Bjørn Stærk blog - The Norwegian Islam debate

p | 2005-07-23 19:42 | Link

Forza Fallaci.

norvegia, norvegia | 2005-07-23 19:45 | Link

You say: «On second place, the idea that Islam itself is evil, and Europe's Muslim population a danger to us. Some of these views were racist, most were not.»

If I was to say Judaism in itself is evil, and the Jewish population of Europe is a real danger to us, would you not call me a racist and an anti-semite?

Or is this in some peculiar way a different story alltogether if we replace «Muslim» with «Jew»?

Bjørn Stærk | 2005-07-23 20:16 | Link

Islam is not a "race", so being phobic about Muslims it not necessarily racist, no more than being phobic about, say, American politicians is. Anti-semitism on the other hand is rarely aimed at followers of the Judaist religion as such, but at Jews as a people. But it's a special kind of racism, not just random genetic xenophobia, but a specific hatred spiced up with a large mythology of conspiracy theories.

Nomen Nescio | 2005-07-23 20:32 | Link

I am sad to see you utilizing the word islamophobia yet again - it appears to me that you are desperately seeking to create an image of mental illness in those who fear islam as well as the rapid islamification of Europe - the creation of Eurabia. Just recently you labelled us "useful idiots". Say, are you picking up bad habits from your new leftist friends?

My kind suggestion to you, Mr. Bjorn Sterk, is to stop these grossly primitive argumentum ad hominem attacks against those who have fought off the kassandra syndrome, seen the darkness and come to the inevitable realisation that the problem lies within islam per se. (You do not have to agree with us of course, but we are not insane lunatics nor retarded idiots.)

Bjørn Stærk | 2005-07-23 21:03 | Link

Nomen Nescio: Say, are you picking up bad habits from your new leftist friends?

I'm friends with anyone who thinks for themselves and can argue for it. I'm also willing to pick up good ideas from anywhere. Not sure which of my bad habits I've picked up from "leftists", but I'd rather pick up an idea from a stranger too often than stick too cautiously to the dogma of some camp you believe I should be loyal to.

And no I don't believe you're mentally ill, nor that you're an idiot. By Islamophobic I mean that many Islam critics have an irrational fear of everything Islamic, leading them to believe wild tales about the Evil nature of a religion with 1 billion followers. And "useful idiot" is a well-known expression, it means only that these people naively serve a sinister purpose.

In the Norwegian thread I wrote about there was a Muslim Norwegian girl who wrote about how her Islam is peaceful and friendly and tolerant, and then someone had the nerve to reply to her that she had misunderstood Islam. He gave her all the usual arguments, about how the Quran properly intepreted is evil and violent. That is so obviously ridiculous that a person has to be unusually daft not to realize that they're serving the purpose of extremists, but what Islamophobes ordinarily do is not very different: By describing Islam itself as fundamentally and irrevocably evil and violent, they're telling any Muslim who wants to improve Islam that they're wrong, that they're phony or failed or bad Muslims.

What they should do is not say "the Quran says to kill infidels, which makes Islam evil", but "if you interpret the Quran as telling you to kill infidels, that's evil". Anyone who goes around saying the first is a useful idiot for extremists, no matter how smart they are.

Sara | 2005-07-23 21:29 | Link

"...What they should do is not say "the Quran says to kill infidels, which makes Islam evil", but "if you interpret the Quran as telling you to kill infidels, that's evil". Anyone who goes around saying the first is a useful idiot for extremists, no matter how smart they are."

You apparently overlook another alternative, namely that arguing the way you do, makes you the most useful idiot of all.

Bernt | 2005-07-23 21:56 | Link

I am not sure where the Norwegian debate about islam and terror is heading either, but I think it may be starting to make more sense. That means less apologism. However, the left-wing aburdities are still alive and well, especially in university circles, where there still are strong anti-western attitudes, arguing that we are 100% responsible for the terror ourselves.

Nomen Nescio | 2005-07-23 22:01 | Link

Dear Bjørn:

My question asking you whether you had started picking up bad habits from your new leftist friends was somewhat humourous in character, though it also had a serious side to it, considering the increased number of argumentum ad hominem attacks originating from you recently. These are similar in nature and content to those of many leftists.

And no I don't believe you're mentally ill, nor that you're an idiot. By Islamophobic I mean that many Islam critics have an irrational fear of everything Islamic, leading them to believe wild tales about the Evil nature of a religion with 1 billion followers.

A phobia is a mental illness, consequently using the word islamophobic to characterize me and others like me implies that we are suffering from a mental condition. I believe my fear is more than justified, and I feel I should be allowed this view without being given a phobia diagnosis by you over the internet... (And by the way, an ideology can perfectly well be evil even though it has a large number of followers - for me at least, that goes without saying...)

In the Norwegian thread I wrote about there was a Muslim Norwegian girl who wrote about how her Islam is peaceful and friendly and tolerant, and then someone had the nerve to reply to her that she had misunderstood Islam.

To show you how absurd that statement of yours is, I have modified your sentence just a little bit to illustrate why: "In the Norwegian thread I wrote about there was a nazist Norwegian girl who wrote about how her nazism is peaceful and friendly and tolerant, and then someone had the nerve to reply to her that she had misunderstood nazism."

Again: Please stop your name-calling and handing out phobia diagnoses to those you disagree with.

Bjørn Stærk | 2005-07-23 22:37 | Link

Nomen Nescio: A phobia is a mental illness, consequently using the word islamophobic to characterize me and others like me implies that we are suffering from a mental condition.

Oh quit whining. I already told you I don't mean phobia in a medical sense. You talk about me borrowing leftist rhetoric, but you seem to have caught a whiff of victimology. I don't believe you're insane, and I can't say it any plainer than that.

I don't object to Nazis who are tolerant, peaceful, non-antisemitic, and democratic. The fewer bad qualities a Nazi has, the better a person they are. Is such a person still a Nazi? If they prefer to call themselves that, and if there are about a billion of them, yes. As it happens, there are no nice tolerant Nazi's. But there are nice tolerant Muslims, as illustrated by that Muslim girl. You can either tell these people that they can't exist, that they're failed Muslims, or you can encourage other Muslims to be more like them. Choice seems easy to me, and, yes, making the wrong choice makes you very useful to the extremists you're supposedly fighting.

Nomen Nescio | 2005-07-23 23:27 | Link

Dear Bjørn:

Oh quit whining. I already told you I don't mean phobia in a medical sense. You talk about me borrowing leftist rhetoric, but you seem to have caught a whiff of victimology. I don't believe you're insane, and I can't say it any plainer than that.

In its medical sense, phobia is an irrational fear. You described islamophobia as "an irrational fear of everything Islamic". If that is not phobia in a medical sense - in exactly which sense is it? Furthermore, I do not feel that I am whining when I am politely asking you to stop giving phobia diagnoses to people you disagree with over the Internet.

By the way, since we are also discussing leftist rhetoric: Asking people to stop whining is not an uncommon method meant to bring people to silence. Nobody wants to be whining, right?

In fact, The Norwegian Labour Party perfected this technique, and received quite a significant amount of criticism for this. (You may remember the discussion in the media on the usage of "hersketeknikker" in Norwegian politics some time ago.)

I don't object to Nazis who are tolerant, peaceful, non-antisemitic, and democratic. The fewer bad qualities a Nazi has, the better a person they are.

This type of reasoning admittedly puzzles me... What you are de facto saying is that a nazi which is not a nazi is a good nazi. In other words: Strip away everything related to the nazi ideology from a given nazi and he will be a good person. How about expanding that reasoning to include muslims as well? I'm looking forward to hearing your explanation.

Bjørn Stærk | 2005-07-24 00:02 | Link

Nomen, you show a brave resilience against all my assurances that I do not believe you're insane, or an idiot. As I've never heard of you before I don't even know that you're an Islamophobe. This would be because you haven't actually written much about Islam yet. We can continue playing this game. I can call you uninsane in a number of creative ways while you protest my insensitivity in ever strong words, but let's pretend we've already done that, and we've arrived at a point where there really are no more ways for me to tell you that, although you may turn out to be an Islamophobe, no insanity in a clinical sense is intended, and let's also pretend that you've managed to share all your hurt feelings and suspicions of leftist influence with the rest of us.

Now what? Do you have anything say, or is it all just meta?

As for the Nazi's, (and I should have appealed to Godwin's law but I'll let you off), Nazi is what Nazi does, and if you remove all the bad aspects of being a Nazi, then there's only the good and neutral left. Of course, when you remove all the bad aspects of being a Nazi you're left with something so similar to being a non-Nazi there's no reason to name it by a word of its own. But, as it happens, removing all the bad aspects of being a Muslim leaves us with something still very much Muslim. There's still Allah, and the Quran, and prayers, and religious identity, and all that's different is how these ideas are applied. For you to say that a non-bad Muslim isn't allowed to call themselves a Muslim because you read the Quran in a certain way is arrogant and ridiculous. And, to the degree that Muslims listen to you, counterproductive.

Is your personal interpretation of the Quran that important? Is the purity of a religion you don't believe in so important to you that you'd help extremists spread their ideas sooner than undermine the ideological basis of the terror threat against us? Like I said to the Islamophobe you're defending, who told a tolerant Muslim girl she had misunderstood Islam, if that's your idea of how to fight Islamic extremism then I don't want your help. Please go help the other side.

Nomen Nescio | 2005-07-24 00:37 | Link

Dear Bjørn:

What you apparently fail to grasp is that I object to the term islamophobia per se, and I have attempted to explain why:

"A phobia is a mental illness, consequently using the word islamophobic to characterize me and others like me implies that we are suffering from a mental condition. I believe my fear is more than justified, and I feel I should be allowed this view without being given a phobia diagnosis by you over the internet..."

Please use a different expression or term. "Fear of islam" for example.

About Godwin's law: I think we should deactivate Godwin's law in this particular discussion. After all, we are discussing the totalitarian ideology called islam, and as such it is only natural that we use our knowledge about and understanding of the previous totalitarian and hateful ideologies in this context. (This is not a discussion about Pepsi vs. Coke, Eminem vs. Britney Spears, et cetera.)

