not statements about the links between baathism and fascism, however, but statements like the following:

"You see, we're really still fighting WW2. In WW2, the arabs eagerly sided with Hitler, and were part of the axis powers" (Gunnar, Maryland)

Why? Because the statement is silly. Yes, many Arabs did indeed side with Hitler, just as other anti-colonial forces did many places. But many Arabs also sided with the Allies, for instance in Libya. By telling half of the story, Gunnar from Maryland ads a spin of his own, a spin that once more probably is intented to prove that one side is right in a conflict where both sides are wrong.

Øyvind

Terje:

Please note that I wrote the following above:

While you surely found nationalsocialistic ideas amongst Arabs much of this nationalism was purely a fight for freedom from European (and earlier on, Ottoman) control

As you can see I do not dismiss Arab nationalists as merely opportunistic. I describe them as mostly opportunistic.

Øyvind

The Power of Nightmares

Baby It's Cold Outside

In the past our politicians offered us dreams of a better world. Now they promise to protect us from nightmares. The most frightening of these is the threat of an international terror network. But just as the dreams weren't true, neither are these nightmares.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctwo/listings/programme.shtml?day=wednesday&service_id=41532&filename=20041020/20041020_2100_41532_40078_60

Øyvind:
Thanks for the reply. To say that all Arabs fought with Hitler is of course wrong. And in many cases siding with Hitler was probably a matter of opportunism (though that doesnt necessarily make it more justified). But at least in some cases the Nazi message resonated with political environments in the ME. Your article discusses how Islamists have picked up this and that from Western ideologies. Central to that discussion is a recurring theme in the Middle East since the 1800s: the notion that the ME is lagging behind compared to the West, economically, technologically and (perhaps most importantly) militarily, and that they need to modernise in order to catch up the west. But how should this modernisation come about, and what does modernisation mean? In order to catch up militarily and technologically with the West, would the Muslim world have to import democracy as well, for instance? In that context, I think fascism/nazism was a welcome ideological input, because it meant you can have it both ways (if you're not keen on democracy that is): modernisation without Westernisation (in the sense of democratisation, rule of law, individual rights etc.).

Anyway, I think we basically agree.

"Israel is living on the American life support machine, once this machine is turned off, israel is gone."

Yea GONE! wiped out right ? because this aint about getting a Palestinian state to you, this is about annihilating the state of Israel. But guess what, this machine won´t be turned off and there is no way you gonna conquer Israel in foreseeable future.

"israel can be hardly a model state, it is aparthied state, it is a racist state by constituion which refer to it as JEWISH STATE ONLY !!!"

Well Aghanistan was "moslem state" Saudi Arabia is part time - anything - wannabee - wahabi. Speaking of Aghanistan they weren´t especially tolerant of different thinking groups, of people, and other religions - but ofc they killed the opium industry this giant trumpf you can always pull out of the sleeve right ? Anyway in short Israel is a democracy where all citizens including palestinians can vote for parliament and run for it. And though Mosaic faith has old fashioned and pre-historic rules like that; not allowed for a jew to be drinking of the same cup as an infidel been drinking of, impure vs pure etc. rules you can find similar in Islam btw. Then in general Israel is a modern "secular" ( A word that must taste bitter in the mouth of zealot ) society where religion in large is seperated from government. And thus also the "our religion is the master religion other religions are of lower rank" attitude. Most religions however are in effect an apartheid system! And Islam most aggresively so.

"Instead of moaning about Islam and Muslims, why you( not personaly ) dont ditch your animalistic hedonestic life style, stop changing girlfriends and mistresses every year, get married, have a family and bring up some childern ??? this is what muslims do, are you going to fight them for this great noble act as well ???

After all, we need Muslims:"

If anyone live what you call a hedonistic life style, what business is it of yours ? What the fuck makes you think that you have the right to judge people that had more than one girlfriend ?
Humans which don´t do their 5 five daily prayers facing Mecca, do not get married as virgins and eat pork are just as much HUMANS as those that Follow the strict and totalitarian rules of Islam. Your semi fascist Islamocentric views belong in a age long gone, not after the age of enlightenment. A woman is not a whore because she is not a walking tent! Nor are we decadent because we so far have been tolerant. No you don´t get it at all! We don´t have a problem with people believing in god - even if they call him Allah. We don´t have a problem with marriage being between man and woman - I personally believe that - but that doesn´t make me hate gays etc. We don´t have problem with a strong unity of family. We don´t have a problem with huge flocks of children. This is what Roman Catholic´s, Hindu´s etc always been about, and few have a problem with them. When we have a problem with ISlam it´s because something else. It´s because it´s repressive, intolerant, in it´s own view superior religion - not just a private faith or religion of choice - but the ultimate religion. And how ironic you mention or so called hedonism. When a martyr dies for his Islamic faith and goes to heaven to his 72 "Deer eyed virgins" to revel forever in delight, what is that but hedonism ? a hedonism which beats our little adventures with hazel diana, and blond Christina by far ? Add to that that it´s even considered fair to blow her up in the cause far in the horizon, take her as a Konkubine/slave after cutting the throat of her husband in your medieval religion. And of course these virgins are specially made by Allah for the martyrs cause Mohamed saw heaven! and there was 90 % men and only 10 % women cause the woman is deceitful - another pearl in your world view!

No we don´t need more moslems and certainly not the "take the koran and hadith and fiq and fatwah literally" types.

"In fact, the JEWS also not only sided with hilter but some of them FOUGHT in hitler army as Generals and high ranking admirals:"

And ??? supposed to mean what ? They did so because the military staff was protecting them from Himmler´s robots, and taking them out would have rebellion in the ranks of the army.

"Thirdly, suicide bombings dont come from nothing, you are trying to frame the israelis as innocent civilians being blown up for nothing !! give me a break ! more than 60% of these ' innocent' israelis advocate the ' transfer' of the palestineans from their homes and support the barbaric atrocities committed against the palestineans by their war criminal, ariel sharon."

And my not so dear friend an equal number of palestinians support the suicide bombings so using your way of thinking that makes them all guilty too. The palestinians fight with what they have, the Israelis could fight with much more so sing another song than that old looney tune. The suicide bombers goes after random civilians. Israel goes after Terrorists doing those random bombings. Now ask yourself if idiots did not blow themselves and innocent people up how much support you think Sharon would have ? My bet is he would not have much.
Now what about Breslan does 60 % of russian children support what goes on in Checnya ?
Islam would win a lot by alone stopping the random but direct! targeting of civilians, women, children, old people alike. But you are waging a holy war and eagerly looking forward to your hedomistic eternal bliss in paradise. You ban making pictures of god on linen but in your brain tissue you create image after image of what you cannot imagine - my bet is your in for a sad surprise once you face god.

Oh yea it´s right most moslems are just people which happens to be born in moslem cultures. But once they start to take Quran to literally, to consider Jihad vs infidels, political islam, to fight for the expansion of islam with violent means that spells trouble.

A lot of people see the palestinian conflict as the problem and the solution of it as panacea. But don´t get fooled though the hate the moslems feel to us may decrease slightly it will not stop.
They will still hate us don´t matter what we do as long as what we do is not being about moslems.
They will hate us for being infidels - "worse than pigs and dogs", atheist´s, for eating pigs, for allowing women to dress as they like, for doing something else than service to her husband, for our, as my not so good friend put it, hedonistic life style, for our freedom of expression, our critical and dialectical thinking, and not to forget for our success in building a rich society and our strong military forces. I sure hope for Europe it will wake up and realize that we should not be spending less on military than the US does, we should join them in their efforts to build anti missile defences, and we should reform our armies to purely professional well trained forces with strong integrity. We can adopt wise and fair policies in dealing with other parts of the world but we cannot keep the Islamic world from hating us, nor trust the old communist regimes. So bulilding a massive wall of defense and striking hard at terrorists that think they can sneak their way aroundis what we can primarily do to keep our part of the world free. And I have to say it bluntly our import of moslems must end no reason to invite a disaster and those of radical observance and commiting serious crimes we should export immediately. ( USA; EUROPE; COMMONWEALTH; JAPAN.)

Terje:

Yes, I find your last post totally agreeable :).

One of my points is that in this search for modernity not only Arab secularists, nationalists, and socialists have found inspiration in the Western world. So has Islamists.

The roots of Islamism are, in my opinion, much more connected and indeed intertangled with the history of panarabism, nasserism and baathism than with the history of Islam as a religion.