Finally, I believe we are in a war with islam and that we should fight this ideology as we fought others similar in character in the past. Let us, as you suggest, remove the bad aspects of islam. As I see it, that includes the quran, hadith and mohammed. Whatever is left I can accept...

norvegia, norvegia | 2005-07-24 02:19 | Link

Can I just ask why you require your commenters to submit their email address and blog/website address, but choose to not show either of them either above or below the comment?

Not very democratic, is it? But then your type was never very fond of democracy as a way of government, I reckon.

Love, norvegia

norvegia | 2005-07-24 03:03 | Link

By the way, what is lost in the so-called «Islam Debate» (norwegian), is the fact that British undercover agents have now killed 57 innocent civilians, including the Brazilian guy Jean Charles de Menezes shot yesterday, five times through the head after laid down by two or three agents, and that these hideous killings are the gazoline that is fueling everyone's bonfire of Hate.

Or «islamophobia» or whatever you choose to call it. One man's fascism is another man's mental disease.

So what puzzles me is that everyone's on about how evil this religion is, or these Arab immigrants, while the fact of the matter is they got nothing to do with it. (Other than that they've been chosen as fall guys, or patsies, for this bombing campaign, and that we are all told to hate this religion and these Arab or Asian immigrants, so that we are «divided and conquered» by our strongmen and saviors Blair & Bush, so that they get a greencard to do Whatever.)

Please tell me why we are not furious that British agents are killing Brazilian nationals wearing too much clothes (for a Northern European) on the subway.

And please tell me why we are not furious and angered out of our tiny little minds that the British undercover agents are allowed to Tube Bomb 56 people in rush hour traffic for the case of introducing new limits on personal freedom in Europe and extending the USA PATRIOT ACT by ten years untill 2016.

These people, no, these un-people, these British agents are the crap of the earth, and should not be allowed to carry on with their dirty, deadly business.

That's my word.

Amos Keppler | 2005-07-24 04:19 | Link

The important thing right now, is to say NO to the lies the government tells us.

They tell us that islamic terrorists are behind the bombings the last five years. They lie! The various governments or rather the forces behind the throne executed the bombings in an ongoing attempt to impose tyranny on a mostly clueless population.

And even now, with the result of the paranoia they've created seeing the light of day, unavoidable, they're allowed to continue their charade, allowed to keep building their modern tyranny.

We see now what secret services are created for, to terrorize a nation's own population.

That's their sole purpose.

The tyrants have been exposed... again, but nothing significantly is DONE to STOP it!

Bjørn Stærk | 2005-07-24 08:25 | Link

Nomen Nesico: Please use a different expression or term. "Fear of islam" for example.

Okay, but what do I call someone who has such a fear of Islam itself, in order to distinguish them from people who only fear Islamic extremists? Anti-Islamist is ambigous. "Person with an irrational fear of Islam" is too long.

Norvegia: Can I just ask why you require your commenters to submit their email address and blog/website address, but choose to not show either of them either above or below the comment?

Because Movable Type requires either both name and e-mail or neither, and people were forgetting to write their names, but I don't really care about the e-mail so I don't show it, although I do use the URL in the link on your name. Oh, and because MI5 wants me to provide a list of people who are on to them.

And thanks for explaining your theory, which I mostly ignored in my post. Everyone, meet Norvegia and Amos, local adherents to the "can't brainwash all the people all the time"-philosophy.

kim sook-im | 2005-07-24 12:17 | Link

Bjoern,

regarding :

"....Okay, but what do I call someone who has such a fear of Islam itself, in order to distinguish them from people who only fear Islamic extremists? Anti-Islamist is ambigous. "Person with an irrational fear of Islam" is too long. ......"

why not use the truthful descriptor " victims of islamo-tyranny" .

Did you know that everytime when someone like you use the word 'islamophobe' , you are aiding and abetting islamist world propaganda. This is a rather newly coined word - astute word-engineering by clever islamicians to garner support and sympathy for adherents of this retrograde Cult masquerading as 'religion'.

The word 'phobia' is pregnant with ideas of 'irrational hate', ' bigotry','mindlessness' etc etc.....attributes which the islamicians :)would just love to have you- Mister Bjoern and your co-horts- besmear and besmirch us genuine critics ( who incidentally are far from mindless and irrational, but au contraire are really quite level-minded, erudite and superbly knowledgeable about the true nature of the beast!.....Nay, verily we ain't no dilettante either)

So you see, dear Bjoern,in your haste to be a la mode with the new vocabulary ( very insidiously slipped into general circulation by islamicians and islamo-philes), YOU may have unwittingly set yourself up to be a 'USEFOOL IDIOT' for the nefarious islamicians of the world !;)

Sister (non islamo-)Phoebe N. Kim
etymologician and bona-fide islam critikkk

p.s. it is possible that you 'forgot' to rebuttal my previous 'posting' to you???

Nomen Nescio | 2005-07-24 19:50 | Link

Okay, but what do I call someone who has such a fear of Islam itself, in order to distinguish them from people who only fear Islamic extremists? Anti-Islamist is ambigous. "Person with an irrational fear of Islam" is too long.

"Fear of islam" or "fear of islamism". If, however, you use "irrational fear", then we are back at where we started. You are making this very difficult - I take that as evidence supporting my notion that you rather enjoyed the practise of suggesting that those who disagree with you regarding your view on islam are suffering from a mental condition.

Cossack | 2005-07-24 22:57 | Link

Bjorn, if you really believe that "a friendly Islam is possible", you may want to consult this site: www.jihadwatch.com. Very revealing as to how "friendly" Islam actually is!

Michael Farris | 2005-07-24 23:20 | Link

Cossack, you might want to actually get to know some educated secular muslims (or some agressively non-secular US southern babtists).
Islamophobia is a fine description of those who freak out at the words Islam or Muslims (as opposed to specific evil deeds by those who claim Islam as their justification).

tonymixan | 2005-07-24 23:42 | Link

Islam is a man-founded mega-cult which has managed to produce a failed culture/civilization or whatever you choose to call this "Mother of all Ebolas." Just look at its 1400 years history and what do you see??

tonymixan | 2005-07-24 23:42 | Link

Rob Lambert | 2005-07-25 00:35 | Link

Oh Lord!
British agents!
Run for the hills...!

Whilst I cling to the hope that some of our annointed intellectual betters are simple victims of their own failure to realize the extent to which they serve islam's fascist wing - our would-be overlords who they apparently (ignorantly?) try to claim don't even exist - I'm not holding my breath over the matter.

Luxurious self-asphyxiation isn't gonna cut it in this CBRN for the masses age.

Alternative explanations for the apparent global pandemic of crypto-idiocy in the face of Osama's declared Gotterdammerung seem to me to be: Plain old willful ignorance from the tenured professional cadres of 'Che' adorned university trolls, utopian naivete from the "Look at me I'm a [faux] working-class rebel" of the couch-bound revolutionary anarchist on the dole sort, a blotter dose of mortal fear from aging hippie guiltsters defending tattered worldviews, or an imbalanced amalgam thereof.

What remains is something altogether more sinister in its intent.

Whatever the particular Grand Mal failure of cause & effect logic that has led to the mass worship of the suicide-lovers leap into the memory hole, it reeks of self-identification as a Useful Idiot...Or at the very least some sort of compulsive masturbatory Loki fetish writ large.

The resultant crippling of our Liberal society's ability to defend itself from the gathering medieval darkness is the same.

In any event, 'coming-out' under the influence of any of the aforementioned postulates isn't particularly smart for those sages amongst us who so vocally bind themselves to the illusion that there are shadowy British agents of the global Bush Illuminati mucking about ready to kick their heathen door down to force them to consume a pretty red white and blue capitalist pill laced with crude laxative fuel oils and christian triumphalism.

The brazen lack of fear such de facto UI's show whilst suckling at the western teat is a testament to either utter confidence in their guaranteed freedoms within the bosum of the west, or abject stupidity in the face of their fevered rants against their own adopted societies.

Anyone who believes that we are living under fascist regimes or would consent to suffer under same, is an outright fool.

Alas FWIW, thank you for your part in locally lancing conspiratorial boils Mr. Stærk.

It's heartening to see that the Yggdrasil of 'root causes' constructed by Norway's X-File intellectual dwarves is as knotted-up and ineffective at bearing it's nihilistic fruit as are the branches in my neck of the Kufr Western woods.

There is hope in the westfold yet, despite the lingering haze of islamofascist cordite smoke, & leftist mirrors.

Fides | 2005-07-25 01:52 | Link

"For you to say that a non-bad Muslim isn't allowed to call themselves a Muslim because you read the Quran in a certain way is arrogant and ridiculous. And, to the degree that Muslims listen to you, counterproductive."

Nomen can read the Quran any way he chooses, which is, I gander, literaly, and the consequences are minimal. If on the other hand, a born and bred Briton of Pakistani descent reads it the same way, say in a Madrassa in Pakistan or the Finsbury Mosque in London, then 50+ people die. Who's being arrogant here, Bjorn? The person who reads the Quran literaly and takes it seriously, or person who ignores all that and simply points to the odd man( or woman ) out.

"You can either tell these people that they can't exist, that they're failed Muslims, or you can encourage other Muslims to be more like them. Choice seems easy to me, and, yes, making the wrong choice makes you very useful to the extremists you're supposedly fighting."

Actually, I don't say it in that way, but I do come out and say 'How can you consider yourself Muslim?' The bottom line is, that Muslims who do not act according to the literal dictates of the Quran and Hadith, are *not* Muslims, at least not in the historic sense. They simply ignore the sections of the Quran/Hadith that dictate what we would consider illegal. Non Muslims are and have always been second class citizens in Islamic majority societies. This is undeniable. It is a fundamental pillar of Islamic culture.

And your defence of Islam with regards to Nazism is weak. Islam has a much longer history and doesn't appeal to race, as is the case with the Nazis.

Geronimo, USA | 2005-07-25 01:57 | Link

Bjorn said: Islamist terrorists are evil fanatics and a real threat, but a friendly Islam is possible and should be encouraged.

My issue is only with the last part of Bjorn’s statement. A friendly Islam is NOT possible and should NOT be encouraged. Deception in any form should NEVER be encouraged.