When it comes to Jew-hatred in the Muslim world I have written an article about this too. It
is to be found in Norwegian here.

http://www.dilettant.no/index.php?page=vis_artikkel&ArtID=245

Maybe I will translate it to English and elaborate upon it (it could do well with some further work) one day, but the time needs to be found first.

Øyvind

ex-C wrote: "israel can be hardly a model state, it is aparthied state, it is a racist state by constituion which refer to it as JEWISH STATE ONLY !!!"

This is hardly true. Why? Because Israel does not - as of yet - have a constitution. Please stick to facts, not fantasies.

While it is true that some laws in Israel can be considered unfair and discriminate, they are hardly equivalent of the laws of the apartheid South Africa (attempts in that direction has been stopped by the Israeli High Court several times, so the ideas exist in Israeli society, but that is another discussion). Compared to every (!) other Middle Eastern country, including Turkey and Lebanon - both partly democratic - Israel can indeed be considered a model state.

(The Turkish Repuclic of Northern Cyprus must, if considered to be Middle Eastern, also be mentioned. This unrecognized country is fairly democratic)

Israel provides a flawed model, though, and many people have a tendency to defend those flaws merely because the defended part is Israel.

Øyvind

Thank you, Øyvind Strømmen, for this superb article.

Thanks for that insightful comment! It makes interesting reading, especially when I need a payday loans.

when terrorists ( islamists or otherwise) engage in the wanton killing of innocents..they forfeit their humanity and are undeserving of the rights and protection accorded human beings. The problem with arm chair leftist ideologues and apologists extraordinaires is that they tend to perceive the world and others from through western eyes and western values, mores and norms. Be very aware...indeed be forwarned...your enemies do not view the world through your myopic western eyes. Nay ...theirs is a world apart from yours , their ideologies and aspirations are not in line with yours. Stop this tomfoolery of a one sided evaluation of the struggle that will surely be long and arduous........yes indeed a clash of religion and civilization.

A most wise ancient sage Sun Tze once said : " Know thy enemy "

Sun Tze 是一位明智的中國哲學家。他很好說...

.學習和知道很好您的敵人!!!

( study and know well your enemy !!!)

Woe unto ye....ye study not and know not your enemy :(

Princess Minnehaha - indian maiden who speaks the Truth
الأميرة مينيهاها - - هي التي تتحدّث الحقيقة

Hello again,

this is a belated rebuttal to ex-christian's post on 2004-10-18 (his response to Michel) in which he wrote :

"if so, then you are for a long losing battle because for us muslims, Islam is dearer than life itself."

.....so Islam is dearer to him than life itself...there you have it by his own conviction he admits to the trappings of a Cult -- a true religion is about life and preserving Life...a superCult like islam is about death and destruction ...by their fruits shall ye know them !

Also darling ex-christian, please don't make me puke when you go about pontificating about the moral superiority of islamites . To quote you:

".....why you( not personaly ) dont ditch your animalistic hedonestic life style, stop changing girlfriends and mistresses every year, get married, have a family and bring up some childern ??? this is what muslims do, are you going to fight them for this great noble act as well ???...." when i read your obscene lies and the nerve you have preaching about moral this and that i want to roll on the floor and laugh my ass off ( uuhhh i'm being a bad girl :) !!!!but that's o.k. i can laugh freely without being choked by a burqa LOL ) What moral superiority are you harping about... You sly dog...you...you know you are lying thro your fangs when you say those words...what beautiful treatment of women are referring to por favor???...but then lying is permissible and encouraged in islam n'est-ce-pas??? ...Your freedom loving brother braves and sister squaws of the tribes of Norweejah and Soowehdeejah should be ashame of you O thou treacherous one ...verily thou speaketh with fork-tongue !