We wring our hands, nodding back and forth, and generally agree we must do something about this problem of terrorism. We think there must be some logical common ground from which we can all begin the process of understanding the issue(s). Are we no longer the barbarians of our fathers? Has not our culture advanced beyond the simple rules of survival of the fittest? Do we not live in a culture that prides itself in our ability to communicate? Consider we are no longer bound by a repressive religion that holds us hostage to rules established by despots, kings, and pious priests. Some want to accomplish this great moral breakthrough by negotiation; surely the process of arbitration will allow us to work through our differences. After all, there are plenty of peaceful Muslims who want to co-exist in the Western World willing to embrace a peace mantle and step forward, right? Is not this our ultimately goal on our harsh and troubled planet? I read the pleas of those who simply want to live in peaceful and harmony without understanding what, if any issues are at stake, and I want to throw-up.

Although both understand the problems, Kim sook-im and Bjorn frequently spar, but continue to ridicule Christianity as if the past 1,800 years of Catholicism and state church rule represent the faithful and message of our Savior. Spiritually blind, they see no solutions at the core of His message, and offer no solutions themselves. As webmaster, this is Bjorn’s prerogative, though perhaps as webmaster, he should he remain unbiased.

Kim is correct, in our use of the word “islamophobe”. We, in our own small way, garner support and sympathy for adherents of this Cult with its overuse. Kim dear, you’re a very gifted woman with acidic words of political truth. But, where are the solutions? Are we to occupy ourselves by simply kicking the situation back and forth and arguing semantics?

In your quest for answers, consider the radical Islamism’s distain Christians more than any other recognizable group. Even the slightest possibility you sympathize or are affiliated with Christianity can put you in harms way. In the spiritual world there are two apposing sides, and our natural instinct (spirit) knows this truth, even if you deny it. Countless books, movies, and personal experiences have documented the existence of the spiritual world, yet many remain skeptics.

For an accurate secular assessment of the global threat posed by this asymmetric form of Islamist warfare/terrorism read the following articles. Any search engine will direct you to a website where they are posted. Their origin is http://federalistpatriot.us/. Although these articles were written primarily for the benefit of US readers, the information is immensely valuable to all who cherish freedom.

“U.S. National Security: Imminent Threats (Part 1 of 3)
“U.S. National Security: Homeland Defense (Part 2 of 3)
"The Long War" (Part 3 of 3 will not be posted until later the week of 7/24)

Bjorn: Occasionally I will submit a blog for post, to later find it is missing. Frustrating, as I seldom maintain copies because I post from variety workstations. Can I assume this is an unintended mishap and a glitch in the process? I’m a much better listener (reader) and only speak-up (post) when I think I have something valuable to contribute; a self assessment of course. These lost posts generally respond to others and maybe viewed as my unwillingness to participate in dialog. That da-gum hit-and-run Geronimo.

FYI, Geronimo is my real name, although an Apache translation of my Anglo given name, Geronimo is what I go by when traveling in South and Central American. I’m a Norwegian-American with a vast network of cousins in Norway. However, I suspect that network is no larger than the number of Jihadis and members of al-Qa'ida currently residing/hiding in Norway today who want to draw you into a snare of complacency and fear. Friends, we are at war.

PeerG | 2005-07-25 01:59 | Link

To the USEFUL IDIOT Bjoern Staerk:

I admit it: I am an Anti-Islamist. I hate Islamism and Islam. You call me a useful idiot for being anti Islam. A question to you: What is your stand on Islam? Are you pro, neutral or anti?

This creed tells their followers "to kill the unbelievers where ever you find them". And: "not befriend them". And so on for page after page in their "holy" book. Who are the unbelievers not to befriended, to be killed? It is people like me and you this "holy" text is talking about!

Is it strange that I am anti Islam when Islam tells their followers that I should be killed?

I don't think you are pro Islam, so I guess you are neutral. Neutral to an ideology that is arguing for killing you. Who is the USEFUL IDIOT?

norvegia | 2005-07-25 02:47 | Link

Rob Lambert, thanks for your introduction to the sickening, over-intellectual, Ivy-educated or wannabe, tradition of masturbatory word games. You've shown us all that you can construct meaningless sentences, and even long ones. Now we know.

Anyways; which play?

- Run for your lives! Run for the hills!

- Er, My Lord, they're coming from the hills.

- Oh, sorry. Run >away from the hills! If you see the hills, run the other way!

That should conclude our little lecture in the necessity of figuring out what to do in the face of peril...

Gareth, Ottawa | 2005-07-25 03:29 | Link

I, on the othe hand, really liked your post, Bjoern. I'm never sure what to think about the Left in the larger sense or Norwegians in the particular. You suggest there is "movement," and hallelujah for that, but I'm as befuddled as you are.

Allan, Singapore | 2005-07-25 03:40 | Link

I guess, that if we look the same way at Christianity as those islamophobes in here look at Islam, most of the worlds population would actually be our enemies. Now thats a task grand enough for islamophobes; 'unconvert' all the Christians and Muslims of the world.

daniel, japan | 2005-07-25 04:01 | Link

"He gave her all the usual arguments, about how the Quran properly intepreted is evil and violent. That is so obviously ridiculous that a person has to be unusually daft not to realize that they're serving the purpose of extremists,"

Perhaps the inherent evil in the Qur'an is so hideous, that it is easier on the conscience to ignore it, or to play it down?

Fides | 2005-07-25 04:06 | Link

Allan, you are obviously ignorant. Forgetting that this is a thread about Islam and not Chritianity, point out to me the equivalent ideas rooted in Islam, such as second class citizenship mandated by law, explicit calls to slay non-Christians, the explicit insults to people of other faiths, etc.

You wont, because at a fundamental level, Islam and Chritianity are worlds apart. Only an ignorant fool would make the comparisons that you do.

M. Simon | 2005-07-25 04:18 | Link

norvegia,

I might go along with your idea about the Jews if they were attacking and were a cultural threat.

The closest idea would be the German form of National Socialism with ubermensch and untermench. In Islam we have believers and dhimmi.

Instead of the Master Race we have the Master Religion.

Jan Haugland, Bergen | 2005-07-25 04:34 | Link

Sometimes I admit I am a bit jealous at those who have a more lively debate in their blog comments.

Other times, like now, I am pretty happy about that.

You have the patience of a saint, Bjørn. Really.

fred lapides | 2005-07-25 04:42 | Link

In my (new) blog/web site, I have posted and continue to post various explanations of why so much of the terrorism worldwide is clearly the work of those claiming to be Muslims--that is, having a background of belief in Islam. I have found that the positions offered can and do group together into but a few categories. I will not take up room here to offer the groupings I have found. Suffice to say that the latest "hi" explanation is the thesis offered by Prof. Pape (Univ of Chicago), whose data base, meticulously kept, states that Muslim terrorists seem to do their suicidal deeds to drive out non-muslims from what is perceived as Arab/Muslim lands.

That said, the most recent horror--Sharam el Sheikh took place in an Arab land, where Muslims count on tourists for their economy. That then seems an exception to the Pape thesis.
http://www.WarTrash.blogspot.com lots more here

Sara | 2005-07-25 04:50 | Link

What exactly is it in this discussion that you object to, Jan Haugland?

PS: Compliments on your blog from an avid reader.

Chest Rockwell, Los Angeles | 2005-07-25 04:52 | Link

At the end of the day, it's pretty simple. Is Islam a problem? Of course. Are there non-evil Muslims? Of course - mostly ones that are not so devout, and have picked and chosen a la carte items from Islam - basically sheep that are rolling with the culture they grew up with. I'm sure there were a lot of non-evil, purportedly "Nazi" sheep in Nazi Germany too.

Alex Showalter, San Diego | 2005-07-25 05:43 | Link

A fear is phobic, by definition, only if it is irrational, or not supported by objective fact. With that prelude in mind, I have not seen, in this discussion of the merits of the term “Islamophobia”, or countless others like it, a straightforward debate of the underlying question: is an Islam which does not produce significant numbers of people who wish to kill or subjugate non-Muslims realistically possible?

I don't know the answer to that, but let's start by dispatching with the red herring parallels that were drawn here - “Naziphobia” and “Judaophobia”. Because fear of Nazism was objectively and rationally based on both the stated credo of Nazism and its resulting actions, “Naziphobia” is a misnomer. In contrast, can anyone state objective reasons why Judaism should be feared? If not (and I certainly can't) fear of Judaism would be a true phobia. Where does fear of Islam fall along this spectrum? There are two sides to this. It's possible to make a serious argument that there are objective reasons for non-Muslims to fear (or dislike) Islam, in terms of its stated credo and the resulting actions. There are also many Muslims who wish no harm on anyone, Muslim or otherwise. Which view within Islam will prevail? We non-Muslims have only one non-suicidal choice: to crushingly defeat the elements within Islam that want to subjugate or kill us, and to support the elements within Islam that want to peacefully coexist with us. Unfortunately, the hard part often times is discerning them.

norvegia | 2005-07-25 05:54 | Link

M. Simon: And who says the Arabs are attacking?

If you look at the facts of September 11, 2001 (the facts, not the Disneyland version of the events), it is pretty clear there is a US military component.

Same goes for the London Underground saga, only the perps are British, not American.

And by the way: All religions have words for Believers and Non-Believers, and they have their own lists of unpleasantries that will occur to those who don't get it, or who refuse to believe in the «obvious truth».

So, to summarize, you have a warped view of who is attacking the public in London etc, plus you have a peculiar concept of what a religion is and how «special» Islam is from all the other religions.

[In Christianity you have the Christians and the Heathens. And the latter go to hell to fry for all eternity. And just recently every Christian had a duty to kill «witches» and «magicians». And on and on.]

Ardsgaine | 2005-07-25 05:57 | Link

I agree that Islam is the problem. I also agree that the only way for someone to be a decent Muslim is to water down Islam, and practice some non-literal, liberalized version of it. I don't think that problem is unique to Islam, though. It's true of ANY religion. All religions preach self-sacrifice and faith over reason. Practiced consistently, they turn humans into monsters.

In the west, Christianity has been watered down to the point where most Christians don't go around killing people for God. They pay lip-service to God on Sunday, and spend the rest of the week working and making money. Still, there is always the danger that they will be motivated to start taking their religion seriously. It is like having a sleeping lion in your living room. You never know when he's going to wake up and realize that he's hungry. Islam might be tamed--there have been times in its history it was more liberal than Christianity--but to reach a point where we can say that Islam is as liberalized as Christianity will just mean that now we have two lions in the living room.

What's my point? Just that, ultimately, the war is between liberalism and religion, not liberalism and Islam.

Some Guy, Yo Mama's House | 2005-07-25 06:18 | Link

I love it when people try to equate Islam with other major religions, and invoke a half-assed theory of equivalence, like the first commenter here.

Praytell, wise sir, when was the last time a rabbinical student strapped ten pounds of Semtex and two pounds of cyanide laced nails to his body and blew up a bus full of women and children? When was the last time a rabbi hung a homosexual for not following God's will? When was the last time a Jew beheaded his daughter for dating a Christian? Or for showing her face in public?

Only an idiot would even suggest that Islam is just like Judaism. Or Christianity. Or any other religion where the participants aren't batshit insane and out to kill everyone who isn't a member.

Thomas Hazlewood, Hawaii | 2005-07-25 06:36 | Link

I used to read your blog regularly, but, had moved on to others. Instapundit linked to you and I find that I'm shocked to see that what was a reputable blog now seems to be inhabited by an inordinate number of radical conspiracy theorists and a fair number of folks who can't argue an issue honestly because they keep getting bogged down in the minutia the meaning of 'is', or something like that.

Being somewhat familiar with your posts, Bjorn, I did NOT assume you were using phobia solely as a perjorative term but, rather, were describing some people who make grand generalizations. Your further explanations confirmed this. So, what the hell are these people disputing with you?

Somehow, your blog has become a watering hole for the petulant and the deranged. Pity, that....

Ardsgaine | 2005-07-25 06:45 | Link

When was the last time a Christian blew up a government building, slaughtering 168 people, including children at a daycare center housed in the building? When was the last time a Christian blew up an abortion clinic, or assassinated an abortion doctor?

As I said, Christianity is *mostly* tame nowadays (thanks to the infusion of Aristotelian philosophy into Christian religious thought) but there are exceptions. All it requires is a revival of authentic religiosity to send us back to the days of the Inquisition and religious crusades.

AKS | 2005-07-25 07:02 | Link

"I don't think that problem is unique to Islam, though. It's true of ANY religion. All religions preach self-sacrifice and faith over reason. Practiced consistently, they turn humans into monsters."

This an empty and patently inaccurate set of statements. There is a substantial difference between preaching self-sacrifice and sacrifice of others. Your disdain for "faith over reason" notwithstanding, it is a very different thing to say 'God will punish those who do not follow The Way' vs. 'You should punish those who do not follow The Way'. This, in fact, is the essential difference that you gloss over. Believing that others will ultimately pay a price for not believing does not intrinsically turn you into a monster, so long as you do not consider it your own duty to make them pay the price.

Sandy P | 2005-07-25 07:53 | Link

Congrats, Bjorn, you've been a groundbreaker, glad to read it's becoming more lively up there.

---

Ardsgaine, read Jayna Davis and Laurie Mylroie. They should set your brain spinning.

In short, Iraq or Iran could have been involved. Conspiracies are so much fun sometimes.

---

...religious crusades....
We won it the last time. Better hope we do so again.

----

Allan, now you're in Singapore? I thought you were heading to Norway.

----

including the Brazilian guy Jean Charles de Menezes shot yesterday, five times through the head ---

Ehhh, quite a coincidence that, I guess we'll wait and see who he was visiting in the house, via LGF, from the Financial Times:

According to police sources, the man who was shot dead had been observed leaving a house in London that was being watched in connection with bomb incidents earlier in the day. He was followed by a police surveillance team backed by armed officers, none of whom are thought to have been carrying photographs identifying the suspect.

Allan, Singapore | 2005-07-25 08:03 | Link

I (as a Christian myself) have no intention of making Islam the same as Christianity, but I do know that if you really want to nit-pick the bible in the same way as the Islamophobes nit-pick Islam, then you would indeed end up (that is, if you are not a hypocrit) with a grand quest of 'unconverting' both the Christians and Muslims of the world.

There are plenty of things to complain about in the bible. Check this list:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html

Allan, Singapore | 2005-07-25 08:07 | Link

Sandy:
I went to Norway, stayed there for a month. Now I'm in Singapore. Its nice to get around. Kinda broadens your horizon. :p

Ardsgaine | 2005-07-25 09:00 | Link

"There is a substantial difference between preaching self-sacrifice and sacrifice of others."

No, there isn't.

In the first place, it doesn't matter if you are a Muslim preaching that one should slaughter the infidel, or a Christian preaching non-violence in the face of imminent slaughter. Either way, you are complicit in murder.

In the second place, when one advocates self-sacrifice as a moral principle, one *is* advocating the sacrifice of others. That is, one is preaching that others *ought* to sacrifice themselves because it is their moral obligation to God. Moving from preaching their self-sacrifice to enforcing it is a very easy step. Religious texts are contradictory, and faith is such a malleable emotion, that anything can be justified. Given a pretense of moral justification, there are always people who will follow where others lead.

As Goya said, "the Sleep of Reason produces monsters." An imagination untempered by reason causes us to people the world with monsters. We see monsters in our neighbors, and finally we become monsters when we set out to rid the world of these imaginary monsters by flame and sword. Religion, untamed by Reason, causes men to fall into superstition, suspicion and persecution. They see monsters everywhere, and in lashing out at them, become monsters themselves. That is what the terrorists are doing, and it is not because they are Muslims per se, but because they are religious.

Ardsgaine | 2005-07-25 09:12 | Link

"Ardsgaine, read Jayna Davis and Laurie Mylroie. They should set your brain spinning.

In short, Iraq or Iran could have been involved. Conspiracies are so much fun sometimes."

I assume you mean in connection with the OKC bombing? I've heard of that theory, but I don't think it disproves my point, unless it includes proof that McVeigh himself was a Muslim, which would contradict his claim to be acting in response to Waco and Ruby Ridge. I find that unlikely, since the Muslims would not want to fund such an enterprise and not get credit for it. The whole point of blowing things up is being able to say afterwards, "Yes, we did that. Fear us." Anonymous explosions don't do anything for the terrorists.

Sara | 2005-07-25 09:14 | Link

Thomas Hazlewood, Hawaii
...
I did NOT assume you were using phobia solely as a perjorative term but, rather, were describing some people who make grand generalizations. Your further explanations confirmed this. So, what the hell are these people disputing with you?

Somehow, your blog has become a watering hole for the petulant and the deranged. Pity, that....

It's clearly a great shock for you to realise that not everybody thinks and reasons in the manner you do. Your method of choice for dealing with this newly discovered fact appears to be personal attacks.

How very special.

(I too dislike the word Islamophobia due to the reasons given by others in this discourse, but I think we should put that discussion to rest for now, and instead focus on the contents of Bjorn's post.)

Alistair | 2005-07-25 12:17 | Link

"Islamophobia" is a political, not an objective term. The assumption behind it is that those who oppose Islamists suffer from an irrational fear which is a psychological ailment. Of course radical Islamists would love to see the term thrive, as it tacitly dismisses their opponents as phobic freaks.

We need an alternative term to "Islamophobia," such as "anti-Islamist." (I don't pretend to know the best term -- I hope someone else comes up with a better one.)

I will just add one last fact, which appears to have been distorted heretofore: Timothy McVeigh, the a-hole who blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City, was not a Christian. He was a self-professed agnostic.

Cossack | 2005-07-25 13:21 | Link

Michael Farris and other Islamophobia-fighters simply switch the subject of the discussion. When we say "it is Islam that mandates an aggressive war against the rest of the world" (and offer proofs), they say "there are many good Muslims, and there are many bad non-Muslims" (which is absolutely obvious, but off topic). However, the real issue is not the personal qualities of Muslims and non-Muslims, but the nature of Islam as an ideology. What the study of Islam reveals is that it is a hateful, aggressive, totalitarian ideology that is the driving force of all the recent terror activity.

Bjørn Stærk | 2005-07-25 13:55 | Link

Alistair: "Islamophobia" is a political, not an objective term. The assumption behind it is that those who oppose Islamists suffer from an irrational fear which is a psychological ailment.

On the contrary, its purpose is to tell those who oppose everything about Islam from those (like me) who merely oppose parts of it, like Islamism. And if you'd read my comments above, you'd know that there's no psychological assumption behind it, (in fact I recall spending a lot of time convincing a sensitive fellow that I didn't think he was crazy). Islamophobia just a word for "excessive/irrational fear of Islam".

And again, anti-Islamist is ambigious, because it could also mean being against Islamism, which many are. But not everyone goes around arrogantly lecturing Muslims about the inherent Evil of their religion and the theological mistakes that lie behind any other interpretation of the Quran.

Cossack: However, the real issue is not the personal qualities of Muslims and non-Muslims, but the nature of Islam as an ideology.

Islam is the sum of the beliefs and behaviors of all Muslims. To say that there's some kind of "Islam" beyond that, a real Islam that's disconnected from actual Muslims, is a kind of mysticism. So you've studied the Quran, and found it to be hateful, but that hate is not part of Islam unless Muslims want it to be. And if your next step is to tell Muslims that in order to be real Muslims they need to obey your interpretation of that real Islam, as I observed one person doing, that's not just Islamophobia but aiding the enemy.

Btw, everyone, there seems to be problems with the site today. If you have problems posting a comment try again - and make sure it's actually posted before you delete the text.

Hartmut, Germany | 2005-07-25 14:18 | Link

Hello Bjoern,

found the link on Instapundit. Interesting discussion.

My 2 Cents:

I think we have a problem with islam itself, not only some radicals. If a religion/ideology can turn seemingly assimilated people in suicidal terrorists as seen in London, we have a problem with this religion/ideology, and not only with radicals.

But we can argue endlessly about it. The question is what to do about it? Wether we have problem with islam itself or only the radicals, the solution is the same, at least in the beginning.

1) Identify, jail, intern and throw radical islamists and imams out of our countries.

2) close mosques and qu'ran schools in which hate is preached.