Dear Brother Braves and Sister Squaws of the confederations of free braves and squaws i present to you the following sites that will detail the wonderful treatment of women by this beautiful religion ( superCult) of YSHLAM founded by the wicked Shaman Mah-Hoh-Maat who worships the evil spirit HAK-LAH = Architect of mischief , mayhem and murder in MID-GAARD.....KINDRED SPIRIT TO LOKI...MAY THE GREAT ODIN CAST HIM OUT OF ASGAARD :)

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/004280.php
(mentally retarded girl who was raped given death sentence by islamist Iran -- lovely Shariah ,muslim justice ha ha ha oh what the heck it's just a girl LOL EX-CHRISTIAN HAVE YOU DONE ANYTHING TO RESCUE HER FROM YOUR SAVAGE BLOODTHIRSTY CO-RELIGIONIST PRACTISING THE BEAUTIFUL ISLAMIC SHARIAH JURISPRUDENCE ???YES OR NO ---ANSWER ME )

http://taslimanasrin.com/ ( Web site for Dr. Talisma Nasrin a woman physician for bangladesh currently under fatwa death sentence by ex christian's tolerant co-religionist in bangladesh. She dared to speak out against crimes and oppression against women in her country by islamists...)

http://knowislam.info/drupal/horror ( graphic

pictures of woman tortured in the wonderful islamic society of pakistan -- a horror story every woman should read to know Islam...very graphic , not for the weak of stomach ..maybe your wife might slap you upside the head after she reads this Mr. Ex-christian macho man, muslim warrior ha ha ha )

http://islamreview.org/AnwarShaikh/sexviolence/

( an excellent site on sex and violence in Islam--ex-christian I hope you're not that kinky bro heh heh )

http://www.islamreview.com/articles/sexinislam.shtml
( another excellent site on sex and sexuality in Islam...i'm a pretty shy girl and this essay makes me blush..see what you have done mr. morality ..ex-christian LOL your "religion" is corrupting the virtues of a sweet innocent Korean Girl ! Allahuma! allahuma !)

I know what ex-christian will typically say, they will deny that this is the teaching of their beautiful religion/deen and that this are tribal customs and traditions. But let me ask you this..if after 1400 yrs , your beautiful religion is unable to effectively wipe out such barbaric behaviours among its adherents..then what good is your religious teaching?....aha therein lies the crux of the problem...it is your 'beautiful' religion of Yshlam that inspires men to do heinous deeds. If you think me wrong then take a cursory look at some of this brutally savage videos...warning do not look if you are weak of stomach... do not let children view!!!

here are the sacred words for you to speak into your magic mirror:

http://www.ropma.net/ ( look under video archives - extreme videos of beheadings of hostages by islamic terrorists ...beheading is a noble tradition of ex-christians's beautiful religion of Yshlam - a religion of pieces...may piece be upon you LOL )

Princess Minnehaha - she who speaks the truth
( sensual and buxom korean princess not wearing any burqa or hijab LOL )

公主meeneehaha - 她講真相(肉欲的韓國公主的詞不佩帶面紗)

مينيهاها الأميرة - هي التي تتحدّث كلمة الحقيقة ( أميرة كوريّة حسّيّة لا تلبس حجاب

By the way in terms of general Morals -- islamists have none to speak of. A cursory look a

Oeyvind wrote :

"....ironically the secular Kemalists who play the role of reactionaries in the country today, while the “Islamists” are promoting reforms towards a – that's right – Western-styled liberal democracy. "

how devilishly ingenious can you get Oeyvind... for you to use the word "western-styled liberal democracy" is almost sinful. Apparently that is all you care about the mechanics of democracy -- well if 60% of the electorate are cajoled,threatened , deceived , bamboozled by die-hard islamists (who espouse the despicable tenets of religious bigotry, misogyny,and islamic world hegemony )into voting for them and they are successfull in harnessing the mechanics of "democracy" ( you favorite catch-word) to foist a draconian theocratic totalitarian-fascist government on the rest of the population...i assume from your leftist-revisionist ideological stand-point that would constitute a successful score for 'democracy' world-wide ...would it not, at least in your twisted world of blind leftism?

And oh... regarding your pet-rock and much vaunted utopic mali-an democracy.....i will get back with you on that one....sorry, but hate to prick your balloon of leftist bewonderment -- your much vaunted 'mali democracy' is unravelling - thanks to your favorite pet-snake -- isssssssssssssslaaaaam !

Princessssssssss Bhagavatam
Temple of Goddess Sri Sri MahaDevi Mahaswaroopa Saraswati

Trackback URL: http://bearstrong.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1465

Armies of Liberation: The Many Faces of Islamism, October 14, 2004 05:06 PM

From Bjorn's blog, here's an excerpt: While one should be careful with historical parallels, it can be interesting to look at the many similarities between Islamism and political Marxism in Western political history. In the last few years Islamism ha...