3) cut their fundings, freeze the money (give it to the people who suffered islamo-terrorist attacks)

4) make laws that make forced marriages a crime, etc. Angela Merkel proposes this in Germany. I think to a good extend, the "taming" of islam is a battle for womens rights, which is an often underestimated aspect. I personaly know some muslimas who have not the slightest interest in wearing a headscarve or even a burkha.

5) punish even minor offences hard, for example if a muslim calls a woman "christian sl*t".

6) encourage muslim groups and individuals to speak out against terror, and demand loud and clear that muslims in our countries have to follow our laws, and not the other way round.

Then, we will see if we have a problem only with some radicals, or if it is worse. But fighting back we must (I think You agree), and it is impossible to do that without offending some muslims. In fact, it will be impossible to do it without offending many muslims; they're so easily to offend.

MD | 2005-07-25 14:25 | Link

Bjorn Staerk\'s writings clearly suggest to me that he is suffering from the mental illness called schizophrenia. I strongly suggest treatment. Best of luck. Cheerio!

Nomen Nescio | 2005-07-25 15:08 | Link

(It is very interesting to hear from Germany, Hartmut. Are there any blogs about islam and Germany written in English which you could recommend?)

Humpty , USA | 2005-07-25 15:12 | Link

As one of Lewis Carroll's characters in Alice in Wonderland said, "Words mean exactly what I want them to mean, neither more nor less."

So, we must read into Bjorn's mind to understand what he writes. I am not "Islamophobic", my wife has a phobia about snakes, the way I feel about Islam is quite different from that. I guess in WWII, most of American was Japanophobic, or Gemanophobice, or even Italophobic? I have never seen those words used.

I despise Islam. I despise a religion that condemns adultresses, but not adulterers, gays, apostates, blasphemers, etc to death. If tolerance means anything, it dictates rejection of such a philosophy. I think that Islam needs to be defeated, certainly rejected in the West in no uncertain terms. I have a lot of good reasons for this that have nothing to do with "irrational fear". Even use of the word "irrational" is logically problematice, by the way. It says that you have examined all of my arguments and reasons in detail, and have been able to prove them baseless. Like proving a negative, this is impossible in all but the simplest cases. Or does "irrational" mean something different when it comes out of your mouth?

Words mean what the users of the language agree they mean. Phobic implies irrationality. Use of the term is a way to deligitimize holders of a point of view, with which you apparently disagree, before even starting the debate.

TallDave | 2005-07-25 15:16 | Link

I think people tend to get some things confused. There are two very separate problems here.

1) We have Islam, not just a religion but a blueprint for society, one regrettably stuck a few centuries in the past, with the strictures, prejudices, and attitudes of those times. As with Christianity a few centuries ago, much of Islam is slowly undergoing an Enlightenment, while some Islamic societies (esp Arabs) are mostly left behind.

2) We have the death cults like Al Qaeda. These are the outgrowth of two other phenomena: fundie sects like Wahhabism that use oil money to preach hatred of the West to gullible young men, and lust for power among some like bin Laden who cynically manipulate the former to try to unite Islam in a holy war -- with themselves as Supreme Mullahs of All Islam, of course.

Only one thing will end Islamic terrorism: popular demand by Muslims. We are seeing the beginnings of this trend, but everything possible should be done to encourage it.

Cossack | 2005-07-25 15:17 | Link

Bjorn: You say, "Islam is the sum of the beliefs and behaviors of all Muslims."

So, what do these beliefs and behaviors sum up to in practice? In today's world, they sum up to terror, in the VII century to military conquest. The fact that most Muslims do not engage in terror is not much of relevance because those who do engage in terror are clearly motivated by Islamic teachings, i.e. Koran, Hadith, and the teachings of Islamic scholars. If you need examples, look at al-Zarqawi's recent statements, bin Laden's fatwas, or sermons by Saudi clerics (as well as Iranian, Palestinian, British and others). I have never seen any widely-accepted, Koran-based refutation of those preachings from moderate Muslims. All we here are tepid condemnations of terror without quotations from Muslim holy books or respected scholars.

kim sook-im | 2005-07-25 15:32 | Link

Nomen Nescio,

here is a site with links ,i think Islamofascism is in both german and english ;)

http://listislam.freeweb-hosting.org/

Sister Aishah Nyanaponiika Kim

kim sook-im | 2005-07-25 15:37 | Link

Nomen Nescio,

try the following:

http://listislam.freeweb-hosting.org/

i think the link on Islamofascism is in german and english :)

Sister Aishah Nyanyaponika kim

Humpy, USA | 2005-07-25 15:48 | Link

"Only one thing will end Islamic terrorism: popular demand by Muslims. We are seeing the beginnings of this trend"

Prove it. When I see the London bombers outed by their community, along with all who supported them, I will see evidence of the beginning of a trend. Now they are fish that swim in their environment safely. A few scattered comments from the 1 billion Muslims is not the beginning of a trend, it is random noise.

Rob Read London | 2005-07-25 15:52 | Link

If you have BRCA1 you are much more likely to develop breast cancer.

If you have K0r4n you are much more likely to develop terrorism.

The Islam Terrorism correlation hints at a strong causation.

norvegia | 2005-07-25 16:13 | Link

Looks like the British undercover agents also threatened to shoot the tube driver through the head:

The driver of the train which was the scene of a brutal police slaying on friday morning was himself chased by armed terror police who held a gun to his head as he tried to get away from terrifying 'shoot to kill' attack.

The driver started running as passengers fled from Stockwell Tube station following the shooting of a man it has since been revealed was unarmed.

According to officials from the train drivers' union Aslef, the train driver was chased by police who on catching up pointed a gun at his head.

Hearing about this outrageous behavior by armed cops given orders to shoot to kill, many train drivers have been understandably reluctant to continue working normally, the union's London officer Steve Grant has reported.

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/07/319301.html

Forgive me for thinking that these guys, including their collegues who killed and wounded 700 innocent civilians in London earlier this month, should not be allowed to roam free on the tube or in the streets of London, for that matter.

They should be put in a safe place. And interrogated. And taken to court, and eventually put in a high security prison. (Or just lynched, as this problem may go all the way through the system.)

Robert Speirs | 2005-07-25 16:15 | Link

I see Islam as similar in many ways to Communism. Some people living under Communism were peaceful and tolerant. But the ideology itself was totalitarian, intolerant and violent and its goal was to conquer the world. Allowing Islamic clerics to promote Islam in a free country is as bad as allowing Stalinists to preach world revolution there. And free countries did that for far too long and at the cost of far too many lives. Let's not repeat the mistake.

Klenda Thu, USA | 2005-07-25 17:26 | Link

"What surprised me most was how popular the idea that Islam Is Evil has become. Not a watered down version of it, but the lazily generalizing, scripture-misquoting kind best described as Islamophobia."

I'm curious: what scripture was misquoted by these people? Would they be the ones clearly commanding believers to kill infidels?

Remember Islam's principle of abrogation, which was proferred to resolve its many contradictions - the later commands negate the former. Unfortunately, it is a fact that it is the peaceful commands which have been negated in favor of the violent ones.

I assume, like most of us here, that most Muslims are peaceful. However, that does not tell us what historical Islam teaches, which seems to be otherwise. See www.answering-islam.org for ex-Muslim analyses of its original teachings.

Klenda Thu, USA | 2005-07-25 17:30 | Link

Also note that Islam regards treaties with "infidels" to be breakable the moment they deem they have enough power to do so. All manner of behavior is acceptable in the service of bringing the world under the "house of Islam."

This is not the accuse the peace-loving Muslims, who are mostly Muslims because they have no choice. It's just a reality of the historical teachings of Islam.

Also, has there been any news on why that poor Brazilian fellow was RUNNING from the police? I'm surprised no one seems to have brought that up.

Geronimo, USA | 2005-07-25 17:32 | Link

To Hartmut, Germany. The overwhelming consensus of the responses are “we got trouble right here in River City” with an ideology that holds not only it adherents to bondage, it justifies terrorism.

So, what should we be going to do about it? Alas, Hartmut attempts to offer a SOLUTION. Bravo. Your two cents and mine make four. Were on a roll.

Nomen Nescio | 2005-07-25 17:45 | Link

I regard a second mass expulsion of muslims from Europe to be our only hope. Sadly, that is my solution.

Cossack | 2005-07-25 17:57 | Link

To Robert Speirs

I completely agree with analogy between Islam and Communism. The really bad news about Islam (as opposed to Communism) is that Islam is a religion offering to its followers some reward in the afterlife for whatever they have to endure or sacrifice now.

John, Kactuzkid - USA | 2005-07-25 18:55 | Link

Islamophobic? Irrational fear of Islam? Heck no! I just don't like a religion and philosophy that oppresses and discriminates wherever it dominates. Speaking out against Islam is not for people who are afraid... I have been promised a horrible death more than once.

Islam is an evil ideology invented by an evil man. Period! The fact that Muslims will argue otherwise in the face of so many undeniable facts shows just how intellectually dishonest and morally corrupt they are. There are only two groups of Muslims: those that will kill and those that will make excuses and say the others are not real Muslims. I wish I could say otherwise, but that is the way it is. Sad.

Want proof? Read verse 261 here at this link:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html. Can any of you apologists still say that Mohammed was not a scumbag? Can anybody justify that action by the great prophet of Islam? That one verse (from a Muslim group site) should end all debate about Islam, so there should be no need even to drag in references (also written by Muslims themselves) to slavery, executions, sexual misconduct, special rules for himself, inaccuracies in the Koran, the issues of abrogation, etc… or to the current state of the Islamic world. However, Muslims are blind and care not to face the cruel truth about their religion - and the liberals and multiculturalists provide them with spiritual comfort.

So what to do? Just speak out. Tell Muslims what they don't want to hear. Go to meetings. Get a blog (like this fine site!). Say it again and again and again. Be polite, but be honest! Be aware that nobody will thank you and you will be called 'racist', 'intolerant' and a bunch of other unprintable things. You will be threatened. Oh well.

If you don't take a strong position now, it is going to get worse, much worse. As I have said before, we will probably see riots in Europe and maybe even a religious war within 5 years.

Yeah Kim... I have been watching Brazilian TV to see if I could find anything more on that poor man in London, mas ate agora nao ha informacoes novas. Que coisa triste!

John, AKA Kactuz

I could write about each of these trespasses, by why bother? These don’t matter because Muslim have faith – blind, stupid faith (which is not against the law) and they refuse to see the obvious.

To a normal human being this one reference would be enough to end all discussion. But no, Muslims are morally blind. So I guess there is no reason to drag in references (written by Muslims
no moderate Muslims, only o imoral they are . everything Islamic, leading them to believe wild tales about the Evil nature of a religion with 1 billion followers.

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-07-25 19:15 | Link

After reading "Jihad" by Paul Fregosi, it is impossible to accept that Islam is not a threat to the integrity of Western civilization. For over 1,400 years the West has been under assault in one form or another by Islam which is characterized by beheadings, slavery and tribute. Nothing in Islamic thought has changed

Thomas Hazlewood, Hawaii | 2005-07-25 19:21 | Link

Dear Sara,

Indeed, the shock would be akin to going to a book reading and finding it's been invaded by a motorcycle gang. One might not expect to agree, always, with others but, at least, one could expect to find a common ground from which to begin speaking. Where is the common ground with those who proclaim 'secret government agents' are the REAL culprits?

Or, how many times must the host placate an irate guest's proclivity for misrepesenting his words?

As for my 'personal attacks', the deranged will be unable to discern that they've been recognized. The petulant, however, don the garment of their petulance at the drop of a hat... or a sentence they don't like, n'cest pas?

Judith Weiss | 2005-07-25 20:55 | Link

"If I was to say Judaism in itself is evil, and the Jewish population of Europe is a real danger to us, would you not call me a racist and an anti-semite?"

As a Jew, I say: Not if you can make a case based on the facts. But you can't do that with Judaism, and you can with most of Islam. Until and unless more and more Muslims take the initiative to condemn the terrorism generated by their extremists. At this point way too many Muslims agree with or make excuses for the extremists.

(Jews have already done this with our very few extremists, over and over again, and they have never done anything on the scale of the much more frequent acts of Muslim terrorists. There just is no equivalence, so don't try that meme.)

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-07-25 21:07 | Link

Judith: well said

Geronimo, USA | 2005-07-26 01:19 | Link

John, Kactuzkid – USA: You’r absolutely correct when you say: “Speaking out against Islamism is not for the faint at heart.” If you stand against anything, now is the time to standup. Our European cousins are definitely at the same crossroads as the USA.

Judith Weiss: We should never try to compare Judaism with the tyranny and bondage of Islamism. First, few know exactly whom you are referring when you say Jews, because some think you are referring to a religion while others think you are referring to an ethnic group of people. This is painting with too broad a brush. Judaism is a religion and includes many ethnic groups, some even Hebrew. There is no Jewish race therefore CAN NOT be a racist issue. However, if you are referring to Zionism then we are getting closer to a political philosophy fueled by misguided religious interpretation, and that gets us into the problems we have in Palestine. Ariel Sharon is a Zionist and belongs to the Likud Party formed primarily by Menachem Begin. I would NOT refer to Sharon as a religious Jew. There are many rabbis who warned the people against the errors of Zionism. The Likud Party embraces the philosophy of Ze’ev Vladimir Jabotinsky, a charter member of the World Zionist Organization, with its own history of terrorism. This is topic for a totally different discussion group, but important to understand if you are into Middle East history. If this is confusing to you, then you’re in good company, including about 99% of Christendom. Warning, don’t look to the evening news to help you understand the issues.

Gunnar, MD | 2005-07-26 02:05 | Link

To show you how absurd that statement of yours is, I have modified your sentence just a little bit to illustrate why: "In the Norwegian thread I wrote about there was a nazist Norwegian girl who wrote about how her nazism is peaceful and friendly and tolerant, and then someone had the nerve to reply to her that she had misunderstood nazism."

Perfect illustration of the absurdity!

I don't object to Nazis who are tolerant, peaceful, non-antisemitic, and democratic. The fewer bad qualities a Nazi has, the better a person they are. Is such a person still a Nazi? If they prefer to call themselves that, and if there are about a billion of them, yes. As it happens, there are no nice tolerant Nazi's.

Bjorn, your problem seems to be that you are completely non-ideological. You believe that ideas don't matter, only people. You fail to understand that ideas propel people. Even worse, you are completely wrong on the facts. There were plenty, I mean plenty, of nice people who were/are nazis, fascists, communists. People are usually good. But many people accept evil ideologies. It is the non-ideological who are the useful idiots for those proponents of evil ideologies.

Finally, I believe we are in a war with islam and that we should fight this ideology as we fought others

Nomen, you are exactly right. At the root, this is war of ideas, and we can only fight bad ideas with better ideas.

Judith Weiss | 2005-07-26 05:49 | Link

Geronimo, your statements show you know nothing about Judaism and the Jewish people. Judaism was always a nation, a people, and a religion. but not a race. Anyone can convert to Judaism, and many do, but when they do they explicitly make a commitment to join the Jewish PEOPLE, as well as take on the practices of the religion. This is true of all branches of Judaism, and always has been.

Zionism in its many permutations has always been the desire of the Jewish people to have its heart's center in its ancestral homeland, just like any other ethnic group. Zionism didn't start in the 1800s. Don't lecture me about what various rabbis think. I know the history and theology of my people better than you do.

Judith Weiss | 2005-07-26 05:51 | Link

"The Likud Party embraces the philosophy of Ze’ev Vladimir Jabotinsky, a charter member of the World Zionist Organization, with its own history of terrorism."

This totally ahistorical sentence illustrates your ignorance. Looks like you are getting your "facts" from Justin Raimondo or Electronic Intifada or somebody similar.

Bjørn Stærk | 2005-07-26 06:29 | Link

Gunnar: Bjorn, your problem seems to be that you are completely non-ideological. You believe that ideas don't matter, only people.

Hm? And I thought I just spent this entire thread arguing that ideas matter more than words. That the word "Islam" includes a wide selection of ideas, and the possibility of even more, some of which are good, others bad. For a non-Muslim to say that there's one meaning of Islam that is purer and more right than the others, because it follows more logically from the Quran, and that those who disagree with this meaning aren't allowed to call themselves Muslims, that is not to fight against bad ideas, it is to introduce an illusory concept of semantic purity. Religious believers can believe in a "pure" version of their faith, but for non-believers to meddle with theology and discuss religion on theological terms is meaningless.

Some Muslims believe A. Others B. Or C. Perhaps A is a good idea, and B is a bad idea. And that's as far as a non-Muslim can go without resorting to theology, mysticism and word magic.

Cossack | 2005-07-26 08:50 | Link

Bjorn: “Some Muslims believe A. Others B. Or C. Perhaps A is a good idea, and B is a bad idea.”

Can you be more specific? Can you name the idea A, articulate this idea, name the Islamic scholars who promulgate it, as well as some famous Muslim followers of it? Absent that, your belief in the existence of some good idea A in Islam is sheer fantasy and wishful thinking.

Bjørn Stærk | 2005-07-26 09:42 | Link

Cossack: Can you be more specific? Can you name the idea A, articulate this idea, name the Islamic scholars who promulgate it, as well as some famous Muslim followers of it?

Sure I can.

Many people have misunderstood Islam as a religion. The prophet Muhammed actually sat down and meditated with Christians, and got much of his inspiration from them. If you take the time to read the Quran and interpret it according to the times we live in, it is nothing more than a moral book with rules that encourage us to be good people, make good choices, see the difference between right and wrong. When it says in the Quran that a man may have four wives, one must keep in mind that this was written in a time when there was a lack of men due to war etc, and when it says not to eat pork this was at a time when pigs had a lot of diseases. There are many other examples.

This was written by a young Muslim as a response to my post in Dagbladet's blog. A woman, even. (Who was consequently told by more "educated" non-Muslims that she had misunderstood Islam.)

Right, you wanted a scholar, with famous followers. For which values of "good idea" would you accept an answer? For "not being an extremist who hates the West and sympathizes with terrorism" that would be most Muslim scholars, unless you go into conspiracy mode and assume that they're all lying, (and the fact that you can't prove it just shows how good liars they are). For "agreeing with basic Western ideals of freedom and democracy", that would be far fewer, but let's fight one problem at a time. Conservative Muslims don't go about blowing up people, that requires a particularly radical interpretation of Islam to justify, and while I'll be the first to complain about lack of women's rights in Muslim communities, that's a separate and less urgent problem than terrorism. It also requires a separate and less drastic solution.

Oh, and numbers aren't the issue here. Potential is. The fact that it is possible to write the paragraph I've quoted above and call yourself a Muslim proves that Islam can be peaceful and democratic, as compatible with liberal democracy as any other religious lie. All we have to do is encourage it, and discourage extreme interpretations. But our well-educated Islam critics here are so proud of their personal ability to interpret the Quran that they'd rather promote the extreme interpretations, and fight liberal ones. Or, as one person replied to this Muslim in Dagbladet, "she is in practice rejecting Islam by interpreting it as she does. The fact that she continues to call herself a Muslim becomes a contradiction in terms." That was written by someone who claims to be against extremism. But it might as well have been written by a terrorist.

John Anderson USA | 2005-07-26 09:46 | Link

I am not an Islamophobe, but I am an Islamist-phobe or Wahhabi-phobe: not because (I hope) I am irrational, but more in the way of hydrophobia, which despite the first definition in dictionaries I have never heard used as other than a synonym for rabies - a victim's fear of water is a symptom of having a physical illness resulting from being bitten, not a sign of irrationality.

Most religious movements have promoted killing or enslaving of unbelievers (ask any Huguenot you can find), in deed if not doctrine. Most sects of Christianity and Judaism have altered their practice of such over a century ago, more recently others such as Shinto: many Moslem groups as well. Alas, some Muslim groups have not, and remain powerful - in particular, the Wahhabi sect in power in Saudi Arabia and powerful far beyond its borders through the use of wealth to establish control of schools, medical services, etc., and its violent sub-sects such as al Queada. These I fear: I think it was Lenin who said if you can get ten percent of a country to believe, that group can assert and maintain control of the country.

Cossack | 2005-07-26 11:04 | Link

Bjorn: "This was written by a young Muslim as a response to my post in Dagbladet's blog. A woman, even."

So what does that woman thinks of jihad? That problem is more urgent then whether or not Muslims masy eat pork; I don't really care whther they eat pork or not. And regarding her other beliefs: did she convince other Muslims? Did she ever tried to convince any Muslim? Do you know any preacher that preaches similar staff in his mosque? And if the preacher in her nearby mosque preaches hatred and violence, did she confronted him and his followers, saying "you're wrong, guys!" and arguing why exactly they are wrong? No, she did nothing of the kind. But that's precisely what we need of Muslims. claiming to be moderate: don't try to convince us, convince the terrorists and their supporters!

What worries me is that those "moderate" Muslims go to great lengths to fight the negative image of Islam among non-Muslims, but do nothing to convince their fellow Muslims that their moderate interpretation of Islam is correct. I see only two reasons why they do nothing. First, they are not sincere in what they write and say to non-Muslims. One example may be Yasser Arafat, who denounced terror in English and encouraged it in Arabic. Another reason is that the arguments of sincerely moderate Muslims just don't hold water, as long as their co-religionists believe that Koran is a divine book and Muhammed was a prophet, and not believing it amounts to saying that Islam is man-made ideology, not divinely-inspired religion. And that's precisely why moderates have always lost and will continue losing debates with hardliners: the arguments of moderates are sheer speculation and not based on Koran. As a result, our encouragement of moderates is waste of time and efforts: their fight, if it has ever occurred, is irredeemably lost.

And as you admit, "Oh, and numbers aren't the issue here. Potential is." So, even you admit that the numbers are puny, and potential is ... well, pretty much the same.

YOu also say, "For "not being an extremist who hates the West and sympathizes with terrorism" that would be most Muslim scholars". Proofs, please. Can you name those non-extremist schools of scholarship and their followers, so that we knew for sure they are in majority?

Cossack | 2005-07-26 11:23 | Link

John Anderson: "Most religious movements have promoted killing or enslaving of unbelievers (ask any Huguenot you can find), in deed if not doctrine. Most sects of Christianity and Judaism have altered their practice of such over a century ago"

"In deed, if not in doctrine" is the critical distinction. Christianity does not have Bible-based doctines of killing or enslaving of unbelievers. so such practice could be challenged as un-Christian. On the other hand, similar Islamic practices are based on Koran and the life of Muhammad, so prooving that such practices are un-Islamic is very tricky, if at all possible.

And can you refer me to specific examples of Jews killing or enslaving of unbelievers? You claim that Judaism ceased such practices over a century ago, but can you give examples of Judaism ever following those practices?

Anonymous, Oslo | 2005-07-26 12:32 | Link

Islam generates some terrorism != Islam is based on terrorism.

Christianity has also generated some terrorism (whitch-hunts). This does not mean that Christianity is based on terrorism.

Todays Islam, in my view, is quite equal to the christianity in Europe a few hundred years back.

It's of course totally unacceptable in todays world. As would the christianity we had a few hundred years back be totally unacceptable.

We didn't eradicate christianity because of it evils. We modified it.

Muslims shouldn't be required to eradicate Islam, they should, however, modify it.

Bjørn Stærk | 2005-07-26 12:38 | Link

Cossack: So what does that woman thinks of jihad?

Which part of the quote did you not understand? This is not an extremist. This is a person who interprets Islam in a modern, secular-compatible way. She argues elsewhere that women shouldn't have to wear headscarfs, what matters is how you behave, not how you dress. Now what do you think she thinks of jihad?

And if the preacher in her nearby mosque preaches hatred and violence, did she confronted him and his followers, saying "you're wrong, guys!"

I should certainly hope so, but I'm curious why you bring this up. We're talking about the inherent Evil of Islam, or, as you put it, that "hateful, aggressive, totalitarian ideology". Are we in agreement that this Muslim does not appear to subscribe to a hateful, aggressive, totalitarian ideology? If so, then Islam is not necessarily evil, it is what Muslims make it, which in this case is something hardly more evil than any other religion.

Proofs, please. Can you name those non-extremist schools of scholarship and their followers, so that we knew for sure they are in majority?

Nope. I'm no expert on Islam, just an observer. I haven't studied Islamic "schools of scholarship and their followers". I merely observe that there's no shortage of Muslim leaders who are willing to condemn terrorism, (nor of Muslims who are able to live here peacefully). Like those 11 imams who gathered in Oslo yesterday to .. condemn terrorism. One of them believes that the West is ultimately to blame, but even he says that "terrorism is completely unacceptable, nothing can justify the kind of violence we have seen in London and Sharm el-Sheikh". One Mosque - Tablighi Jaamat - refused to come to the meeting. To conspiracy theorists, this proves that Oslo has 2 honest and 10 dishonest imams. To me it indicates that, despite their other flaws, most Muslims in Oslo do not support terrorism. Which was also the result of a recent British survey. It's the minority that do support terrorism that is our enemy, and their numbers are more than large enough without us picking a fight with each and every Muslim on earth for no good reason.

But though I'm ignorant, I'm always eager to learn. Perhaps you could list the major Islamic schools of thought for me, and explain how each of them preaches hatred of the West and sympathy for terrorism, (as I in the statement you objected to claim they don't).

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-07-26 14:09 | Link

Cossack got it exactly right and in one short pithy sentenc: "What worries me is that those "moderate" Muslims go to great lengths to fight the negative image of Islam among non-Muslims, but do nothing to convince their fellow Muslims that their moderate interpretation of Islam is correct." That is exactly correct. Where are the marches by Moslems condemning terrorists? Where are the demonstrations? Where are the "leaders" speaking out? NONE and NO ONE. All we hear are comments like "this was not the act of a true Moslem," and, in the same breath, "you have to understand why they do this" -- followed by some long winded monologue usually incorporating words like "Zionist or "imperialist."

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-07-26 14:14 | Link

* * *
"Now, I ask myself: “What do you say, what do you have to say, about what happened in London?” They ask me face-to-face, via fax and email; often scolding me because up until now I have remained silent. Almost as if my silence were a betrayal. And each time I shake my head and murmur to myself: what else should I say?!? I’ve been saying it for four years--that I fight against the Monster that has decided to eliminate us physically and, along with our bodies, to destroy our principles and values. Our civilization. For four years I’ve been talking about Islamic Nazism; about the war against the West; about the death cult; about European suicide. About a Europe that is no longer Europe, but Eurabia, and that with its feebleness, its inertia, its blindness, its servitude to the enemy is digging its own grave. For four years, like another Cassandra, I’ve been shouting until I’m hoarse “Troy is burning! Troy is burning!” and I despair of the Danaids for whom, like Virgil in the Aeneid I weep for a city entombed in its torpor. [A city] that, through its wide-open doors receives fresh troops and joins complicit parties [inside]. For four years I’ve been repeating to the wind the truth about the Monster and its accomplices; that is, the accomplices of the Monster who, in good or bad faith, open wide the doors--who, like [those] in the Apocalypse of John the Evangelist, throw themselves at his feet and allow themselves to be stamped with the mark of shame.

* * *
Oriana Fallaci
Posted and translated at http://mysteryachievement.blogspot.com/2005/07/enemy-we-treat-like-friend-part-i.html

Sara | 2005-07-26 14:45 | Link

Anonymous, Oslo
...
We didn't eradicate christianity because of it evils. We modified it.

No, that is a common misunderstanding, but it is still wrong. What we did was to stop abusing Christianity and the word of Jesus. Islamic terrorists are not abusing the teachings of Islam and the word of Mohammed, they are using them.

If Islam was being abused instead of used by the terrorist, my view on the whole matter would have been entirely different.

Sara | 2005-07-26 14:47 | Link

Anonymous, Oslo
...
We didn't eradicate christianity because of it evils. We modified it.

If Islam was being abused instead of used by the terrorist, my view on the whole matter would have been entirely different.

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-07-26 14:52 | Link

Excerpted from today's London Times:
From the Times of LondonThreat of Islamic extremism that stretches across Europe
By Anthony Browne
* * *
Security analysts, particularly in France and the United States, say that Europe has let itself become a breeding ground of Islamist terrorism.
* * *.
Robert Leiken, director of national security at the Nixon Centre, wrote in the latest issue of the influential journal Foreign Affairs: “Jihadists’ networks span Europe * * * immigrants or their descendants are volunteering for jihad.”
A study by Leiken of 373 jihadists in Europe and America found that a quarter were EU citizens. Matthew Levitt, director of terrorism studies at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, * * * Europe has served as a launching pad for terrorists plotting attacks elsewhere.”
There are about 15 million Muslims in Europe, or 3 per cent of the population* * *. The Muslim population is still growing fast — by more than 7 per cent a year in Austria, Italy, Spain, Sweden and Denmark — and * * * Europe’s Muslim population will double by 2025.

The first to confront its Islamic terrorist threat was France, home to Europe’s largest Muslim community,* * *The French Government clamped down on radical Islam in a way that no other country has. No mosque or Islamic prayer hall is off limits to police. Imams preaching hate are regularly deported. France stopped giving asylum to Islamic extremists wanted in their home country, and was disgusted when many of them were given refuge in Britain. As a result of France’s draconian anti- terror laws, the country is thought to be comparatively free of terrorist networks.
Germany has Europe’s second-largest Muslim population, but they are predominantly from Turkey, a more secular and Westernised country. German Turks, as with Turks elsewhere, have integrated better and been less tempted by religious extremism than the Muslims of Arab descent living in ghettoes in France. Instead, concern about Islamic extremism in Germany has focused on its tiny Arab community, many of whom were Muslim activists who arrived as refugees.
* * *.
The Hamburg cell that plotted the September 11 attacks on the US comprised Saudi and Egyptian students. The Netherlands’ largest Muslim group are of Turkish origin, but again it is the North African community, particularly Moroccan, that has fuelled home-grown jihad.
* * *
Dutch intelligence services caution that there are hundreds of Islamic radicals in the Netherlands prepared to wage holy war. The Spanish Government paid little attention to the threat from Islamists because it was confronting other terrorists.

Spain’s Moroccan community made it easy for the terrorists who planted the March 11, 2004, train bombs to operate. It acts as a trunk route for North Africans entering Europe. Many pass on to Italy, whose small Muslim community based around Milan is renowned for its forging abilities, providing jihadists with visas and funding before they head off to Iraq.

In Britain, the Muslim community is different from anywhere else in Europe, mainly South Asian in origin — particularly Pakistani, Indian and Bangladeshi — with very few North Africans. Indian and Bangladeshi Muslims, like Turks, have been little tempted by extremism. Although many Arab extremists have been given refuge in Britain, it does not have France’s and Spain’s alienated underclass of Arab and North African youths.

However, many young British Pakistani men, who often maintain close contact with their parents’ country, have been influenced by the rise of Islamic militancy in Pakistan.

Despite the different backgrounds of Europe’s Muslims, they have often presented their governments with the same problems of ghettoisation, poverty and radicalisation.

* * *

Cossack | 2005-07-26 14:57 | Link

Bjorn Staerk: "Now what do you think she thinks of jihad?"

I have no idea, that's why I'm asking. Her views on pork, polygamy, headscarves, or whatever give me no suitable proxy for her views on jihad. We just cannot assume somebaody's views on one subject based on that person's view on other subjects. An in any case, you're paying too much attention to one letter from one person. If you could demonstrate a large and growing movement within Islam that persuasively and forcefully rejects jihad, works hard to convince the rest of Muslims, not non-Muslims, and fights terror, that would be another matter. Otherwise, every religion has its fringes, and that woman's views are clearly a fringe (just ask any imam what he thinks of them).

"I'm curious why you bring this up"

I bring this up because we do not want Muslims who claim to be "peaceful" to convince us that Islam is peaceful; we need them to convince the violant guys. That's why your Norwegian imams don't pass the test: they must fight those who promote violence, not issue general-language public statements aimed at the Westerners. The phrase that "terrorism is completely unacceptable, nothing can justify the kind of violence" looks like a smokescreen. Al-Zarqawi, bin Laden, and like-minded preachers quote Koran, Hadith, and Muslim scholars extensively, but what's the basis for that imam's statement?

"then Islam is not necessarily evil, it is what Muslims make it"

In the views of one particular woman, it's probably not evil, but these are just fringe views. Look at the practical applications of Islam in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan under Taliban, to name just the most recent and obvious examples. Can you give me an example of a peacefule and tolerant rule, which was based on Islamic teachings?

"It's the minority that do support terrorism"

In Britain, perhaps, but what about other places? And as you correctly point out, this minority is quite a large one. Anyway, it was also a minority that was actively fighting in the conquest of VII century onwards, but that did not reduce the practical consequences of those conquests.

"Perhaps you could list the major Islamic schools of thought for me, and explain how each of them preaches hatred of the West and sympathy for terrorism"

That's too huge a topic for an online discussion. You may consult some online sources, for example:

www.jihadwatch.com (run by Robert Spencer, an American expert on Islam, and you can find lots of references to other sites and books there)

www.faithfreedom.org
www.apostatesofislam.com
www.knowislam.info

The latter sites are run by people who abandoned Islam, and again, you can find lots of further references there.

Stuart | 2005-07-26 15:47 | Link

Bjorn, what you seem to forget is that islam is a cult, and muslims are its members. The story from that young muslim girl is therefore nothing but a cult member's story about the cult she is a member of.

Now, with almost every other cult, people will not uncritically accept its members' stories about how wonderful that cult is. Instead, they will try to find out what the foundation of that cult is as well as listen to stories from people who have successfully left the cult to find out what is really going on within it. So why are you not willing to do this with islam, Bjorn?

Nomen Nescio | 2005-07-26 16:08 | Link

Or, as one person replied to this Muslim in Dagbladet, "she is in practice rejecting Islam by interpreting it as she does. The fact that she continues to call herself a Muslim becomes a contradiction in terms"

Being a muslim means that you believe that each and every word in the quran has been revealed directly from allah through mohammed, and that the contents of the mentioned book therefore are absolutely truthful and correct ad infinitum. This notion is as critical for a muslim to believe in as believing in Jesus Christ is for a Christian.

Consequently, if the girl in question believes that parts of the quran can be rebuffed with a reference to the fact that we live in a modern time in a modern society - then she is de facto rejecting her islamic faith and can in accordance with sharia lawfully be butchered.

We need to realize that we are pro tempore in a war with an evil, absolute and totalitarian ideology which always has dreamt of our destruction. For Norway, Europe, USA, Canada, Australia, et cetera - that is, the Western civilization which I love and cheerish - the question we have been asked is whether to be or not to be. Let us answer it together, friends. Loudly.

Nomen Nescio | 2005-07-26 16:29 | Link

Shame on me. I forgot to include Israel on my quickly assembled list above. Judaism, like Christianity, is one of the great pillars on which our civilization rests. Furthermore, many of our best and brightest people have been and are Jews. This small minority has made and makes an incredibly impressive contribution to our civilization.

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-07-26 17:17 | Link

Interesting analyis

Europe's Angry Muslims, By Robert S. Leiken
From Foreign Affairs, July/August 2005

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-07-26 17:50 | Link

I think this about says it all:
From the Wall St. Journal today

Why Not a 'Million Muslim March'?

By AHMED H. AL-RAHIM

* * *
Mr. Qimany, an outspoken critic of Islamism whose many writings have been banned by al-Azhar University (Sunni Islam's most revered institution of higher education), recently received a death threat declaring him an apostate. "We have individuals," the message read, "who are willing to cleanse their sins with your blood." The individuals threatening him wished to make an example of Mr. Qimany in the same way they had of his fellow secular writer Farag Fouda, assassinated in 1992.

If Mr. Qimany did not retract his statements and writings against the Islamists, his fate was death. * * * So to spare his family the fate that befell Fouda's, Mr. Qimany recanted all his writings, promising never to write again. He knew that he was alone in his battle against the dark forces of Islam; his only weapon was his pen, which alas he surrendered to the Islamists as others before him surrendered their lives.

The silencing of Mr. Qimany could not come at a worse time, when there are so few Muslims speaking out against Islamism and the recent spate of bombings. Sadly, only the voices of Western political leaders constantly remind us that Islam is a "religion of peace." Where are the Muslims, especially those living in the West, who have the freedom to organize and make their voices heard? It seems that the only time we hear from the Muslim masses is when there are alleged desecrations of the Quran, or of prisoner abuse in Iraq. Where is the Muslim outrage, the mass protests to defend Islam, in whose sacred name murder is committed nearly every day, against what Western leaders describe as a "perversion of its true nature"?

Alas, the battle against Islamism -- and also for the heart of Islam -- has become a battle for the West to fight. As a Muslim, these acts of terrorism committed by fellow Muslims -- and yes, they are Muslims, from whom we cannot distance ourselves by the sophistry that asserts that their version is but a perversion of Islam -- are a great source of shame. But what is more shameful is that there are no mass Muslim protests to speak of against terrorism that is committed in our name. In the same way that Muslims have protested against alleged desecrations of the Quran, they now should be out in full force in the streets of Cairo, London and New York, sending a clear message to the Islamists that Enough is Enough. Why not a "Million Muslim March" on Washington, of law-abiding Muslim citizens clamoring to reclaim their faith from those who would kill innocents in its name? Muslims must no longer stand by while murder and suicide bombings are committed in their name.

Mr. Rahim, an Iraqi-American, has taught Arabic and Islamic studies at Harvard University

Bjørn Stærk | 2005-07-26 20:08 | Link

Sara: No, that is a common misunderstanding, but it is still wrong. What we did was to stop abusing Christianity and the word of Jesus. Islamic terrorists are not abusing the teachings of Islam and the word of Mohammed, they are using them.

I admire your willingness to give Christianity the benefit of the doubt. A lesser person would have exploited the past transgressions of Christians and made some cheap point about the inherent danger of a belief that can be used to justify war, oppression and torture, and so much of it, but you have decided to show forgiveness and mercy. I'm humbled by your example, and will do my best to copy it. By the way, you didn't say which (if any) religion you follow yourself. Please let me know, for I would very much like learn more of a faith that inspires such virtues.

Cossack: Her views on pork, polygamy, headscarves, or whatever give me no suitable proxy for her views on jihad. We just cannot assume somebaody's views on one subject based on that person's view on other subjects.

That's unusually cautious of you. Do you apply this principle both ways? When you hear of a Muslim who talks about the need to cleanse the West with blood in the name of Islam, do you remain open to the possibility that he eats pork, doesn't care what women wear, and goes out to party two times a week? The world is complex, after all, and we wouldn't want to make hasty judgments about people based on superficial things like the ideological foundation of their worldview.

If you could demonstrate a large and growing movement within Islam that persuasively and forcefully rejects jihad, works hard to convince the rest of Muslims, not non-Muslims, and fights terror, that would be another matter.

Ah. My bad. I thought we were discussing the inherent and necessary evil of Islam, that .. what was your phrase .. hateful, aggressive, totalitarian ideology. And I thought that by giving you an example of a Muslim who clearly wasn't motivated by a hateful, aggressive, totalitarian ideology, I had demonstrated that there was nothing inherent or necessary about it. But now I see that what you really meant to say was that there are many Muslims who seem motivated by a hateful, aggressive ideology. Which of course is different. Hey, I just got an idea: What about if we encourage all those hateful, aggressive Muslims, wherever we find them, to switch to that non-hateful non-aggressive non-totalitarian kind? They could remain Muslims and not blow people up at the same time! How about it?

Seems to me there's a flaw in my argument here somewhere, though. Oh yes. Most Muslims already go about not blowing people up. Which is kind of odd considering the majority of them are motivated in their daily lives by a hateful, aggressive, totalitarian ideology. I can't make heads or tails of this, perhaps you can clear it up for me.

That's too huge a topic for an online discussion. You may consult some online sources, for example

Thanks, but I'm afraid I couldn't find anything on the sites you linked about the major schools of thought in Islam and how each of them promote hatred of the West and terrorism. The articles I found didn't say anything about schools of thought at all. I'm sure my poor research skills are to blame. Would it take too much of your time to point me to the articles you were thinking of?

Bjørn Stærk | 2005-07-26 20:47 | Link

Stuart: Bjorn, what you seem to forget is that islam is a cult, and muslims are its members. The story from that young muslim girl is therefore nothing but a cult member's story about the cult she is a member of.

That's a good point. Another way of seeing this is from a memetic point of view. Imagine you're an idea in search of a brain to inhabit. You must not only compete with millions of other ideas, you must also find a way to bypa